SrI:
SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH
namO nArAyaNa!
Dear SrI Jai-Simman,
I would like to write few words for clarifying the
mis-understandings you must have had. I appreciate and
respect you as a VaishNava, and I am not pointing
any mistakes etc of yours. Its for the clarification
purpose only.
You wrote:
>But I would beg you not to
>attempt to monopolise and stifle the intellectual development of
>this list by claiming Sri Vaishnava siddhantic monopoly for
>yourself. I have merely indicated my understanding on this matter.
>Therefore, kindly refrain from strawman arguments thrusting me with
>the guilt of misrepresenting your sampradaya when I never even
>claimed as such.
I would like to present here the very words of yours
(change to capitals by me for underlining the important
phrase), for which I replied as presented below it.
> I would humbly venture to correct your goodself in this regard. We
> worship the Archavataram or the Deity of the Lord. Idol comes from
> ideational or an idea based on sentiment. This may be the view
> of certain Maayavaadins such as the Swamiji of the Ramakrishna
> Mission, but the VAISHNAVIC CONCLUSION is that the Lord's forms
> wherever they may be manifest be it as a maanasa roopa, or a roopa
> made of metal, jewels, stone, etc. is not verily these objects.
> It is verily the Lord Himself since in the ultimate issue there
> is no difference between the Lord and His form, wherever It may
> be manifested in as much as the Lord is present wherever Harinama
> is chanted because there is no difference between Him and His Name.
You had written that this view of Yours is the conclusion of
VaishNavas. Since this is an e-group having SrI-VaishNavism as
the basis, I wrote the following :
-------
<< Start Quote >> :
I know that you are a follower of SrI BhaktivEdAnta SwAmi
and you sincerly try to reflect his views in your writings.
While I am not against you following the views of that
SampradAya, I would like to remind you that this list has the
basis of SrI VaishNava SampradAya. Kindly read the following
on what SrI-VaishNavas has to say on the philosophical
issues which you had written.
[...]
Earlier, you wrote on these lines in another SrI VaishNava list
also. I had written few mails explaining from Brahma-SUtras
(+SrI-BhAshya) and other pramANas that Lord is different
from His divine body which is another tattva{reality} called
Suddha-Sattva. While you made a blanket statement that these
things are "mAyAvAda" etc, I had explained as to how
Bhagavad RAmAnuja follows Sage VyAsa and Upanishads
correctly regarding this issue. I also enlisted some
books for your reference.
Still, you have written the very same thing probably
thinking that your understanding is same as that
of SrI-VaishNava sampradAya {and probably forgot everything
of what I wrote earlier}.
<< End Quote >>
------------
Already in another list, I had presented numerous pramANas
from the works of SrI VaishNava AchAryas esp. Bhagavad
RAmAnuja's SrI-BhAshyam regarding this issue. Here again,
I presented other pramANas from SrI-VaishNava AchAryas.
If you had written again that the conclusion of VaishNavas
is as per your views, there are only the following
possiblities :
a. You know of source-texts of SrI-VaishNava AchAryas
which contradict what I say ie.as present in SrI-BhAshyam
and works of SrI VEdAnta DESika.
b. You know that whatever I had written is not the correct
translation /interpretation of SrI-VaishNava works, and
you have learnt from SrI-VaishNava AchAryas through
kAlakshEpam regarding the correct understanding of
SrI-BhAshyam etc works.
c. You read all the books I had enlisted earlier
in another list for your further study regarding this
issue and some scholars contradicted what I say.
Well, when all the above are not true, you wrote :
>Therefore, this is something that you have to settle with the other
>Sri Vaishnavas. Just as in the Gaudiya Sampradaya, in the Sri
>Vaishnava line also, there are disagreements even amongst scholars
>over certain issues. Therefore please do not be so sure that all
>that you say is in itself an official and full representation of
>Sri Vaishnavism as accepted by all of its followers.
You also claimed as below :
>Not all Sri Vaishnavas have protested
>to my writings. In fact, many have acclaimed it
>as well.
Regarding the usage of the word "Idol", some reported
their agreement with your views. I also agreed with it
as you can see my earlier postings. But, the point made
by me might be slightly different. This topic has no
relevance to the philosophical issue in hand regarding
the difference between Lord and His Form.
Taking your statement as the truth that "many" SrI-VaishNavas
accepted your views on this issue, I rather invite you to
quote as to who all agreed with you. Even taking for granted
that many had agreed with you, did any of them quote
pramANas from SrI-VaishNava AchAryas ? Well, individual
opinions do not matter obviously. When one is sure that the
conclusion of VaishNavas is something, it implies that he/she is
sure of the tenet as propounded by AchAryas of all the different
schools of VaishNavas.
Even otherwise, since you feel that some difference of opinion
might be there within SrI-VaishNavas, you might have written
"Conclusion of the Majority of the VaishNavas ..." or something
of that sort.
Infact, my posting had no objections since it is in complete
agreement with what the SrI-VaishNava-AchAryas say on this issue.
If at all some objection had been there and that too with
authoritative explanations from SrI-VaishNava-AchAryas, you
could have advised and sermoned me about my understanding
of SrI-VaishNavism as you have done now !
>If indeed this list is only
>for SVs, then keep it as a closed forum, not an open one. If it is
>open, many of us will carry with our sampradayic affiliations to
>the understanding of SVm and you have to digest this fact.
Hope that SrI Anbil makes note of this point. As I wrote
earlier, I am not against you writing the tenets of GVsm
in this e-group and I am not the policy maker for this
e-group : You have to settle that with SrI Anbil.
But, I only wrote back as to what SrI VaishNava AchAryas
say reg this issue. Since this e-group has SrI Vaishnavism as
the basis, I request you to kindly digest of what SrI VaishNava
AchAryas say on this issue.
-----------
The postings of yours and that of mine, also that
of SrI Narendar and SrI Malolan didn't appear for
few days, though we posted it long back. It is pretty
clear that some Administrative technical problem might
be the reason. It would have been wise to consult SrI Anbil
at first. Instead you wrote :
> Obviously there is some uncalled-for censorship to stifle what
> SOMEONE SEES AS EXTERNAL INTERVENTION INTO SELF-INTERPRETED
> SECTARIAN ATTITUDES GOING ON HERE.
<< Changed into Capitals by Me >>
Reg your allegation on "uncalled-for censorship", its
for SrI Anbil to answer it. But I can say from my side
that SrI Anbil is the most elderly good SrI VaishNava
here and his multitude good credentials are already well known
to the members. I would have liked more respectful words from
your pen for this distinguished BhAgavata who has been
tirelessly serving the SrI-VaishNava community esp through the
e-mail/Internet media.
Regarding the rest of your words, I would like to
give some clarifications. If you felt by your imagination that
I had some bad intentions whatsoever to prevent your posting
from appearing, you could have directly wrote to me
about it to resolve the issue. While I promise on
Lord that I am not at all involved in the non-appearence
of your postings, it also makes me feel sorry if you
had viewed me as your enemy or something of that sort.
Even otherwise, I am not going to gain anything in
censoring your posting. I can always write a clarification
like this for your information.
Three of my postings didn't get through and I was sure that
SrI Anbil had some technical problems Or some genuine
reason behind it. Even above all this, he is the list
owner and he has every right to retain certain postings
and hence I waited for his message if any. Its the duty of
the members to obey the principles laid down by the
e-group owner.
Your crowning piece to the list of accusations is the
awardance of the title "Self-Interpreted Sectarian Attitudes"
to my writings. Please re-visit the above paragraphs for
more clarifications.
>what can be done ?
>
>those who encourage discussion are also the culprits in curtailing
> the discussion when they perceive an expansion beyond the self
> imposed boundaries they have set for these.
Its for SrI Anbil to answer this.
---------------------------
Again, I re-iterate that I am not pin-pointing any mistakes
of yours etc. Its mainly to clarify as to what has happened.
Kindly read in a calm frame of mind as to what you wrote and
upon what premises you formed your opinions etc. If you got
offended by any statement, you can write directly to me
upon what you feel and I apologize in advance for the same.
Lets be good friends as fellow devotees of the Supreme Lord
and feel free to write privately to me anytime, if you have
objections Or reservations etc.Thanks.
I leave the rest for the comments by the SrI-VaishNavas of this
distinguished e-group.
aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
anantapadmanAbhan alias Anand.
KrushNArpaNam.
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |