tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post1450812827533856665..comments2024-03-26T13:00:38.287+05:30Comments on Narayanastra – Defending Vaishnavism as the supreme Vedic position: Keshi Suktam and the Sharabha-Narasimha episodeHumble Bhagavata Bandhuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-33629351419510248132019-01-07T09:58:37.349+05:302019-01-07T09:58:37.349+05:30Garuda being the swallower of Hala-Hala Visha is m...Garuda being the swallower of Hala-Hala Visha is mentioned very clearly in this Atharva Veda Samhita mantra:<br /><br />suparNas tvA garutmAn viSha prathamam Avayat |<br />nAmImado nArUrupa utAsmA abhavaH pituH ||(AVS 4.6.3)<br /><br />Meaning: O Poison! Garutman of bright feathers, consumed you first of all (before Rudra). You could not oppose him or make him intoxicated (ie, afflicted); you became a drink or food [for him].<br /><br />This clearly proves that the devata of the Keshi Sukta is Garuda as we mentioned in the article above.<br /><br />It also proves that Rudra did not drink the hala-hala visha by himself as argued by Shaivas. Note the usage of "prathamam" -- it means, Garuda drank the poison first, implying there was someone else (Rudra) who drank it after him. Garuda drained the poison of its potency by drinking the bulk of it and then allowed Rudra to drink it. <br /><br />It also rejects the contention of dvaitins that the "vAyu" mentioned to be the drinker of poison in Padma Purana is the wind-god and proves that "vAyu" there refers to only Garuda who is speedy like the wind.<br /><br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-72752582692894043792018-11-13T23:27:07.104+05:302018-11-13T23:27:07.104+05:30This comment has been removed by the author.Pratyush pandeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191765088550866688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-57055091896235668442018-06-27T10:32:46.862+05:302018-06-27T10:32:46.862+05:30Tatparya Chandrika, 18.66Tatparya Chandrika, 18.66Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-47644435399229048862018-06-25T18:53:21.069+05:302018-06-25T18:53:21.069+05:30Where has Vedanta Desika called Shankara as a Vais...Where has Vedanta Desika called Shankara as a Vaishnava?Shrivathsahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05711814085314518306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-21197520205895206522017-06-10T22:53:23.157+05:302017-06-10T22:53:23.157+05:30One last observation, as a clincher for this.
In...One last observation, as a clincher for this. <br /><br />In the sahasranAma, one of the names for bhagavAn is "vAyu vAhana". Bhattar's commentary is that "vAyu" signifies garuDa, the King of Birds, on account of his swift movement. The full meaning of the nAma is that bhagavAn uplifts those who have fallen in samsAra, using garuDa, who is "vAyu" as he is swift.<br /><br />So, we have a shAstric pramANa referring to garuDa as vAyu as well.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-30526194440397228962017-06-07T19:26:37.561+05:302017-06-07T19:26:37.561+05:30Then, the last mantra here. “vAyurasmA upAmanthat…...Then, the last mantra here. “vAyurasmA upAmanthat…”<br /><br />“Ajita, who is vAyu as he moves towards his devotees, ie, the devas and hurts the asurAs (kunannamA), churned the ocean to bring up (the poison). Garuda, who is endowed with feathers like shining rays of light, together with Rudra, drank the poison.”<br /><br />As the purANa verse said, only “kEshI” denotes Garuda here. “vAyu” still denotes Ajita.<br /><br />There you go. This sUkta has garuDa as its’ devata, and thus can be interpreted in two ways, for both garuDa and paramAtma. This has been done.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-51142973658522318922017-06-07T19:25:42.646+05:302017-06-07T19:25:42.646+05:30Now, the fifth mantra, vAtasyAsvo vAyoH…
“By the ...Now, the fifth mantra, vAtasyAsvo vAyoH…<br /><br />“By the deva (Garuda), is the muni (the jIva who meditates) impelled (towards Brahman, by cutting off material attachments), who is well-disposed (Sakha) with the jIva who is transmigrating ceaselessly in samsAra (vAyu), whose mind (vAtaH) is swollen or full (ashva) of material desires. Away from the two collections (of puNya and pApa karmas) abides he (Garuda), who is prior or ancient (as he is a nitya sUri or eternally liberated) and also inferior to, ie, subordinate to paramAtma.”<br /><br />Garuda is known as the one who destroys the poison of material attachments. “pUrva utAparaH” means he is a nityasUri or eternally liberated, hence he is prior to the baddhasand muktAs. But he, being a jIva, is inferior to the Lord and dependent on him.<br /><br />The sixth mantra “apsarasAm” remains the same, whether it is taken as referring to the Lord or Garuda. In Garuda’s case “svAdurmadintamaH” – he is self-dependent, means that as he is eternally liberated, he is not dependent on anyone or anything other than the Lord. When taken as referring to the Lord, it means he is independent.<br /><br />(Continued below)Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-41312249238055909742017-06-07T19:23:39.057+05:302017-06-07T19:23:39.057+05:30Here is the meaning of the fourth mantra – “antari...Here is the meaning of the fourth mantra – “antarikShEnapatati…”<br /><br />“Garuda is the muni (one who meditates on the Lord), who is agreeable to his essential nature of seshatva (hitaH) as he is always serving the Lord as his vehicle and well-disposed to all jIvAs as he always brings the Lord swiftly to them in times of need, as he did for Gajendra the Lord of elephants (sakhA). He belongs (as a property/vibhUti) to the effulgent god, for the purpose of acting well or in a manner agreeable to the Lord of shrI (devasya saukR^ityAya), which is to bring him quickly to the devotees who are dear to him. He traverses through the samsAra mandala that is called “air” as it is full of jIvAs who are transmigrating ceaselessly (antarikShEnapatati), perceiving (avacakSte) the jIvas who are (in their natural condition), complete forms of the Lord (vishvArUpA).”<br /><br />The jIvAs are the body of the Lord and hence they are called “rUpAs” or forms. In their natural condition, when they are divested of karmas, they are omniscient and possess the 8 attributes of apahatapApmatva, etc, so they are called “viSvaM”. This rk says that Garuda is always perceiving them, ie, he knows their sufferings and is eager to bring the Lord to them, to save them.<br /><br />(Continued below)<br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-70734551140315683662017-06-07T19:21:05.396+05:302017-06-07T19:21:05.396+05:30With the above knowledge, let us look at the sUkta...With the above knowledge, let us look at the sUkta from the perspective of garuDa as the devata.<br /><br />“kEShi” means one who possesses “kESha-s” or rays of light. Garuda is known as “suparNa”, and he possesses feathers which are shining like rays of light. Thus, this name refers to him alone (besides the Lord, who is the referent of every name anyway).<br /><br />For the first rk, these are the meanings.<br /><br />1) The one who is endowed with feathers like shining rays of light, bears (as the vehicle) the Lord who is “agni” as he leads all out of samsAra and to moksha.<br /><br />2) The one who is endowed with feathers like shining rays of light, bore or endured the poison (hAlahAlaviSha)<br /><br />3) The one who is endowed with feathers like shining rays of light, sustains the body which is known as “earth” (rodasI) as he is the presiding deity of the prANas that nourish the body.<br /><br />4) The one who is endowed with feathers like shining rays of light, has the perception of the supreme abode (svardRsE) which is “viSvaM” or complete, as he is eternally liberated. <br /><br />5) This kEshI (ie, such a one with the attributes described earlier), who is endowed with feathers like shining rays of light, is thus called “jyOti” as he is the “vedAtma”, the soul of the vedas, who illumines the meaning of the Vedas.<br /><br />The second and third mantrAs have the same meaning when taken for both bhagavAn as well as garuDa. No changes.<br /><br /> (Continued below)<br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-59722896308002128922017-06-07T17:02:57.675+05:302017-06-07T17:02:57.675+05:30Addendum: In the garuDa dandakam, shrI vedAnta des...Addendum: In the garuDa dandakam, shrI vedAnta desikan mentions the following:<br /><br />1) He hails garuDa as "prANApAnAdi bhedAt pratitanu maruta daivataM" based on the pAncharatra declaring garuDa's 5 forms as the presiding deities of the 5 prANas.<br /><br />2) The AchArya says garuDa destroys the poison of material attachments or samsAra.<br /><br />Then the most telling detail in the garuDa dandakaM. ShrI nigamAnta mahAguru then gives a beautiful description - the kaustubha maNi of the Lord always has the reflection of garuDa's form, as the latter is the vehicle of the Lord, by virtue of angle. <br /><br />AchArya claims that the kaustubha maNi is ever afraid of being contaminated by the hAlahAla viSha that arose out of the milky ocean and thus has garuDa's reflection to ward away the poison!<br /><br />Serms like the AchArya is clearly hinting the incidence of garuDa swallowing the poison. That settles it.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-6431994945391075432017-06-07T14:54:51.923+05:302017-06-07T14:54:51.923+05:30(Continued from above)
Besides these, there are s...(Continued from above)<br /><br />Besides these, there are sufficient pramANas to prove that this deity is Garuda, as follows:<br /><br />taMdR^iShTvA ghora saN^kAshaMprAdurbhUtaM mahAviSham.h | dhyAtvAnArAyaNaM devaM hR^idayE garuDadhvajaM.h || ~ Brahma purANa<br /><br />Meaning: Seeing that terrible poison emerging, (Shiva) meditated on nArAyaNa, the effulgent God, Garudadhvaja, residing in the heart.<br /><br />Note the mention of “garudadhvaja” – The Lord who has Garuda as his banner. This implies that Garuda was instrumental in helping Shiva on behalf of the Lord.<br /><br />yEnajIrNaM ca garaLaMkaNThasthaM cakapAlinaH|antarAtma dhR^itaM tasyahR^idayEgaruDadhvaja ||<br /><br />Meaning: It was only due to kapAlin (Shiva) meditating on the Lord, who is garuDadhvaja, indwelling in the heart, that he was able to digest the terrible poison, right in his neck.<br /><br />Again, “garuDadhvaja” is mentioned. Why else, if not to highlight that he was the one who acted on behalf of the Lord for saving Shiva? His ability to kill and eat poisonous snakes thus implies that he was most suited to drinking the poison.<br /><br />Thus, garuDa is the “vAyu” mentioned in the incident as all logic points to it. <br /><br />If anyone is going to question why garuDa's name is not explicitly mentioned, the answer is because the context suits calling him "vAyu". Even in the mahabhArata, it is said "dharma saved Draupadi" instead of saying "krishNa" directly . Here "dharma" means krishNa, the eternal means (dharma), so it is a question of using names as per context.<br /><br />Of course, there is yuga bhEda– in some yugAs, shiva meditates on garuDa and nArAyaNa, and drinks all the poison himself (as per the account in the bhAgavataM). In other yugAs,garuDa directly appears to drink the poison.<br /><br />The keshI sUkta is thus a praise of paramAtma with garuDa as the devata. This can be taken as it has purANic sanction. Dual meanings for garuDa and nArAyaNa can be provided.<br /><br />We have already provided the meanings that pertain to paramAtma. I will shortly summarize the meanings that relate to garuDa as "keshI". <br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-50259102779102081192017-06-07T14:54:25.922+05:302017-06-07T14:54:25.922+05:30Dear all,
Regarding the keshi sUkta, we have some...Dear all,<br /><br />Regarding the keshi sUkta, we have some additional details to share.“keshI” refers to bhagavAn who is the antaryAmin of ka (Brahma) and Isa (Shiva). But we found out it can refer to another deity, who is the devatA for this sUkta.<br /><br />padma purANa samvAda between shiva and pArvati, extols the deity “vAyu” for drinking the hAla-hAla viShaM and refers to him as “kEshi” as follows:<br /><br /><br />mahAviShaM mahAghoraMsaMvartAgnisamaprabham |dRRiShTvApradudruvuH sarve bhayArtA devamAnatAH |tatastadvidrutAndRRiShTvA brahmAlokapitAmahaH | jagAda vAyuM tarasAharerAj~nApuraHsaram | niHsheShaM kuru vAyotvaM lokasaMhArakaM viSham | tvadanyo nAstimad grastuM sarvajIvahitaM kuru | itidhAturvachaH shrutvA dashapramatirabravIt |<br /><br />bhakShayAmi harerAj~nAM puraskRRityavidhervachaH | harernAmochchAraNenatadbhaktyA cha visheShataH | sarvavyAdhiviShaMghoraM pAtre nyasya kare dadhat | bindumAtraMpRRithaggRRihya tadviShaM mardayaMstataH |parIkShaNArthaM chAnyeShAM devAdInAM chapArvati | mama haste dadau ki~nchidbhakShasvetimArutaH | iti nAmamAtreNa sahitaMmantrAnugrahamAdishan |tadvishaprAshanAdeva mama dAhobhyavardhata| jihvAgradhAraNAdeva mama prANA vinirgatAH |kRRipayA pavamAnasya tathA nAmatrayeNa cha |achyutAnantagovindanAmamAhAtmyataHshubhe | jIvitosmi tadA kAleviShNornAmatrayAdaho | pashchAttu tadviShaMsarvamekIkRRitya sa pAtrake | anAyAsAtpapauvAyuH sarveShAM rakShaNAya cha | hareshchaprItaye devi brahmaNo vachanAttathA |RRichobruvaMshcha devasya keshItibrahmavAdinaH | itthaM vAyormahattvaM hiviShNubhaktasya pArvati | iti | (~ Padma Purana)<br /><br /><br />These slOkas in a nutshell, say that bhagavAn summoned the deity known as “vAyu” and “pavamAna”, and by his orders, this deity drank the bulk of the poison (giving a portion to shiva) and saved the worlds with ease. This deity is mentioned to be the devata of the keshI sUkta.<br /><br />We are aware of how mAdhvas interpret this. I'm providing the sri vaishnava view. Readers can choose.<br /><br />This deity is Garuda, who is called vAyu here. The following are the pramANas.<br /><br />1) There are five forms of Sri Garutman, according to Sri SAtvata Samhita of pAncarAtra Agama-"Satya: SuparNa: Garuda: Tarkshyastu VihagEswara:", each of whom is the presiding deity for PrANa, apAna, vyAna, udAna and samAna. In that sense, Garuda is termed as “vAyu”. The context is appropriate, as Garuda, who is the presiding deity of prANa that sustains life, saved the lives of all by drinking the poison. <br /><br />2) Garuda is also called vAyu on account of being the vAhana of the Lord, and he moves like wind. The context is also appropriate for this meaning, as the term “harerA~jnA” implies that at the command of the lord, he swiftly obeyed him, this swiftness at executing the command thus implied by the name “vAyu”. <br /><br />3) Garuda is called “pavamAna” because he is “vedAtma”, the embodiment of the Veda and thus purifies all. Alternatively, he is an amShaof SankarshaNa, who purifies the mind. He is called “kEshI” because he is “suparNa”, very brilliant and shining, thus he possesses rays of light (kEsha-s). Thus, Garuda is the devata for kEshI sUkta, which describes the Lord.<br /><br />4) Garuda can drink any posion as he, being the King of Birds, feeds on poisonous snakes. It is his prime ability.<br /><br />(Continued)<br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-44682015043778187622016-07-05T06:13:34.420+05:302016-07-05T06:13:34.420+05:30A nice interpretation of Kesi suktam. A nice interpretation of Kesi suktam. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-68769756333776660882016-06-27T05:28:27.393+05:302016-06-27T05:28:27.393+05:30That person Vijay Vittala came back with some nons...That person Vijay Vittala came back with some nonsense such as vishNu is not born in tamil nadu, vyasaraja tirtha was rajaguru of vijayanagara, adi sesha accomplished nothing, bhIma accomplished everything etc. Seems like he lacks a basic knowledge of how to enter into a vedAntic debate, and neither is this the place for it. <br /><br />So, we will not post his silliness here. Just something I'd like to clarify though. This ignoramus claimed balarAma was an avatara of adi sesha and sided with dUryodhana, so it means adi sesha was doing something wrong. He doesn't know that sri vaishnavas consider balarAma to be the avatara of adi sesha *with the amSha of bhagavan*. That is why balarAma is included in the count of bhagavad avatArAs, even in the purAnAs. In contrast, lakshmaNa, who was a pUrna avatAra of adi sesha without bhagavad AvEsha, and who exhibited perfect devotion to srI rAma, is not included in the count.<br /><br />Though balarAma was the avatAra of adi sesha, the AvEsha of vishNu (sankarshana) was in him and therefore, bhagavAn expressed himself through balarAma avatAra at times, especially in adulthood when he sided with dUryodhana, opposed krishNa, etc. This is nothing but the incredible leela of the Lord (the AvEsha in balarAma), who of course can even oppose himself (krishNa), expressing his shakti through adi sesha. The acts of devotion to krishNa was due to balarAma's nature as adi sesha, whereas the leelas of supporting dUryodhana, etc were that of bhagavAn.<br /><br />Dvaitins on the other hand, think that balarAma is an avatAra of adi sesha alone as they do not accept the concept of AvEsha avatAra in their system (they even accept parashurAma and veda vyAsa as pUrna avatAras whereas these are jIvAs with bhagavad AvEshAs for sri vaishnavas). We do not encourage further debate on this, but would ask future posters to first learn other sampradAyAs properly without mudslinging unnecessarily. <br /><br />This Vijay Vittala probably knows nothing about the nuances of debate and his blind faith in his dvaita darShana makes him over-enthusiastic perhaps. In that respect, he's no different to veerashaiva or the author of the mahApaShupatastra blog. In future, we will not allow his posts.Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-64044331984330682682016-06-25T01:08:39.964+05:302016-06-25T01:08:39.964+05:30There is something else which caught my attention....There is something else which caught my attention. It's an interesting topic whose discussion I have observed for a long time, so perhaps this would be the ideal spot to clarify it once and for all. This Vijay Vittal person made the claim that balarAma was an avatAra of Adi Sesha. Actually, this is a common misconception of the sri vaishnava position. LakshmaNa was the pUrna avatAra of Adi Sesha and this can be clearly seen in his demeanor towards Sri Rama, which was one of absolute devotion and servitude. balarAma on the other hand, was an avatAra of bhagavAn himself, but with the amSha (AvEsha avatAra) of Adi Sesha. During balarAma's childhood, the Adi Sesha amSha predominated and he exhibited devotion to Krishna. When he was fully grown, bhagavad amSha predominated and he was more independent, even choosing to oppose krishNa (as part of the leela) and support dUryOdhana at times. That is the incredible leela of bhagavAn (to oppose his own avatAra) and not the character of adi sesha. At the same time, the adi sesha amSha was also there with balarAma till the end, as the vishNu purAna (I believe) describes a white serpent ascending the heavens after coming out of balarAma's body.<br /><br />This is also why balarama is often included among the count of bhagavad avatArAs, but lakshmaNa is not. It's not for the sake of being argumentative, but I have even seen some sri vaishnavas misunderstand balarAma as a pUrna avatAra of adi sesha, which is inaccurate according to our tradition. <br /><br />In contrast, the mAdhvas consider balarAma as an pUrna avatAra of adi sesha as they do not have the AvEsha concept in their system. This is where the two sampradAyas differ. Just FYI, we do not endorse arguments here. Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-11211264954515966762016-06-24T23:32:32.127+05:302016-06-24T23:32:32.127+05:30Dear all,
We received some more stupid comments f...Dear all,<br /><br />We received some more stupid comments from that "vijay vittala" person talking some nonsense that "vishNu was not born in tamil nadu, adi sesha accomplished nothing, but vAyu accomplished everything, vyasarAja tirtha was rajaguru of vijayanagara empire, etc...". For obvious reasons, we did not allow it to be published.<br /><br />I thought veerashaiva and the author of the mahApaShupatastra were unique breeds on the internet, but it seems like there are some among our dvaitin friends as well. Can't blame sensible shaivas or vaishnavas for these characters I guess. Anyway, just FYI, this silliness stops here.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-37330038925597315772016-06-24T14:53:34.071+05:302016-06-24T14:53:34.071+05:30This is not a site for debating advaita vs vishish...This is not a site for debating advaita vs vishishtadvaita vs dvaita. Let me just clarify a few things and close the topic.<br /><br />1) We are Sri vaishnavas and therefore not inclined to interpret every reference to "vAyu" as Sri mAdhva or mukhya prANa/vAyu devatA, unless a proper proof exists which warrants such reference.<br /><br />2) The balittha sUkta is interpreted by dvaitins as describing the prowess of vAyu/hanumAn equated to srI mAdhva whereas Sri vaishnavas interpret that sUkta as pertaining to upAsaNa or bhakti yOga without references to specific personalities or deities.<br /><br />3) For every vAyu purANa quote describing the avatAra of Sri mAdhva, one can find a brahmAnda purANa quote describing the avatAra of Sri rAmAnuja as adi sesha or matsya purANa talking about srI shankara as an amSha of Shiva. So, unless the darshaNa is proven correct via debate, there is no obligation to accept such proofs of avatAra.<br /><br />4) If carnatic music is a standard for acceptance of a guru, then we have Sri RamadasaTl of the famous Bhadrachalam shrine snd Sri Tallapakkam Annamayya who was a Sri vaishnava making Tirupati itself a predominantly vaikhAnasa Sri vaishnava sthala, Ramananda and Tulasidas who were so influenced by the rAma bhakti in pillar look acharya's works that they spread rAma nAma throughout North India- much of the rAma bhakti in the north is derived from tulsidas' works. Vallabhacharya learned the nuances of temple worship at vAnamAmalai and brought those customs to Dwaraka. The influence of Sri rAmAnuja can also be seen at puri jagannatha (cite. Lakshmi shrine and Emar Mutt, which is a shortened form of "EmperumAnAr" mutt, a name of srI rAmAnuja.<br /><br />5) Sri vAdiraja tirtha was influenced by the "arayar sevais" of srirangam involving renditions of Sri vaishnava azhwar pasurams in tamil and was inspired to similarly communicate the message of dvaita in kannada. This began the carnatic movement of the mAdhva sampradaya.<br /><br /><br />None if these factors are important for establishing the truth of a darshana. Only what us said in debate matters. As bhagavan himself says in gita, one in a million reach him and hence popularity/influence is not a factor to gauge authenticity.<br /><br /> We respect srI mAdhva as we respect srI shankara and other gurus. We enjoy purandara data's krithis as much as we do annamayya's. Let us leave it at that.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-91800084217753261532016-06-24T14:13:55.703+05:302016-06-24T14:13:55.703+05:30You are entitled to your interpretations of the sU...You are entitled to your interpretations of the sUktas. But it is ridiculous to expect us to accept such interpretations.Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-1972676701510558442016-06-24T14:12:26.672+05:302016-06-24T14:12:26.672+05:30Dear reader,
What makes you upset? We have not de...Dear reader,<br /><br />What makes you upset? We have not denigrated madhvAcArya anywhere here and we consider him respectable.<br /><br />Please make your response relevant to the discussion. Otherwise such postings will not be approved in future.<br /><br />And if you do not care for what we say, why did you bother responding in our discussions?Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-41739634476431280832016-06-24T12:19:37.001+05:302016-06-24T12:19:37.001+05:30go and read rig veda balitha sukta praises madhvac...go and read rig veda balitha sukta praises madhvacharya, vamana purana praises madhvacharya, vayu purana also praises madhvacharya, not only madhvacharya even padmanabha thirtha and vadiraja thirtha name is mentioned in vamana purana and ragavendra swami south indian famous saint, puranadara dasa is father of carnatic music all are followers madhvacharya so we dont care what other saysvijay vittalanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-54079438869839674762015-08-31T16:56:30.825+05:302015-08-31T16:56:30.825+05:30We do not want this discussion to continue here, s...We do not want this discussion to continue here, so let this be the last post. Having said that, I cannot help but address some mistaken views since they have unfortunately been posted here. <br /><br />"so srila bhaktivinod thakur atleast from gaudiya vaishnava point of view has infact glorified ramanujacharya....as taking part in supreme lord's pastime even as poor old man is glorious...."<br /><br />This is completely wrong. Because for one thing, Vishishtadvaitins do not consider sri chaitanya as an avatara of bhagavan. This is because his philosophy of achintya bheda abheda is a wrong conclusion according to sri vaishnavas and hence, what is said by that tradition does not warrant acceptance outside of that tradition. Even were it proven that sri chaitanya was an avatara, it would not be a worshippable avatara for sri ramanuja since a wrong philosophy was propagated by bhagavan in that avatara then. So, what bhaktivinoda thakura has said is definitely insulting for sri vaushnavas; especially so as it seems to be a clear concoction. <br /><br /> There is no need for ISKCON to segregate "mayavada" from other philosophies like a judeo-christian concept of satan vs devil. In sri ramanuja's eyes, advaita, dvaita, achintya bheda abheda are all wrong paths and equally cannot lead to moksha in that birth. The only allowance given by vedanta desikan in rahasya traya saram is that compared to advaita, other traditions like dvaita accept the lord as real and hence are relatively better. But this again does not mean we can all gang up against advaita - rather, the acrimony between VA and Dvaita is as high as it is between advaita and the other darshanas. It is not as though "mayavada" is poison but other darshanas are not, to a vedantin who follows just one darshana that is not any of these.<br /><br />I have been talking from a sri vaushnava perspective, but it is the same fro. a dvaitin's or a gaudiya's viewpoint as well. Where to draw the line then? Well, sri vaishnavas accept other vaishnavas as mahatmas who will ultimately gain true knowledge and so respect them. But they do not worship these mahans.<br /><br />If bhaktivinoda thakura had said sri chaitanya is rama and Hanuman worshipped him, that's fine as Hanuman is accepted as a guru by all darshanas and claimed by each as one of their own.. But he claims sri ramanuja, an acharya who advocated a distinct philosophy, to worship sri chaitanya, which is just wrong.<br /><br />The same holds true if a sri vaishnava does the same to Adi Shankara or a madhva does it to a Gaudiya.<br /><br />Let us close the subject. Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-47904359476168862742015-08-31T14:11:07.260+05:302015-08-31T14:11:07.260+05:30@krishna
although u asked this ques. to another pe...@krishna<br />although u asked this ques. to another person...but since i m sympathiser of iskcon i felt obliged to give my opinion and discourage the misconception about srila bhakti vinod thakur...first of all no one is born as an ''old man'' atleast in my knowledge...gaudiya vaishnavas consider Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu as an incarnation of Lord Krishna....so srila bhaktivinod thakur atleast from gaudiya vaishnava point of view has infact glorified ramanujacharya....as taking part in supreme lord's pastime even as poor old man is glorious....the madhvas proudly proclaim that previous incarnation of thier acharya was that of a vanara...but that vanara body was also glorious....because that vanara ie. hanumanji is the greatest devotee of lord Rama...<br />And about evidence...just as for VAs sri bhashya or any other work or statement of sri ramanuja is an evidence in itself....so for us who r the followers of bhaktivinod thakur his statement is the evidence...no one forces u to follow his statement although u r welcome to believe...he just wrote what he realised personally...<br />and to be honest i have read about this statement of srila bhaktivinod thakur from ur comment for the first time....so to get the confirmed answer u should ask this ques. to some senior iskcon person or may be in some authorised iskcon or gaudiya forum....instead of the person who has little knowledge of iskcon or thier acharya....<br />And...one of the main instruction of chaitanya mahaprabhu(and infact of all the respected acharyas of all the vaishnava traditions) is to spread the the holy name of Lord Krishna....and how wonderful it is that these ''Authentic Mahaprabhu followers'' who are so exalted by the virtue of taking birth in gaudiya families and hereditary propreiters of old temples have left the task of spreading holy name of Krishna and discouraging the mayavada philosophy on ''deviants'' like us....<br /><br />genxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-18239852056789341442015-08-02T06:33:28.240+05:302015-08-02T06:33:28.240+05:30I would like to add that Bhaktivinod thakur lived ...I would like to add that Bhaktivinod thakur lived from 1838 to 1914, during the British reign, a time when Gaudiya siddhanta was already properly established. There was nothing that he could add more in it. Some of his philosophical works only describe what had been already taught by purvacharyas in simple language. And the stories he wrote were his own compositions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05886738595988014370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-47299440748717247282015-08-02T02:23:42.987+05:302015-08-02T02:23:42.987+05:30The opinion of a single person doesnot concern the...The opinion of a single person doesnot concern the sampradaya. Traditional Gaudiyas take the works of acharyas upto Baladeva vidyabhushana as authorative. The Goswamis and other acharyas never wrote any such thing. And instead they offered adequate respects to Sridhara ,Ramanuja,Madhava and even Shankara and quoted them in their works. We also share the same thought. Even if they don't share the same view as ours, the Vishnu bhaktas are deserved to be respected. Bhaktivinode is considered to be guru by mostly Gaudiya math and Iskcon which are new traditions deviated from Chaitanya tradition.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05886738595988014370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-4039165174342551392015-07-28T14:06:14.545+05:302015-07-28T14:06:14.545+05:30We have allowed your query because it was addresse...We have allowed your query because it was addressed to another person. If he responds, we will allow that to the extent it does not stretch beyond a couple of comments.<br /><br />For our part, as you rightly observed, this blog does not talk about such things. We would address it if we were writing a defense of vishishtadvaita, but we are not doing that here. Similarly we do not address the claims of madhvas who say adi shankara was an Asura etc in the mani manjari.<br /><br />The simplest way to avoid potential apachAra is not just to study which tradition is correct, but also to see what shAstra says about treating vishNu bhaktas belonging to incorrect traditions (presuming if you adhere to one of advaita, VA or dvaita, the other two are automatically incorrect vaishnava darshanas). You will probably find that the shAstra does not recommend insulting vaishnavas of such incorrect schools of thought as well.<br /><br />No more from our side on this subject.<br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.com