Dear Mano Prabhu, Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. I read your mail on the list. In all humility, I beg forgiveness if you have felt Sripad Ramanujacharya or the Sri Sampradaya slandered or joked at in any way. That has never been the intent in the least. However, we must realise that Vaishnavas belonging to different sampradayas have always seen the Acharyas of other sampradayas from the viewpoint presented by their own Acharyas. The Gaudiya Vaishnava line means no disrespect to Sripada Ramanujacharya in its presentation. The particular pastime you have narrated about Sripad Ramanujacharya, Lord Jagannatha and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu appears in the work ?Sri Navadvipa dham Mahatmya? of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura. This work if not considered as completely acceptable to all Vaishnava Sampradayas, should at least be accepted as an internal sampradaya work for those who have reposed their faith in the ultimate superiority of the particular philosophy of Vaishnavism espoused by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the Acharyas in His line as per their internal realization and revelation. A website presenting the Sri Vaishnava view on things would naturally relegate other lines like the Madhva and Gaudiya to partial truths which have flaws in them. The Ahobila Mutt website in its Q and A section has such a simplistic view of this, with not much to show for except a certain absolutist claim as to the superiority of VisishtAdvaita. This certainly can be seen as slanderous by the Shankarites, Madhvas and Gaudiyas. But let us think for a moment ? is this not a state-of-the-matter issue based on the differing frameworks of each sampradaya? This is nothing new to impose such a strong word as ?slander?. It is an admitted fact for centuries together that there are differences in views, both siddhantic and historical in how things are viewed. Sripad Madhvacharya and his followers have their framework of analysis which naturally relegates Sripad Ramanujacharya and his followers to a subsidiary position in terms of the position of the ultimate siddhanta. The followers of Nimbarkacharya and Vallabhacharya also have their own analysis of things. Likewise, the Gaudiya Vaishnava Acharyas have their own realization in terms of how Mahaprabhu?s siddhanta synthesizes and completes the views of the other sampradayas which as per their views, had till that time remained incomplete in some sense. In which sense is known to them and explained by them. No one is looking for absolute acceptance from the others in this regard in as much as the others cannot expect the Gaudiya line to accept their claims. This is only natural in as much as Hanuman would see Lord Ramachandra as the best worshipable form and Arjuna would see Lord Krishna in the same manner. We can never make Hanuman into Arjuna or vice-versa. Now, as to the validity of every one of these claims, the arguments and counter-arguments can go on till the cows come home. Essentially, the claim of one?s own superiority vis-à-vis the other is a matter of sampradaya lakshana to champion one?s own Acharya line as superior or final. There is not much of an issue of finality in terms of shruti pramana in this for otherwise the debates would have ended by now. It is merely a matter of allegiance. An internal Sri Vaishnava position would naturally present every aspect in its own favour and would not present Madhva or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu in the same way that their respective followers would present them. Likewise with Sripad Ramanujacharya and the various views held of him. Because your allegiance is ultimately with Visishtadvaita, you would naturally view any subsidiary position given to Sripad Ramanujacharya as slander. But such charges of ?slander? can be levelled upon the Sri Vaishnavas as well by the followers of the other lines because the view on things has always been different in this regard. >From the Gaudiya viewpoint, the story you have cited only adds to the glory of Acharya Ramanuja because of his link to Mahaprabhu. So, this is essentially a matter of emotion related to where your sampradayic allegiance lies. There is no absolute case for slander here. For example, a Sri Vaishnava presentation of Mahaprabhu in a subservient position just as a devotee as opposed to being Sri Krishna Himself, would offend any Gaudiya Vaishnava. Aprakrta lila or personalities appearing in visions or glimpses prior to their actual physical appearance has been present in all lines. There are also narrations where the same personality appears as another acharya in a future birth. These are not in virodha to scripture. If we accept pramana not merely as a fixated understanding and one always open to divine evolution and subjective interpretation, then there is no controversy. Such incidents are also present in the Sri Vaishnava and Sat Vaishnava (Madhva) lines with regards to their respective acharyas. Those within these lines very readily accept these without any wrangling about any other pramanas besides those revealed by their acharyas. But these are within the framework of ?us? and ?our?. But when it is seen vis-à-vis ?the other?, then it becomes blasphemy, etc. But we need not take these things in such a ?slanderous? manner if we understand that ultimately one has the choice to decide which version to accept and on what basis. Ultimately, it is one?s individual faith and sampradaya conviction that decides which version of things is accepted. The various pramanas and counter-pramanas and heavy debating do not suit a forum of this nature. Furthermore, they are neither satisfactorily conclusive for all nor ultimately relevant for one?s own conviction if it is indeed fixed. Even if the conviction is shaky, let the individual decide and not make accusations of slander against those with other views of evolutionary development in Vaishnavism. If you wish to understand the Gaudiya Vaishnava view on these pastimes, please post your queries to achintya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx . We would do our best to explain our understanding. There is no point posting the views of one sampradaya to another?s digest list, using very harsh words like ?slander?, etc. and asking for rebuttals, and then having them come purely from the Sri Vaishnava view, with no counter voice present on the digest. Afterall, this is a Sri Vaishnava list meant to discuss the works of the Sri Vaishnava Acharyas. If we bring the comparative element inside, then we must accept that other voices besides the Visishtadvaita voice will not be heard here, thus rendering any objectivity useless. When the view and intent of the original propounder of the pastimes and theories is not sought to begin with, then there is no use feeling too hurt for our own sake. The ?slander? word is the natural reaction of those like yourself who hold Sripad Ramanuja as ultimate. Naturally, no one would like to have their Acharya put in a subservient position. But we must realise that there are those of other allegiances who would have other frameworks of analysis. And from their view, the Sri Vaishnava presentation of other darshanas would also be seen in that same ?slanderous? light. Certainly, the Gaudiya view is not intended for slander but for glorification of his bona fides in establishing a vital stage in the evolution of Sriman Mahaprabhu?s philosophy. This is the Gaudiya view on things. So you are most welcome to post your queries to the achintya list and we would be happy to explain to the best that our puny brain has understood. All of us should know that since time immemorial, the various sampradayas have their agreements and disagreements in terms of their respective frameworks of analysis. Why then present these like a new pandora?s box let loose and for sirens to sound when these have all been accepted as part of the basic intellectual pluralistic development of Vedic philosophy and religion? The methods of synthesis of various spiritual movements and how they fit into the overall scheme of things is very much related to our individual sampradayic allegiances. There is no need to use such strong words such as ?slander?, etc. if we can accept this premise not just for ourselves but also for others as well. In an arena of sampradayic subjectivity, which should be a state-of-the-matter fact in analyzing the evolution of Vedic philosophy, historical development, prakrta lila and aprakrta lila etc., there is no need to use such a heavy word like ?slander? when no one has such intent to begin with, at least not the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. If we apply faith to our own conviction and apply faithless logic in rejecting other views, then we must understand that such can also be entertained by others of other persuasions. We have to take these things with a pinch of salt, favourably acknowledging one another?s service at the lotus feet of Sri Krishna or Sriman Narayana, no matter which line and acharya we repose our faith in and which framework of history and pastime reflection we may hold closest to our hearts. Again, I beg forgiveness on behalf of all the ISKCON devotees and others in the Gaudiya Vaishnava line if you have felt any hurt. But in all sincerity, the material under discussion is not intended to cause hurt. It is merely our own framework of analysis as to how Sripad Ramanujacharya and the other Acharyas fit into the scheme of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu?s mission and I think that like every other line, we are also entitled to our own internal realisation in this regard. We are not demanding that everyone just accept this vision of Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura which essentially is seen as aprakrta lila or unmanifest pastime. We do know that this will not hold fully well with others in as much as what others may present of our line would not be totally agreeable with us. But we will not use such a strong word like ?slander? to define such subjectivity. It is a matter of allegiance and what we should do is to at least accept the subjective nature brought about by this plurality and appreciate one another?s services and aspects of Vaishnava commonality otherwise present. For every issue, there is the insider view and the outsider view. Let us remember that in this instance, even the outsider is an insider in one sense, i.e. a Vaishnava Acharya with deep respect for Sripada Ramanujacharya albeit within a framework of ultimate reverence, loyalty and realisation in connection with his beloved Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Ultimately, our own conviction is for us to decide. No one can ?weer?, ?mislead?, ?convert?, ?brainwash? etc. beyond what we wish to allow ourselves to be convinced with. These are buzzwords with no seriously sensible objective meaning. I do not think that any mature Gaudiya Vaishnava would deem a Sri Vaishnava?s version of Lakshmi Narayana worship or subsidiary view of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as a slanderous mislead. It is merely a relativisation of others vis-à-vis one?s own sampradaya loyalty. If handled in a mature spiritual manner, this will not be a disturbance. If handled immaturely, it can become a Vaishnava aparadha that can destroy one?s devotional service, regardless of sampradaya affiliations. On many occasions, much to my heart?s bleeding, I have also seen baseless knee-jerk slander of Gaudiya Vaishnavism without even the most rudimentary understanding of its siddhanta, on many Sri Vaishnava and Madhva lists. No matter the sampradayic affiliation, the proponents of such slander do not deserve any recognition in the field of spiritual activity. If we only half know issues based on our own biases and then retort emotionally, we are paving the path for spiritual destruction. Ultimately, consideration must come before reaction or retaliation. That will keep things in proper perspective. Hare Krishna. Gopi bhartu pada kamalayor dasa dasAnu das R. Jai Simman Jakarta, Indonesia __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/.itolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ramanuja/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: ramanuja-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |