ShriirAma establishes a Jyotirlinga - Rameswaram

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Ram Chandran wrote:

> Anand Hudli <anandhudli at HOTMAIL.COM>  Writes:
>
> > PS: Ravi and others who are from Madurai may have something to say
> > about Rameswaram. Their comments are welcome.
>
> Greetings:
>
> I am from Madurai and I wanted to say something but I can't because my
> hands are tied!  The topic of discussion does not fall within the scope
> of Advaita-List, as specified by Ravi in his postings on
> ADMIN:Apologies.  This is a useful article for me and for many other
> readers in this list but with the new regulations such postings violate
> the guidelines of this list. I couldn't find any word close to Sankara
> or Advaita in your article.

Not so!  It is an unfortunate misconception that Shankaracharya was not
concerned with or even against Bhakti and conventional religion.  In fact
while he says Jnana and Jnana alone can be the cause of Moksha, this path
is only for those who have taken sannyasa.  For the rest, adherence to
Dharmic duties such as going to tirths and mandirs are not just an
optional extra they are the law!  Not to mention other great figures like
Swami Madhusudan Saraswati and Shri Bhaskararaya have also promoted Bhakti
and Karma without giving an inch on the topic of Jnana.

> This posting raises lots of questions on
> the scope of topics for this list.  If we accept this article and reject
> an article on Buddha, we become morally corrupt.

In another post I am about to make a similiar argument however there is
one crucial difference.  As Anand pointed out Buddhism is anti-Vedic while
Shri Rama is certainly not.  As Vedantins, it is the Vedas and their
descendant shastras, and the tradition that flows from them which is the
criterion for judging suitability.

> Someone can point out
> that we are a group of narrow-minded folks discriminating over some
> group of people in the list.  Of course, we are not some narrow-minded
> people. Then we better understand the implications of narrowing down the
> scope of topics for the listing.   I am glad to see your posting, like
> your posting, want to add some additional points but I can't! My hands
> are tied!
>
> This a time to contemplate, discuss and debate the scope of topics for
> this list before jumping into hasty conclusions and guidelines.  Let us
> not CREATE a Monster and ask for help to destroy our creation. We can be
> better off by not creating the monster!
>

Things will probably become clearer when Ravi posts his FAQ.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>