“Abhinava VedavyAsa”

By Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri


People, who do not have proper shabda-j~nAna, should not put their objections forward without proper analytical thinking. If pejavara shrigaLu used a term in a shAstric context, one must atleast make enough effort to analyze themselves or seek the support of proper scholars. If they fail to do both, they end up being laughing stock. The word “abhinava” and “abhinna” are entirely different. The expression “abhinava VedavyAsa” means that “we do not know how Vedavyasa would sound like, but when we hear the person in question, we get reminded of Vedavyasa”. Not only one can claim that Pejavara shri knew this much, but also the intending objectors also have the responsibility to decipher that. Quite contrarily, the person, who made a clear statement “I mahAtAyi devarannE hettaru”),is no where near the stature of Pejavara shrI and such person’s statement needs a lot more scrutiny. 

Secondly, things seem upside down. A statement from Pejavara shrI that has no need to be objected is objected, where as a statement from some unknown student, that deserves an objection is not only forwarded by the same objector, but even justified by the same objector. This objector has 100% confidence that the student has proper kaksha tAratamya jnAna and does not mean what that person said, whereas that objector does not agree that Pejavara shri has that much kaksha tAratamya jnAna! There are members, who support both these wrong actions! 

Thirdly, objections or khaNDana are done based on what is said and not what is meant or else Our Acharya’s Khandana traya becomes meaningless as people can argue that Advaitis do not really mean that Jivatma is Paramatma and our Acharya wasted his time on that!

Fourthly, how can any one expect that Sri Satyatma Tirtharu, with all his busy schedule, see that kind of Whatsapp and Facebook messages and then express that he is upset? Only people, who forward and propagate such messages, must use their common sense.

Now, let us compare the two situations. 

Situation-1:
1. Pejavara Shri called shrI Bannanje Govindacharya as “abhinava VedavAsa”.

2. He did not say “ShrI Bannanje Govindacharya is abhinna from ShrI Vedavyasa”.

3. When that is mentioned here, a person raises objection thinking that the Kaksha tAratamya j~nAna of Pejavara ShrI is questionable and other members keep silent.

4. The statement does not even have superficial meaning of abheda.

5. Even a benefit of doubt is not given to Shri Pejavara Shri that he did not mean that Sri Bannanje Govindacharya as VedavyasarUpi Paramatma  but a great daasa of VedavyAsa rUpi Paramatma, Vayu devaru, devathas and all swOttamaru above Sri Bannanje Acharya.

6. It did not even strike to the objector that “Sri Bannanje Acharya himself will be upset if anyone calls him Vedavyasaru meaning Paramatma.”

7. No one atleast thought - We all understand the intent,  thought, etc. are not to literally equate anyone to the status of GOD nor to hurt anyone's feelings. 

8. In fact everyone should have thought that such thought is not even there in that statement and thus there is not even a need for any benefit of doubt.

9. Sri Pejavara Shri was not student of Sri Bannanje Acharya.

10. The question of Sri Bannanje Acharya being upset or correct his students or Sri Pejavara Sri if they call him  "Abhinava Vedavyasa" as both of them know the meaning of the word “abhinava”

11. Both Pejavara Srigalu and Sri Bannanje Acharya know the diffrence between the word “abhinava” and the word “abhinna”. Only the objector has no knowledge of that difference.

12. Surely “only Aparoxa jnaanigalu are qualified to call devatha Amsha if there is any with regard to Sri Bannanje Govindacharya and none of us are qualified to call others as devatha amsha.”. The current statement does not do that - it neither called Sri Bannanje Acharya as devatAMsha or abhinna from Devaru.

Situation-2:
1. A post mentions “ellarU makkaLu hettarE I mahAtAyiyavaru devarannE hettaru” (If all deliver children, this great revered mother delivered Paramatma only (note the evakAra - devarannE hettaru). 

2. The same objector forwards that message. 

3. The message is a niravakAsha statement - meaning it does not have any scope for alternate interpretation.

4. When an objection is raised against this, the objector does not even feel sorry for forwarding that, but gives justification to the message.

5. Even a benefit of doubt is given  - “knowing Kaksha taratamya,  I am 100% sure, Sri Satyatma theertha Swamiji avara students did not mean Satyatma Theertharu as Paramatma  but a great daasa of Paramatma,  Vayu devaru, devathas and all swOttamaru above Swamiji.”

6. Further justified - Sri Satyatma Theertharu Himself will be upset if anyone calls Him devaru meaning Paramatma.

7. It did not even strike to the objector that Sri Satyatma Tirtharu, with all his busy schedule, will not even see that kind of Whatsapp and Facebook messages and so how will he express that he is upset?

8. Some further justified - We all understand the intent,  thought, etc. are not to literally equate anyone to the status of GOD nor to hurt anyone's feelings. 

9. In fact everyone should have thought that such thought is there in that statement and thus there is no scope for any justification. 

10. Surely - "Naasti Naarayana Samam, na Bhutham, Na Bhavashiya'ti", is the keystone in our wonderful philosophy. Then how can any one either ignore or stand behind a statement that violates this principle?

11. The objector goes even to the extent - “generally people call devaru if others come and help at the time of need.   That is all Swamiji's Students would have meant.” What? That will be a private message and that will sound like “neevu devaraMte sahAya mADiddIri”. It will not look like this message at all.

12. Some one may say what ever comes to one’s mind. Some one may have posted that. One can simply ignore. But, how can any person, who has even basic respect for shAstra forward such message and even worse justify and stand behind such message?

13. When some one makes a criticism of a public statement, is that based on what is obviously present in that statement or what ever someone claims as intent. As mentioned earlier, Acharya did Khandana traya based on obvious statements.

14. Surely “only Aparoxa jnaanigalu are qualified to call devatha Amsha if there is any with regard to Sri Bannanje Govindacharya and none of us are qualified to call others as devatha amsha.”. The current statement goes lot beyond calling Sri Satyatma Tirtharu as devatAMsha. It said that he is dEvarE (dEvarannE hettaru).





Comments

Post a Comment