[Advaita-l] Temples , smArtha-s, vaiShNava-s
v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
Mon Jun 7 02:15:13 CDT 2010
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Jai Simman R. Rangasamy
<rjsimman at yahoo.com>wrote:
> 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?
I think your above remarks are not warranted. Let me assure you that I have
not made those observations in any manner belittling Sri Velukkudi Krishnan
or Sri Ramanuja. I have with me those speeches that Sri Krishnan delivered
abroad, both in Tamil and English. While delineating on 'how should a
Srivaishnava conduct himself', I suppose that is the topic, he raises a
question: 'People might ask you why do you not visit other temples and
visit only Vishnu temples? ' He replies, in an advisory manner to the
Srivaishnavas of today, that they have the reasoning and example set by Sri
Ramanuja himself, to emulate. Of course, he says elsewhere, that a true
Srivaishnava is one who does not find faults with others. He even gives
examples like: 'these smarthas are like this', etc. such thinking should
not be there with Srivaishnavaites.
The above and the other few speeches that I have with me are not that
abstruse in language or delivery that they need my contacting him for
clarifications. They are simple enough for any reasonably intelligent
person to comprehend their meaning and intention. Also, there is no
'talking behind his back' as you would want it to appear. After all, what
do I gain by doing that? It is only in admiration of his commendable
service to aasthika-s of today that I sought and listened to his talks. If
anyone is interested in getting the collection I have, I may be contacted on
email. By whatever means feasible I can share those talks with others.
> 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.
I am not unaware of all this. I did not mention the 'counter evidences' as
that runs counter to the parama taatparyam of the Lord's teaching. It is
only man, again, that seeks to make a difference between God and God. God
Himself is quite opposed to this. In the Bhagavatam Daksha yajnam portion
the Lord specifically denounces the vision of difference between Himself,
Shiva and Brahma. Here are some references:
1. The Maitrayani Upanishad:
VI prapaathaka, 8th mantra. And the same Self is also called Isana (lord),
Sambhu, Bhava, Rudra (tamasa); Prajapati (lord of creatures), Visvasrig,
(creator of all), Hiranyagarbha, Satyam (truth), Prana (breath), Hamsa
(ragasa); Sastri (ruler), Vishnu <http://everything2.com/title/Vishnu>,
Narayana <http://everything2.com/title/Narayana> (sattvika);
Savitri <http://everything2.com/title/Savitri>, Dhatri (supporter), Vidhatri
(creator), Samrag (king), Indra <http://everything2.com/title/Indra>, Indu
(moon). He is also he who warms, the Sun, hidden by *the thousand-eyed
golden egg*, as one fire by another. He is to be thought after, he is to be
sought after. Having said farewell to all living beings, having gone to the
forest, and having renounced all sensuous objects, let man perceive the Self
from his own body.
(Incidentally, this Up. Is quoted by Madhwa in the Vishnu Tattva Vinirnaya.
See this link):
2. The Ganapatyatharva shIrsha Upanishad:
त्वं ब्रह्मा त्वं विष्णुस्त्वं रुद्रस्त्वं इन्द्रस्त्वं (You are Brahma,
Vishnu, Rudra, Indra….)
(In this Upanishad, belonging to the Atharva Veda, popularly chanted in many
traditions, Lord Ganapati is depicted as the Supreme Brahman and all other
deities are spoken of as manifestations of this Consciousness.)
3. SrimadBhagavatam: Daksha yajna (IV.7.50 – 54)
(50) *Lord Vishnu said: 'I, Brahmâ and Lord S'iva as well, do not differ in
being the supreme cause and Supersoul, the witness and the self-sufficient
one of the material manifestation.**) Him the Supreme Brahmân that is
without a second, is as one Supersoul with both Brahmâ and S'iva, but the
living ones who are not conversant with this, think of them as being
separate.* (53) The way a person sometimes does not make a difference
between the head, hands and other parts of his own body, so does *My devotee
thus make no difference between living beings. (54) He who having the one
nature of the three, verily does, of the Supersoul in all beings, not see
the separateness, o brahmin, realizes the peace.'***
4. Bhagavadgita: 10.23:
[The Lord says ‘I am Shankara (Shiva) among the (eleven) Rudras.’]
I am also aware of at least one instance where Krishna and Shiva fought with
each other. See also:
Here is a talk. in Tamil, recently delivered by Dr.K.Srinivasan on how
Kalidasa viewed the Tri murtis Brahma Vishnu and Shiva:
> 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!
I have made myself clear on this. There is absolutely no joke involved
here. We are not jokers and this forum is not a circus show.
> 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".
Surely I have not called them 'silly'. I reported facts as facts and even
added that 'I am not having any objections to their practices. It is their
prerogative'. If you have not noticed this, it is only unfair on your part
to make accusations.
> 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.
Most forums are only 'closed' forums. There are great advantages in having
them so. There are open forums also where only quarrels thrive and no true
knowledge seeking and gaining arises. You have plenty of them on the
internet. In closed forums there is a method of keeping out those elements
that are committed to creating trouble. This is not possible in the
so-called open forums. Forums of all persuasions such as Advaita, Dvaita
have such norms which they strictly invoke whenever occasion arises. I am
aware of members of opposing persuasions being shown the door by these
forums. This is not stifling criticism, at least by advaita.
> My foremost point is simple:
> Velukkudi Krishnan made the point or has been attributed with the point.
You are welcome to seek the speeches from me and know for yourself whether
anything at all was attributed to him.
With warm regards,
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list