[Advaita-l] Books on Bhagawatham.

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

> There was an opinion by Sri Sunil that Bhagavatham, Ramayana etc. needs no
> commentary. I gave the argument in favour of why commentary is required by
> quoting a verse from Ramayana that could be very wrongly misinterpreted as
> if Ravana succeeded in physically violating Sita. Vishnu, the Lord of
> Sringara rasa, not even Bharatha Muni, only knows what sringara rasa is
> being spoken of by Sri Vidyasankar or Sri Srikanta in this context.
> 
... ... ...
> mood of child speaking to lokamata! It is part of tantra sastras to worship
> the deity as a child. But Ravana could not worship the deity as a lover as
> the deity (Sita) did not permit that. So, there was no Sringara Rasa
> between Ravana and Sita.

I'm responding to this against my better judgment. I wish, Rajaram,
you would take the trouble to read carefully and not attribute things
to people willy-nilly. 
 
Sri Sunil made a comment about the bhAgavata purANa commentary
by Sridhara Swamin. Commenting about this, you first meandered to
the Ramayana and made an unsavory statement about Ravana and
Sita that brought you criticism from some members of this list. In the
ensuing discussion, which wandered away from the Ramayana as well,
Sri Srikanta brought up, in passing, the fact that temples have lots of
erotic sculptures.

In response to that, I made a generic comment that describing eroticism
as something that is intrinsically unholy or atrocious is a wrong way to
read our texts or to view the temples. The discomfort that people feel
from textual accounts, whether in the old itihAsa-purANas and kAvya-s
or more recent Sankaravijaya-s is more a function of their own mental
conditioning, not a reflection on those who wrote these accounts. That is
the opinion I expressed, along with stating that in Indian aesthetic theory,
SRngAra rasa is acknowledged as the king.

Any SRngAra rasa (or the lack thereof) involving Ravana and Sita is an
artefact of your own mind; nobody else on this list suggested anything
to that effect. In a list discussion with multiple voices responding to one
another, if you cannot keep track of who said what, when, in response
to whom and why, I suggest that you read the thread twice or thrice
before satisfying the burning itch to post a response.

I am being deliberately blunt when I say this, and the above comment 
is meant not only for you personally, but generally to some others as
well. The discussion topics that come up on this list and the manner in
which they progress tend to have a pattern that is dominated by the
misunderstandings of a few. 
 
Vidyasankar