Re: Kundalini etc.
From the Bhakti List Archives
Malolan Cadambi • Mon Jan 20 2003 - 14:19:00 PST
> Your statement "One cannot condemn all these" may be acceptable from a
> different view-point. If one takes ONLY the path of Vyakaranam, then that
is
> what is condemned. Similarly if one takes ONLY the yoga margam to attain
> moksham, then that is condemned.
The Angam-s are not mArgam-s. They cannot be confused for the other.
> Ramanujar and not of any specific "kalai" for there were no different
kalais
> except "Thenkalai Sampradayam"at the time of Shri Ramanujar. And hence
there
> was no necessity for me to explicitly mention "Thennacharya Sampradayam".
I
I would avoid commenting on that issue, since it is not in the charter of
the list. I would also not wish to conduct discussion off-list in this
matter.
But, for an independent view, you might wish to read Dr.Patricia Mummume's
book "Sri Vaishnava Theological Dispute".
Regards,
Malolan Cadambi
Austin,TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
- SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- Next message: vijayalu: "Re: ThiruppAvai 30th verse- Sri Mukkur Azhagiya Singra's divine anubhavam-conclusion"
- Previous message: Martin Gansten: "Re: Kundalini etc."
- In reply to: Lakshmi Narasimhan: "Re: Kundalini etc."
- Next in thread: Anand Iyengar: "Question regarding Chanting of Vedas by women"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
