Monday, November 9, 2009

Please, no slander on Ramanujacharya.

 


Soon after coming back from enjoying the Birthday Abhisheka of Ramanujacharya at Sriperumbudur, I was jolted to receive this book review mailed by a friend. The book review did not shock me. Rather it was the other book against which this book was written as a rebuttal shocked me.

 

The book written by Mr Garudaswamy aka A.Krishnamachari was a rebuttal of the book "Ramanuja - Myth and Reality" (October 2008) written by Dr Nagaswamy whose website on archeology of Tamil lands was attractive enough for me to have included it in my list of must-reads in this blog. In his book, Dr Nagaswamy does not recognize the works of Ramanujacharya as a social reformer nor does he see him as an intellectual. Mr Garuda swamy counters these views in his "RAMANUJA - A REALITY NOT A MYTH".

 

Before making these two allegations (that he did not reform the society by bringing in all, irrespective of caste and creed and that he was not an intellectual) anyone wishing to meander through Ramanuja's history must align himself in Ramanuja darsanam and live the way that Ramanuja ascribed and study what he wrote and preached. He must see the devotees in the monthly Thiruvadhirai abhishekam of Ramanujacharya. They are of different varnas and are from different castes and languages. Their devotion to him is something that one must see in person when the abhishekam is being done. They all have a sense of closeness to Ramanujacharya just out of love for him for bringing them (through their ancestors) to his Darsanam (point of view known as Vaishnava Siddhantham).

 

About the other accusation on his intellectual prowess, I am always amazed by "Vedartha sangraha" which is a short book bringing out the essence of entire Vedas. No one can give such a short and simple exposition on Vedas bringing out answers for all questions that arise in our minds. Many readers have expressed their appreciation for my dealing with diverse topics on Vedanta. I owe it all to Vedartha sangraha only. Learn this simple and small book; you can handle any question on Vedanta.

 

This is not the first time Ramanuja's supreme service to Hinduism is questioned. The recovery of the Utsawa murthy of Melkote from a Muslim princess was doubted (unfortunately) by one Mr Sampath Kumaran in his book "History and Ramanuja's biography". His contention or rather discovery (!) was that that Muslims / sultans were not yet established in Delhi at the time Ramanuja lived, nor was there any invasion reported in any chronicles, as far down  Melkote.

 

We must remember that these instances were recorded long ago in Guru parapara Prabhavam which chronicles the life and events of Acharyas. Why should they record something that was not true? Where was the need for them to bring in a "Muslim' identity when Muslims were not reportedly present then?  When we come across such notions, we must not dismiss the Guru parampara chronicles as myths. Rather we must look for any gaps in the record of history that we have today.

 

My understanding is as follows.


Muslims / Sultans had made their presence in India at the time of Ramanujacharya. Invasions were already on. This is historically true. We can not rule out the possibility that the commanders of the Muslim  army were stationed in the areas of Muslim occupation. They must have been making raids on temples every now and then. Some small-range commander might have raided Melkote and looted the temple. (The temple is old and had existed in the previous yugas too.) The loot along with the Utsawa murthy must have gone to the palace of the Commander. The daughter of the commander had taken interest in the Murthy. 



The raid in Melkote might not have been an isolated incident. They had raided many temples in Karnataka and near Mysore. This notion can be supported by the many instances of recovery of idols (mooolavars and Utsavars ) unearthed in parts around Mysore in the recent past. I was fortunate to take part in the Kalasabhishekam ceremony of Rama in a place called Kembhal near Mysore. The Moolavar deities were found buried and were spotted through Prasna. No one knows the whereabouts of the Utsavar. No one knows when these deities were buried. Similarly I came to know of Lord Ranganatha at another place near Mysore where also the Moolavars were found buried but not the utsavars.



I heard of instances of deities found either hidden in disused wells or buried in many places Karnataka, around Mysore and Mandya- perhaps to evade capture by some invaders. No Hindu invader could have rummaged the temples. The suspicion lies on Muslim invaders only. It is possible to assume that some small, non-documented raids had happened in this part of the country by the army chiefs or even by a bunch of raiders. Our temples were their main targets and our people were not skilled in defending such barbaric raids. Melkote is one place that also must have borne the brunt of such an invasion.


Another gory raid was done by Tippu Sutan that resulted in the slaughter of 1000 Brahmins in Melkote on a Deepavali day. But this raid is not recorded by historians. Till this day, there is no celebration of Deepavali in Melkote.. The people of today are the descendants of the lucky few who were away from the town at the time of raid. The anti-Hindu way of Tippu has been concealed by the 'secularists'. More on this link:

http://alamsha.sulekha.com/blog/post/2009/07/paedophilia-muslim-bashing-vs-hindu-bashing/comment/1603324.htm

 

 

- jayasree

 

******************

 

BOOK REVIEW

RAMANUJA A REALITY NOT A MYTH

by Sankaranarayanan Srinivasan

 

(Editor Arsha Vidya News Letter)



This book has been written to defend Acharya Sri Ramanuja the founder of Sri Vaishnava Siddhantham also known as Visistadvaitha philosophy. The introduction gives a jolt ""This book has been written to defend a well known Sri Vaishnava Acharya Sri Ramanuja whose image has been tarnished by an archaeologist Sri.Nagaswamy.His allegations and anti-arguments border on blasphemy. Nagaswamy has underestimated the dangers of this book.

"It has been observed that Indian authors have always borrowed any anti-Hindu thesis from their foreign colleagues, whom they assume to be neutral. In the same manner Foreign authors too grab any anti-Hindu thesis from Indian scholars, whom they assume to be 'neutral'".

 

Thus anything anti-Hindu and anti - India is lapped up, regurgitated and made into saleable products, with utter disregard to the sensitivities of the Hindu community, who are made into experimental 'subjects'. Hinduism is a living tradition which is anathi and apaurushyeyam and has thrived for thousands of years. Nagaswamy's book "Ramanuja Myth and Reality" (October 2008), has ignored the dangers of quoting a foreign author on a well established Acharya of a Major Hindu Sampradhaya".

 

Dr.S.Kalyanaraman Ph.D, says in his foreword to the book by Garudaswamy aka A.Krishnamachari:

 

"The debate joined by 'Garudaswamy' is a serious debate in recent times in post-independent India, when every sacred institution of Hindus is sought to be attacked, tarnished and denigrated in the media and public sphere. Sri Ramanuja has not been spared by none other than Dr. Nagaswamy a doyen among archaeologists in India and who has made contributions to Hindu civilization studies through his Tamil Arts Academy".

 

"Sri Ramanuja was an institution by himself. Emberumanar (as he is fondly called by Sri Vaishnavas) who just arrived at a juncture when Islamic invasions were in full force attempting to rip apart the Hindu civilization, and posing a great threat to the integrity of Bharat. Sri Ramanuja's contribution must be understood in the broader context of the civilizational challenges, and how he acted as a bulwark against insidious and external threats. Presenting this larger framework with an erudite marshalling of evidence, this book by 'Garudaswamys is an effective rebuttal of the views contained in the book by Dr. Nagaswamy. Nagaswamy's views tantamount to 'Invading The Sacred' to borrow a title of the book published in 2007, by Krishnan Ramaswamy, Antonio De Nicholos and Aditi Banerjee. (http://www.invadingthesacred.com)."

 

 

Dr.Prema Nandakumar in her foreword says: " I was jolted suddenly by Dr. Nagaswamy's brief preface which listed his aim: it was to prove that "Ramanuja was never the Srikaryam of the (Srirangam) temple, was never a party to any administrative reforms nor was interested in any Social reform but was a pure Vedantin and so by jettisoning these concocted stories propagated by the Pauranikas – myth-makers, the true greatness of Ramanuja as an outstanding intellectual would blossom."..."Belonging to the Sri Ramanuja Darsana and brought up in its benign and Ananda-laden atmosphere from childhood by my father-Acharya, K.R Srinivasa Iyengar, this cynical brushing aside of a Presence seemed illogical in the extreme. Dr. Nagaswamy cannot be a loner in this job, if he is taking on a personality like Sri Ramanuja who is revered by millions the world over for his Vedanta, for his administrative acumen, acharya-bhakti, and social consciousness."

 

The book has received ten forewords apart from the two quoted, above. Other doyens of Sri Vaishnavism who contributed include: Padmanabhan, author, writer and critic. Leading Publisher  and editor of "Sri Vaishnava Sudharshanam" S.Krishnaswamy Iyengar MA.B.L.,and Author of several books on Srivaishnavism says Nagaswamy has deliberately misinterpreted his books.

 

Dr.A.V.Rangachari, Ph.D.,Retd.H.O.D. & Professor of Economics.Annamalai University,Chidambaram.;Sri.D.Rangachari, M.A.,Writer & Critic.Sri A.V.Rangachari ascertains"Ramanuja's respect for the Alwars who belonged to different Castes, the propagation of Saranagathi for all, irrespective of caste or creed, the dissemination of the knowledge of Tirumantra to devouts at Thirukoshtiyur have been very well portrayed to bear testimony to the social reforms and temple reforms of Sri Ramanuja".Dr.V.S.Seshadri, Retd.Professor of History,Government Arts Colleges; Dr.R.Rangarajan, M.A.,Ph.D. Retd. Professor of Tamil- Madura College, Madurai.Sri.G.P.Srinivasan,Managemant consultant,and Journalist has exposed the historical distortion and the big lie and why we must reject the theory of Nagaswamy who quotes one John Carman as an authority on  Ramanuja's life .Prof. S.A.R.P.V Chaturvedi,Chennai.has given a brilliant crowning piece foreword.

 

This book has opened new vistas in epigraphical research on the life and accomplishments of Sri Ramanuja (1017-1137 CE), the founder of Sri Vaishnava Siddhantham also known as Visihtadvaitha philosophy. The author has identified who 'kirumikanda chola' was, when historians and hagiologists were baaffled on his identity. Ramanuja not once but went to Karnataka thrice , as described by hagiologists. The search for the Ramapriyan utsva murthy  from Melcote was a historical reality, which Ramanuja recovered from  the Muslim invaders camp. Ramanuja was very much involved in the general administration of Sri Rangam temple as 'Azhwar kanmigal 'who were heading the Sri Vaishnava varium and Sri Bandara Varium the administrative bodies of the temple were his disciples. Ramanuja brought out administrative reforms at Thirumala and Melcote. That Kulothunga I was well disposed towards Vishnu temples through out his regnal years has been brought out by inscriptional evidences.  

 

Dr.Kalyanaraman further says : "I deem it a privilege to place on record that this book on Sri Ramanuja is a Historical and Religious treatise, and should be an eye-opener for persons who question the historicity of Sri Ramanuja, and this is an opportunity for other scholars to research further on the topics highlighted by 'Garudaswami'. Perhaps this is the first time, a study on Sri Ramanuja based on Inscriptional evidences, has been successfully accomplished."

 


Related post:-

On Ramanuja's time:-

Ramanujacharya's birth date decoded

 

 

27 comments:

Balaji said...

Yes, that is sure. No Hindu king will ever destroy a temple (or any other religious institution). I think people get carried away by watching pseudo-secular movies like 'Dasavatharam'. I will not agree that the Chozhan threw Govindaraja vigraha into the scene. It is just to cause tension again between Shaivas and Vaishnavas. However, Kamal says that it was Kulothunga Chozhan II, you say I, which is true actually?

jayasree said...

Who is Kirumi kanda chozhan is a matter of debate and not yet resolved unanimously.

Raghavan said...

Dear Jayasree

A good post. Recently "Garudaswamy" has mentioned about this in his "Panchajanyam" magazine. I'm yet to read both the books.

These books are first to be publised based on Srirangam Inscriptions. As Koil Ozhugu is just brought out to the mass (thanks to Srivaishnavasri), Dr.Nagaswamy has cleverly utilised those based on his years of experiences in the Tamil epigraphy.

Its so sad that Acharyan's like Ramanuja are just easily questioned by this mere historians. He immediately drew his conclusions saying that there are no inscriptions for Ramanuja being a social reformer / administrator of Srirangam temple. Kaalam inimael Badhil sollum.

Thanks that atleast we've Genius like A.Krishnamachari to raise the voice against such people.

Would like to know more about the books if you've read them.

AdiyEn
Ramanuja dhasan Veeraraghavan

Nagarajan said...

Hi Jayasree, Before asking this question, I would like to tell you that a.) I am a smartha by birth and I worship Siva and Vishnu with equal devotion. Adisankara, Himself has told that it is a sin to discriminate them and attribute superiority to one deity. We all chant Rama nama the Taraka Mantra and write SriRamaJayam.

b.) I haven't read Nagasamy's book and also the book written on the rebuttal.

It is believed that Ramanuja is a avtar or Adisesha. He propagated Vaishnavism and Visishtadwaitha sidhanta and also hatred for the devotion to Siva. His disciple Koorathazwan was convicted by a Chola King who had profound devotion for Lord Siva. In fact, Koorathazvan made a calumnious remark(Asti Dronam athaha param) about Lord Siva in the court of the king which enraged him.It seems that hatred was actually endorsed by Ramanuja. (Reference Paramacharya's Deivathin Kural-1st unit). Though Periyava Himself has told there that it was hard for Him to think that Koorathazhvan could have insulted Siva and His devotees.

Now my questions are:

1.) Did Ramanuja actually propagate Siva hatred? It is actually seen that most Iyengars traditionally hate saivites and avoid visiting Siva temples and even if they do, they use to worship only His consort, the Godess as she is Narayani.

2.) As populists say, Was Ramanuja averse to caste system and wanted to abolish it? If your answer is yes, Don't you think caste system is scientific and a wonderful division of labour by birth and not aimed to discriminate people by birth. Even Krishna says that He created four varnas. It is very interesting to note that Adisankara who said everything is ONE and spread Advaita, insisted on caste system since it is important practically. UNITY is important and not UNIFORMITY.

I was waiting to get it clarified for a long time. I have great reverence for Ramanujacharya and I pray to Him to forgive me, If my views are misconceived.

jayasree said...

Dear Mr Nagarajan,

Thanks for writing.
Each question you have raised requires a separate and detailed explanation and be fit to be posted as separate articles. Anyway let me attempt to write in brief here.



//1.) Did Ramanuja actually propagate Siva hatred? It is actually seen that most Iyengars traditionally hate saivites and avoid visiting Siva temples and even if they do, they use to worship only His consort, the Godess as she is Narayani.//


(1) Ramanuja did not propagate hatred for Shiva. He as one who has understood the concept of how One God is manifest as Many, stood by that One God, also known as Brahman. He propagated the worship of Narayana because Narayana has been identified as Brahman by the Vedas (note - it is not the four faced brahma, one of the Trinities whose existence becomes tenable in the created world. Whereas Brahman is the Uncreated, all encompassing One and the Only One.) and interpreted so, by the acharyas of all the 3 sects. So when you know who the Supreme God is, would you go behind others whose manifestations occur as subsequent manifestations of that One Supreme God?

This can be explained in another way also. Suppose it becomes known that you are a close relative of the President of India, members of the Government machinery will be quick to attend to your needs. That happens for the devotee of Narayana. You will read a sloka to this effect in the Pattabhisheka khanda of Valmiki Ramayana, where Valmiki says that deities such as Vinayaka will stay put in the homes of the Rama bhakthan to bless him.

Rama or Narayana is like the brain, other deities are like the different organs of the body entrusted with specific roles. It is at the behest of the brain, the entire functioning of the body happens. You recognize the Brain as Supreme and other functions as part of that Supreme, and the whole body works as a single unit. Your knowledge of the Supremacy of the brain makes you understand how the system works and what you must do in times of crisis. The same applies to understanding Narayana as the Supreme. When a devotee of Narayana has an advantage like that of a relative of the President of India, would he go for identifying himself in any other way?


(cont'd)

jayasree said...

Cont'd from above:-


//2.) As populists say, Was Ramanuja averse to caste system and wanted to abolish it? If your answer is yes, Don't you think caste system is scientific and a wonderful division of labour by birth and not aimed to discriminate people by birth. Even Krishna says that He created four varnas. It is very interesting to note that Adisankara who said everything is ONE and spread Advaita, insisted on caste system since it is important practically. UNITY is important and not UNIFORMITY.//



(2) Ramanuja saw only 2 categories - a devotee and a non- devotee or a Shudra and a Vipra. There was a popular saying in those times on this which you can find quoted in the commentary of “Acharya Hrudhayam” which is a revelation of Acharya’s mind (Ramanuja’s mind) written in the 13th century by Azakiya Manavalap perumal Nayanaar:-

"na shudra bhavad bhaktha: vipraah bhaagavthah smruthaa:/
sarva varneshu te shudra yehya bhaktha Janardhane//"

It means a devotee of God is not a Shudra. He will be a Vipra who is engaged in thoughts on God. The one who is not devoted to Janardhana, to whichever varna he may belong to will be considered as a Shudra only.

Ramanuja worked on this view. Ramanuja was a historical necessity as that was the time
(1) when caste discrimination was there and
(2) religious practices were moving away from spiritual goals. These 2 separate historical facts that coexisted at that time created a need to set right both. Ramanuja fitted in.

Let me explain you further.
As you said Varna was a scientific classification of people based on their inner make up for the purpose of division of labour. It did not hinder the spiritual progress of a person. But this system got vitiated after 1200 AD when the major kingdoms of Tamilnadu went downside. The complete wiping out of Vel kings such as Paari, Ori etc created a situation where the subjects of Vel kings came under the victorious Tamil kings. They were meted out step motherly treatment by the victorious people and kings. To understand this you have to wait till I bring this out in my Tamil blog on Tamizhan Dravidanaa.

But to give a brief account of this here, 18 groups of artisans of Dwaraka and form other Indus sites were evacuated by Agasthya when the presently known Bet Dwaraka was submerged in 1500 BC. Agasthya brought them all to Tamilnadu and settled them in today's Tirunelveli, Coimbatore, Kerala, Mysore, Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri. The settlements went upto Kudremukh in Karnataka.

These 18 groups were skilled in some handwork including pottery, metal work and smithy. Most MBCs of Tamilnadu today are the descendants of these people. Agasthya settled them under the Velir kings who were brought from Dwaraka. But these kings were never accepted by the Tamil kings. In contrast Tamil sangam poets accepted them for their benevolence. (Adhiyman whom Auvaiyaar praised was a Velir king.) Only these kings were given the status of கடை எழு வள்ளல்கள் (7 patrons of the last era) But when these king were wiped out by the Tamil kings, their subjects became orphaned in their own countries. Discrimination against them started at that time.

Varna was not the reason for that discrimination. The domination of the powerful over the powerless (made so by loss of protector kings) was the cause of ill treatment. I will be bringing out these in my Tamil blog with proof.

This is being said here to show that caste discrimination did exist at the time of Ramanuja but the causes for that discrimination were as stated above. In such a background, Ramanuja's pill for the ills was devotion to Narayana. By becoming a devotee, he made sure that they came to enjoy a new status as Bhagavathas that could not be degraded by others. He got 2 fruits in one stroke.

(cont'd)

jayasree said...

2) The religious practice at that time was kaamya –phalan oriented - for “kaamyaarththam” – for the sake of getting desired goals. Homas were done for mundane benefits and even for attaining Swarga. The general discourse at that time was moving away from the spiritual goal of Liberation. You will find repeated arguments against this tendency in Ramanuja's commentary to Brahma sutras.

Ramanuja attempted to infuse a change in that discourse and advocated Renunciation for Liberation. In that context, none but Narayana could become the God to grant that to the devotee.

One may argue that one can get Liberation by worshiping Shiva. It is true, but devotion to Narayana is different genre. Astrology explains this in better terms. You will find some astrological yogas explained in my article in this link
http://www.tamilhindu.com/2010/02/creation-theory-2/


A devotee of Shiva will become an ascetic in his last birth and attain Shivapadam and will not be reborn. Family pleasures are not ascribed to him. But a devotee of Vishnu will have all the riches and a family too in his last birth before he reaches Parama padam and not be born again. Shiva padam is in the created world whereas Parama padam is beyond the Created world. These are the differences between the 2 types of devotion (to Shiva and Vishnu)

In the present day world, it is difficult for people to renounce all pleasures and that is why we don’t come across ardent shiva bhakthas who have renounced everything. Liberation through Shiva bhakthi is a difficult proposition compared to Vishnu bhakthi. For the present age of material aspirations, Vishnu bhakthi is the best way to aim for Liberation.

By this, I want to make it clear that there was no clash of “Gods” in Hinduism. Depending on time, place and people’s mentality, these philosophies are brought to us through Divine manifestations of Acharyas. Adhi Shankara had no two opinions on the Supremacy of Narayana as Brahman. But his avathara had a different message for his time. His mission was to bring out a resurgence of Hinduism in the backdrop of non-vedic Buddhism and reestablish Hinduism to suit the mentality of different people. The classification as Shanmatha was a result of this mission.

So we have to see these avatharas in the historical perspective and not mix them with nor lose sight of the spiritual goals of Hinduism.

Nagarajan said...

Thanks a lot Mam. It is very kind of you that you took the trouble to clarify my doubts.

Also, thankful if you could answer the following parts as well:

His disciple Koorathazwan was convicted by a Chola King who had profound devotion for Lord Siva. In fact, Koorathazvan made a calumnious remark(Asti Dronam athaha param) about Lord Siva in the court of the king which enraged him.It seems that hatred was actually endorsed by Ramanuja. (Reference Paramacharya's Deivathin Kural-1st unit). Though Periyava Himself has told there that it was hard for Him to think that Koorathazhvan could have insulted Siva and His devotees. -

Can you please throw light on this incident quoted..

It is actually seen that most Iyengars traditionally hate saivites and avoid visiting Siva temples and even if they do, they use to worship only His consort, the Godess as she is Narayani.

What is your take on the above practice?

jayasree said...

Dear Mr Nagarajan.

I don't know the instances from Koorathazwan's life as I concentrate only on philosophical issues.

From your response I think I have not conveyed properly the philosophy behind the various Gods. Sometime I will write on this issue. Or if you want, you may browse the net for my name with a tag 'anya devatha aradhana' I have written a few articles on this topic in some yahoo groups.

For the moment let me say this. Even Adhi Shankara has interpreted that Narayana is the Supreme Brahman. Vaishnavites stick to that whereas Shaivites do not. We can not influence them as this realization that Narayana is Supreme comes through births and by itself. There is a verse in Gita to this effect "Sarvam Vasudevam ithi". But such a person is rare to find. Even those who say so may not have realised this and said. So a person aiming for Liberation must move towards "Sarvam Vasudevam ithi" mindset.

That is why Vaishnavites do not go to shiva temples. It does not mean hatred for Shiva. But it does mean that their quest for Parama padham will be hampered if they concentrate on other deities. They can go to Shiva temple and see Vasudevan in Him as per "Sarvam Vasudevam ithi". But that calls for a supreme form of concentration which is rare to get. So the easy way is to stick only to Narayana.

As told in my previous comment all deities function like organs of the body with specific functions. You will understand this better through astrology wherein each planet represents specific significances and such significances are governed by specific deities. Among the deities, Narayana signifies Paramapadham. It is because deities also signify specific gunas or mix of gunas. Narayana signifies Suddha Sattwa and no other deity is characterized so. The one who concentartes on a deity gets embodied with the guna manifest in that deity. That is why staunch Vaishnavites do not go to any temple other than Narayana's. They do not even worship the female consort of Shiva as you have said. If you have seen someone doing that, it means they have not understood the philosophy properly.

Nagarajan said...

Yes, We Saivites inherit the legacies of Adisankara, Appayya Deekshithar, Bhagawan Nama Bhotendrar, Sreedhara Ayyaval, Sadhasiva Brahmendrar, Ramabhadra Deekshithar etc. and Thiyagaiyer, who had a staunch devotion for Rama had also sung krithis on Siva, Ambal and Ganapathi also. Not only them, Ramalinga swamigal, Thayumanavar who were born in other caste are also revered. In Thirupugazh Arunagirinathar addresses Murugan as "Perumale".

Said that, I agree there is a difference in opinion and views in these two sidhanthas. As long as our aim is liberation/renunciation nothing matters. This is where, I think our Sanatana Dharma stands apart from other religions.

Whenever I have any doubt on any religious issues, I use to search your blog. I will defnitely read the one which you have stated here.Thanks a lot..once again.

jayasree said...

Dear Mr Nagarajan,

I am happy to note that you come to my blog to clear your doubts on religious issues. This kind of feed back increases my resolve to write on sanathana Dharma.

For your specific question on why Vaishnavites do not worship any other God, (concept of மறந்தும் புறம் தொழா மாந்தர்) did you read the link I gave from Tamilhindu? Please read it and also the 346 comments under that. Nearly 300 comments in that post contain almost all available thoughts on this issue and recorded by 2 knowledgeable persons Mr Gandharvan and Mr Sarang. You may get many doubts solved if you read those comments. I am giving the link here:-

http://www.tamilhindu.com/2010/02/creation-theory-2/

Anonymous said...

The history of TamilNadu is completely lost with the invasion of Malik Kafur. It is an irrefutable fact thet so called Tanjore Brahmins completely obviliated into darkness until 1801AD when the British established themselves at Kumbakonam.Even Now there is a misconception that Siruthondar, Thirugnanasambandhar and St.Arunagirinathar are all non Brhamins.The Nambudiris were conveniently been portrayed as Choliyas based on Keralotpathi but they were Gauda Saraswath Brahmins. It is in this context that Guru Parampara stories had to be looked into. While we are having some authentic information about Sri Madhvacharya we dont have such information about Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja. The first major inscription about Sri Sankara is Vijaya Kanda Gopalan of Telugu Cholas in thirteenth century AD. It is a fact that the history of Deccan starts only from Vijayanagar Empire since the lifestyle of people of Pre Malik Kafur invasion in Tamil Nadu is completely different from Post Malik Kafur invasion. From the Vira Rajendra's inscription we find that Sankara's philosophy was known as Saririka Mimamsa and Not Advaita and the best commentaries prevalent in Tamil Nadu was that of Prabhakara and Sadhanendra Saraswathi. This dispels the story of Yadava Prakasa and Advaidam. Normally exploits of one persons may be extrapolated into that of earlier person. By rejecting historicity of Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja does not mean that questioning the authenticity. No. Nobody can deny the contribution made THEM to Indian culture. We plead that please respect their doctrine and intellectual contribution and restict yourself with glorification of their exploits. There are only two options. If you accept the historicity of THEM then please ignore the history of Tamilnadu upto Vijayanagar. This is the peculiar even with Alberuni. It is very strange that Alberuni never mention about Cholas and Chalukyas though both were at zenith at the time of Ghazni. The plunder of Somnath would have echoed in inscriptions. But surprisingly no evidence on both the accounts. As a student of history I find that likes and dislikes of people are given as history and dispassionately feel that either the Inscriptions of Tamil Nadu upto the beginning of Vijayanagara Empire are false or those issues which could not be corroborated with the inscriptions are extrapolated. This needs deep scrutiny.Tejaswini Vembuyria

shankar said...

this is a reply to ms.jayasree. she says adi shankara told mahavishnu as brahmam. yes that is correct. but you are seeing only one side of the coin. see prachnothara ratnamalika by adi shankara and what he explains as "who is god" he says sankaranarayana. he conjoins both. if your vaishnavite text says narayana as para brahmam, shaiva scripture says shiva as para brahmam!! if you are such a devotee of narayana then you shoudl not even worship anjaneya, chaktrathzhvar, lakshmi , garudazhvar. do you think these gods are better than shiva. ridiculous. i worship both vishnu shiva and vishnu. they are like father and mother. understand!

jayasree said...

Dear Mr Shankar,

I have explained enough in the previous comments which answers your comment. I request you to re-read them.

One clarification that I want to say is that I am not writing these views after knowing the Vaishnavite perspective. These views arise when you analyse the views of Vedantha with a logical mind. Who is Brahman, Why Narayana floats in snake bed and why Nataraja whirls in dance, from where first creation came and where Rudra fits in - like this, many facets are there to be studied. If you unravel them you will know that Narayana is the progenitor from whose Naabhi, cosmos expands. He holds in Himself the Cosmic egg in which all the three acts of creation, sustenance and destruction take place.

The Cosmic egg theory is not told for Shiva / Rudra.
But the expansion of the cosmos can be understood only by the dance of Shiva.

The Cosmic chakra has both Nataraja and Yoga Narasimha as the two sides of it - signifying the external activity and the internal rulership. It means in the created world or once after the process of creation has commenced, these two deities (Shiva and Vishnu) become the two sides of the same coin or the alternating rulers in the process.

Like this our Dharma gives beautiful and simple comparisons to understand Godhead. The tragedy of our times is that we fail to understand these concepts. The one God in different facets has been explained in a limited way in my recent post on Dark Matter.

http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2012/07/dark-matter-is-7th-wind-of-seven-wind.html

But when you say Brahman (the one without a second), it signifies Narayana only and not any other God. This is the revelation of Vedas which no one can negate or question. The Brihat nature (huge and growing) of Brahman is not told for any other God - but to the growing cosmos from the umbilical chord of Narayana.

cont'd

jayasree said...

// if you are such a devotee of narayana then you shoudl not even worship anjaneya, chaktrathzhvar, lakshmi , garudazhvar. do you think these gods are better than shiva. ridiculous.//

This needs a very detailed answer which you can read in my old post on anya devatha aradhana.
The link is

http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/oppiliappan/archives/jul04/msg00124.html

I think I can re-post that article here.

(cont'd)

jayasree said...

The issues are
(1) If one is desirous of getting specific benefits
(phalam), one goes to worship anya devathas.
(2) Can a sreivaishnavite who has done sharanagathi
worship anya devathas?


Sources.

As vEdas and upanishads are the chief pramAnAs, I
have based my arguments on these alone while relying
heavily on Sri Bhashya of Ramanuja. The
transliteration of the Sri Bhashya for the first 32
aphorisms of the 1st chapter of Brahma sutras (by
Rangacharya & M.B. Varadaraja Aiyangar, 1961 edition
of The Educational Publishing co) which will be quoted
as 'SB' and the book 'Brahma sutras, Sri Bhashya'
written by Swami Vireswarananda and Swami Adidevananda
which will be quoted as 'BS', are extensively quoted
in this mail. May Emperumanar guide me in my 'avA' of
obliging his foremost commandment of the six
kainkaryas in the best possible way.

The assumptions

The indestructible and undeniable assumptions we take
up are as follows: -
(1) Aphorism 3.2.36 of Brahma sutra: -
"By this (Brahman) everything is pervaded, as is known
from scriptural statements etc, regarding Brahman's
extent"
BS: - " 'whatever is seen or heard in this world is
pervaded inside and outside by Narayana' (Ma xii.5)

(2) Narayanopanishad (2): -
" Narayana yEvEdam sarvam yad bhotham yachcha bhavyam/
nishkalangO niranjanO nirvikalpO nirAkhyAth: shudhO
dEva
yEkO nArAyanO na dwithIyOsthi kaschith/"
(Everything is Narayanan who is nish-kaLangan,
nir-vikalpan, niranjan and shuddhan. He is ONE without
a second)

(3) Aphorism 3.2.32 of Brahma Sutra: -
" (Brahman is depicted as having size) for the sake of
easy comprehension (i.e. upasana) just like (four)
feet."

BS: - "The statements describing Brahman as having
four feet or sixteen digits are meant for the sake of
upAsana or meditation. Brahman which is infinite as
declared by texts like, "Truth, Knowledge, Infinite
is Brahman" can not be limited. The texts which
declare such limitation are meant only for meditation,
even as Brahman is imagined to have the organs of
speech, nose, eyes and ear as Its four feet (Chhan
iii. Xviii.2) for the sake of upAsana."

Now arguments.

jayasree said...

Q: - What are devatas?
Do the scriptures that we have taken as pramAnA speak
of devatas?

A: - AitarEya Upanishad and Chhandogya upanishad
elaborately trace the birth of worlds, the presiding
deities of pancha bhoothas and the deities
(ati-devathas) for senses.
The realms of Bhu, Bhuvah and Suvah as being
controlled by the deities, Fire, Air and Sun
respectively are being spoken not only by AitharEya
but also Taiittriya upanishad. There may be other
vEdanthic texts too, but in my limited knowledge I am
able to quote only these.

Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (III ii 2-9) (prAnavo vai
garbha?)
lists out 14 ati-devathas for 14 sense perceptions
that include apart from natural forces, gods like
Vishnu, Prajapathi, Brihaspathi, Kshetrajna, Indra,
Death, Moon, Rudra and Ishwara

Taking into consideration assumption (1) and (3), it
is deduced that Brahman had pervaded all the deities
-something asserted by Aitareya too while detailing
how worlds were created.

But worship / upasana in those days seemed to be in
the form of sacrifices and Homas.
To cite a case, let me draw your attention to Rama's
upasana of Sriman Narayana, (quoted from Valmiki
Ramayana) prior to his Pattabhisheka, which was in the
form of conducting a Homa and meditation.

In his commentary on the first aphorism of the first
chapter of Brahma Sutras, Ramanuja concludes that an
inquiry into sacrificial actions as commanded by the
Karma Khandam of the vEdas must precede an inquiry
into Brahman. He takes up discussion on various
sacrifices to ascertain whether the fruits from them
are inferior or superior to the fruits derived from
meditating on Brahman and Brahman alone. (We will
incorporate this at suitable contexts)
For the sake of knowing who / what these devatas are,
we, hereby take the liberty to equate different
deities as being associated with sacrificial actions
as bestowers of fruits of those sacrifices.

It is presumed that just as how Brahman is worshiped
as having form (assumption 3), the ati-devathas also
came to be worshipped as having forms. The primary
Ati-devathas (as mentioned earlier) namely Agni, Vayu
and Sun are seen incorporated with different deities
in agama sashtras and the variations have grown
manifold down the ages. As we have not taken up this
for our discussion, suffice it to say that discussion
on ati-devathas and the fruits of sacrifices are
inter-changeable with Anya devathas and the power of
jurisdiction of Anya devathas, (respectively) as we
know today.

jayasree said...

Q (2): -
"What is the difference between Anya dEva upasana and
upasana of the Brahman and what happens in Anya dEva
upasana?

For better understanding, let us divide the discussion
here under 2 topics, phalam and form.
(1) what kinds of benefits are accrued in different
kinds of upAsana and
(2) in what forms deities receive the upAsana and
give the benefits.
The Phalam factor: -
BS (3.3.43) > The context is to find justification for
different kinds oblations for the same Brahman
" Texts mention a separate fruit of the meditation
which is apart from the fruit of the sacrifice itself.
Thus the quality of possessing greater strength is
the fruit, which is different from that of the
sacrificial rites. What is this greater strength? It
is non- obstruction of the fruit of sacrifice. The
fruit of a sacrifice might be obstructed by the fruit
of some other powerful performance. Thus the
mediations on the Udgitha (OM), though dependent on
auxiliaries to sacrifices, have different fruits from
those of the sacrifices" ?.
?..The oblations to the Supreme Self is also different
for different reasons.
"He is to be meditated on in His essential nature in
the first place, and then there is the repetition of
the meditation with a view to realizing His auspicious
attributes.
This case is analogous to that of sacrificial
oblations. There is the text (Tai sam II.iii.6.2); 'He
has to offer "PurodAsha' to Indra, the ruler' etc.
Though Indra is one god, oblations are separately
offered to Indra, the ruler, the supreme ruler, and
the self-ruler according to his different capacities.
This principle is established in the Samkarshana
Khanda: 'as the deities are different, the oblations
are different'."

jayasree said...

To throw more light on this refer BS (1.1.2)

"An action like meditation, which is enjoined, should
have the result of a particular nature and quality,
and we have to find this from other laudatory
statements, just as in the case of other Vedic
injunctions. In texts like 'He who desires Heaven must
perform Ashwametha sacrifice,' we do not have any
description of heaven; we have to gather it from
others statements like 'where there is neither heat
nor cold nor suffering' etc. Again in texts like 'he
shall perform the nocturnal sacrifices' no mention is
made of the result of such sacrifices, but later the
texts say, 'those who perform these sacrifices attain
eminence'. Similarly the result of mediation on
Brahman, which is prescribed by the scriptures, is the
attainment of Brahman has to be known from texts like
'He who knows Brahman attains the Highest' (Tai II.i)
The nature and attributes of Brahman also have to be
gathered from similar other texts."

The summary so far is that different deities are
capable of giving different benefits. Even the same
deity (like Indra) must be worshipped in different
ways to enable him give you different benefits
depending on what forms and for what purpose you are
worshipping him.
It is true of Brahman who is equated to Narayana
(assumption -1 & 2)
If it be said that Brahman is capable of 'giving
anything and everything,' we quote Ramanuja as
following (SB -1.1)
"The passage which makes known the result of worship
of the Brahman, viz, 'shoshnutE sarvAn KAAMAAN saha
brahmana vipaschita (tai up II.i.i) speaks also of the
infinitude of the qualities possessed by the Highest
Brahman who is intelligent. (The prose order of this
sentence runs thus)-'vipaschitA BrahmanA sarvAn kAmAn
samashnutE' The word 'kAmA' is derived from the root
'kam' to covet and means that which is covetable,i.e.,
auspicious qualities. The meaning (of the passage
accordingly) is that he (the successful worshipper)
attains along with the (intelligent) Brahman all those
(auspicious) qualities. The word 'with' (according to
Panini) (is used) to bring out prominently the
(possession of) qualities (by the Brahman) as it is
brought out in connection with the Dahara-vidya, viz,
"what exists within that (small space inside the
heart) that has to be sought after'. (chhand VIII.1.1)
That, between worship and its result, there is a
similarity of nature, is proved conclusively by the
scriptural passage which says - ' of whatever nature a
man's worship is in this world, of that same nature
that man becomes after death'. (chhand III.14.1)'

To understand this further let me quote the footnote
on Dahara -vidya.
" Dahara -vidya is that vidya or form of worshipping
the supreme Brahman, which consists in meditating on
Him as dwelling in the small ethereal space within the
heart. In connection with this vidya or form of
worship, the Brahman who has to be meditated upon is
declared in the context to be the 'Self who is devoid
of sin, is free from old age, free from death, free
from sorrow, free from hunger, free from thirst and
desires the Truth and wills the Truth."

In summary, if Brahman is meditated upon, one attains
Brahman along with the auspicious qualities of Brahman
and nothing less and nothing more, as 'there is
nothing higher than or different from Him' (sve III.9)
To apply this to the issues in question, (remembering
the assumptions we have taken up) meditation on
Narayana for the sake of attaining Him (moksha) gives
one nothing less and nothing more. The supreme wish of
moksham is granted by Him and not the lesser wishes.
Because (also) craving for lesser wishes is anathema
to the one desirous of Moksha.

jayasree said...

Q (3) Does not the above-drawn conclusion undermine
the Supremacy of the Supreme one?

A:- No, if we look at the following passages.
BS (3.2.39 & 40) :-
"Jaimini (thinks), for the same reasons(viz,
scriptural; authority and possibility), that religious
work (is what brings about the fruits of actions)'
"But Badarayana (thinks) the former (i.e., the Lord as
the bestower of the fruits of actions), on account of
His being declared to be cause (of the fruits of
actions)"
(BS cont'd)>
"the word 'but' refutes the view of the previous
sutra. Badarayana maintains that the supreme Person is
the bestower of the fruits of all actions. Scriptural
texts like "Let him who is desirous of prosperity
offer a white animal to Vayu.. and Vayu lead him to
prosperity (Tai SaII.i.1) show that the deities
worshipped bestow the results of the sacrifices
through which they are worshipped. But ultimately it
is the Lord, abiding in Vayu etc. as their inner self,
who, being pleased with the devotion of the
sacrificer, bestows on him the results: 'Offerings and
pious works, all these He bears, who is the nave of
the Universe. He is Agni Vayu: He is the Sun and the
moon' (Ma I.6.7). "He who dwells in Vayu? of whom Vayu
is the body' etc. (Br III.vii.7) Smrti also says the
same thing: "whichever divine form a devotee wishes to
worship.. and obtains from it the results he desires,
as ordained by Me" (Gita, VIII. 21-22). Giving up all
this teaching, where is the need to imagine an
'apurva'?"

Giving up all this teaching, may I ask how can a sri
vaishnavite, an ardent devotee of Sriman Narayana,
denounce anya deva aradhana?
If he denounces it, does it not amount to 'dhooshaNai'
of the Brahman to attain whom is his supreme desire?
What he must do instead is to renounce every kind of
desire (anya-Asai) which is other than the desire to
attain Him. (sarva dharmAn paridhyajya..)
He must denounce 'anya Asai' and not anya deva
Aradhanai. Because, I repeat, that is akin to
'apachAram' to Narayana as not willing to accept His
other 'qualities' like His ability to be in all bodies
(read deities) and bestow whatever the jiva asks for.
This must have been the original import of the
teachings of the Acharyas, but as has always happened
we have clung to the shell and missed the sap.

jayasree said...

To continue this thread,
BS (3.3.43)
" On account of the abundance of indicatory marks (the
Narayana -anuvaka deals with the object of worship in
all the meditations); for, it (indicatory mark) is
stronger (than the contxt). This also (has been stated
by Jaimini)."
"The Taiitrriya text, immediately after the Dahara
-vidya, declares in the folowing way: " 'The
thousand-headed God, whoses eyes see every thing..who
is Narayana, the Imperishable, supreme Master' etc (Ma
XI.1). Here the doubt is raised whether the
meditation, as being identical with meditation
previously introduced, describes attributes which are
inculcated in that vidya, or whether it describes
those attributes of the Supreme self to be included in
all the meditations as enjoined in all the upanishads.
The opponent favours the former because of the
context; for in the previous section (anuvaka 10) the
meditation on the small ether is introduced as the
subject matter: 'The small space free from all evil,
the abode of the Supreme: within that is a small space
free from sorrow . What is in that should be mediated
upon' (Ma XI.7)
The Sutra-kara refutes this view and declares:
'on account of abundance of indicatory marks'. This
section of Mahanarayanopanishad has come just to
declare the characteristics of the supreme self, who
is the object of meditation, in all meditations. The
supreme being is denoted in all those meditations as
Akshara, Shiva, Shambhu, Para brahman, Paramjyothi
etc. Finally, the same entity is here declared to be
Narayana. There is abundance of authoritative marks to
prove that Narayana alone is the object of worship in
all meditations. Here the word 'linga' means symbol,
sign or indicatory mark. There are many passages which
contain indicatory marks. Such passages have,
according to Purva-Mimamsa, greater force than
context."

To summarize, worship of Brahman alone is one thing
and worship of deities in names other than Narayana is
another, though the second one is further categorized
into two, namely (1) deities like Vayu etc and
atidevathas of sacrifices etc which are capable of
giving specific benefits by the strength of Brahman
present in them and (2) deities in whose name Brahman
is worshipped as in the case of Akshara, shiva etc.

jayasree said...

The second aspect forms the second category namely
'forms in which deities give benefits' which is
discussed below.

Forms: -

A conflict of idea seems to arise if we refer to 1.4
to 1.6 of Kenopanishad, which says 'this alone is
Brahman and not that which people worship'.
Bhagavad Ramanuja makes a reference to this passage
and writes thus:- (SB IV.4)
" If you say that by means of the scriptural passages
-' Not this which they worship'- (Keno) -the character
of being the object of meditation is denied (in
relation to the Brahman), it is replied that it can
not be so. The fact of the Brahman being the object
of meditation is not denied (herein), but the fact
that Brahman is distinct from the world is declared in
this passage. The meaning of this passage is this -"
this world which people here worship, - that is not
the Brahman. Know thou him alone to be the Brahman who
is not made out by speech and by whom speech is
brought into existence."

The worship that Brahman alone is supreme and the
goal of worship (which a devout Sri vaishnavite must
follow) is one and the worship of other forms and
names with or without the knowledge and expectation of
Inner reality is another.
In passages "Brahma Narayana:/ Shivascha Narayana:/
shakrascha Narayana;/ "( Na up 2) it is made out that
Narayana is worshipped in the worship of other
deities.
The controversial (if deemed so) passages (from
Svetahswathara) are given here which praise the other
forms as the Supreme and Ramanuja's reply also
follows.

1) " Ekohi Rudro na dwiti'ya'ya tasthurya ema'n
loka'ne's'atah e's'ani'bhib/
pratyangjana'stishth'ati sanchu koca'nta kale
samsr'jya vis'va bhuvana'ni gopa'h/ (sve 3.2)
(The supreme consciousness is described as Rudra.
Rudra is one only. The in-dwelling self watches the
deeds of men. He is the destroyer of sins and sorrows.
So he is called Rudra)

2) 'Yo dEvAnam prabhavasch choptavascha vishwAdhipo
RudrO maharshi:/ (sve 3.4)
( the one who creates the dEvas and takes care of
them, the one who is the Lord of the worlds, the one
who is the Rudra capable of wiping out sorrows..)

3) "yA tE rudra shivA tanu-raghOrApapakAshini/
tayA nastanuvA shantamayA girishantAbhichakashIhi:/ "
(sve 3.5)
(hey Rudra, the bestower of happiness to the world
from your abode of Kailash. Let that form by means of
which you destroy the sins to uplift into liberation,
brings all that is auspicious.)

4) "yamishum girichanda hastE bibharshyasthavE/
shivAm girithrathAm kuru ma himsI: purusham jagat:/"
(sve 3.6)
(Seated in Kailash, you bestow happiness. Seated in
Kailash you protect those who surrender unto you.
Please use your weapon in your hand with utmost
compassion, without giving any suffering to the
people)

5) "yO dEvAnAm prabhavaschOthbhavascha vishvAdhipo
rudrO maharshi:/
hiraNya garbham pashyata jayamanam sa nO buddhyA
shubhayA samyunaktu/ ( swe 4.12)
(The one who creates the dEvas and makes them
flourish, the one who is the Lord of all the worlds,
the one who is Rudra, the destroyer of sorrows, the
one who sees things beyond, who has seen the birth of
HiraNyagarbha, let Him give us best of knowledge.)

Rudra as explained in the above passages is none other
than Brahman / Narayana. To substantiate this, let me
quote the final conclusion of Ramanuja to chapter 1 of
Brahma sutras.

jayasree said...

SB: - "wherever particular individual selves from the
four -faced Brahma downwards and particular
non-intelligent things from Prakruti downwards are
found mentioned in association with the particularly
characteristic attributes of the Supreme Self, -or
whatever the words denoting them (i.e., those
intelligent selves and non-intelligent things) are
seen to be grammatically equated with the words
denoting the Supreme Self: - in all such cases, what
is intended to be taught is the continued meditation
of the Brahman as forming the inner self of those
particular intelligent and non-intelligent entities."

It is therefore concluded that Brahman (Narayanan) by
any other name (anya devata) is Narayanan only as long
as the worshipper meditates on the supreme attributes
of the Self in those forms. (Same is true of the
repeated reference of 'Vishalakshi' to Sita in Valmiki
Ramayana and Uma dEvi showing who the Brahman is, to
Indra in Kenopanishad -these two form a separate issue
and yet for the purpose of drawing a parallel, quoted
here)

Even otherwise, he is said to worship Narayana in
those forms, in His being the bestower of benefits
through those forms.
But benefits are in accordance with what one asks for
/ meditates upon. (If liberation is what is desired,
the supreme form as Brahman. / Narayanan is
worshipped. If desires other than this are aimed at,
Brahman bestows them in those forms that have been
sanctioned as the ati-devatas for such desires. )

This can be understood the following way.
If the water supply to my house is affected, I have to
approach the Municipality that is directly involved in
supplying water. I may have known the President of
India but I can not refer this problem to him taking
advantage of my friendship with him. Even if I refer
it to him, he can not supply the water to me directly
but only direct the Municipality to do that for me.
But if a person facing the gallows need a respite, he
can not get it by any means other than petitioning the
President for mercy. Because the President is directly
responsible for it.
Even though all governmental functions are done in the
'pleasure' of the president, even though the president
is technically the chief of all that happens, there
are events that he directly deals with. Everything
else happens in his name, by drawing the power from
him, but he does not do them by himself.
Taking this analogy to our discussion,
The Brahman equated with Narayana, is the chief of
all.
Those who approach him for the exceptional benefit
(like mercy petition) are taken note of / granted
benefits as He may deem the recipient fit to be.
For everything else the benefits are siphoned out
through his agents (Anya devatas) under his grace.

jayasree said...

Conclusion

Going by the above given (many) versions, may we
conclude
that
"He who knows Brahman attains the Highest"(tai II.1.1)
as the reply for the issue that it is Brahman who
grants Liberation and liberation alone - also
justified by the Taittriya passage 'soshnutE sarvAn
kamAn' - the meaning for kAmAn explained -(not as
desires),
That
Whatever worship is done to the anya devatas indeed
goes to Brahman who bestows the benefits through the
respective devatas and as such a devout Sri
vaishnavite must not resort to denouncement of anya
devata but instead make a resolve to not to desire
anything other than Brahman, for the gratification of
which he has to be always clinging to the feet of
Sriman Narayana,
That
For the gratification of specific benefits, specific
devatas must be worshipped (BS 1.1.2) as in the case
of AshwamEtha sacrifice and JyothistOmEna Homa for
reaching heaven,
And that
Even if one worships anyadevata by meditating on the
qualities associated with Brahman, he is said to be
worshipping the Brahman and Brahman alone and none
else.

Quotable story:-

Let me conclude with (once again a contrioversial
note:))the famous incident of Namperumal being carried
inside Thiruvannaikkaval Temple while Ramanuaja
stayed outside with his parivar when it rained.


When confronted with the question why he didn't go
inside, when his perumal didn't have any qualms to go
inside, (there are quite a few versions of Ramanuja's
answer. I take up the one as told by a swamin who
belongs to the Manavala mamunugal lineage and who is
doing kainkaryam in MAmunigal sannidhi at Sri
Rangam), he had answered, 'Pathi may go to any place.
But can the pathni follow him everywhere?'

The first part of ramanuja's answer does not negate
Lord's 'cosiness' with anya devas as an In-dweller in
them.

The second part does not negate a 'pure' vaishnavite's
obsession with Narayana thiruvadi sambhandam.

The entire thing does not negate what He can give as
'pathi' to His pathni and what anya devatas can give
-through Him.



Ever at the feet of Narayana,
adiyal,
jayasree

Quote of the mail:-
"urraikkindra mukkat pirAn yanE ennum,
urraikkindra thisai mugan yAnE ennum,
urraikkindra amararum yAnE ennum,
urraikkindra amara kOn yAnE ennum,
urraikkindra munivarum yAnE ennum,
urraikkindra mugil vannan yErakkollO?
Urraikkindra ulagathIriku en sollugEn
Urraikkindra en kOmaLa von kodikkE?
(Thiruvaimozhi 5.6.8)


(concluded)

Srivathsa rao i said...

How do you prove that krishna is paripurna in vishistaadvaita?.....
because krishna only said that he is paripurna in bhagavath geetha...

but ,according to vishistaadvaita...we are brahman,at the same time ,we are not paripurna...similar case applies to krishna...so,how is krishna paripurna in vishistaadvaita?

Srivathsa rao i said...

How do you prove that krishna is paripurna in vishistaadvaita?.....
because krishna only said that he is paripurna in bhagavath geetha...

but ,according to vishistaadvaita...we are brahman,at the same time ,we are not paripurna...similar case applies to krishna...so,how is krishna paripurna in vishistaadvaita?

Guruvayuran Pillai said...

In Garudaswamy`s work, nothing is brought to contradict Nagaswamy. Naga cites references to his contentions. But Garuda repeats the puranic versions. In almost all hearsays of our great personalities, myths precede facts.