You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Mar 2001

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00028 Mar 2001

 
Mar 2001 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear Bhagavatas:
I am allowing this as the last posting on the subject. I request correspondents 
interested in discussing further to kindly address "Sri_Ranga_Sri@xxxxxxxxxxx" 
and NOT the "Yahoogroup" address.Thank you for your understanding and 
cooperation,
Dasoham
Anbil Ramaswamy
=====================================================================================================================================================

Dear SrI VaishNavas in SrI-Ranga-SrI egroup,

Regarding the recent discussions going on in this egroup 
on Idol/icon/vigraha etc., I have the following observations
and I request SrImath U.Ve Anbil RamaswAmi to publish this mail
in the list.

The points written by our SrI Anand K Karalapakkam are absolutely
in accordance with the SAstra. His explanations are well 
substantiated and are in strict accordance with the SrI VaishNava
pUrva-AchArya's sidhdAntham. I appreciate his inputs regarding
this topic very much.

The opposite side of arguments shows confusion which is 
identity of the divya-mangala-vigraham with bhagavath-swarUpam.
The opposite side arguments as result of confusion has been clearly 
refuted by SrI Anand K Karalapakkam.

The divya-mangala-vigraham (bhagavath-rUpam) is different from
bhagavath-swarUpam. The divya-mangala-vigraham is of sudhda-satvam
which is a thathvam in the category of achEthana-thathvams. On the other 
hand, the bhagavath-swarUpam is swEthara-samastha-vasthu-vilakshaNam,
satyathva-jgnyAnathva-ananthathva-Anandatva-amalathva-swarUpa-nirUpaka
-dharma-viSishtam.

The divya-mangala-vigraham is an attribute of the bhagavath-swarUpam.
The attribute (viSEshaNam) is naturally different from that which is
attributed (viSEshyam). 

As clearly explained by our SrI Anand K Karalapakkam,
the Srowtha-smArtha pramANams are sufficient to prove this point.
For more information regarding this subject, I request the members
to study authentic scriptures in kAlakshEpam form in the sannadhi of
SrI VaishNava vidwAns.

I appreciate SrI Jai Simman also for presenting his paksham (side of
arguements) which has taken an emmotional twist. But I state that the 
paksham of SrI Anand K Karalapakkam is the paksham of SAstra. 

I also found someone quoting the bhakti of carnatic music scholar SrI
TiyAgarAja and his idol worship method. The carnatic music scholar SrI 
TiyAgarAja belongs to a sampradAya different from SrI VaishNava
sampradAya. The dEvathAntra-sambandam is clear in his music-compositions.
Regarding the saguNa-brahma-upAsana and nirguNa-brahma-upAsana of
advaitam, already critiques have been presented in an irrefutable manner. 
Please write to me to get the articles. 

Regarding worshipping pictures of Lord, the dedication is appreciated
very much. But archA-rUpam is different from mere pictures. archA-rUpam
is a rUpam of the Lord SrIman NArAyaNa, which is celebrated in the
SAstra, specifically in SrI pAncharAtra Agama SAstra, SrI VaikAnasa
Agama SAstra and in valid purANams. SrI Anand K Karalapakkam has
explained the archA form clearly.

I request members consider the following points.
1. When a point is made, please do not take it personally.
2. When a point is made in a very authoritative way (as done by our SrI Anand
K Karalapakkam), please do not immediately react emmotionally
alone. One has to understand that philosophy is more structured than
science. When a point is made, it has to be substantitated with
pramANams both in philosophy as well as in science. The pramANams
may differ in these two but if they are without pramANams, then
people (both scholar as well as layman) will not accept them.
3. Critical analysis needs to be done for proper comprehension
of philosophy as well as scientific concepts. Mere emmotional
points do not serve the purpose.
4. On seeing very authoritative points, generally people react
this way - "do not think that you are the sole authority! you
are sectarian..." etc. These are not rational. For example, I 
have mentioned few points regarding the bhakti of carnatic music scholar 
SrI TiyAgarAja and his idol worship method. This may not be appealing
to a person who has already concluded something against these points.
In which case, I would appreciate counter-arguments without 
emmotional bias. Let us approach philosophy as a structured subject. 
Let us respect philosophy.

I openly appreciate SrI Anand K Karalapakkam very much for his 
structured approach, sincere study and authentic information and
his open mind. I request SrI Anand K Karalapakkam to kindly 
continue his noble kaninkaryam of educating us in this esteemed
egroup (journal SrI Ranga SrI) of celebrated ubhaya vEdAntha
vidwAn SrImath Anbil RAmaswAmi.

Thanks & Regards
M.S.HARI rAmAnuja dAsan (mshari@xxxx)

____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N==1




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list