Reply to Narayana Maharaja in regards to ISKCON and the Ramayana
Petter Claesson
From: Bhaktivaidurya Madhava, INTERNET:Mad...@lamg.com
DATE: 6/25/96 9:20 AM
International Society for Krishna Consciousness
3748 Watseka Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90034
Friday, June 21, 1996
All Glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga!
Dear Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja,
Please accept my most humble obeisances at your lotus feet.
I have heard from some members at the Radha-ramana Temple that you do not
know why the ISKCON GBC does not accept the Tulasi Ramayana. We do not
accept it because our founder-acharya Srila Prabhupada did not accept it.
He stated on several occasions that it was not authorized. Furthermore,
none of the Vaisnava acharyas have written any commentary on it, yet we
have from Ramanuja and Madhva lines many commentaries on the Valmiki
Ramayana, which Madhvacharya calls the mula-Ramayana. In his writings
Madhvacharya has stressed repeatedly the importance of accepting this
mula-Ramayana over other versions. Also, Srila Krishna-dasa Kaviraja has
quoted from Valmiki's Ramayana, but has not mentioned anything about
Tulasi dasa or his Rama-carita-manasa.
Do you also think the Hindi Prema-sagara is as good as Vyasadeva's Sanksrit
Bhagavatam? The Vaishnava acharyas have not written commentaries on either
of these. Instead they have stuck with the original authoritative Sanskrit
versions of Valmiki and Vyasadeva.
I also have to admit my suprise that you have chosen to bring this
discussion up in public among people who would have some sentimental
attachment for Tulasi's Rama-carita-manasa as if to disparage or minimize
the authenticity of ISKCON.
Since you have publicly stated that you do not know why ISKCON's GBC does
not accept Tulasi's Rama- carita-manasa, I am including our
founder-acharya's statements regarding the matter. The following are
extracts from Srila Prabhupada's letters regarding Tulasi dasa's
Rama-carita-manasa and Valmiki's Ramayana:
"Regarding the two books you have mentioned, Sri Rama-carita-manasa by
Goswami Tulasi dasa is not very authorised, and Ramayana is authorised*
The author of Rama-carita-manasa, Goswami Tulasi dasa, has a tint of
Mayavadi philosophy. He belongs to the Ramananda sampradaya. They are mixed
up combination of personalists and impersonalist. Therefore, the author is
not considered as pure Vaishnava. Pure Vaishnava is free from all mental
contamination of fruitive activities and mental speculation. The pure
Vaishnava is simply, purely disposed to transcendental loving service to
Krishna. The pure Vaishnava rejects anything which has no pure idea of
serving the Supreme Personality." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Raktaka,
September 6th, 1969)
In a letter to Professor Kotovsky on June 24th, 1971, Srila Prabhupada
states:
"From your book 'Soviet Studies of India' I understand that academician Mr.
A. P. Baranikov completed a great translation, working the matter of
Tulasi dasa's "Ramayana" into Russian. Srimad-Bhagavatam is the ripe,
mature fruit of the Vedic knowledge, and Tulasi dasa's Ramayana
(Rama-carita-manasa) is but a partial representative of Srimad-Bhagavatam.
The real Ramayana is Valmiki's Ramayana"
In the purport to verse 147 of the Madhya-lila of the Caitanya-caritamrta
Srila Prabhupada writes:
"The Brahma-sutra (1.1.3) confirms this fact also: shastra-yonitvat.
Commenting upon this Brahma-sutra code (sastra-yonitvat), Srila
Madhvacharya says: "The Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda,
Mahabharata, Pancaratra, and the original Valmiki Ramayana are all Vedic
literature* That literature which does not conform to Vedic literautre is
simply misleading."
Srila Krishnadasa Kaviraja quotes the following verse (Madhya-lila 146) in
the Caitanya-caritamrta, which is from the Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya-kanda
22.9:
nirvicaram guror ajna
maya karya mahatmanah
sreyo hy evam bhavatyas ca
mama caiva visesatah
"The order of a great personality like a father must be executed without
consideration because there is a good fortune in such an order for both of
us. In particular, there is good fortune for Me."
In a purport to Srimad-Bhagavatam (3.10.9) Srila Prabhupada writes:
"Unless one is tattva-darsi, in complete knowledge of the Absolute Truth,
one cannot describe the activities of the Personality of Godhead.
Therefore although there are many so-called Ramayanas, or histories of Lord
Ramacandra's activities, some of them are not actually authoritative."
In a lecture in Montreal, August 30, 1968 Srila Prabhupada stated:
"*This Tulasi, actually it is not Ramayana. It is called Rama-carita-
manasa. Ramayana means Valmiki Ramayana, but people have taken it as
Ramayana. Actually, Tulasi dasa has expressed his own feelings about his
devotion to Lord Rama, and therefore he has named it Rama-carita-manasa,
his mind full with service attitude for Lord Rama. That is the real
meaning of this book. But people have misinterpreted; they are going on
just it is Ramayana. And Ramayana, of course, anywhere where Rama's
activities are described, that is called Ramayana. That is another sense.
But real Ramayana means the Ramayana composed by Valmiki Ramayana. Ramayana
composed by Maharsi Valmiki. And this is... It is a popular notion that
this is Ramayana, but actually this book is called Rama-carita-manasa. So
some of the description of Rama are there, but not all the description.
Rather there are many differences from the original Valmiki Ramayana."
In a lecture in Durban, South Africa on October 9, 1975, Srila Prabhupada
stated:
"So Ramayana, Valmiki Ramayana, not other Ramayana, the so-called
Ramayana... Authority, Valmiki Ramayana... If you read Valmiki Ramayana,
that is also as good as reading Bhagavad-gita."
In a lecture in Nairobi, October 27, 1975, Srila Prabhupada stated:
"Yes, there is... Vaishnavas... Ramayana is also approved. Ramayana is also
Vedic literature, Valmiki Ramayana, not any other. So we discuss Valmiki
Ramayana. In the Bhagavata there is discussion about Ramacandra's
activities. So we are giving Srimad-Bhagavatam. There is Ramacandra's
activities there."
In the Vedanta-sutra (1.1.3) it is stated, sastra-yonitvat "The scriptures
are the source of information about the Supreme Lord." Sripada
Madhvacharya
defines those scriptures in the following sloka:
rg-yajuh-samatharvas ca
bharatam pancaratrakam
mula-ramayanam caiva
sastram ity abhidhiyate
"The Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Pancaratra and
the original Ramayana are accepted as authoritative scripture."
So ISKCON's view of Tulasi dasa's Rama-carita-manasa is not our devious
concoction or speculation. We are simply following the directions given us
by our predecessor Vaishnava acharyas. Srila Prabhupada's siksa is the
ultimate basis for all of ISKCON's "positions" on different matters. Those
who are familiar with Srila Prabhupada's voluminous writings can
understand
this. Indeed, one cannot understand the workings of ISKCON without an
intimate understanding of Srila Prabhupada's instructions to us, his
followers.
With all due respects I offer you my prostrated pranamas.
Vaishnava-pada-seva-kankshi
Bhaktivaidurya Madhava Maharaja
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Petter Claesson voice: +46-8-530 25352
Korsnas Gard fax: +46-8-530 25006, 25068
S-147 92 Grodinge pet...@algonet.se
Sweden
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Shrisha Rao
Petter Claesson <pet...@algonet.se> wrote:
>From: Bhaktivaidurya Madhava, INTERNET:Mad...@lamg.com
>DATE: 6/25/96 9:20 AM
[*chomp*]
> Furthermore, none of the Vaisnava acharyas have written any
> commentary on it, yet we have from Ramanuja and Madhva lines many
> commentaries on the Valmiki Ramayana, which Madhvacharya calls the
> mula-Ramayana. In his writings Madhvacharya has stressed repeatedly
> the importance of accepting this mula-Ramayana over other versions.
Please! That is totally absurd. Get your facts right.
There is *not one* commentary upon the Vaalmiiki-RaamaayaNa from
anyone in the Maadhva line, and neither Madhva nor any of his
shishhya-s has even quoted from it in any of their works. Perhaps the
situation is different with Raamaanuja's line -- I don't know.
The Muula-RaamaayaNa is said to have been the transcript of Sri
Hayagriiva's discourse to chatur-mukha-Brahma at the beginning of the
Brahma-kalpa (just as the 'Gita is the transcript of Krishna's to
Arjuna just before the Mahaabhaarata war) -- it is not extant, and has
not been for long ages now. The Vaalmiiki-RaamaayaNa is a composition
of Vaalmiiki, and is not considered a canonical Itihaasa, unlike the
Muula.
Madhva has stated that the Muula-RaamaayaNa is of as great importance
as the Mahaabhaarata, but this is not a practical qualification,
inasmuch as the text is unavailable. He has made no such statement
about the work by Vaalmiiki.
>In the purport to verse 147 of the Madhya-lila of the Caitanya-caritamrta
>Srila Prabhupada writes:
>
>"The Brahma-sutra (1.1.3) confirms this fact also: shastra-yonitvat.
>Commenting upon this Brahma-sutra code (sastra-yonitvat), Srila
>Madhvacharya says: "The Rg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sama Veda, Atharva Veda,
>Mahabharata, Pancaratra, and the original Valmiki Ramayana are all Vedic
>literature* That literature which does not conform to Vedic literautre is
>simply misleading."
Here, translating `mUla-rAmAyaNaM' as "the original *Vaalmiiki*
RaamaayaNa" is wrong -- in fact, the latter phrase is an oxymoron.
>In the Vedanta-sutra (1.1.3) it is stated, sastra-yonitvat "The scriptures
>are the source of information about the Supreme Lord." Sripada
>Madhvacharya
>defines those scriptures in the following sloka:
>
>rg-yajuh-samatharvas ca
>bharatam pancaratrakam
>mula-ramayanam caiva
>sastram ity abhidhiyate
>
>"The Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas, the Mahabharata, the Pancaratra and
>the original Ramayana are accepted as authoritative scripture."
Very good; so they are. But not so the Vaalmiiki-RaamaayaNa.
svata.ntrAyAkhileshAya nirdoshhaguNarUpiNe |
preyase me supUrNAya namo nArAyaNAya te ||
-- tattvaviveka
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Petter Claesson voice: +46-8-530 25352
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Petter Claesson
"Please! That is totally absurd. Get your facts right.
There is *not one* commentary upon the Vaalmiiki-RaamaayaNa from
anyone in the Maadhva line, and neither Madhva nor any of his
shishhya-s has even quoted from it in any of their works. Perhaps the
situation is different with Raamaanuja's line -- I don't know."
Dear Shrisha Rao,
namaskaaram.
I have in my possession one manuscript printed in Bombay in 1867,
Christian
Era. It is available from Munshiram Monoharlal Publishers and from Motilal
Banarsidass and branches in most of the larger cities in India. It is
usually
known as the "govinda-raajiiya" edition of the vaalmiiki-raamaayaNa. On
the
cover of the opening section it states:
|| atha Sriimad-vaalmiiki-raamaayaNe baala-kaaNDam ||
Srii-govindaraajiiya-raamaanujiiya-tani-Slokii-maheSvara-tiirthiiyaakhya-v
yaakhyaa-catuSTayaalaMkRtam
muni-bhaava-prakaaSikaa-satya-tiirthiiyaadivyaakhyoddhRtaTippaNii-saMvalit
aM
ca ||
Thus it definitely was writen for raamaanujiiyas. As for maadhvas, one
might
wonder whether maheSvara-tiirtha and satya-tiirtha are maadhvas or not.
Well,
at the beginning of the edition there are the usual dhyaanas to be
performed
before reading. It gives three--one for raamaanujiiyas, one for maadhvas,
and
one for smaartas, using these terms. Apparently SOME maadhvas read
vaalmiikiiya-raamaayaNa, at least they did in 1867, thought others, like
yourself, do not. As a matter of fact, I have heard the beautiful
recitation
of the vaalmiikiiya-raamaayaNa by Srii-vaiSNavas in Srii-raNgam on a
number
of ocassions. We gauDiiyas also accept the vaalmiikiiya-raamaayaNa as
authorized, as do nimbaarkiiyas. The raamaanandii sect prefers the Tulsi
version in Hindi. As for your sampradaaya, you apparently have mixed
feelings--some accepting and some not. bhadraM te. Subham astu. hare
kRSNa!
vaiSNava-kRpaa-kaMkSii
tridaNDI-bhikSu bhaktivaidurya-maadhava
Shrisha Rao
In article <4r51co$e...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Petter Claesson
<pet...@algonet.se> wrote:
> Dear Shrisha Rao,
> namaskaaram.
Greetings.
> I have in my possession one manuscript printed in Bombay in 1867,
> Thus it definitely was writen for raamaanujiiyas. As for maadhvas, one
> might
> wonder whether maheSvara-tiirtha and satya-tiirtha are maadhvas or not.
Under the circumstances, I'd guess they were probably from the
tradition of Raamaanuja.
> Well,
> at the beginning of the edition there are the usual dhyaanas to be
> performed
> before reading. It gives three--one for raamaanujiiyas, one for maadhvas,
> and
> one for smaartas, using these terms. Apparently SOME maadhvas read
> vaalmiikiiya-raamaayaNa, at least they did in 1867, thought others, like
> yourself, do not. As a matter of fact, I have heard the beautiful
You're making an unnecessary extrapolation there; I have in fact
read parts of the Vaalmiiki R (and also the Raam-charit-maanas of Sri
Tulsidas) on several occasions, and have even memorized the Hanuman
Chalisa (which, though not a part of the Tulsi-Raamaayan, is a close
adjunct); in fact, if you recall, in the final days of
alt.religion.vaisnava, I had even quoted from the V.R. against
Kunal Singh's Shaiva arguments, because he was claiming support from
that work.
The question is not whether Maadhvas *read*, or even recite, the
Vaalmiiki-RaamaayaNa, or not; it is whether, as previously stated by
you, (i) the Vaalmiiki-RaamaayaNa has been commented upon by Madhva
and "many other" scholars in his line; (ii) whether he, or any other
scholar in his lineage, equates it with the Muula-RaamaayaNa.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Vijay Sadananda Pai
In article <4r6pjo$s...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Shrisha Rao <sh...@nyx.net> wrote:
>In article <4r51co$e...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Petter Claesson
><pet...@algonet.se> wrote:
>> wonder whether maheSvara-tiirtha and satya-tiirtha are maadhvas or not.
>Under the circumstances, I'd guess they were probably from the
>tradition of Raamaanuja.
I once talked about these suffixes with a Raamanujite and he told me
that suffixes like "Tiirtha", "Bhaarati", "Puri" etc did not appear in that
sampradaaya. So these would probably have to be either Shankarites
or Maadhvas.
>The question is not whether Maadhvas *read*, or even recite, the
>Vaalmiiki-RaamaayaNa, or not; it is whether, as previously stated by
>you, (i) the Vaalmiiki-RaamaayaNa has been commented upon by Madhva
>and "many other" scholars in his line;
Not to distract from the question at hand, but I don't think that BV
Madhava Maharaj made that claim; I seem to remember (and the archives bear
me out on this one) his exact words as "we have from Ramanuja and Madhva
lines many commentaries on the Valmiki". However, the point is made that
it would be much better to have some exact names and references rather
than the phrase "many commentaries" (in case one of us wanted to actually
_find_ such a commentary, rather than merely knowing that such exist)
>(ii) whether he, or any other
>scholar in his lineage, equates it with the Muula-RaamaayaNa.
As another orthogonal point, I believe that that verse in Ananda
Tiirtha's BSB 1.1.3 is quoted from one of the PuraaNas; there are either
identical or similar verses in Brahma Vaivarta, BrahmaaNDa, and
BhaviShya PuraaNas which I have seen cited elsewhere. Does Ananda Tiirtha
ascribe it to any of these [or possibly other] source?
I'm curious, though, from where does Madhva draw knowledge of a non-extant
Muula-RaamayaNa spoken by the Lord to Brahma? Was such a work known in his
time? Has any achaarya (including Madhva) cited it? I mean no offense
by these questions, mind you, just trying to find out.
>Regards,
>Shrisha Rao
Yours,
Vijay
Petter Claesson
My dear Shrisha Rao,
namaskaaram,
Regarding whether the two tiirthas are SaNkarites or vaiSNavas, here are
some
things which I have culled from their commentaries during a random
perusal.
In the Fifth Chapter of the aaraNya-kaaNDa, Lord raama sees indra speaking
to
SarabhaNga muni. When Lord raama approached the sage to inquire about the
purpose of indra's visit, the sage replied as follows in verses 28 to 30:
maam eSa varado raama brahma-lokaM niniiSati |
jitam ugreNa tapasaa duSpraapam akRtaatambhiH || 28 ||
ahaM jNaatvaa nara-vyaaghra vartamaanam aduurataH |
brahma-lokaM na gacchaami tvaam adRSTvaa priyaatithim || 29 ||
tvayaahaM puruSa-vyaaghra dhaarmikeNa mahaatmanaa |
samaagamya gamiSyaami tridivaM deva-sevitam || 30 ||
In his commentary to these verses, maheSvara-tiirtha says:
raamas tasya paadau saMgRhyeti raamasyeSvaraavataaratve 'pi
kSatriya-ruupeNaavatiirNatvaat "yad yad aacarati SreSThaH" iti nyaayena
kSatriya-maryaadaaM pravartayatiiti suucitam || 26-27 || he nara-vyaaghra
puruSottama! aduurato vartamaanaM bahukaalaM manasaa dhyaatam adhunaa mama
bhaagya-vaSena baahyo 'py aduure vartamaanaM priyaatithiM priyaa atithayo
bhaktaaH yasya tam | tvaam adRSTvaa brahma-lokaM na gamiSyaamiity arthaH
||
29 || tvayeti | he deva! dhaarmikena
bhakta-saMrakSaNa-ruupa-dharma-Siilena |
kutaH, mahaatmana mahaan jagad-aadhaaraH aatmaa muurtir yasya tvayaa
parama-puruSeNa samaagamya tridivaM brahma-lokaM gamiSyaamiiti bhaavaH |
nitya-niratiSaya-nirmalaananda-svaruupasya bhaka-jana-paarijaatasya tava
darSanaanandaM vihaaya mama brahma-loke na kim api bhoktavyam asti,
tathaapi
puurvam api mayaiva Sariiraantarair anubhuutam api brahma-lokaM
svabala-praarabdha-karmaadhiino gamiSyaami kiM kartavyam iti bhaavaH || 30
||
Just for comparison, govinda-raaja's commentary on these same verses is as
follows:
kathaM nyavedayad ity-atraaha--maam iti: | sarveSaaM varaM dadaatiiti
varadaH
eSa indraH maaM brahma-lokaM niniiSati netum icchati, brahmaajNayeti SeSaH
||
28 || tarhi kim arthaM na gato' siity-atraaha--aham iti | he
nara-vyaaghra!
aduurato vartamaanaM manasi sadaa sannihitaM tvaaM yogato jNaatvaa
priyaatithiM tvaam adRSTvaa tvad anubhavaanandaM vihaaya braham-lokam
"aabrahma-bhuvanaal lokaaH punar aavartinaH" ityukta-lokaM na gacchaami ||
29
|| tarhi kena saadhanena kaM lokaM gamiSyasiity-atraaha--tvayeti |
dhaarmikeNa dharma-svaruupeNa | svaarthe Thak | mahaatmanaa
satya-saNkalpena
tvayaa samaagamya tvat-kaTaakSa-viSayo bhuutvaa deva-sevitaM "yatra puurve
saadhyaaH santi devaaH" ity-uktariityaa nitya-suuri-sevitaM tridivaM
tripaad-vibhuutiM brahma-lokaad utkRSTaM gamiSyaami, brahma-lokaM na
gacchaami tridivaM gamiSyaamiity-anenaayam artho' vagamyate || 30 ||
This is obviously a Srii vaiSNava commentary. maheSvara-tiirtha's writing
does not bear any resemblance in style to this or the other raamaanujiiya
commentaries.
satya-tiirtha comments on the term brahma-loka as follows:
brahma-lokaM bhagavad-dvaaratvenety-arthaH |
This refers to arcir-aadi-patha or deva-yaana ( vedaanta-suutra:
arcir-aadinaa tat-prathiteH), as mentioned by him earlier in his
commentary.
He sees brahma-loka as being the "doorway" to the bhagavad-dhaama or
vaikuNTha.
In their commentaries, these two tiirthas consistenly refer to bhagavaan
as the parama-puruSa who is beyond the effects of matter, as is His realm.
They never mention some avyakta beyond Him, as do the Shankarites, but
always
stress the supra-mandane character of the Lord full of transcendental
divine
qualities.
In Chapter 73, kabandha says to Lord raama:
teSaam adyaapi tatraiva dRSyate paricaariNii |
SramaNii Sabarii naama kaakutstha cirajiivinii || 25 ||
tvaaM tu dharme sthitaa nityaM sarva-bhuuta-namaskRtam |
dRSTvaa devopamaM raama svarga-lokaM gamiSyati || 26 ||
maheSvara-tiirtha gives the following commentary:
tvaam eva dRSTvaa devopamaM he deva! upamam upa samiipe maa lakSmiiH yasya
taM viSNuM tvaam ity-arthaH | svarga-lokaM svaH giiyate iti svargaH
svargaS
caasau lokaS ca svarga-lokaH tam, vaikuNTham ityarthaH | kutaH? nityaM
dharme
upaasanaadike sthitaa "vidyayaa deva-lokaH" iti SruteH |
Would a Shankarite ever interpret svarga as vaikuNTha? I do not think so.
The
exegesis is vaiSNava. There are three dhyaanas for the manuscript--one for
Srii-vaiSNavas, one for maadhvas, and one for smaartas. There are two
Srii-vaiSNava comentaries, one smaarta comentary, and two (blank) vaiSNava
commentaries by persons with tiirtha titles. You fill in the blank. Or
perhaps the publishers purposely intended to mislead the naive public
into
believing that these were maadhva commentaries. (Do I smell a conspiracy?)
I must admit my extreme curiosity over the fact that your sampradaaya has
no
extant raamaayaNa, especially considering the special relation of
Srii-paada
puurNaprajNa to maarutii hanumaan. I suppose I am even more surprised,
though, by the mood of the posts with have been forwarded to me from your
chosen forum. It (literally) strikes me as a free-for-all where everyone
is
trying to obliterate everyone else--not what I would expect in a vaiSNava
forum. I would prefer to have calmer discussions without the need to
verbally
abuse everyone. Perhaps this mood is there because the participants are
younger. I think that this could not be merely the effect of the digital
medium of communication upon them. Hopefully the weight of years will
sober
their manner of on-line interaction. For my self, I shall look for calmer
minds to discuss with.
I am about to leave the country in a few days for three months. While I am
in
India, I shall see if I can manage a visit to uDupii to investigate this
manuscript and other questions I have on maadhva issues, while also
availing
myself of the darSana of the Lord at the uDupii maTha. Either I will
inquire
about these things directly with the paryaaya-piiThaadhiSa, or else with
His
Holiness Srii-viSveSa-tiirtha of pejavar maTha. When I return, I shall
indeed
let you know what I was able to ascertain.
May all be well with you in the interim,
hare kRSNa!
B.V. Madhava
Shrisha Rao
In article <4rbeu7$f...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Petter Claesson
<pet...@algonet.se> wrote:
> My dear Shrisha Rao,
>
> namaskaaram,
My dear Petter Claesson:
The same to you.
> Regarding whether the two tiirthas are SaNkarites or vaiSNavas, here
> are some things which I have culled from their commentaries during a
> random perusal.
[*chomp*]
You're looking at the wrong part of their commentaries, IMHO, and are
missing something quite elementary -- but we'll come to that later.
> satya-tiirtha comments on the term brahma-loka as follows:
> brahma-lokaM bhagavad-dvaaratvenety-arthaH | This refers to
> arcir-aadi-patha or deva-yaana ( vedaanta-suutra: arcir-aadinaa
> tat-prathiteH), as mentioned by him earlier in his commentary. He
> sees brahma-loka as being the "doorway" to the bhagavad-dhaama or
> vaikuNTha.
However, the use of "Brahma-loka" to refer to any form of mukti or any
step towards, is strongly Advaitic -- no Maadhva would practice such
usage. According to the Advaitic krama-mukti, as far as I understand,
the evolved soul who has not attained jiivan-mukti goes to
Brahma-loka, the abode of the saguNa-brahman, from where he finally
merges into the nirguNa. A Maadhva would claim that the use of
"Brahma-loka" is inappropriate in this context, inasmuch as it seems
to flout Krishna's statement in the Bhagavad Gita, chapter eight:
AbrahmabhuvanAllokAH punarAvartino.arjuna |
mAM upetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate || 16 ||
which states that the denizens of all worlds upto and including that
of Brahma are subject to return, and those of His are not.
Anyway, the issue here is not whether or not the Advaitic view is
justified or not, but whether a Maadhva would say
brahma-lokaM bhagavaddvAratvenetyarthaH |
In my opinion, he would not. Much more likely that an Advaitic
scholar would.
> In their commentaries, these two tiirthas consistenly refer to
> bhagavaan as the parama-puruSa who is beyond the effects of matter,
> as is His realm. They never mention some avyakta beyond Him, as do
> the Shankarites, but always stress the supra-mandane character of
> the Lord full of transcendental divine qualities.
So?
Also, btw, if the commentary is really a Maadhva one, then Mukhya
PraaNa will be all over it, mind -- he will be referred to almost as
many times as the Lord Himself, and will be repeatedly extolled as
His premier servant and what have you. Do you see this?
> Would a Shankarite ever interpret svarga as vaikuNTha? I do not
> think so.
I do. I see no problem with that. How/why exactly is the
interpretation of `svarga' as `vaikuNTha' opposed to Sri Shankara's
doctrine?
> The exegesis is vaiSNava. There are three dhyaanas for the
> manuscript--one for Srii-vaiSNavas, one for maadhvas, and one for
> smaartas. There are two Srii-vaiSNava comentaries, one smaarta
> comentary, and two (blank) vaiSNava commentaries by persons with
> tiirtha titles. You fill in the blank.
I'm not fundamentally opposed to or dismissive of the notion that
Advaitic scholars can also be Vaishnavas (unlike you?); hence, these
scholars being Vaishnava Advaitis is the way I fill it.
> Or perhaps the publishers purposely intended to mislead the naive
> public into believing that these were maadhva commentaries. (Do I
> smell a conspiracy?)
You can smell whatever you will, but there is no clear indication that
there being three types of dhyaana-shloka-s is meant to show that
there are three types of commentaries.
Besides, why should it be so hard to find out what tradition each of
these scholars came from? With no need for sophisticated
word-analyses, etc., one could just look at the preface, publisher's
intro, etc. -- any book worth its salt has one, and a book of this
sort is sure to give such details.
More importantly, one has to look at the salutations that each
scholar offers at the start of his commentary -- any Maadhva
commentary will *always* salute Srimad Ananda Tiirtha before
transacting any other business. Conversely, a scholar who salutes
Ananda Tiirtha is ipso facto a Maadhva. Thus, a necessary and
sufficient condition for the commentaries to be called Maadhva is
that Srimad Achaarya be saluted at their start. For instance, here
is how a quite-typical Maadhva salutation runs:
vishvasyodayamAtanoti tadanutrANaM vidhatte punaH |
saukhyAptItarahAnisAdhanamalaM vaktishrutIrvyaJNjayan.h ||
svApaM prApayati shramApahR^itaye kalpAvasAne cha yaH |
taM devaM pitaraM patiM gurutamaM vande ramAvallabham.h ||
lasatu shrImadAna.ndatIrthendurno hR^idaMbare |
yadvachashchandrikA svAntasa.ntApaM vinikR^intati ||
padavAkyapramANaj~nAn.h praNamya shirasA gurUn.h |
vyAkarishye yathAbodhaM vishhNutattvavinirNayam.h ||
The typical pattern is evident: first a salutation to the Lord
*through Lakshmi*, then a salutation to Ananda Tiirtha, then a
statement of what the work is about.
So, do you see this?
> I must admit my extreme curiosity over the fact that your
> sampradaaya has no extant raamaayaNa, especially considering the
> special relation of Srii-paada puurNaprajNa to maarutii hanumaan.
That devalues the tradition, do you think?
The only extended reference (as far as I know) to the story of the
RaamaayaNa that one finds in Srimad Ananda Tiirtha's works is in the
Mahaabhaarata-taatparya-nirNaya, where he draws upon several Shruti
and Smrti sources for pramaaNa, but significantly leaves out the
Vaalmiiki-RaamaayaNa completely. He also gives some rather startling
insights into Hanuman's thinking, which Vaalmiiki does not, and in
several instances, his explanation differs from Vaalmiiki's account
and sounds more plausible than the latter. For instance, according to
Vaalmiiki and other RaamaayaNa-s taking their lead from his work,
Hanuman requested Sita to accompany him back, when he first went to
Lanka on his scouting mission, and she refused, saying that it would
be improper; according to Ananda Tiirtha, this never happened, and in
fact, Hanuman was very careful not to kill off too many of the demons!
He knew that there were three top-flight warriors of equal worth in
Lanka -- RaavaNa, Indrajit, and Akshakumar; he rubbed out Akshakumar
with ease, but spared Indrajit because for the servant to kill off two
and the master to take on the one remaining would have been a faux
pas; he was only on a scouting mission, and had he killed all three
and rescued Sita he would have exceeded his brief, and had he killed
two there would have been no chance for the world to know of the
demons' prowess, and people would have accused Raama of incompetence.
He could thus kill only one, as an act of service. Similarly, when
Indrajit used the Brahmaastra on Hanuman, the latter was "amazed" at
the ignorance of the foolish Raakshasa who believed that a mere
Brahmaastra would stop a servant of Raama. Hanuman could have swatted
off the weapon like an inconvenient fly, but decided not to, thinking
that Brahma was his (Vaayu's) elder brother, and to show such
disrespect would sully his (Brahma's) reputation!
In all these and other instances, at least to my mind, Vaalmiiki's
account is less satisfying than Ananda Tiirtha's, from the standpoint
that Hanuman is considered to be the ideal devotee who would never
even dream of committing a faux pas that besmirched his seniors.
> I suppose I am even more surprised, though, by the mood of the posts
> with have been forwarded to me from your chosen forum. It
> (literally) strikes me as a free-for-all where everyone is trying to
> obliterate everyone else--not what I would expect in a vaiSNava
> forum.
The more expectation there is, the greater the fear and
disappointment; as Sri Vaadiraaja Tiirtha puts it, "mahatve te
yadAkAN^kshA mahattveva bhayaM tadA." Anyway, that's irrelevant; to
the extent that your above comments are directed at me, I would like
to clarify that I have not tried to "obliterate" anyone at any time: I
have even tried within my very limited ability to help friends from
rival schools in their work on FAQs, etc. My only concern is to
answer charges directed at Ananda Tiirtha to the best of my meager
ability, and also to make certain that he is not misrepresented as
happened recently with the recent claim by your kind self that he
calls the Vaalmiiki-RaamaayaNa the Muula-RaamaayaNa, and has also
happened in many previous instances with Gaudiya/ISKCON claims. This
is not a product of a desire to obliterate, but is merely a duty that
I am enjoined upon to fulfill, and an act of service to my master that
I cannot shirk from.
> I would prefer to have calmer discussions without the need to
> verbally abuse everyone. Perhaps this mood is there because the
> participants are younger. I think that this could not be merely the
> effect of the digital medium of communication upon them. Hopefully
> the weight of years will sober their manner of on-line
> interaction. For my self, I shall look for calmer minds to discuss
> with.
In that spirit, I for one will look forward to their being less
of posturing and political bickering (e.g., the recent anti-Narayana
Maharaja tirades) on this group, which in my mind are almost as bad
as anything else that has been visited upon it.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Manish Tandon
B.V. Madhava said:
> I am about to leave the country in a few days for three months. While I am
> in India, I shall see if I can manage a visit to uDupii to investigate this
> manuscript and other questions I have on maadhva issues, while also
> availing myself of the darSana of the Lord at the uDupii maTha. Either I will
> inquire about these things directly with the paryaaya-piiThaadhiSa, or else with
> His Holiness Srii-viSveSa-tiirtha of pejavar maTha. When I return, I shall
> indeed let you know what I was able to ascertain.
Good for you. And while you are there, please also brief him on how his
name has been misused inside Iskcon. Let me provide the exact incidence
here. About 1 and 1/2 yrs back after the foundation for Prabhupada' samadhi
was laid in Mayapur, to which Sri Vishvesha tiirtha was invited, a forged
message, attributed to him was circulated on Iskcon' COM list, the interesting
part that I am sure he would like to be told was, (quoted from memory)
``the present leader of the Madhvas said: "I am not qualified to offer
respect/sit at his [Prabhupada'] lotus feet or even to serve his disciples.
He was the avataar of Brahmaaji."''
The key here is Sri Vishvesha tiirtha declaring Prabhupada to be an avataar
of Brahma! Sri HKS-ji has qouted the fisrt part of this forged message here
(which was refuted by Shrisha Rao) but he was careful to skip the later part.
let the truth prevail
Manish
Vijay Sadananda Pai
In article <4rec6h$j...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
In the spirit of "letting truth prevail", how about including the original
message that you said was propagated on a BBS -- lots of people forward all
sorts of stuff to me from that BBS, yet I never got such a message. It would
indeed be intriguing to find where it all started. Message-headers too,
por favor.
As an orthogonal issue, I heard some of the rumor you mentioned
>``the present leader of the Madhvas said: "I am not qualified to offer
>respect/sit at his [Prabhupada'] lotus feet or even to serve his disciples.
>He was the avataar of Brahmaaji."''
before, but never heard the last sentence. I haven't substantiated it
and more or less doubt the verity of the quote [I doubt the first part
because it would be an insult to his own guru, in much the same way as
a certain doctrine that starts with an R is an insult to the claimed
guru of those who are its proponents, and, as I had mentioned before, I had
never even heard the last part]
In any case, try as you might, you can't blame ISKCON for this rumor
[if it exists], since nothing like it ever appeared in that society's
newspaper or magazine. IWR said something like "Pejawar Swami was one
of the guests of honor" and included some of his titles. No mention of
what he said or didn't say while there.
And, fyi, it was the 1995 opening of the samadhi, not the foundation
laying (which must have happened years ago).
-- Vijay S. Pai
Artur Fedorowski
Manish Tandon (mta...@hw.stratus.com) wrote:
: B.V. Madhava said:
: > I am about to leave the country in a few days for three months. While I am
: > in India, I shall see if I can manage a visit to uDupii to investigate this
: > manuscript and other questions I have on maadhva issues, while also
: > availing myself of the darSana of the Lord at the uDupii maTha. Either I will
: > inquire about these things directly with the paryaaya-piiThaadhiSa, or else with
: > His Holiness Srii-viSveSa-tiirtha of pejavar maTha. When I return, I shall
: > indeed let you know what I was able to ascertain.
: Good for you. And while you are there, please also brief him on how his
: name has been misused inside Iskcon. Let me provide the exact incidence
: here. About 1 and 1/2 yrs back after the foundation for Prabhupada' samadhi
: was laid in Mayapur, to which Sri Vishvesha tiirtha was invited, a forged
: message, attributed to him was circulated on Iskcon' COM list, the interesting
: part that I am sure he would like to be told was, (quoted from memory)
: ``the present leader of the Madhvas said: "I am not qualified to offer
: respect/sit at his [Prabhupada'] lotus feet or even to serve his disciples.
: He was the avataar of Brahmaaji."''
: The key here is Sri Vishvesha tiirtha declaring Prabhupada to be an avataar
: of Brahma! Sri HKS-ji has qouted the fisrt part of this forged message here
: (which was refuted by Shrisha Rao) but he was careful to skip the later part.
: let the truth prevail
: Manish
Dear Sir,
Please, accept my respects.
As I visit from time to time this conference I can see that you have been
making an intense effort to become a famous ISKCON criticizer.
Please, save your time and ours as well.
I can imagine that you would like to be a well-known ISKCON guru.
But...
I didn't happen.
What's left?
To become a well-known anti-ISKCON-guru.
BUT..
If you are so determined please provide us with 30 volumes of books that
give such an alternative. (i.e. anti-ISKCON)
Or, consider seriously whether or not to use cyberspace every time your
fingers touch the keyboard.
Well-wishing,
Akhilalokesa das
: ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
: This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96
: Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
: (Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
: ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
--
*******************************************************************************
Artur Fedorowski e-mail: art...@pwr.wroc.pl
Address: University of Medicine
Dept. of Family Medicine
Traugutta 57/59
50-417 Wroclaw phone/fax: +48 71 44-38-67
Home:
Strzegomska 258/25
54-432 Wroclaw phone: +48 71 57-05-63
*******************************************************************************
Manish Tandon
Vijay Sadananda Pai <vija...@mridangam.rice.edu> writes:
> In the spirit of "letting truth prevail", how about including the original
> message that you said was propagated on a BBS -- lots of people forward all
> sorts of stuff to me from that BBS, yet I never got such a message. It would
> indeed be intriguing to find where it all started. Message-headers too,
> por favor.
Quite an "intelligent" request coming from you shall I say? It is not so
surprising since one of the person's to actually forward me the forged message
was Sri Vijay Sadananda Pai himself, after my very first or second sorta
anti-Iskcon posting and subecequently telling him that I want to go with the
Madhvas. If you forgot that or don't want to accept that in public, fine. I
could care less.
Note to general public: it is pretty easy to forge an email message however
I have no desire to be Iskcon like by doing so. Rather I will just point to
a simple fact that the above incident happened when I was working at Cadence
and I did not bring my email file to my current job.
Manish
Vijay Sadananda Pai
In article <4rp7d3$n...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Manish Tandon <mta...@hw.stratus.com> wrote:
>If you forgot that or don't want to accept that in public, fine.
I categorically deny it, private or public. If I never received such
a message, how could I forward it?
I understand that you could care less, but I don't care to see SRV
overtaken by the personal wars of a handful of misanthropes. So, if you
don't mind, I'd like to direct follow-ups to ARV, AFJS, and/or alt.jyotish,
whichever one (or two, or three) you prefer. Thanks.
Yours,
Vijay
>it is pretty easy to forge an email message however
>I have no desire to be Iskcon like by doing so.
As a Dvaitin, shouldn't you know that an abstract (such as a society) can't
forge email?
>Rather I will just point to
>a simple fact that the above incident happened when I was working at Cadence
>and I did not bring my email file to my current job.
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Manish Tandon
Vijay Sadananda Pai <vija...@mridangam.rice.edu> writes:
> I categorically deny it, private or public. If I never received such
> a message, how could I forward it?
that's your choice which does not surprise me in the least.
> I understand that you could care less, but I don't care to see SRV
> overtaken by the personal wars of a handful of misanthropes.
misanthropes?! My list of issues stand firmly against Iskcon/Gaudias and
concequently I have no need to play cheap games like creating a false charge
against a handful of its followers. When there are such wonderful statements
by the founder like "No they cannot have fallen from the brahmajyoti because
if they are in brahmajyoti, they are already fallen" not even a fool would
commit the mistake of what you are trying to accuse me of, that is that I lied
about some people in Iskcon having spread a forged message attributed to Sri
Vishvesha tiirtha.
This is the last word on it from me. You can now change the follow-ups again to
whatever you like.
Manish
Manish Tandon
Artur Fedorowski <art...@pwr.wroc.pl> wrote with confidence:
> I can imagine that you would like to be a well-known ISKCON guru.
> But...
> I didn't happen.
thanks for that little piece of humor!
> If you are so determined please provide us with 30 volumes of books that
> give such an alternative. (i.e. anti-ISKCON)
try reading some articles in the "itihaasapuraanam panchamam vedaanaam vedam"
or "What is a valid sampradaaya" to begin with before you start babbling here.
> Or, consider seriously whether or not to use cyberspace every time your
> fingers touch the keyboard.
perhaps you should keep your own trap shut in the meantime while you work on a
response to some of the above. And remember, it was your own decision to follow
the people you are following. Don't expect the least bit of sympathy from others
for that.
avidyayam antare vartamanah, svayam dhirah panditam manyamanah
dandramayamanah pariyanti mudhah, andhenaiva niyamana yathandhah
Katha Upanisad
Vijay Sadananda Pai
In article <4rr7nf$d...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Manish Tandon <mta...@hw.stratus.com> wrote:
>When there are such wonderful statements
>by the founder like "No they cannot have fallen from the brahmajyoti because
>if they are in brahmajyoti, they are already fallen" not even a fool would
>commit the mistake of what you are trying to accuse me of, that is that I lied
>about some people in Iskcon having spread a forged message
I quote from the Dvaita FAQ (copyright Poornapragna Samshodhana Mandiram,
used w/ permission. Available at http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita_faq.html )
asangati ["aakaaN^kshaaviraho asangatiH"] -- This can be translated as
'irrelevance,' and the definition reads: "Lack of fulfillment of
expectation is irrelevance." In a discussion, if a reply given, a
point raised, or a statement made, is not in accordance with the
expectation that it be pertinent to the matter under discussion,
then it is irrelevant.
>You can now change the follow-ups again to whatever you like.
already did.
Yours,
Vijay S. Pai
Hari Krishna Susarla
Manish Tandon (mta...@hw.stratus.com) wrote:
> : Good for you. And while you are there, please also brief him on how his
> : name has been misused inside Iskcon. Let me provide the exact incidence
> : here. About 1 and 1/2 yrs back after the foundation for Prabhupada' samadhi
> : was laid in Mayapur, to which Sri Vishvesha tiirtha was invited, a forged
> : message, attributed to him was circulated on Iskcon' COM list, the interesting
> : part that I am sure he would like to be told was, (quoted from memory)
>
> : ``the present leader of the Madhvas said: "I am not qualified to offer
> : respect/sit at his [Prabhupada'] lotus feet or even to serve his disciples.
> : He was the avataar of Brahmaaji."''
>
> : The key here is Sri Vishvesha tiirtha declaring Prabhupada to be an avataar
> : of Brahma! Sri HKS-ji has qouted the fisrt part of this forged message here
> : (which was refuted by Shrisha Rao) but he was careful to skip the later part.
"Careful to skip the later part," eh Manish? The fact is, I knew of no
"later part." It seems that if you were more of a Vaishnava and a
gentleman, you might give me the benefit of the doubt rather than using
SRV to post inneundos. In fact, since you seem quite interested in the
truth, let me also state that the information I alluded to in my
discussions with Srisha did not come to me via COM, or even by internet
at all. I heard it by voice, and that information did not clearly
include a) the identity of the speaker (other than the point that he was
a sannyasi from the Madhva sampradaya) or b) this nonsense about being
an avatar of Lord Brahma. I was under the impression that the
sannyasi was Vishvesha tirtha, but I was uncertain of this fact and
clearly stated as much.
I say again that I know of no COM message in this regard. The mere fact
that Manish implies it included an obviously bogus statement like
"avatar of Brahmaji" leads me to conclude that no such message existed.
In fact, if I were like Manish, the first thing that would come to mind
is that he made up the whole idea of there being such a message in order
to perpetuate his ISKCON smear campaign. It's no secret that the remarks
he has been making in the past few months are some of the ugliest,
bigoted words I have seen anywhere on a religion newsgroup, and it
saddens me that such things are taking place on a Vaishnava newsgroup. I
would like to encourage my friends to read this group, but Manish's
behavior might give them an extremely bad impression of our religion.
This group is meant for glorifying Lord Krishna's lotus feet and sadly
enough I have seen little of that in the past few weeks, especially from
Mr. Tandon.
I thought I might end this by posting a relevant excerpt from the SRV
FAQ:
> ambience. While there are no hard-and-fast rules for acceptable format
> or structure (except those required by the moderator bot), it would be
> as well to keep postings to-the-point, and to refrain from ad hominem
> attacks on other individuals, or their sampradaayas or gurus. In fact,
> any kind of personal remark about individuals who may be considered
> great, accomplished, or sincere, by others, is likely to keep one from
> making friends, and a Vaishnava newsgroup is no exception. Debates and
> disagreements are welcome, and need not be constrained by a need to
> maintain an artificially high level of politeness, but insults as such
> are not appreciated by most.
-----------------------------------------------------
- H. Krishna Susarla -
- UT Southwestern Medical Center -
- Dallas, Texas -
- http://www.swmed.edu/home_pages/personal/krishna/ -
-----------------------------------------------------
"Birth is the leading cause of death among living beings."
Manish Tandon
Hari Krishna Susarla <susarla...@TumorA.swmed.edu> writes:
> if I were like Manish, the first thing that would come to mind
> is that he made up the whole idea of there being such a message in order
> to perpetuate his ISKCON smear campaign.
Both you and Vijay Pai have a long history of blatantly lying on innumerable
occasions. Anyone wanting to get a glimpse of this is more than welcome to
read some of the postings on srh, particularly replies to Ken Stuart and
Ramakrishnana Balasubramaniam. As for me lying, pleae provide any one single
instance besides this one (since this is a mere suspect). As for my Iskcon
smear campaign, I already pointed in response to Sri Pai that my points
originally noted in the 'itihaaspuranam...' stand on very firm footing. No need
for me to stoop to your levels.
> It's no secret that the remarks
> he has been making in the past few months are some of the ugliest,
> bigoted words I have seen anywhere on a religion newsgroup,
Once again I have to point you to the fact that the "ugliest bigoted words"
I have seen are:
"No they cannot have fallen from Brahmajyoti because if they are
in Brahmajyoti, they are already fallen."
This is clearly orthogonal to all Vaishnava acharyas' views who stood up
against the nirguna/saguna division propounded by the advaitis. It is also
completly violative of the statement of Srimad Bhagvatam that you blindingly
hold very dear.
Ofcourse one does not expect a person of your calibre to understand these things.
As for my wprds being ugly and begoted, it is no surprise to hear that from
you, after all you said the exact same thing for Shrisha Rao also in the
Brahma-Madhva-Gaudia thread when cornered.
Manish
Krishna Susarla
Manish Tandon <mta...@hw.stratus.com> wrote:
>Both you and Vijay Pai have a long history of blatantly lying on innumerable
>occasions. Anyone wanting to get a glimpse of this is more than welcome to
>read some of the postings on srh, particularly replies to Ken Stuart and
>Ramakrishnana Balasubramaniam. As for me lying, pleae provide any one single
>instance besides this one (since this is a mere suspect).
Now this is interesting. You accuse me of lying, and
then provide no specific evidence. My postings are
archived, so all you have to do is point to a specific
URL and quote the alleged lie.
On the other hand, you demand that I provide proof of
your lying. Interesting double standard, this.
Well, the fact is, I only asked for you to provide
evidence to support your accusation. I have yet to see
you produce a COM message wherein it was stated that a
Maadhva sannyasi declared Srila Prabhupada to be an
avatar of Brahma. I don't believe any such message
exists, and given your recent behavior, I would not be
surprised if you had made it up. Feel free to prove me
wrong, of course. Just show us that COM message.
As for my Iskcon
>smear campaign, I already pointed in response to Sri Pai that my points
>originally noted in the 'itihaaspuranam...' stand on very firm footing. No need
>for me to stoop to your levels.
And which points were those, Manish? The points where
you directly insulted Srila Prabhupada, a Vaishnava
acharya held in high regard by many acharyas in India?
Or the point where you compared ISKCON followers to a
high school drop out audience? If your postings were not
so obnoxious, I might actually be able to read them for
some kind of semiintelligent argument. As it is,
whatever intelligent content they might have is simply
surrounded by all kinds of personal attacks. Nobody is
going to be able to respect you if you can't show them
respect.
>
>> It's no secret that the remarks
>> he has been making in the past few months are some of the ugliest,
>> bigoted words I have seen anywhere on a religion newsgroup,
>
>Once again I have to point you to the fact that the "ugliest bigoted words"
>I have seen are:
>
> "No they cannot have fallen from Brahmajyoti because if they are
> in Brahmajyoti, they are already fallen."
Give me a break, Manish. I saw you waste SRV bandwith
to post an unprovoked statement calling Mani a
foul-mouthed opportunist. Then, later on I saw you using
words like cr*p to attack ISKCON. You talk about how bad
ISKCON is for misrepresenting advaita, then you yourself
do the same thing by taking Ramakrishnan's opinions
about the necessity of a guru as being representative of
the advaita philosophy itself. It should have been
obvious to anyone that he was certainly not a proper
practitioner of that philosophy. You give us your sob
stories about how you made some "mistakes" while you
were associated with ISKCON, apparently alluding to your
ungentlemanly behavior on SRH. Then, after switching
sampradayas and blaming Gaudiya Vaishnavas for your own
shortcomings, you proceed to make even more obnoxious
postings in the name of Maadhva Vaishnavism. When
someone finally gets through to you and shows you how
wrong your behavior is, are you going to switch sides
again, become an advaitist, and talk about how evil the
Maadhvas are because YOU made some "mistakes?"
Manish, your behavior is juvenile. How much longer are
you going to go on smearing others for your own faults?
>
>This is clearly orthogonal to all Vaishnava acharyas' views who stood up
>against the nirguna/saguna division propounded by the advaitis. It is also
>completly violative of the statement of Srimad Bhagvatam that you blindingly
>hold very dear.
It is neither violative of the Bhaagavatam statement,
nor does it support a nirguna/saguna division of the
Supreme Brahman. However, I will not discuss philosophy
with you until you are able to calm down first.
>
>Ofcourse one does not expect a person of your calibre to understand these things.
"Person of your calibre..." This statement of yours
illustrates another difference between you and me. You
see, when you first switched to Maadhva Vaishnavism, I
never publicly or privately insulted you or in any way
made you feel bad about your choice. On the other hand,
despite the fact that I have not provoked you, you have
posted several insinuating and insulting remarks about
me.
Unlike you, I don't take a difference in philosophy as a
cause for personal animosity.
>
>As for my wprds being ugly and begoted, it is no surprise to hear that from
>you, after all you said the exact same thing for Shrisha Rao also in the
>Brahma-Madhva-Gaudia thread when cornered.
Lie. I said no such thing, and I challenge you to prove
it. Go to the SRV archives and provide us with the URL
wherein I called Srisha "ugly or bigoted."
You may have noticed that most of us can have civil
disagreements with Srisha and other members of your
tradition. Yet, you are the only person of that
tradition whose postings we find troublesome. Now,
Manish, have you ever considered the fact that there is
something more going on here besides a difference in
philosophy? Consider for the moment, regardless of how
impossible it may seem, that maybe there is something
wrong with you. I realize that is difficult, seeing as
how you are perfect and all, but maybe if you were able
to sit down and critically examine yourself, you might
discover that you really are not such a great Vaishnava
after all.
regards,
-- H. Krishna Susarla
Artur Fedorowski
Manish Tandon (mta...@hw.stratus.com) wrote:
: try reading some articles in the "itihaasapuraanam panchamam vedaanaam vedam"
: or "What is a valid sampradaaya" to begin with before you start babbling here.
: avidyayam antare vartamanah, svayam dhirah panditam manyamanah
: dandramayamanah pariyanti mudhah, andhenaiva niyamana yathandhah
: Katha Upanisad
: Manish
Dear Sir,
That is still not at least one volume , not mentioning about 30.
What I mean is at least one book written by you that gives a spiritual
alternative for people in general. That would be valid if you dare to
criticize someone who has done so much.
So, I'm sorry but it seems that you did not touch my point and I' m
afraid it is not possible at all.
Since you like quoting I decided to recall this one:
na mam duskritino mudha prapadyante naradhamah
mayayapahrita-jnana asuram bhavam-asritah BG 7.15
You should seriously consider the meaning of this verse since in these
times we are living now it is so easy to commit a spiritual mistake.
I really wish you all the best in your spiritual efforts but humbly ask
you to not continue with this bad propaganda. It will help nor you
neither us.
Hoping you will understand my point,
Akhilalokesa das
:
: ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
: This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96
: Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
: (Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
: ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
--
*******************************************************************************
Artur Fedorowski e-mail: art...@pwr.wroc.pl
Address: University of Medicine
Dept. of Family Medicine
Traugutta 57/59
50-417 Wroclaw phone/fax: +48 71 44-38-67
Home:
Strzegomska 258/25
54-432 Wroclaw phone: +48 71 57-05-63
*******************************************************************************
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Vivek Sadananda Pai
Just a suggestion, but it would be nice to occasionally see anything
on the list of issue you firmly support, should such a list in fact
exist. The easiest way not to be accused of being a misanthrope is to
show some philanthropy. Likewise, the simplest way to get people
interested in Vishnu is to show them what Vishnu is, not all of the
things Vishnu isn't.
-Vivek
Krishna Susarla
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>In article <4rr7nf$d...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Manish Tandon <mta...@hw.stratus.com> wrote:
>>misanthropes?! My list of issues stand firmly against Iskcon/Gaudias and
>
>Just a suggestion, but it would be nice to occasionally see anything
>on the list of issue you firmly support, should such a list in fact
>exist. The easiest way not to be accused of being a misanthrope is to
>show some philanthropy.
Although Manish was unwilling, I decided to go back
through the archives and show you where he brought up
these "issues." The arguments he brings up, as well as
Agraahya's counterarguments, are archived at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srv/1995_12/msg00185.h
tml
You will find that Agraahya adequately addressed
Manish's concerns. Just to be fair, I did an Alta Vista
search to see if Manish ever responded to them, but my
search turned up nothing. Therefore, I can't see why
Manish keeps bringing up these differences as some
justification for his animosity. In any case, I suggest
that if he brings up the same arguments again, simply
refer him to this URL and leave it at that. There is no
need to defeat someone twice over exactly the same
issues.
Hare Krishna
Krishna Susarla
Krishna Susarla <susarla...@TumorA.swmed.edu>
wrote:
>Vivek Sadananda Pai <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4rr7nf$d...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>>Manish Tandon <mta...@hw.stratus.com> wrote:
>>>misanthropes?! My list of issues stand firmly against Iskcon/Gaudias and
>>
>>Just a suggestion, but it would be nice to occasionally see anything
>>on the list of issue you firmly support, should such a list in fact
>>exist. The easiest way not to be accused of being a misanthrope is to
>>show some philanthropy.
>
>Although Manish was unwilling, I decided to go back
>through the archives and show you where he brought up
>these "issues." The arguments he brings up, as well as
>Agraahya's counterarguments, are archived at
>http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srv/1995_12/msg00185.h
>tml
>
>You will find that Agraahya adequately addressed
>Manish's concerns. Just to be fair, I did an Alta Vista
>search to see if Manish ever responded to them, but my
>search turned up nothing. Therefore, I can't see why
>Manish keeps bringing up these differences as some
>justification for his animosity. In any case, I suggest
>that if he brings up the same arguments again, simply
>refer him to this URL and leave it at that. There is no
>need to defeat someone twice over exactly the same
>issues.
Sorry to follow up on my own posting, but I it appears I
misspoke. I did find one response by Manish in the
archives. It is msg # 53 in January 1996 section.
Somehow I missed it in my initial search. In any case,
it was a partial response and not a very convincing one
IMHO. But you should read it also and decide for
yourself.
Shrisha Rao
In article <4s5pne$c...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>In article <4rr7nf$d...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Manish Tandon <mta...@hw.stratus.com> wrote:
>>misanthropes?! My list of issues stand firmly against Iskcon/Gaudias and
>
>Just a suggestion, but it would be nice to occasionally see anything
>on the list of issue you firmly support, should such a list in fact
>exist. The easiest way not to be accused of being a misanthrope is to
>interested in Vishnu is to show them what Vishnu is, not all of the
>things Vishnu isn't.
That's an interesting observation. But is it possible, do you think,
for someone to show what Vishnu *isn't*, and not ipso facto show what
He *is* as well? It may be that within a very limited sense one can
solely show what He is not, but if one does so in a comprehensive
sense, as you seem to suggest by saying "all of the things," then I'm
sure some positive information would be conveyed as well.
And in fact, it is the standard Maadhva practice to _first_ state and
refute the reverse case and _then_ state the positive case, or to
assume a doubt about the possible existence of the reverse, and refute
that by stating the positive. It is impossible to gain a proper
understanding of the fact, unless one understands and discards the
counter-hypothesis as well.
For instance, consider the following:
sadAgamaika vij~neyaM samatIta ksharAksharam.h |
nArAyaNaM sadA vande nirdoshhAsheshha sadguNam.h ||
-- which is the opening verse of the Vishnu-tattva-vinirNaya.
If it looks familiar, it probably is -- it's graced the cover of the
Dvaita Home Page web suite (http://www.rit.edu/~mrreee/dvaita.html)
for over a year now.
The "raw" import of the verse can be stated as:
(Whom) it is possible to know well only from good scriptures, (who
is) comprehensively beyond all that is destructible and
indestructible; (that) NaaraayaNa, I worship always, who is
flawless and of the nature of an uncountable number of good qualities.
If you notice, all the qualities of Vishnu that are stated:
1> He is known only from good scriptures;
2> He is comprehensively beyond the two other kinds of entities;
3> He is always to be worshipped;
4> He is flawless;
5> He is of the nature of uncountable good qualities;
-- are offset against the knowledge of what He is not --
1' He is not known by pratyaksha and/or anumaana;
2' He is not of like stature with the sentients or the insentients;
3' He is not someone of no interest to oneself;
4' He is not flawed;
5' He is not limited in His qualities.
Actually, these five qualities are packaged as 1, 2-3, and 4-5, and
these three units form the topics of discussion in the three
parichchheda-s of the Vishnu-tattva-vinirNaya.
Looking at it one way, 3, 4, and 5 expound upon 2; the initial
statement that Vishnu is known only from sadAgama and comprehensively
superior to all else, would cause one to wonder in what respects it is
that He is so different and superior to them -- the last three points
answer this in sequence.
Looking at it from another perspective, how would one begin to
describe Vishnu to someone, from first principles? Most people would
start by naming such qualities as Omniscience, Omnipotence, etc., but
that approach is practically and logically infeasible, inasmuch as one
cannot understand an entity with such properties for not having any
experience of such, and because more fundamental aspects concerning
the source of such knowledge need to be established first.
Thus, the first property Srimad Achaarya states is that Vishnu is
"sadAgamaika vij~neyaM" -- known from sat.h Agama only.
In this regard, various questions arise (which are dealt with later in
the text) -- why is Vishnu not known from experience, or divine
insight, or logic, and so on? After all, hasn't everyone heard of
Him? Why is scripture necessary or justified? What kind of
scriptures can be called sadAgama, and why? -- etc., etc. These have
formed the bases for many discussions on this newsgroup and its
predecessor, as one recalls, and are also the cause of discussion on
the Dvaita list right now.
After this, the next question that naturally arises is, all right, so
Vishnu is only known from sadAgama, but is He in any way similar to
the sentient and insentient objects of one's experience, or perhaps
even to other divinities? He is known from scripture, but what is He
known *as*? To that, the next point, which answers this, is that He
is
"samatiita ksharaaksharaM" -- comprehensively beyond the kshara, and
the akshara.
Note: "samatiita" is split as "samyak.h atiita," or
"excellently/comprehensively beyond," i.e., not a mere hair's breadth
ahead, but comprehensively, in all respects, etc.
Thus, after learning that He is known only from good scriptures, one
learns that He is totally removed from and ahead of all other
entities. He is "chetanAchetana-vilakshaNa," or "of completely
different nature than the chetana and the a-chetana," or "one without
a second," etc.
All right, so He's all of those things. But so what? Big deal.
Let's just carry on with whatever we were doing. All this is a
useless waste. How is it of any significance to us? To deal with
that doubt in a student's mind, Srimad Achaarya then states
"naaraayaNaM sadaa vande" -- I always worship NaaraayaNa.
In this, the teacher shows _by example_ that Vishnu is to be always
worshipped; the significance of saying "I worship always" rather than
just "[you should] worship always" is that worship ought to be done
according to taaratamya; besides, it also illustrates the proper
attitude of devotion and action. It also conveys that Vishnu's worth
relative to oneself is absolute and unceasing, not relative or
expected to end some day.
The other qualities stated are mere abstracts, and thus do not need
similar illustration, but here, since an action is being stated to
concretely convey the property of `aheyatvaM' or "non-rejectability,"
the Achaarya has to show the student devotee how to perform it; even
to teach someone how to tie a shoelace, one has to show by example,
and under the reasonable assumption that the worship of Vishnu is of a
sophistication matching or exceeding that of tying a shoelace, one
needs someone to follow to learn how to worship.
So far, one knows that Vishnu is known from good scriptures _only_, to
be immeasurably superior to all others, and that He is fit to be
worshipped at all times (i.e., His power, prowess, etc., do not
fluctuate or diminish at any time, and He is not to be rejected or
ignored by oneself). But maybe, in spite of all that, He has a flaw
or two? Maybe His qualities are limited in number or worth? To
answer that, the next point is that He is
"nirdoshhaasheshhasadgunam.h" -- without flaw, and of the nature of an
uncountable number of good qualities.
With all the background of the previous statements, it is finally
stated that Vishnu is free of flaw; at that, one might well wonder if
He isn't like some empty void, which is also in its own way flawless,
but is of no positive virtue. To answer that doubt, the next point is
that He is of uncountable good qualities. In saying
"asheshha-sadguNam.h" (uncountable good qualities) rather than
"asheshha-sadguNa-puurNam.h" (full of uncountable good qualities),
Srimad Achaarya indicates that the qualities are His own self-same
nature, not something apart from Him. This is to quell a doubt as to
whether Vishnu's infinite qualities are gifts bestowed upon Him, are
acquired vestments of some kind, etc.
As may be seen, at every step, it is necessary to understand what
Vishnu is not, in order to gain a proper understanding of what He is
(and in fact, every possible instance of doubt regarding Tattvavaada,
or a counter-claim made by an opposing doctrine, is covered at some
point in the verse, which is a laconic but complete summation of
Hari-sarvottamattva). Notice also that the property of flawlessness
is stated before that of bounteous good qualities -- here, too, the
what-is-not comes before the what-is.
Needless to say, there are an indefinite number of other examples to
be found as well.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>-Vivek
Shrisha Rao
are offset against the knowledge of what He is not --
predecessor, as one recalls, and are also the cause of discussion the
Dvaita list right now.
the Achaarya has to show the student devotee how to do perform it;
even to teach someone how to tie a shoelace, one has to show by
example, and under the reasonable assumption that the worship of
Vishnu is of a sophistication matching or exceeding that of tying a
shoelace, one needs someone to follow to learn how to worship.
So far, one knows that Vishnu is known from good scriptures _only_, to
be immeasurably superior to all others, and that He is fit to be
worshipped at all times (i.e., His power, prowess, etc., do not
fluctuate or diminish at any time, and He is not to be rejected or
ignored by oneself). But maybe, in spite of all that, He has a flaw
or two? Maybe His qualities are limited in number or worth? To
answer that, the next point is that He is
"nirdoshhaasheshhasadgunam.h" -- without flaw, and of the nature of an
uncountable number of good qualities.
With all the background of the previous statements, it is finally
stated that Vishnu is free of flaw; at that, one might well wonder if
He isn't like some empty void, which is also in its own way flawless,
but is of no positive virtue. To answer that doubt, the next point is
that He is of uncountable good qualities, and in fact, in saying