ramanujadasan

He lived in Malmo, Sweden, with his wife Rasasundari dasi. I met him back in 1984 the first time. He was one of the most active book disributors in Sweden at the time. A short while later he became mentally ill and received treatment in a hospital here. When he got a bit more stable he used to work at the ISKCON restaurant in Malmo. I met him there several times and he was always very friendly. He only talked about the Lord and spiritual practice. Despite all his personal problems he always remained a devotee of Lord Krishna. All glory to Him and His devotees! I just recently found out that he died in a drowning accident about a year ago at the ISKCON farm in the Stockholm area.

ThiruvAimozhi 6.7.1 ********************************** " uNNum sORu paruhu neer thinnum VeRRilaiyumellAm KANNAN , yemperumAnenruenrE kaNkaL neer malhi maNNInuL Avan seer vaLam mikkavanoor vinavi tiNNa menniLa maan puhumoor ThirukkOloorE " " Here the mother of ParAnkusa Nayaki decribes the KrishNA- conscious state of her daughter : " My dear young daughter has gone to ThirukkOLoor . She would not have gone anywhere else. To her , ALL is KrishNA . Food (eaten to satisfy the appetite), water (drunk to quell the thirst ) and betel leaves (chewed for digestion after partaking of food ) are all KrishNA only in her case. Saying KrishNA, speaking of His (auspicious ) qualities , thinking (always ) of Him , she would feel she has eaten and enjoyed . She would not eat food at all since KrishNA-consciousness is enough food for her . Reciting the Lord's names and inquiring of every one that she comes across , " Am I on the right track for ThirukkOLoor ? How far is it from here ? , she would be going. The very thought of the place (of the Lord of ThirukkOLoor ) serves as her (total ) nourishment in her walking- journey ."

ThiruvAimozhi 6.7.1 ********************************** " uNNum sORu paruhu neer thinnum VeRRilaiyumellAm KANNAN , yemperumAnenruenrE kaNkaL neer malhi maNNInuL Avan seer vaLam mikkavanoor vinavi tiNNa menniLa maan puhumoor ThirukkOloorE " " Here the mother of ParAnkusa Nayaki decribes the KrishNA- conscious state of her daughter : " My dear young daughter has gone to ThirukkOLoor . She would not have gone anywhere else. To her , ALL is KrishNA . Food (eaten to satisfy the appetite), water (drunk to quell the thirst ) and betel leaves (chewed for digestion after partaking of food ) are all KrishNA only in her case. Saying KrishNA, speaking of His (auspicious ) qualities , thinking (always ) of Him , she would feel she has eaten and enjoyed . She would not eat food at all since KrishNA-consciousness is enough food for her . Reciting the Lord's names and inquiring of every one that she comes across , " Am I on the right track for ThirukkOLoor ? How far is it from here ? , she would be going. The very thought of the place (of the Lord of ThirukkOLoor ) serves as her (total ) nourishment in her walking- journey ."

Oops, I wasn´t logged in. But that was me who posted the above on Bhagavataparampara, etc.

Oops, I wasn´t logged in. But that was me who posted the above on Bhagavataparampara, etc.

Priya Sriman Mano ! The philosophy expounded by Bhagavad Ramanuja is unarguably complete in all respects. There is a wonderful answer with full authentic support from Vedas for every possible argument. For those who are thorough with the Sasthra, as there is no need to explain in detail every time, Bhagavad Ramanuja explained the concept once very clearly and proceeded. It doesn't mean that it is less explained or incomprehensively explained. Before learning SriBhashyam, good Sanskrit knowledge and some introduction into other subjects like Tharkam, Nyayam etc., along with the theories of what other Vedantha Scholars say is absolutely needed. The way in which the answer is given with self conclusions clearly say that the answer given to the question is not from a scholar of that rank. However, as it is required to clarify the point of their discussion, the basic explanation is given hereunder for your information. There is no need of any inconceivability (achintya) to explain this simple fact of simultaneously possessing oneness and difference to the Supreme "Bramha" . Infact, this inconceivability is an added concept to the actual fact, and it is unnecessary and confusing in this context. As you have rightly understood, according to Bhagavad Ramanuja, the Deha-Dehi relationship itself clearly explains the concept. All Acharyas and scholars after Bhagavad Ramanuja have accepted the Sesha-Seshi relationship, Deha-Dehi relationship as the basis with slight variations according to their interpretations. The statement that " Thus through careful examination both scholars and acaryas of other sampradayas came to conclude that acceptance of Ramanuja's term aprthak-siddhi really involves forgoing logic." is itself INVALID. Because, there is no foregoing of any logic as the concept is very clear. There is no other acharya or scholar (who having fully accepted Vedas) after Bhagavad Ramanuja and who studied so extensively and has mastery over Vedantha, ever denied Bhagavad Ramanuja's authentic explanation. Infact there are great scholars and Acharyas who were amazed at the ease and simplicity and authenticity with which Bhagavad Ramanuja explained the profound facts with nice logic. Also the later acharyas tried to interpret the Bhagavad Ramanuja's description in their own way. The statement that " Indeed, according to Ramanuja himself (Sribhasya 2.2.12), aprthak-> siddhi is not strictly a relation, although his followers such as Vedanta Desika sometimes speak of it as such." is also wrong. Those who haven't learnt SriBhashya in its original script might have said that. Bhagavad Ramanuja never said that Aprthaksiddhi is not strictly a relationship. It is ABSOLUTELY WRONG. It clearly indicates that one who gave the answer is neither an Acharya nor a scholar. It is just an answer of a naive Vedantist. If one is interested to know what is said in 2.2.12 of Sribhashyam you may contact any authentic Sribhashyam scholar or contact us separately. It becomes too big for this mail to accommodate all the subject and the reasons, so its details are not discussed herewith. In the first para of the answer it is said that Gaudiya's do not accept the (swagathabhe:da). Here goes the brief explanation. Swagathabhe:da means, the qualities of the Bramha and the Bramha who possess the qualities are different. There cannot be qualities without one who possess them and evidently both are not the same. This is quite clear which Visishtadwaitha accepts. Visishtadwaitha says that they are one and the oneness owns with the qualified subjects. Here Gaudiyas say that the relationship between the Bramha and the object is inconceivable ( ie.,unthinkable). Dwaithis say that both the qualities and the Bramha are independently different. Adwaithis say that both the qualities and Bramha are the same and there is no any difference at all. Vishistadwaitha says that both the qualities and the Bramha are one but different. How?? Qualities cannot exist without Bramha (like there cannot be colour without any object,) and they are inseparable and exist together as one. There cannot be taste without an object, there cannot be size without an object etc. and taste, size, colour etc. qualities cannot exist separately without any object. But, when they exist with object, they exist such that they are inseparable from the object. Obviously, colour is not the object, size is not the object etc. This type of relationship is called "aprutthaksiddha" relationship. This is very natural and quite clear to the logic. Thus exists the relationship between qualities (or Jivas) and the Supreme Bramha. As qualities are not separable from the object, they are one with the object, but, as they are not the object, they are different from the object. To state clearly with the example, colour is not the object but there cannot be colour without object.We cannot say both colour and object are same. So they are different. That is, they are different but one as a whole. To explain this which is very clear to the logic, there is no need to intrude any new concept called inconceivability (achinthya) in explaining the relationship between Bramha and the Jivas (or Bramha and His qualities). However, from the Gaudiyas point of view it is almost Ramanuja's explanation (as they claim), but, with unneeded concept of " inconceivability " in this context. Inconceivability in proving this relationship is absolutely refuted. It only adds confusion and blurred abstract to the thought. Beware of becoming God !! . Be aware of surrendering to GOD as His subjects. The concept of achinthya (unthinkable or inconceivable) is there even in Ramanuja's explanations, but not in this context. It is there while explaining the extensive form of God in totality. The COMPLETE ABSOLUTE form of that Bramha(Supreme) is something that cannot be thought of by a Jiva. It is far far beyond thoughts. Even Vedas returned, giving up their effort, to explain a single attribute of that Supreme called "A:nanda". There are thousands of such auspicious qualities to that Supreme !! How can one experience such a Supreme IN TOTAL. That form (such an allpervading form) is achinthya ie., inconceivable, ie., beyond thought which cannot be explained. De:ha(body)and de:hi (one who has body). This relationship is explained well with many many proofs from Vedas "anthah pravishtas sa:stha: jana:na:m sarva:thma: " "e:shatha a:thma: antharya:myamruthaha " "yasya:thma: sari:ram" "yasya prutthivi: sari:ram? yasya:pas sari:ram ? yasya the:jas sari:ram" "prutthaga:thma:nam pre:ritha:ram cha mathwa:jushtas thathas the:na:mruthathwam e:thi" Meanings can be known from the authentic commentaries of Acha:rya:s or by approaching realised a:charya:s. This has been clearly explained by Bhagavad Ramanuja in explaining the relationship of Jiva:s with Bramha(Supreme) or the relationship of qualities of the Bramha with the Bramha itself. From the last but one para of the answer "Indeed, careful study of these other doctrines of Vedanta reveals that they implicitly acknowledge the acintya-sakti of the Absolute but are unable to identify it as such " is also ABSOLUTELY INVALID. Can we know what is that "care" in study?? Can they let us know what are those other doctrines of Vedanta that speak so and where ?? Who are unable to identify and where?? It is a sheer biasing. Most of these discussions went on even during those days as to what and how. It is Bhagavad Ramanuja with absolute scholarship after aggressive research on the facts revealed by the Vedas, established the Truth over all other concepts in a most authentic way such that there is NO WAY EVEN TO TOUCH the statement that he proved. Any modification to his statement is only diverting enroute. However in the statement said at the beginning of this para the word "implicitly acknowledge" is something that these so claimed scholars have imposed on the actual fact. It is a sheer imagination and imposition that the relationship is "achinthya" or inconceivable. Is there any proof in the Sasthra any where for this new imposition?? It is a sheer self-conception as a result of the unsubstantial knowledge of the Sasthras or their sayings. Referring to the third para of the answer "this explanation is an improvement on the efforts of Ramanuja and others. Ramanuja and others have struggled to come to grips with the fact that the concepts of either oneness or difference are inadequate to comprehensively explain the nature of the Absolute." is an absurd statement made by some biased claimer in the name of the acharyas. There are a number of realised Acharyas and scholars who accepted Bhagavad Ramanuja's explanation and None had ever dared to speak of such things like incomprehensibility or inadequacy in understanding the established facts, having dwelled into the fathoms of the subject and touched the bottoms of the Divine experiences. Those with bookish knowledge and little knowledge having learnt something a little here and a little there, who were unable to understand the subject inadequately and incomprehensively, with self-biased and self-interpreted knowledge might have said that. That we need not mind at all. Even if hundred people say that it is a donkey showing at the cow, it can never happen !! Cow always gives milk even if you don't accept it as cow !! Realised acharyas have always expressed themselves subject to the realisation and actualisation of the facts with the support of the Sruthis, rather than just imagination or surface stirring. However it is not how we interpret about, that matters. Realisation matters. It is where acceptance of Truth or Not accepting the Truth, plays the role in glorifying the subject. From the standpoint of their view that might be right to them. It is left to the choice of the seeker to understand from the Acharya and experience the Truth "as-it-is" and be blessed by the Divine knowledge. In the above description of the answer it is no where intended against any acharya. Any mistakes are mine. Most of these issues rise due to those who speak their own in the name of the Acharya. May this not happen. Let everyone know the right concept and be led on the path of absolute Truth. Jai Srimannarayana ! srikaryam =krishna ramanuja dasa=

I also like coffee. But I don´t think it is wrong to drink it, and it is not intoxicating. I don´t think service to God is ruined by coffee. Many Christians, monks and priests too, drink coffee and even drink alcohol. But they have devoted their whole lives to God. Maybe you should find another path, which gives you more freedom in regards to "rules and regulations", which are so important in ISKCON and Gaudiya Math. Then you don´t need to have as guilty a conscience as you perhaps have now for drinking coffee. What is the use of carrying on if you can´t follow? Perhaps the sadhana process itself is WRONG for you? Many others have also found out that it doesn´t work. Take a look around...

Jai Sri Krishna! If anyone wants to trade, mail me on madhavaramanujadasa@