[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ISKCON -- help with these terms
-
To: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (srh)
-
Subject: Re: ISKCON -- help with these terms
-
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 17:30:03 -0500 (EST)
-
Cc: rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian)
-
In-Reply-To: <199603062000.PAA16339@culbertson.ecn.purdue.edu> from "Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian" at Mar 6, 96 03:00:21 pm
shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
> who has some real learning to speak of. Perhaps if I can get a copy of
> Vaadiraaja Tiirtha's or Raghavendra Tiirtha's tippaNis on Madhva's
> BrhadaaraNyaka bhaashya (I'm trying to), I may be able to answer them
> to some satisfaction.
Thanks for your reply. If you get the books mentioned above, could you pl. post
the details on srh?
> I think Shankara is not called an avataara even by Advaitis, because
> that tradition portrays him as a realized soul or jiivan-mukta who
> taught other souls, rather than as the Supreme Lord Himself (or one of
> His senior attendants) preaching to devotees. Perhaps this is why
> there is so little worship of Shankara by Advaitis, in contrast with
> the egregious deification of Raamaanuja and Madhva by their
> sampradaayas?
Actually advaitins say that avataaras are only partial manifestations of the
Lord whereas the GYaani is the Lord himself. Ramana Maharishi has made this
point many times. The point is that avataaras need not be GYaani's always!
Also, atleast the Shankara mutts usually say that Shankara was a manifestation
of Shiva. However, IMO this story may have been started by his disciples who
were probably in awe of his stature. Similar stories are told of Ramana as the
manifestation of Kartikeya, though he never said so himself. If he were born
even 400 years back, such a story may have gained respectability as tradition.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Sitting quietly doing nothing, spring comes and the grass grows by itself.
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
