I was really surprised to stumble across this letter today and I have to admit that I was quite disturbed by it. . . . Firstly, I find it pretty irresponsible that a Srivaishnava would enter into a contentious debate within another sampradaya in this fashion. In this case, it is the already volatile Ritvik Debate which is so divisive within ISKCON. This is not something where we should be taking sides and opening ourselves up to enmity. Its really none of our business and we hope that an amicable solution will emerge and that relative harmony will return to that community of devotees. What is doubly disturbing is to find that Sri Tatachar swami is misrepresenting positions on Srivaishnavism by way of making his unwelcome argument. The first is the claim that Sri Ramanuja was the disciple of Sri Yamunacharya: - - - Very interestingly, Ramanujacharya mentions Yamunacharya and offers obeisances to him in his benedictory verses found in the beginning of the Vedartha sangraha. This shows that Acharya Ramanuja is considered to be a sishya of Yamunacharya only. - - - How does the benedictory verses in the Veda Sangraha show that Sri Ramanuja was the sishya of Sri Yamanuncharya? Sri Ramanuja is offering respects to a great acharya, not making a statement that he is his sishya. That is Sri Tatachars speculation and nothing more. We see such dedications all the time but these are showing respect and affection and cannot be considered declarations of discipleship. Sri Ramanuja offers felicitous respects to Sri Yamunacharya as one who dispelled the erroneous teachings of the Advaitis. Although Sri Ramanuja is regarded by some to be the Ekalavya of Sri Yamunacharya, he is not in truth or in fact considered to be his direct disciple. Sri Ramanuja was the disciple of Sri Mahapurna, of whom he had both his vani and vapu. It doesnt matter whether or not Mahapurna considered Ramanuja to be his disciple or not (and in my extensive research on the life of Sri Ramanuja I have found nothing to indicate this). Out of humility he may have considered his position to be subordinate but the fact is that he gave the Pancha Samskara to Sri Ramanuja on the order of Sri Tiruvaranga, whom Sri Yamunacharya had bequeathed the leadership of the Srivaishnavas in Srirangam. Sri Ramanuja also took initiation into certain mantras, etc. from other prominent disciples of Sri Yamunacharya but he only took the Pancha Samskara from Sri Mahapurna. So there is no real question that Sri Mahapurna was the acharya of Sri Ramanuja: this is how parampara works. Every morning we pray: asmad gurubhyo namah, asmat parama gurubhyo namah, asmat sarva gurubhyo namah, srimate ramanujaya namah, srimate parankusa-dasaya namah, srimad yamuna-munaye namah . . . there is the parampara right away. Its my understanding that one must take initiation from a living acharya - maybe some great teachers in the past in different sampradayas did not but that is not for us or those in their lineage to imitate - our lot is to follow the path of the previous acharyas, not to imitate. As for the Ritvik Debate in ISKCON . . . I have my opinion and Ill keep it to myself, because its none of my business. This letter is only my business because it misrepresents Srivaishnavism to another sampradaya. The next erroneous position in this unwelcome missive is this idea that the acharya takes our karma in the process of initiation, as proposed by Sri Tatachar. This is not in our sampradaya that I have ever heard of. This is a Gaudiya Vaishnava and Advaitin/Monist concept, not a Srivaishnava one. Krishna says in the Gita aham tvam sarva papebhyo mokshayishyami ma sucah - I will free you of your karmas, do not grieve, so where is the need or ability for an acharya to take on this enormous duty? Sri Tatachar also claims: - - - In the case of Sri Ramanuja, I have stated that he appointed 74 simhasana-adhipatis and made them gurus. In spite of that we owe our allegiance to Sri Ramanuja only. - - - How can this be true: are we to disregard our acharya? Has he not read any of the works from our lineage which clearly state the importance of our acharya? Has he not read the Prapanna Parijata? Are we to disregard Sri Manavalamamuni or Sri Vedanta Desikan or Sri Pillai Lokacharya or the many others in our parampara? Of course we owe our allegiance to Sri Ramanuja, but our acharya is Sri Ramanujas representative and so are all the members of our parampara. All that we know is due to the mercy of our acharya and we bow before him with whatever humility we can muster. With all due respect, I find Sri Tatachar swamis position to be very much slanted and narrow. I also found the interview style of the ISKCON devotee to be quite typical of a person who is asking only the questions for which he will get the answers he wants to hear. Asking leading questions is not the way to get to the truth or provide the balance which permits the reader to form an opinion. Its very cultish to try and shape opinions in this manner. folknet.in/SS2008/html/images/Srila%20Prabhupada/truth/More_Vaishnava_Acharyas_Accept_Ritvik.pdf
Posted on: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:42:46 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015