[Advaita-l] Regarding Padmanabhaswamy
venkat_advaita at yahoo.com
Thu Jul 13 02:20:46 EDT 2017
Many points closer in principle - that Ramanuja stands out as a philosopher - but from various Chola period inscriptional, literary evidences what we clearly know (says Dr. Nagaswamy) is that there is no evidence of persecution by Chola or anyone; rather there are evidences to the contrary. In fact, Dr. Nagaswamy explains that there is no inscriptional evidence that Ramanuja had any active role in that temple; and the various legends playing a victim card are quite curious on the face of what these historical evidences we get.
In fact Dr. Nagaswamy points out - how in the Apashurdradhikarana it is Ramanuja who takes a stern stand as compared to how Bhagavadpada has explained things.
The whole work (Ramanuja - Myth and Reality) is worth a read.
Once a Jeer had come to our Housing Society here for the house warming of his shishyas. When he saw me (a smartha) that jeer told in his speech.....we have Panini etc. who are tatasha ....unlike these Advaitins. I could easily feel I was like a oddman in that crowd.
An aberration here:- I in fact requested Dr. Nagaswamy if he can write a similar exposition on Bhagavadpada too. He said his work is underway.
Thanks & Regards, Venkat. Sadgurubhyo Namah.
From: Sriram Sankaranarayanan via Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
To: A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Cc: Sriram Sankaranarayanan <ssriram1992 at icloud.com>
Sent: Thursday, 13 July 2017 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Regarding Padmanabhaswamy
The statements refer to Shankaracharya, Sureswaracharya and Sarvajnaatman
because they, or Advaitis as a whole are the "Mahapurvapakshis" he chose
for his bhashyam.
I would like to add to Sri Subrahmanian mahodayah's pdf. The type of
arguments I have seen in many Vishishtadvaiti works have words and phrases
not worthy of being said by a learned person.
For example, in Vedanta Desika's paramata bhanga, -
http://cincinnatitemple.com/articles/ParamathaBhangam.pdf - the following
is a summary of how Advaita is refuted.
Advaitis are similar to the clarity-less Buddhas and are hence wrong -
(செறிவில்லா புத்தருடன் சேர்ந்து கெட்டார்). In particular, he refers to
Yogachara, as translated by a vishishtadvaiti himself. Now why is Yogachara
wrong? Because he is like a crow (The kakasura of Ramayana)! And his
doctrine has been destroyed. If not for the extrapolated meaning by the
commentator, the words by Vedanta Desika (in Tamil) in the above work is
full of ad hominem.
And forget these two, almost in every refutation there, the argument would
be weighed more by calling the purvapakshi as "stupid" or "fool" or
"laughable", rather than a shruti/logic based counter-argument. The entire
work is not Bhangam for any matam, but his own - by showing how shallow the
arguments they have for their philosophy.
The type of maturity, and logical and shruti-based refutation of
purvapakshi, without resorting to verbal abuse, but by very calm and
objective sentences as done by Bhagavadpaada, is unfortunately absent in
many of the works of Ramanuja and Vedantadesika.
Rightly following the foot-steps of their purva-acharyas, even modern day
Vishishtadvaitis fill their lectures with lots of misinformation. For
example, Velukkudi Krishnan claims Shankara considered Vishnu only (in his
Saguna form) as parabrahman which is a gross misinformation, not sure if it
was or wasn't deliberate. It shouldn't be surprising that somebody who
could resort to a work full of ad-hominems and multiple works filled with
misinformation, resort to desperately playing the victim card for getting
an upper hand in a debate.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Shashi via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> How do we know those statements refer to Shankara, Sureshwara, and
> Sarvajnaatman specifically? If we don't know for sure, I'm afraid the
> article is unduly inflammatory.
> Sent from my iPhone
> > On Jul 12, 2017, at 8:52 PM, V Subrahmanian via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 9:27 PM, Aditya Kumar <kumaraditya22 at yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Thanks. It is clear that the Cholas were Vaidiks and not Shaivas or
> >> Vaishnavas(or anti-vaishnavas). Now I am just thinking out loudly, was
> >> Ramanujacharya a heretic (as in, shunning everything related to
> >> Shiva/Shankaracharya) and then played the victim card?
> > Here are some statements from Ramanuja and Vedantadesika against
> > Shankaracharya/advaitins and Advaita:
> > http://www.mediafire.com/file/nw59e9a94la4vso/Ramanuja_1000_K.pdf
> > regards
> > vs
> >> No offence to any great gurus or their devotees, this is just an
> >> interest.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
To unsubscribe or change your options:
For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list