tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post2931628040274425164..comments2024-03-26T13:00:38.287+05:30Comments on Narayanastra – Defending Vaishnavism as the supreme Vedic position: Rebuttal to Mahapashupatastra's accusationsHumble Bhagavata Bandhuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-52880011989245419312015-04-28T14:08:02.521+05:302015-04-28T14:08:02.521+05:30An addendum to what he said - "Madhwa philoso...An addendum to what he said - "Madhwa philosophy is really childish at few places. They even claim Sri Ramanuja's philsophy was defeated." <br /><br />Just to clarify to our sri vaishnava readers, that has also been taken care of by the sri vaishnava acharyas. <br /><br />No more on this advaita vs VA vs dvaita subject.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-82572901065197706622015-04-28T11:52:49.541+05:302015-04-28T11:52:49.541+05:30Regarding Appayya Dikshita, we do not interfere in...Regarding Appayya Dikshita, we do not interfere in advaita vs dvaita debates, but if you are saying Appayya was undefeated in his Siva paratva views, you couldn't be more wrong. His views were critiqued and soundly refuted by both Vishishtadvaitins (Parakala Yati, Sholingur Mahacharya and Ranga Ramanuja Muni) as well as Dvaitins like Vijayendra Tirtha, etc (whose condemnation of sadA shiva tUrIya vAda is unassailable in terms of logic). Not just Vishishtadvaitins and Dvaitins, he has been condemned by other advaitins like Nrsimhasrama and Bodhendra Saraswati.<br /><br />That Appayya was under severe attack can be seen in his own works where he frequently contradicts himself - in one place, he says Sri Rama was suffering the effects of karma, while in another place, he negates it by saying Rama is verily Parabrahman. In one place, he says the Ganga from Shiva's hair is different from the one emerging from Trivikrama's foot - the former being "pure" Ganga and latter being "impure" (shows his hatred for Vishnu here) - but contradicts it elsewhere by saying Ganga on Shiva's head comes from Vishnu's feet. <br /><br />He also contradicts himself philosophically - at times arguing for a "sadA shiva" above nArAyaNa by arguing that it is "nArAyaNAt param brahma" in the nArAyaNa sUkta, at times equating nArAyaNa to shiva and declaring nArAyaNa is Parabrahman, at times saying Uma and Vishnu are "shaktis" of Shiva, etc. This shows his utter inability to prove shiva paratva in any manner whatsover. <br /><br />Like HBB said, this is not the place for Advaita vs Dvaita, so take it elsewhere. However, in terms of Shaiva maTha sthApana, there is no denying Appayya failed miserably. I might also cheekily add that dwelling on the nonsensical writings of Veershaiva (Subbu) as "proof" that Vijayendra was defeated is definitely a very weak straw to clutch!Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-18771833816240239492015-04-28T06:00:23.986+05:302015-04-28T06:00:23.986+05:30Dear Anonymous,
This is not a forum for bashing a...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />This is not a forum for bashing any particular sampradAya. Carry out your debates elsewhere.Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-69884283770735937752015-04-27T20:41:51.845+05:302015-04-27T20:41:51.845+05:30Dear Shiva Prasad please don't speak without k...Dear Shiva Prasad please don't speak without knowledge. I really wonder who made Appaya Deekshithar as an incarnation of Sri Shankaracharya!!. I have read all the replies of V.Subramaniam where he has made the Madhwa philosophy lose it's very base. <br />You say "What Appaya Dikshita was unable to do, Subbu single handedly going to do." Let me tell when the same question Dvaitians, Buddhists, Jain scholars etc asked Sri Shankaracharya, he said it is his good fortune to have such people to show things are wrong. <br />Madhwa philosophy is really childish at few places. They even claim Sri Ramanuja's philsophy was defeated. I really find it more funny. <br />Sri Appaya Deekshithar never lost to Vijayendra Tirtha. We know what kind of documents you Madhwas have. Your entire Guru Parampare itself is lost in the history before Madhwa and the Nava Brindavana issue clearly says how things were falsified by the two Madhwa mutts. <br /><br />Hari OM<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-9477310469325675642015-02-16T00:05:14.525+05:302015-02-16T00:05:14.525+05:30Also, the present Ahobila mutt Jeeyar praising Kan...Also, the present Ahobila mutt Jeeyar praising Kanchi Paramacharya doesn't amount to accepting Kanchi mutts views or Paramacharyas views. There are certain things or Aphorisms which are common among all philosophies like , always speak the truth etc. Everyone will support such things, but that doesn't mean that they subscribe to all the views.<br /><br />For e.g. Appaya Dikshita had praised Swami Vedantha Desikan many times. Even Appaya Diskshita went to extent of saying that the wall of protection provided by Swami Desikan's works made the Philosophy of Ramanujacharya impenetrable, even for Appaya dikshita himself. But, Appaya Dikshita didn't stop his desperate attempts against Vaishnavism and Lord Vishnu, inspite of all his failures. <br /><br />Similarly, Swami Vedata Desikan was considered to be a friend of Vidyaranya, who headed the Sharada peetam. But, Swami Vedanta Desikan and Vidyaranya surely were philosophical opponents. This is even proved by the fact that Swami Desikan who adjudged a debate between Vidyarnaya (Advaita) and Akshobya muni (Dvaita), gave a vedict in favour of Akshobya muni, even though Vidyaranya was supposed to be a friend. Paying respects and praise is different, but accepting the views is all together a different proposition.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-86511471293923351572015-02-14T21:15:40.439+05:302015-02-14T21:15:40.439+05:30ADDENDUM 2: Just to clarify one thing here. Regard...ADDENDUM 2: Just to clarify one thing here. Regarding this Kanchi "Paramacharya" character, our opponents seem to take glee in pointing out that the current jeeyar of Ahobila Mutt has praised him (of course, we shall not address the mindless ramblings of the other copy-paste expert and veerashaiva Subbu). To that, let us just say this - in modern times, few exist who knows the ins and outs of shAstra. Nowadays, maThAdhipathis are more preoccupied with being political and accomodating to people of all sects. If anyone knows the background of the current Ahobila Mutt Jeeyar, he has been associated with the Kamakoti Mutt in a professional capacity since his childhood and his praise of the Kamakoti mutt is motivated by his pUrvAshrama experiences and own non-indulgence in the past history of sri vaishnavas vs kamakoti shaivas. It is also a fact that must be acknowledged by all sri vaishnavas that the current mutt heads do not know about the debates this Kamakoti peethAdhipathi had with the likes of Sri PBA Swami and Sri Puttur Swami. So, showing a video of a sri vaishnava vidwan nowadays praising kamakoti heads does not mean it is endorsed by sri vaishnavas.<br /><br />For that matter, a sri vaishnava vidwan said on TV that Islam and Christianity are other "dharmas" besides sanAtana dharma. Obviously this is not true and is only for the sake of being secular on TV. So that puts paid to this nonsense.<br /><br />Case of the blind leading the blind. A basic knowledge of tarka, vyAkaraNa, etc and some advaita does not make "paramacharya" a wise sage - its more due to sheep mentality than anything. The kamakoti mutt, as we all know, is already mired in issues far more grave than vishNu dvesha which they need to sort out before claiming any spiritual heritage. Let us not discuss it anymore on this blog.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-36555395603122629802015-02-14T02:48:54.228+05:302015-02-14T02:48:54.228+05:30ADDENDUM: Even in accusing us for that interpolati...ADDENDUM: Even in accusing us for that interpolations thing, he has not been honest. He claims we used the word "again" unscrupulously when we have said the following. Quoting ourselves:<br /><br />"If so, what was the need to ask Vyasa again, or Krishna, if you consider the latter the second time?"<br /><br />In the flow of writing the sentence, we had simply said "or krishna, if you consider the latter the second time". The idea being is that if you take into account the interpolated section on vyasa and satarudriyam chronologically, it would be asking krishna that is the second time. However, if you consider that the Vyasa section is indeed an interpolation, the "again" can be applied in the sense that the interpolated section on vyasa's sata rudrIya upadesha is later in time. We had specified this already.<br /><br />Just notice how he even distorts our statements to wring some form of half baked "objection" out of it. Enough of this nonsense from him. That section is interpolated simply because it clashes with the veda and is not quoted by ancient scholars. That, and it also disrupts the continuity of the parva as well as being philosophically absurd and untenable to a logical vedAntic explanation.<br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-16268572004878926252015-02-13T15:00:38.145+05:302015-02-13T15:00:38.145+05:30ACCUSATION#11: Therefore it is crystal clear that ...ACCUSATION#11: Therefore it is crystal clear that these humble-authors are trying to escape from being seen as defeated and nothing else. Their change in their words where they now say “...we meant sAttwika purANa-s” is as like as challenging someone to show Vishnu or Shiva’s stories in Shakespeare’s novels. brought them to their senses out of their dreamy fairy land. Hence the change in words now!<br /><br />ANSWER: It is crystal clear that you know nothing about interpretations, interpolations or tattva vichara. Even so far in this article, not even one line is a traditional reading by you – just copy-paste from Griffith, Bori, Ganguly, Kumbhakonam edition and miscellaneous!<br /><br />ACCUSATION#12: Earlier they had not even the slightest clue that Shiva Purana would address Shiva as ‘Purushottama’, hence owing to their over-confidence they generalized their challenge as “purana” without categorically narrowing down to Satwika-puranas only. Now this bolt from me has brought them to their senses out of their dreamy fairy land. Hence the change in words now!<br /><br />ANSWER: Haha…we quoted srI rAmAnuja for that challenge and expected a vedAntic response. Did you think we were so dumb that we did not know the distortions of the tAmasa purAnAs? If a purAna has absurd stories of lingOdbhava it is natural to expect it would praise shiva as supreme. Your so-called “bolt” is just another whimper. You didn’t even know every vedAntin quotes general verses from the tAmasa purAnAs!<br /><br />As we mentioned before, we took the statements of sri rAmAnuja (that all shAstra refers to vishNu as purushOttama) and shankara (that all kavi-s refer to him as purushOttama). Hence, nobody even considered tAmasa sections of shAstra that BOTH acharyas rejected.<br /><br />Enough of this nonsense. He claims no-one has interest in our interpretations. Well, besides the fact it obviously is not true considering the readers who frequent the blog, he chooses to stick with Griffith and Ganguly for his translations of samhitAs, brahmaNas and ithihAsa – and then claims he has no interest. He can attempt a weak minded counter for the interpolations article, but even then, he cannot interpret a single thing without referencing Griffith!<br /><br />Well, keep copying and pasting those idiotic translations. Sites like sacred texts keep blogs like mahapaSupatastra going, while traditional interpretations and scholarly analysis keep us in a position of strength.<br /><br />-CONCLUDED-Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-11567607464049908312015-02-13T14:58:14.174+05:302015-02-13T14:58:14.174+05:30ACCUSATION#8: He now has this to say regarding tAm...ACCUSATION#8: He now has this to say regarding tAmasa purAnAs:<br /><br /> Nobody outside of their tradition cares what Ramanuja considers as authentic and what as ridiculous.<br /><br />ANSWER: As we have already shown, no vedAntin accepted the tAmasa purAnAs as wholly authentic. And anyone who professes to be a vedAntin considers whatever is quoted by srI rAmAnuja as authentic. Because if he had quoted something dubious in debate, accusations would have been made. Think we proved that.<br /><br />ACCUSATION#9: Acharya Shankara who came much before Ramanuja had used references from Linga Purana etc., Shaiva Puranas in his Bhahsyas. That means for him all Puranas were worthy of acceptance. So, later on if Ramanuja or subsequent Acharyas have (out of malice) condemned Shaiva Puranas as Tamasik then it is clear that it was because of their insecurity towards Vishnu’s supremacy and other than that there was no other valid reason.<br /><br />ANSWER: Er, you are not even aware that the same srI rAmAnuja quotes – Linga Purana, Skanda Purana and even some other tAmasa purAnAs? Check the verses Shankara quotes – he only quotes those verses from the tAmasa purAnAs that talk of general tattvas like Atman, prakrti etc. The same Shiva Purana has statements like “vishNu grants liberation and the devotees enjoy serving him in paramapada”.<br /><br />The idea is that even tAmasa purAnAs have some sAttvic portions and are accepted. Shankara does not quote one line of the tAmasa purAnAs which talk about lingOdbhava or shiva paratva. He only quotes the general sAttvika portions which speak of tattvas. srI mAdhva also quotes those verses.<br /><br /> So he references Shankara as “Acharya” here. Fact is, Shankara was a vaishnava; so you can stop harbouring the illusion he was your acharya.<br /><br />Read our article on “tAmasatva of purAnAs” again. We have mentioned this.<br /><br /> ACCUSATION#10: Even Mahabharata while talking about the greatness of that epic, says that for a devotee of Vishnu by reading the Mahabharata s/he gains the same merit what someone else gains by reading the “eighteen puranas”. It doesn’t talk about only (so called) satwika-puranas of Vishnu.<br />“aṣhṭādaśapurāṇānāṃ śravaṇādyatphalaṃ bhavet. Tatphalaṃ samavāpnoti vaiṣhṇavo nātra saṃśayaḥ |” (MBH 18:06:97 – Kumbhakonam edition)<br /><br />“One devoted to Vishnu acquires (through this) that merit which is acquired by listening to the eighteen Puranas. There is no doubt in this”.<br /><br />ANSWER: What is the harm in that? The sAttvika purAnAs impart knowledge of vishNu and lead to liberation. The tAmasa purAnAs are for a lesser class of people who have not cleansed themselves of karmas sufficiently; these purAnAs make them pray to lesser deities; these deities will then eventually elevate them to vishNu bhakti; then they too will get liberation. So, it is quite rational to say the tAmasa purAnAs DO confer merit – eventually.<br /><br />It is like saying “jnAnan mokshO jAyatE” – knowledge leads to liberation. This only means knowledge leads to cleansing karmas, which leads to undertaking upAsana, which leads to liberation. Similarly, the tAmasa purAnAs is the lowest step to eventual liberation as they impart the merit of progessing to vishNu jnAna by the favour of lesser deities while the sAttvika purAnas give that merit immediately.<br /><br />See, this is what blindly copying and pasting leads to - wrong knowledge which is tAmas. <br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-85672979298535400652015-02-13T14:56:50.055+05:302015-02-13T14:56:50.055+05:30ACCUSATION#6: When their lies have been exposed, n...ACCUSATION#6: When their lies have been exposed, naturally, now they don’t have anything to cover their misdeeds… (blah, blah)…….they would see the misdeed of these authors) by saying (quoting narayanastra authors):<br /><br />“Furthermore, in that same chapter, Krishna tells Arjuna all the glories of Mahadeva – that he is the lord of devas, the husband of Uma, very great, but Krishna also adds – “He is born of my (Krishna’s) wrath”. So, all that greatness still makes Rudra a jivA and inferior to Krishna, to whom he owes that greatness. Seems like our shaiva friend failed to point out that just like we highlighted in the article how Shaivas skip those words!”<br /><br />This is totally irrelevant and an off-topic altogether. The topic was not at all related to whether Krishna gave birth to Rudra or who between the two is superior. Therefore bringing the topic of Krishna saying from his wrath Rudra manifests and saying their ‘Shaiva friend’ (i.e, me) failed to point it out is totally irrelevant.<br /><br />ANSWER: So, something which talks of rudra’s birth is irrelevant? O-ho. And he says we have double standards. The “manifestation” theory is debunked by krishNa himself who declares that both Brahma and Rudra are his agents who do these duties and that Rudra is “nArAyaNatmaka” – has nArAyaNa as his indweller (visnOr cAtma bhagavatO bhavaH). That rudra does not exist during pralaya is brought out by “eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsIt, na brahma, nEshana”. Hence, anything that has an indweller and not existent during pralaya is a jivAtma.<br /><br />Let me explain the relevance. When two incidents involve asking the same question (who is this being) – one incident talks of rudra as born of krishNa’s wrath (ie, brahma, for whom krishNa is indweller) and the other talks of rudra as paramAtma and gives a distorted meaning of satarudrIyam in the name of vyAsa. The former is in accordance to the veda while the latter contradicts veda. The former is quoted by ancient vedAntins while the latter is not even quoted by shaivas. Hence, the latter incident is an interpolation.<br /><br />That is the relevance. It is also noteworthy that a person who has the cheek to claim genuine sections of rAmAyaNa, the srimad bhAgavata as “fake” and who uses the bogus devi bhAgavata as a prop for his useless interpretations dares to accuse us and genuine vedAntins of twisting facts!<br /><br />ACCUSATION#7: The case is crystal clear to everyone that Sri Rudram of Mahabharata (which is a Vyasa’s composition) is an authentic masterpiece from his pen and all sects of Hinduism accept that chapter as authentic. Even BORI’s critical edition of Mahabharata has not rejected that chapter. So, no more repeat arguments from my side also.<br /><br />ANSWER: It is certainly a masterpiece – a masterpiece of a distortion which was interpolated sometime likely after that of nIlakaNtha. Even ancient shaiva commentaries on the Rudram do not reference it. You have no arguments, so no question of repetition. Loose ends are all tied up.<br /><br />He uses BORI as evidence to prove that a section not quoted by ancient shaivas as well as vedAntins and which contradicts the vedas is true, but he says that srimad bhAgavatam and the rAmAyaNa sections of vishNu paratva quoted and commentated on by all vedAntins as well as opponents like appayya dikshita is fake. The irony!Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-5011284805366172052015-02-13T14:55:05.438+05:302015-02-13T14:55:05.438+05:30ACCUSATION#5: And again, he returns back to the in...ACCUSATION#5: And again, he returns back to the interpolations issue since he cannot refute our interpretations as follows:<br />a. Inserted a Question from Arjuna to Krishna when none of the Mahabharata versions have such a question from Arjuna to Krishna, b. Created a scene as if Krishna responded to Arjuna’s inquiry when the truth was Krishna just gave those details as an “additional” information while describing Rudra’s glories,c. They knew that Santi Parva incident comes later than Drona Parva one, but still tried to misguide their readers by saying “when Krishna had already told that to Arjuna elsewehere what was the need for Arjuna to ask Drona again?” As if nobody would notice their twisting of facts.<br /><br />ANSWER: Again prattling on about the same thing is not going to help. mAdhva’s bhArata tAtparya nirnaya clearly shows that the satarudrIyam verses by vyAsa were not present during his time. No vedAntin or shaiva has quoted it in debate. Even shaiva commentaries on sri rudram by sayana and bhatta bhAskara do not quote those verses in support of their interpretations.Therefore, case closed here.<br /><br />a. We did not insert questions, nor did we put any questions there. <br /><br />b. The fact that krishNa identifies rudra as “krodhasambhava” is hardly a small thing and reiterates that rudra is a jivAtma. When he says “born of my wrath”, it means “born of the wrath of brahma (who is my body as I am his indweller)” perfectly matching “nArAyaNat brahma jAyatE, nArAyaNat rudrO jAyatE”.<br /><br />c. No twisting of facts. By “again” we simply meant that the same situation should not occur twice. We did not intend chronology by “again”. One incident contains krishNa clearly telling Arjuna that rudra is krodha sambhava. Another incident in the drone parva again (note this is how we used “again”) has this incident, and a description of shaiva interpretation of satarudrIyam. Since the latter is proven an interpolation as it has not been quoted by anyone and contradicts the veda, we used “again” to denote its recent origin.<br />Enough of this. Do something more than actually trying to twist our statements by misreading harmless words. We have made it crystal clear that this section is an interpolation.<br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-32727107540303053572015-02-13T14:52:01.467+05:302015-02-13T14:52:01.467+05:30ACCUSATION#3: Even in serious disagreements people...ACCUSATION#3: Even in serious disagreements people in all such elite and civilized forums are seen to begin their message as “Dear Sri -Ji” and close their message as “With Regards” (Or) “Warm Regards” etc., and only the “body” of the message contains disagreements. They do not call them with ‘pet names’ whatsoever be the level of frustration and disagreements. <br /><br />ANSWER: Purposely ignores our reference to the fact that the opponent referred to krishNa’s rAsa leela as immoral. Forget etiquette for such people, they are hardly opponents and deserve worse names than mere dropping of prefixes.<br /><br />ACCUSATION#4: He says this regarding our interpolations article:<br /><br /> Who cares what a vaishnavite Acharya wrote in his works? Every non-vaishnavite Hindu knows that vaishnavite acharyas were always clever and cunning when dealing with “lord Shiva” related areas (of course I love their pure Vishnu/Lakshmi related works of devotion, like the devotional hymns of Vedanta Desika etc.). Not even in dreams a non-vaishnavite Hindu would ever trust their writings. So, this Acharya’s work is not a standard to judge Vyasa’s Mahabharata. Their argument can only look convincing to another Evidence dismissed outright as bogus! They should get some better reasoning to prove their point. Case closed!<br /><br />ANSWER: Except that our opponent is clueless of the fact that all ancient vedAntins were vaishnavas. Let me define a “non-vaishnava hindu” for you : the traditions of shaiva, shakta and tantra in the past adopted the approach of considering the shaiva agamas as highest authority. If a particular portion of the veda contradicted their views, they would reject it or refrain from addressing it. Whereas, the vaishnava traditions of advaita, vishishtadvaita and dvaita were fully vedic – they considered only the veda as prime authority and rejected whatever clashed with the veda. Hence, srI rAmAnuja would not refrain from quoting sections supposedly praising shiva in the context of debate.<br /><br />If you do not accept this, then you should label your blog in the spirit of true ancient shaiva siddhAntha – that your shaiva tendencies are not vedAntic, but shaiva, meaning you accept only those portions of the vedas which suit you (with distorted interpretations of course as the shaivas have). But if you want to be a vedAntin, you need to accept the vedAntic stance which involves accepting all the texts quoted by shankara, rAmAnuja and mAdhva and none of the texts not quoted by them which contradict the veda.<br /><br /><br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-20034757983969276682015-02-13T14:50:26.156+05:302015-02-13T14:50:26.156+05:30Dear Readers,
The mahapashupatastra author has &q...Dear Readers,<br /><br />The mahapashupatastra author has "replied" with some so-called objections to our counters. Let me address them patiently in this series of posts as follows:<br /><br />ACCUSATION#1: They can take inspiration from any Shaiva article to build their work on top of it branding it as a “refutation”, but when the same was done by “Acharya Srikantha”, these humble-vaishnavas have branded him as a “thief”. What a double standard! It reminds me of a Bollywood song where a line goes something like – “...who kare to kehte hain ki raas-leela hai | main karun to saala character dheela hai |...” It fits this case perfectly. <br /><br />ANSWER: Well, we find this very funny to say the list. It is clear that this mahApaSupatastra author knows nothing about the standards of refutation and what constitutes a copy. For this author, a very clear refutation is an “inspiration”. What he fails to note is that we took inspiration of the *name* of the article and not the *content* of the shaiva article. Only a thick headed person would not notice this. Consider the following:<br /><br />1) Did the advaitin AnantakrishNa shAstri take “inspiration” from vishishtadvaita to refute the same when he named his work “shata bhUshaNi” to counter vedAnta desikan’s “shata dhUshaNi”? No. Only the name was an inspiration.<br /><br />2) Did Appayya Dikshita take “inspiration” from mAdhva mata by naming his counter to dvaita as “mAdhva mata khaNdana?<br /><br />3) Did we take “inspiration” from a shaiva article using absurd interpretations of the veda for the “Lord Rama - Heart of Rishi Svetasvatara” article? No, we used the mantras from skambha sUkta, svEtAsvatAra and interpreted them using the work of sri vedAnta desikan, which proves that these refer to srI rAma. Whereas, the shaiva tries to use “Griffith pramAnAs”.<br /><br />I wonder what gives these people to write blogs when they don’t even know the basic meaning of a “refutation”. <br /><br />ACCUSATION#2: Acharya Srikantha had built his Shiva-Vishishtadwaita philosophy on top of ‘bOdhAyana vritti’ and the resultant thesis was definitely same in principles as what was Ramanuja’s ‘Vaishnava- Vishishtadwaita’ philosophy because even Ramanuja’s work was built on top of ‘bodhAyana vritti’.<br /><br />ANSWER: Now, he says based on this, we are practicing double standards by calling srikaNtha sivAchArya’s bhashya as a bogus copy of srI bhAshya with shaiva thoughts. Again, we reteirate the difference here:<br /><br />1) If the author can get it into his thick head, our article is completely different and completely opposed to that shaiva article except for the name which was in jest of the latter. It is a standard refutation. We have not taken the absurd shaiva interpretations but used the right meanings of svetAsvatAra, skambha sUkta, etc as given by sri vaishnava acharyas. <br /><br />2) BodhAyaNa vritti grantha is an establishment of vishishtadvaita-vaishnava philosophy which was elaborated by srI rAmAnuja. Whereas, srIkaNtha (or rather, appayya dikshita who was writing unscrupulously under the pseudonym of srIkaNtha) copies the entire maTha of rAmAnuja, actual statements directly from srI bhAshya and simply switches the name of vishNu to shiva. THAT is a copy and it was acknowledged by scholars during Appaya’s time itself. <br /><br />3) Our article is a vaishnava-vishishtadvaita refutation of a shaiva-griffith article. SrikaNtha bhAshya is siva-vishishtadvaita which is a plagiarisation of vaishnava vishishtadvaita with no original content except substituting name of vishNu with shiva everywhere. <br /><br />Completely clueless and he claims to run a blog.<br /><br />Contd...Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-19155080151825374462015-02-12T20:49:02.037+05:302015-02-12T20:49:02.037+05:30Sri HBB
This is Lakshminarayana. Thanks for your ...Sri HBB<br /><br />This is Lakshminarayana. Thanks for your explanations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-11319847370161061082015-02-12T08:16:49.618+05:302015-02-12T08:16:49.618+05:30ADDENDUM:
Regarding this comment by the erstwhile...ADDENDUM:<br /><br />Regarding this comment by the erstwhile Kanchi mutt seer:<br /><br />// Vishnu, who is considered as symbolising Satvaguna, has, on occasions, taken upon Him self Tamoguna, standing for destruction, as His Avataar as Narasimhaa. In the Rama Avataara, when He fought Khara Dooshana, Kumbha Karna and Ravana, and also when he threatened to dry up the ocean, He assumed Tamoguna. //<br /><br />Please contrast with Adi Shankara's explanations in Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya:<br /><br />“jitakrodhaH” – jitaH krodho yena saH jitakrodhaH ; vedamaryAdAsthApanArthaM surArIn hanti , na tu kopavaSAditi<br /><br />[jitakrodha means one who has conquered anger. He kills the enemies of devas for the purpose of establishing Vedic honour, not as a result of being led astray by anger].<br /><br />“akrUraH” – avAptasamastakAmatvAt kAmABAvAdeva kopABAvaH ; tasmAtkrauryamasya nAstIti akrUraH<br /><br />[He is eternally the one who has already achieved every one of his own desires. Since there is no desire (kAma), there is no anger (krodha). Because of that, he has no cruelty (krUratva) and hence he is called akrUraH].Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-73186712732962269112015-02-09T09:27:46.208+05:302015-02-09T09:27:46.208+05:30Just as an addendum, note that only those portions...Just as an addendum, note that only those portions pertaining to "kamakoti" in those links are worthy of interest. We do not claim to share all of the opinions of those lay sri vaishnavas there. Using words like "cult", for instance, is not advocated by us.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-20177934062106970342015-02-09T09:17:29.268+05:302015-02-09T09:17:29.268+05:30Not to mention several instances of interference i...Not to mention several instances of interference in Vaishnava temples and perversion of Divya-prabandham texts. Just search for "kamakoti" in these links and read:<br /><br />http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/feb96/0098.html<br /><br />http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jun2001/0103.html<br /><br />http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/sep97/0054.htmlHumble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-16648402362079193392015-02-09T08:19:12.706+05:302015-02-09T08:19:12.706+05:30Much of what this peethadhipati says philosophical...Much of what this peethadhipati says philosophically is gibberish, while what he quotes as history is shrewdly distorted. There are more places and incidents where he has denigrated vishNu.<br /><br />He was indeed the precursor of modern day viTanda vadins. "deivathin kural" is complete nonsense. Naturally, he is worshipped since most people like Santosh would gravitate towards personalities like these only.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-79989614517640311622015-02-09T08:02:12.646+05:302015-02-09T08:02:12.646+05:30(contd. from previous comment)
and himself contra...(contd. from previous comment)<br /><br />and himself contradicted this elsewhere, but not without mocking the ancestors of the present-day advaita Vaishnavas as "spiritually immature":<br /><br />//<br /><br />Before the advent of srI RamAnujar and srI MadhwA, even among smArthAs, a set existed which considered Vishnu as their 'ishta dEvathA'.<br /><br />There is a funny aspect to this (idhilE oru vEdikkai): There were people among smArthAs who didn't have the [*spiritual*] maturity to engage in panchAyathana pUjA with special upAsanA for their ishta dEvathA and without indulging in 'para dEvathA nindhA', as advocated by AchAryAl. That is, they considered only their favourite deity as the primordial Godhead though at the philosophical level they seemed to have accepted advaitA.<br /><br />Among such people, even the hardcore/hyper (thIvira) Vaishnavaites remained as advaitins. How [*I*] got to know this is through a fact, hitherto unknown to you, which I'll share with you [*now*].<br /><br />There are few, who hail from such an advaitic-vaishnava-paramparA, exist even today. They hold only me as their AchAryA. If [*you*] ask about their siddhAntham, [*they'll say that*] it is advaitA only. They won't wear the nAmam. They won't wear vibhUti either, as it is considered to be associated with Siva. Rejecting both the nAmam and vibhUti, they wear only the 'gOpi chandan'.<br /><br />Wearing neither the 'vada kalai nAmam' nor the 'then kalai nAmam', there is a sect, referred to as "kItru nAmak kArargal" [*those wearing kItru nAmam*], which continues to be advaitins. However, these advaitins are hardcore (vIra) vaishnavaites, when compared to those who hail from srI Ramanuja sampradhAyam. Even in the present days, when the RamAnuja-vaishnavites visit Siva temples, these advaita-vaishnavites, who consider me as their AchAryA, never enter a Siva temple!<br />//<br /><br /><br />But from his speeches etc. we can gather one thing. Not even this late Kamakoti Peethadhipati subscribes to Subbu's view, but in fact accepts our position that "Vishnu", "vasudeva", "nArAyaNa" etc. in Shankara Bhashyas refer to Saguna Brahman only. See http://kirtimukha.com/surfings/Cogitation/SankaraNarayana.htm<br /><br />Not that this Peethadhipati is a pramANika (as we saw with the "lantern" example) on whose utterances we would rest our proofs.<br /><br />(end)Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-22921218556680516592015-02-09T08:01:28.138+05:302015-02-09T08:01:28.138+05:30(contd. from previous comment)
//
Those days the...(contd. from previous comment)<br /><br />//<br /><br />Those days the Sozha (also known as Chola) King was an ardent devotee of Siva. Ramanuja advocated exclusive devotion to Vishnu only. So the King assembled a Vidvat Sadas, an assembly of very learned exponents of Saastra-s, so as to analyze the basis of Ramanujacharya's point of view.<br />...<br />Looking at the Kings representatives, Koorathu Aazhvaar was much worried. He thought on the following lines. "The King is a confirmed devotee of Siva. Our Guru is of the opinion that only Vishnu is worthy of being prayed to and does not approve of Siva Aaraadanaa.<br />...<br />The Vidvat Sadas was held as planned. As expected, he lost the argument. But he was not punished to be killed but caused to become blind. He gladly accepted what would have befallen to his Guru. Ramanujacharyar came back to Tamil Nadu only after that King was dead and gone!<br />//<br /><br /><br /><br />//<br />It was written in the palm leaf that, ‘there is nothing above Siva’. Koorathu Aazhvaar wrote, ‘Yes. There is dronam above Siva, so, that is param’. “asti dronam ata: param”. Now, what is this ‘dronam’? ...This Marakkal was also called Siva, in Sanskrit. The measure bigger than Siva was Padakku, known as Dronam in Sanskrit. So, above Siva was Dronam. That is what Koorathu Aazhvaar wrote. In the august company of the King, his office bearers and learned luminaries, this was a rather frivolous reply. Koorathu Aazhvaar was roundly criticized and suitably punished, as the story goes.<br />...<br />What I think about this is that, Koorathu Aazhvaar did not give a playful reply. He said something acceptable to the Veda-s and devotees of Siva. When he said, “asti dronam ata: param”, he further made a word play! Dronam has to be understood as the white flower, which is as small as a speck, called ‘Thumbai’ in Tamil. Amongst leaves Bilva is most favoured for offering to Siva, so is ‘Oomathai’, ‘Erukku’ and ‘Thumbai’!<br />//<br /><br />And he claims elsewhere that Sri Ramanuja "invented" the Urdhvapundara mark based on some unnamed text he claims as "Vaishnava guruparampara", which flies in the face of evidence from the AzhvArs themselves and various Shruti/Smriti texts that even smArthas such as Vaidyanatha Dikshita (in Smriti-Mukta-kalApa) had accepted back in the 15th/16th century:<br /><br />//<br />The practice of wearing 'nAmam' and in that, wearing with 'pAdham' and also with out it came in to vogue due to Vaishnava AchAryAs, who came later [*than Shankara*] is known from their guru parampara stories themselves, as retold by vaishnavAs. Later, when a separate religion and a sub sect were established based on Vishnu as the sole presiding deity, it became a necessity to give a new identity to the converts of this faith.<br />//<br /><br />//<br />Similarly, 'gOpi chandhan' and 'chAndhu' were employed by mAdhwAs, when their new 'sampradhAyam' came into existence as a separate (social) group. For those, who didn't choose to follow any of these new faiths but continued to practice the original vEdic path as advocated by BhaghavadpAdhA, no new names such as vaishnavA or mAdhwA were given. The same old title, smArthAs, continued. Similarly, the practice - advocated by vEdAs from the very beginning and employed from generation to generation - of wearing vibhUthi (basma dhAranam) stayed back with smArthAs.//<br /><br />//Before the establishment of vishistAdvaitam as a separate sampradhAyam by srI RamAnujar, even the vaidhIkAs who worshipped Vishnu with all devotion as their ishta dEvathA would have been smArthAs wearing only bhasmA. //<br /><br />(contd. in next comment)Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-56326317950415565562015-02-09T08:00:28.883+05:302015-02-09T08:00:28.883+05:30(contd. from previous comment)
As for anti-Vaishn...(contd. from previous comment)<br /><br />As for anti-Vaishnavism, his campaign against Srivaishnavism is all too well-known. See how he has denigrated Sri Ramanuja and Srivaishnavas in general by distorting the incident recorded in Guruparampara:<br /><br />//<br />As the greatness of the Name of Siva has been mentioned in the middle of Bhagawatam, a highly respected Aazhvaar has also extolled the greatness of Siva. Though the story tellers of Purana-s known as Pouraniks, talk about this, as though berating Siva, to me it sounds differently.<br /><br />Till the time of Ramanujacharya, almost all people were followers of both Siva and Vishnu. If there is a village or hamlet, on the West was the Vishnu Temple and on the North East was the Temple for Siva. Mostly in the morning people will go to the Vishnu temple and in the evening to the Siva temple. Even those who were purely Saivites or Vashnavites, never stooped down to decrying the other based on their beliefs, because while adoring their Ishta Devata, they did not believe in ridiculing other Devata-s! After the advent of Ramanujacharyar, things changed. He preached that Vishnu is the only God and that his followers should not go to the Siva Temples!<br />............<br />The Sozha (also known as Chola) King of that time called for a meeting of the Vidvat Sabha, for consultation and clarification.<br />............<br />At that time Koorathu Aazhvaar was with him. He told his Guru, “Swami, This King is a hardened devotee of Siva. We cannot believe that he will be fair in his dealings. You are preaching that real devotees of Vishnu should not go to temples of Siva at all. Having called you on the pretext of discussion, we never know as to what he will do! It is better that you put on whites like me and make yourself scarce. I will wear your ochre robes and go as Ramanujacharyar! Let us see what happens!”<br />............<br />The learned people there had discussed and come to this opinion. “It is alright to praise any God as equal or as good as Siva. But to bring in the idea of comparison and say one is too good and the other is lower or bad is not acceptable. If he still insists upon his point of view then, let him prove it by quoting the Saastraa-s. So, they wrote one sentence on the palm leaf saying, “sivaat parataram naasti”, meaning that there is nothing superior to Siva. If it is agreed, it should be signed. If you disagree, then you have to argue it out quoting evidence from the Saastraa-s. Koorathu Aazhvaar was shown the palm leaf. He did not sign it. He wrote, “asti dronam atha: param”, meaning, ‘Yes. There is Dronam above and so param!”<br />//<br /><br />(contd. in next comment)Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-91599111395365134272015-02-09T07:59:00.199+05:302015-02-09T07:59:00.199+05:30(contd. from previous comment)
See this one as we...(contd. from previous comment)<br /><br />See this one as well:<br /><br />//<br />There were lanterns with glass on all the four sides- or three sides. Let us take the latter type. <br />...<br />We may take these three sides to represent creation, protection and dissolution, the three functions performed by the Paramatman. It is the one Light that is responsible for all the three, like the wick burning inside the lamp with the three sides.<br />...<br />One side of the lantern, let us assume, is painted red. It symbolises creation. If we remove red from the pure light of the spectrum, the other six colours also will be separated. This is what is meant by the one becoming the many of creation. Brahma, the Creator, is said to be red in colour. Another side of the lantern is painted blue. ...<br />Mahavisnu, during the very act of sustaining all creation, demonstrates through jnana that this world is not the whole self-fulfilling truth but the disguise of the Paramatman, his sport. In the fire of jnana the cosmos is charred. <br />...<br />it is like a lump of charcoal. Such a entity as the world still exists, but its own quality, Maya, is burned out and is suffused with Visnu-"Sarvam Vishnumayam jagat". In Tamil Visnu is called"Kariyan, Nilameniyan"(one who is like charcoal, one whose body is blue). Blue, black and violet are more or less similar colours. The light coming from the blue side of the lantern is Visnu.<br />...<br />The third side of the lamp is not painted. We saw that when all is burnt in jnana the residue is a lump of charcoal. But if this charcoal is burned further the ultimate product is ash. It has no form and is just powder or dust. White is the colour close to pure light. Now the Paramatman alone remains. That is the ashes remain when everything is burnt out- that is what lasts in the end. It is indeed Paramesvara otherwise called Mahabhasma. Samhara, destruction, may seem a cruel function. But what Siva does, though seemingly cruel, is truly an act of compassion because he goes beyond destruction to unite us with the Truth. When Visnu sportingly bestows jnana on us the cosmos seems like a lump of charcoal. "Sarvam Vishnumayam jagat, "we say. But now all the sport has ended and we have come to the state of supreme jnana: there is neither "sarvam"nor "jagat". Now it is all "Sivamayam". It is the one lamp that is the light of the Brahman. When it is seen through the red side of the lantern it becomes Brahma; through the blue side it is Visnu; and through the unpainted side it is Siva. <br />//<br /><br />Too many to count here... 1) Implying Vishnu is impure and Shiva is pure by comparing with blue side and colorless side respectively, 2) Comparison of Vishnu's form with "a lump of charcoal", and that this charcoal is later burnt up, 3) Vishnu's "sportingly" bestowing jnAna and then "all the sport has now ended and it is only Sivamayam" and no more "Vishnumayam".<br /><br />(contd. in next comment)Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-84159876284780267682015-02-09T07:58:11.609+05:302015-02-09T07:58:11.609+05:30Regarding your question... About this late Peethad...Regarding your question... About this late Peethadhipati, the less said the better. I will paraphrase verbatim and one can do a google search easily to get the links promptly.<br /><br />As for Vishnu-dveSha, he is quite unpopular among scholarly Srivaishnava circles for spreading random stories subtly mocking Vishnu and Vaishnavas, directly in his speeches which get published in popular cine-gossip magazines that reach a wide spectrum of masses, as well as indirectly through his disciples and bhaktas who write articles on "Deepavali special", "Pongal special" editions of these magazines.<br /><br />For example, he even claimed that Vishnu exhibited tamoguNa by saying things like<br /><br />// Vishnu, who is considered as symbolising Satvaguna, has, on occasions, taken upon Him self Tamoguna, standing for destruction, as His Avataar as Narasimhaa. In the Rama Avataara, when He fought Khara Dooshana, Kumbha Karna and Ravana, and also when he threatened to dry up the ocean, He assumed Tamoguna. //<br /><br />while both the shAstras and ancient advaitins have denied this. When pointed out that he was wrong, patiently and in a civil manner by stalwarts like Sri Puthur Swami (with evidence from the Ramayana, Srimad Bhagavatam, Nrsimha Tapaniya Upanishad etc), the Peethadhipati chose to remain silent.<br /><br />Some other examples:<br /><br />// Through Visnu he sustains them and through Rudra he destroys them. Later Brahma, Visnu, Rudra are themselves destroyed by him. //<br /><br />Note the careful use of "Rudra" here and not "Siva", thus subscribing to the Sadasiva-turIya-vAda (i.e., claiming that the popular "Siva" is different from "Rudra" and above the trinity of "Brahma, Vishnu, and Rudra") propounded by Appayya in his anti-Vishnu works and having no basis in the shAstra or Shankara's works.<br /><br />(contd. in next comment)Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-36553785739582362852015-02-08T18:51:06.665+05:302015-02-08T18:51:06.665+05:30We in Dwaita circles know about this Subbu well. ...We in Dwaita circles know about this Subbu well. This Subbu is no scholar but a close minded and an obdurate person. He got into a Tarkham with one of the Matathipathis of one of the smaller Madhwa Muttam. He became so illogical that he started quoting his own previous blogs as proof for his statements. Well, talk about circular logic!! I am attaching a link to the above discussion. You will understand what I mean.<br />http://www.sumadhwaseva.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Reply_to_Subrahmanian.pdf<br /><br />About two years ago, out of the blue he wrote to me when I didn't even know who he was. This was in reply to one of my writing on the illogic of Adwaitham. He wrote that Sriman Madhwacharya also talks about Maaya. That is when I realized that he didn't even understand that the definition of Maaya in Dwaitham is in perfect consonance with what is used in Ithihaasas and Puranas while the definition of Maaya as defined by Adwaitham where in unreal and illusory things appear as real such a thing does not exist and, if it does, it exists only as an exception and, not as a rule. I also gave gave him the point that Adwaitham has two different definitions - very conveniently so, to prove there points. Sat Chit Na Badayeth, Asat Chit Na Pratiyeeth. We was unable to counter that. <br /><br />The next point of discussion was on the many many polemical debates that took place between Sriman Vijayeendra Tirtha (Paramaguru of Sriman Raghavendra Tirtha) and Sri Appaya Dikshita. Well, these debates took place in the king's court in Tanjore and, in ALL the debates Sri Appaya Dikshita lost. We in the Madhwa Muttam have transcripts of these debates. Well, Subbu said, these took place so long ago and, we really don't know what happened. I said, well, how convenient. You Adwaitins remember that Shankara defeated Mandana Mishra, which took place even earlier but, cannot re-call that Sri Appaya Dikshita, supposedly Shankara himself re-born losing to a Dwaitin? Well, how convenient? He then said that in his blogs he is going to prove that Sriman Vijayeendra Tirtha was wrong. I didn't know if I should laugh at his ignorance or pity his ego. What Appaya Dikshita was unable to do, Subbu single handedly going to do. I told him that this is what Sriman Raghavendra Tirtha used to say about his Paramaguru Sriman Vijayeendra Tirtha - even just to know the names of the titles of the 104 works of Sriman Vijayeendra Tirtha and, what it is about as a synopsis, you have to be a very great scholar. So, I told Subbu that he can be a Don Quixote trying to prove Sriman Vijayeendra Tirtha wrong through his blogs. It has been two years since he took this challenge and, yet to make good on it. I also told him that he is just a copy and paste expert - Control C and Control V expert and, not a knowledgeable person in Vedantham. Just wanted to share with you folks.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09827212712013416945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-43593618209615895682015-02-07T14:06:40.267+05:302015-02-07T14:06:40.267+05:30I will reply in detail latest by Monday afternoon....I will reply in detail latest by Monday afternoon. Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.com