You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Oct 2005

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00103 Oct 2005

 
Oct 2005 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


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/
 



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