You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : October 1995

Mani Varadarajan's comments

Jay.Bharadwaj_at_nrecatao.nreca.org
Date: Tue Oct 03 1995 - 07:57:11 PDT

I wish to reply to some of the points made by Mani in his reply to my
earlier posting.

*  Regarding assumptions made while quoting Acharyas.  For a
Mumukshu (seeker of salvation) questioning an Acharya's statement can only
be with the understanding that the Acharya is self realized and that the
questions are directed towards removing existing dvandva in the Mumukshu's
mind which have been caused by previous sins.  Questions that by their
very nature question the motives and integrity of an Acharya does not help
a Mumukshu in his/her quest for salvation.

*  As long as we think that the Acharya is just a mere human subject to
the same fallacies as we are, we will only be like a plane on a taxiway in
Laguardia airport in the middle of a thunderstorm.  There will be no
possibility of takeoff.  We should look upon our Acharya at least as
representing God's instructions and respect the positions of other
Acharyas.  This becomes easy to understand if we accept the fact that the
only one rule common to all Jivatmas is we should do whatever the Single
Almighty God wants us to do.  Just as in Newton's law motion is relative
only to an other object and there is no such thing as absolute motion, in
God's law there is no single uniform religion or code of conduct, but we
follow what our Acharya tells us.  E g in Srivaishnava tradition the Aarti
flame is thrown away after the Aarti is complete while in all other Hindu
traditions, it is accepted as Prasadam by putting one's hand over the
flame and placed on one's head.  What the Srivaishnava acharya says is
right for the Srivaishnava and other teachers say is right for their
followers only and not for us.  If this group is called Srirangam and
Prapatti one will assume that fundamental Srivaishnava principles will not
be questioned.  This includes the fact that Sriman Narayana alone is the
Supreme God and that only those not in contact with Triguna Sattva, Rajas
and Tamas are worshippable.  It is for this reason that many of the Devata
may be great Prappanas or Bhagavan Himself (under some circumstances) but
they cannot be worshipped.  Eg Hanuman who is worshipable today will
become the next Brahma.  At that time he will still not be worshipped as
Brahma though he may be among the greatest of Prapannas.  There is no end
to questions one can ask.  How can Tirumangai Azhwar or Vipra Narayana be
considered worshipable considering their actions?  Realization will come
only the grace of Acharyas of the calibre of Srimad Azhaghia Singar, when
we intially accept what they have to say.  That will be possible only if
we look upon their words as Sri Krishna or Sri Lakshmi Nrsimhaswamy.
Srimad Azhaghiya Singar Himself has said in a lecture that very few people
realize that Acharyas are capable of giving Tattva Gnyanam and since He
sits eats walks and falls sick just like they do.

Regarding comparison of unrealized offensive statements to a frog's
croaking:  Yes it was harsh and I apologise.  Krishna Prasad and Dileepan
made a dignified defence.  But the point of such statements being of no
value to a Mumukshu stands.

What I said about Christos and meaning of the Greek word was a quote from
a video interview by a French Roman Catholic Cardinal.  I do not see a
reason to question his understanding of his scripture in this
instance, since he is only a couple of levels below a pope.  No linguist
has told me that Krishta and Christos are in no way etymologically
related.  Do you know of an expert in Sanskrit and Greek?  Irrespective of
whether there is an etymological relation or not all 3 western religions
require their followers to worship the single Almighty God, do what He
tells us to do and all protection is promised.  This is an exact parallel
to Sarva Dharman Parityajya.  A fully surrendered Christian or Jew may or
may not go Sri Vaikuntha, but there is no doubt that he enjoys God's
protection.

No one who has posted anything on this bulletin board in the couple of
weeks I have been on it has had any quarrel with other religions.  The
fact remains however, that by the practice of Shaivism, one does not get
relief from the material world.  One goes to Shiva loka from where one has
to come back unless he takes to the worship of Narayana.  Sarvadeva
Namaskaaram may go to Keshava but the result of Sarva Deva Aradhana is not
the same as exclusive Aradhana to Narayana.

Jaganath.