[Advaita-l] Temples , smArtha-s, vaiShNava-s
Jai Simman R. Rangasamy
rjsimman at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 6 22:15:07 CDT 2010
The only thing silly and childish here is to call something the same without actually properly seeking the response of the person whose original comments are under scrutiny. If you wish to make these points, make them to Sri Velukkudi Krishnan and seek his response instead of talking behind his back in a forum where he does not appear. It's become the culture of all forums to entertain cross-posted comments, not seek any clarification from the source of the original comment and then present "counter arguments" in an interactive vacuum. What good will this do?
And I also see comments like "Man accords hierarchical positions to Gods", etc. without actually finding from the men themselves if there is any basis for God according positions to the Gods. Very fanciful terms but terribly biased. For all the evidence given, there is counter evidence too. Krishna's worshipping Shiva to obtain a son has a precedence in another account where He blesses Shiva that in order to honour him for his vishnu bhakti, He shall approach him in His bhauma leela to obtain a son. And so the inter-links can go on.
And regarding pancharatric and hagiographical texts being cited, why not find out from a pancharatrika archaka and someone in the sampradaya who is familiar with these instead of randomly citing 2 separate aspects and linking them in a way that only suits one's case?
Certainly, the Ramanuja sampradaya has such experts and they would be able to provide more learned comments on this. Certainly they would be in the knowhow. Pancharatric texts do mention other deities but in what connection and in what type of relationship? Are these the same as the ideas entertained in a temple operating under the mode of the Shaiva Agama?
And as for deeming deity exclusivity as simply a part of a later day power game, this is speculation at best. Were any of you there at that time to see that this was the case? And bringing another example of Jaina and Buddhist concerns does not make sense. Each issue has to be seen on its own basis, not forcefully linked to drive home one's own opinion and more ridiculously once more, in an arena where there is hardly any counter voice.
Forums such as these are not suitable for cross-posting and if they are used for such purposes, let the participants make no accusations and criticisms that are ad hominem.
And the biggest joke is to make them behind one's back! If you want to posit the Advaitic stance on such matters, present them on the basis of the issue, not call someone else's comments silly, etc. because there are other views too which have shastric precedence and from the view of these, the Advaitic view can also be deemed "silly". We've had enough of these for thousands of years. It's okay to engage in such hot air trumpeting in a closed forum, not an open one.
Before someone starts thinking that I am a Sri Vaishnava seeing my name, let me tell you that I am not.
My foremost point is simple:
Velukkudi Krishnan made the point or has been attributed with the point.
Please go ask him what he meant and pose the pancharatric and other evidences presented and seek his response.
This is what any cultured person seeking to find out things in the proper perspective will do.
Talking behind Velukkudi Krishnan's back and calling his comments silly and childish, etc. only reflects the same on the part of the critics making such a comment for no one seeking to debate or raise issues, does these in the absence of the original source of the comments under scrutiny.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list