Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Anand's letter

From the Bhakti List Archives

Jaganath.Bharadwaj • March 6, 1996 


The article Shri Dileepan posted appeared in Nrsimha Priya, a
magazine which normally stays out of politics.  If this magazine
called for protest, then it is to defend one's faith.  The fact that
it was Sri Nrsimha Priya, a magazine edited by learned Vaishnavas,
that called for the protest, itself fulfils Anand's
requirement that one should should support the efforts one's Acharya
and not work independently.

It does not require the knowledge of a Vidwan in nyaaya shastra to
determine whether what happened in Thiruchannoor was right or wrong.
 Per the body soul relationship, in Visishtadvaita philosophy,
Alamelum Mangai Thaayaar is the soul who controls us while Durga in
any of her forms is part of Narayana's body that is controlled by the
Divya Dampatis.

To make a crude comparison with the lowkika life, if the regular
Pancharatra worship at Thiroochanoor can be compared to the
sentiments expressed to a mother on mother's day by means of a card
or otherwise, worshipping the same Thaayaar, in Durga form is like
giving a mother a mother's day card that goes something like this:
"You have enchanting legs, seductive hips, ... lips etc."

I apologise if I offended anyone's sentiments, but this was how I
felt when I read the posting.  This is what the learned Vaishnavas in
India have asked anyone with a knowledge of English to protest.  All
I did was to make it easy for someone without the time to write a
letter but who agreed with the sentiments to pen their protest.

Visisthadvaita philosophy has a place to pay its respects to
Narayana's gross body, but that comes within Sandhyavandana Kramas.
Alamelu Mangai Thaayaar's temple is not the place for it.

Based on Vidyasankar's writings and some limited reading of Adi
Sankara's works, Adi Sankara Himself does not appear to have equated
Lakshmi Narayana with others.

Jaganath.