Undesirable state of affairs reg. sampradayam

April 10, 2010

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.

Srimath Varavaramunaye Namaha.

Dear Astikas,

I hope the moderator allows this post to get through. I request everyone to read

this, although it is a long post.

Recently, I have noticed a trend in our sampradayam. Comparisons with avaidika

matams like abrahamic religions, and even, comparison of our acharyas with

saints of other religions are becoming rampant. Whether it is a comparison of

azhwars with nayanmars, or Vedantacharya with christian saints, such practices,

in my humble opinion, would never be endorsed by our purvacharyas.

The net result of this is that many christian missionaries (from harvard,

vatican, etc.) have published books on esoteric aspects of our sampradaya, and

attempt to compare them with christianity, and bring about the acceptance of the

abrahamic religions.

However, the mordern day thinking is that if we insist upon this, we are

'narrow-minded'. Everyone is an adiyar by nature, so all religions are correct,

according to these people. This, actually, contradicts the stance of

purvacharyas who have refuted all Veda bahya matams. Any tradition that does not

have a Vedantic backing needs to be rejected (Ref. Vedanta Sangraham, Kuresa

Vijayam, Para Mata Bhangam, Prapanna Paritranam, etc.).

Christianity, Islam, etc. are faiths that fall into a philosophical flaw due to

lack of apaurusheyatva. Essentially, Vedanta does not accept the premise 'God

gave the book, so book exists and book says god exists, so god exists'.

Apaurusheyatva is a tool that weeds out unwanted granthas (including tamasa

granthas like Siva Purana, etc.). The proof of apaurusheyatvam has been

elaborated by Mimamsakas, Swami Ramanuja and others like Sri Madhva as well. We

apply the same measuring scale to granthas like Bible, Koran, etc. They are

invalid, like tamasic puranas because they do not entirely reflect the teachings

of the Veda.

The idea that any Veda Bahya matam is comparable with the parama vaidika matam

is nonsensical, since they lack even the basic concept of karma and rebirths.

Besides, the conception of Brahman as described in the Ubhaya Vedantas is the

most systematic description of reality as it is.

Even in the event of some religions that talk of karma and rebirths (like

Buddhism) or devotion to God (like Saivism, Christianity), they are rejected.

These are the prevalent notions among most advocators of his 'secular and

open-minded' path. I have also indicated my views on the subject:

1) All religions are comparable/equal to Vaishnavism/Vedanta if the followers

are sincere.

My view: No pramanas from Shastra for this.

2) Sriman Narayana and His avataras, are apparently, intellectual myths and just

one 'conception' of god.

My view: If so, there is no way to understand the innumerable pramanas

describing His svarUpa, rUpa gunAs in the Veda and Divya Prabandha. Azhwars and

acharyas like Sri Ramanuja, Sri Desika, Sri MamunikaL never regarded these as

'myths'.

3) Frequent comparisons of acharya/azhwar sri sookthis with Nayanmars, Soundarya

Lahiri, etc.

My view: Regardless of the depth of bhakti in these literatures, This cannot be

reconciled with Shastras that explicitly declare these kshudra devatas as

Jivatmas not yet released from karma, and hence, unfit for meditation (Satapatha

Brahmana, Vishnu Purana, Mahabharata, Br. Up, Mahanarayana Up., Rg Veda,

etc.....)?

4) Comparing the likes of Augustine, Francis De Sales, Rabia, Kabir, etc. with

Vaidika Acharyas is OK.

My view: when it is clear that without a sound tradition of Vedic backing, no

darshanam or religion is valid?

------

Why is the prevalant notion that 'all paths lead to God' so promoted when

Shastras do not advocate it? And why are people who point this out regarded as

'narrow-minded'? As a sensible thinking person, one can see the difference of

thoughts/ideas/philosopy in a religion like christianity and a tradition like

Sri Vaishnavism. Mere 'devotion' to God does not mean all religions are equal,

but a proper understanding of 'Artha Panchakam' is.

I request people to not take this personally. I have seen and read the general

degradation of our sampradayic values personally, and this is a sincere plea to

all knowledgeable bhagavatas to take action in educating sri vaishnavas about

our sampradayam. Christians publishing books on our sampradayic rahasyas must be

unacceptable to many.

Adiyen Varavaramuni Dasan,

Narayana.

April 20, 2010

SrI:|AdiyEn supports Swamin's statement. Comparing our parama vaidIka matam,AchAryas, granthams, SrI sookti's, pAsurams with other matham, books,

sciptures is equivalent to comparing the SUN's brightness with the brightness of SUPREME LORD.

adiyEn,senthil.bOn Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Partha <govi85 wrote:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.

Srimath Varavaramunaye Namaha.

Dear Astikas,

I hope the moderator allows this post to get through. I request everyone to read this, although it is a long post.

Recently, I have noticed a trend in our sampradayam. Comparisons with avaidika matams like abrahamic religions, and even, comparison of our acharyas with saints of other religions are becoming rampant. Whether it is a comparison of azhwars with nayanmars, or Vedantacharya with christian saints, such practices, in my humble opinion, would never be endorsed by our purvacharyas.

The net result of this is that many christian missionaries (from harvard, vatican, etc.) have published books on esoteric aspects of our sampradaya, and attempt to compare them with christianity, and bring about the acceptance of the abrahamic religions.

However, the mordern day thinking is that if we insist upon this, we are 'narrow-minded'. Everyone is an adiyar by nature, so all religions are correct, according to these people. This, actually, contradicts the stance of purvacharyas who have refuted all Veda bahya matams. Any tradition that does not have a Vedantic backing needs to be rejected (Ref. Vedanta Sangraham, Kuresa Vijayam, Para Mata Bhangam, Prapanna Paritranam, etc.).

Christianity, Islam, etc. are faiths that fall into a philosophical flaw due to lack of apaurusheyatva. Essentially, Vedanta does not accept the premise 'God gave the book, so book exists and book says god exists, so god exists'.

Apaurusheyatva is a tool that weeds out unwanted granthas (including tamasa granthas like Siva Purana, etc.). The proof of apaurusheyatvam has been elaborated by Mimamsakas, Swami Ramanuja and others like Sri Madhva as well. We apply the same measuring scale to granthas like Bible, Koran, etc. They are invalid, like tamasic puranas because they do not entirely reflect the teachings of the Veda.

The idea that any Veda Bahya matam is comparable with the parama vaidika matam is nonsensical, since they lack even the basic concept of karma and rebirths. Besides, the conception of Brahman as described in the Ubhaya Vedantas is the most systematic description of reality as it is.

Even in the event of some religions that talk of karma and rebirths (like Buddhism) or devotion to God (like Saivism, Christianity), they are rejected.

These are the prevalent notions among most advocators of his 'secular and open-minded' path. I have also indicated my views on the subject:

1) All religions are comparable/equal to Vaishnavism/Vedanta if the followers are sincere.

My view: No pramanas from Shastra for this.

2) Sriman Narayana and His avataras, are apparently, intellectual myths and just one 'conception' of god.

My view: If so, there is no way to understand the innumerable pramanas describing His svarUpa, rUpa gunAs in the Veda and Divya Prabandha. Azhwars and acharyas like Sri Ramanuja, Sri Desika, Sri MamunikaL never regarded these as 'myths'.

3) Frequent comparisons of acharya/azhwar sri sookthis with Nayanmars, Soundarya Lahiri, etc.

My view: Regardless of the depth of bhakti in these literatures, This cannot be reconciled with Shastras that explicitly declare these kshudra devatas as Jivatmas not yet released from karma, and hence, unfit for meditation (Satapatha Brahmana, Vishnu Purana, Mahabharata, Br. Up, Mahanarayana Up., Rg Veda, etc.....)?

4) Comparing the likes of Augustine, Francis De Sales, Rabia, Kabir, etc. with Vaidika Acharyas is OK.

My view: when it is clear that without a sound tradition of Vedic backing, no darshanam or religion is valid?

------

Why is the prevalant notion that 'all paths lead to God' so promoted when Shastras do not advocate it? And why are people who point this out regarded as 'narrow-minded'? As a sensible thinking person, one can see the difference of thoughts/ideas/philosopy in a religion like christianity and a tradition like Sri Vaishnavism. Mere 'devotion' to God does not mean all religions are equal, but a proper understanding of 'Artha Panchakam' is.

I request people to not take this personally. I have seen and read the general degradation of our sampradayic values personally, and this is a sincere plea to all knowledgeable bhagavatas to take action in educating sri vaishnavas about our sampradayam. Christians publishing books on our sampradayic rahasyas must be unacceptable to many.

Adiyen Varavaramuni Dasan,

Narayana.

April 21, 2010

Jai SrimannarayanaRamanujarya Divyajna vardhatham abhivardhathamMy humble obeisances to all bhagavaths and anantha koti vaishnavas.swami, adiyEn have looked to the mail. We can understand our dear Bhagavath expressing his anguish. adiyEn is not replying upon the subject as adiyEn is not qulaified to speak among the great bhagavathas. Swami, this is kaliyuga. Get the best out of the worst and use it in the service of Lord Srimannarayana and our eternal guru parampara. Many people talk unnecessarily, in adiyEns point of view, it is very difficult to understand Lord and his passtimes by the people who are in the mode of Ignorance (alchocal and meat eating, gambling inshort who dwell with kali purusha ) . We only can do one thing, lets pray for them that Acarya's mercy fall on them. adiyEn's understanding is, the merit gained by chanting

the lords name is 1000 times lesser when guru's name is chanted. They are saying Ramanuja ( let it be in a wrong sense and faulty way of understanding ), at least and they are spreading our sampradaya. When we come accross those people let us be prepared to preach to them about the real facts. For now, let them preach and utter the name of Swami Ramanujacharya and let's pray for them to the lord that one day before the pralaya kala comes, they get association of bhagavathas.adiyEn is the most fallen rascal. adiyEns understanding is very poor and possess dull senses. Please forgive for the mistakes made.ramanujasya charanau saranam prapadhyeIf God bring you to it, he will bring you through it.adiyEn ramanuja dasan--- On Mon, 4/19/10, B. Senthil Kumar <b.senthil2002 wrote:B.

Senthil Kumar <b.senthil2002Re: [sri ramanuja] Undesirable state of affairs reg. sampradayamramanuja Date: Monday, April 19, 2010, 10:26 PM

SrI:|AdiyEn supports Swamin's statement. Comparing our parama vaidIka matam,AchAryas, granthams, SrI sookti's, pAsurams with other matham, books,

sciptures is equivalent to comparing the SUN's brightness with the brightness of SUPREME LORD.

adiyEn,senthil.bOn Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 6:26 PM, Partha <govi85 (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.

Srimath Varavaramunaye Namaha.

Dear Astikas,

I hope the moderator allows this post to get through. I request everyone to read this, although it is a long post.

Recently, I have noticed a trend in our sampradayam. Comparisons with avaidika matams like abrahamic religions, and even, comparison of our acharyas with saints of other religions are becoming rampant. Whether it is a comparison of azhwars with nayanmars, or Vedantacharya with christian saints, such practices, in my humble opinion, would never be endorsed by our purvacharyas.

The net result of this is that many christian missionaries (from harvard, vatican, etc.) have published books on esoteric aspects of our sampradaya, and attempt to compare them with christianity, and bring about the acceptance of the abrahamic religions.

However, the mordern day thinking is that if we insist upon this, we are 'narrow-minded'. Everyone is an adiyar by nature, so all religions are correct, according to these people. This, actually, contradicts the stance of purvacharyas who have refuted all Veda bahya matams. Any tradition that does not have a Vedantic backing needs to be rejected (Ref. Vedanta Sangraham, Kuresa Vijayam, Para Mata Bhangam, Prapanna Paritranam, etc.).

Christianity, Islam, etc. are faiths that fall into a philosophical flaw due to lack of apaurusheyatva. Essentially, Vedanta does not accept the premise 'God gave the book, so book exists and book says god exists, so god exists'.

Apaurusheyatva is a tool that weeds out unwanted granthas (including tamasa granthas like Siva Purana, etc.). The proof of apaurusheyatvam has been elaborated by Mimamsakas, Swami Ramanuja and others like Sri Madhva as well. We apply the same measuring scale to granthas like Bible, Koran, etc. They are invalid, like tamasic puranas because they do not entirely reflect the teachings of the Veda.

The idea that any Veda Bahya matam is comparable with the parama vaidika matam is nonsensical, since they lack even the basic concept of karma and rebirths. Besides, the conception of Brahman as described in the Ubhaya Vedantas is the most systematic description of reality as it is.

Even in the event of some religions that talk of karma and rebirths (like Buddhism) or devotion to God (like Saivism, Christianity) , they are rejected.

These are the prevalent notions among most advocators of his 'secular and open-minded' path. I have also indicated my views on the subject:

1) All religions are comparable/equal to Vaishnavism/ Vedanta if the followers are sincere.

My view: No pramanas from Shastra for this.

2) Sriman Narayana and His avataras, are apparently, intellectual myths and just one 'conception' of god.

My view: If so, there is no way to understand the innumerable pramanas describing His svarUpa, rUpa gunAs in the Veda and Divya Prabandha. Azhwars and acharyas like Sri Ramanuja, Sri Desika, Sri MamunikaL never regarded these as 'myths'.

3) Frequent comparisons of acharya/azhwar sri sookthis with Nayanmars, Soundarya Lahiri, etc.

My view: Regardless of the depth of bhakti in these literatures, This cannot be reconciled with Shastras that explicitly declare these kshudra devatas as Jivatmas not yet released from karma, and hence, unfit for meditation (Satapatha Brahmana, Vishnu Purana, Mahabharata, Br. Up, Mahanarayana Up., Rg Veda, etc.....)?

4) Comparing the likes of Augustine, Francis De Sales, Rabia, Kabir, etc. with Vaidika Acharyas is OK.

My view: when it is clear that without a sound tradition of Vedic backing, no darshanam or religion is valid?

------

Why is the prevalant notion that 'all paths lead to God' so promoted when Shastras do not advocate it? And why are people who point this out regarded as 'narrow-minded'? As a sensible thinking person, one can see the difference of thoughts/ideas/ philosopy in a religion like christianity and a tradition like Sri Vaishnavism. Mere 'devotion' to God does not mean all religions are equal, but a proper understanding of 'Artha Panchakam' is.

I request people to not take this personally. I have seen and read the general degradation of our sampradayic values personally, and this is a sincere plea to all knowledgeable bhagavatas to take action in educating sri vaishnavas about our sampradayam. Christians publishing books on our sampradayic rahasyas must be unacceptable to many.

Adiyen Varavaramuni Dasan,

Narayana.