Some thoughts on Thirumantram

[Guest guest]

I would like to begin by complimenting all of the members involved in

this discussion of Thirumantram on their thought provoking postings.

I am very much the novice when compared to these individuals. However

I would like to make some personal observations which I hope will

lend to the conversation.

 

While there is a marked difference between the two schools on the

level, albeit need, for qualifications for reciting, or reading, the

Thirumantra, one point should be noted. The Thirumantra, along with

such other coveted mantras as the Gayatri, is readily available and

is being recited by people of all backgrounds and values. As long

standing members of Denver's Asian Indian religious community, I and

my family are invited to a number of religious activities, including

many of which that cannot be considered SriVaishnava in any sense.

At one such gathering, after the chanting of Vishnu Sahasranamam, a

learned Smarta scholar led the entire gathering, irrespective of

their background, in a chant of Thirumantra 108 times.

 

It seems quite ironic, then, that while the Thirumantra is both known

and recited in non-SriVaishnava forums, its recitation is looked upon

with so much controversy within its natural context, namely, a

SriVaishnava discussion group.

 

While I can understand the orthodox view that the mantra should not

be imparted to non-adhikaris, in my interpretation of this, it is not

the mantra, but its very sacred meaning which should be of critical

concern. A non-adhikari, in this context, would be a skeptic who

would seek to challenge or criticize the mantras essential meaning.

Among those who have - as Mr. Sridhar has said - the ruchi to learn

it and its meaning respectfully, as seems to be the case with the

people in this group from the postings I have seen so far, no other

qualification should be required. And, as both Mr. Sridhar and

Varadhan state, how can we determine who these true adhikaris are?

>From our Acharyas' teachings, we can see that the very nature of this

mantra itself would draw people to it, and indeed, would facilitate

interest in the Lord even in the skeptics.

 

Mr. Sudharshan states:

 

------------------------begin quote

1)"Mantras" are acoustic symbols of a higher spiritual reality.

2)Dhyana of these mantras facilitate the spiritual aspirant's

realization of

the reality it symbolises.

3) Mantras being essentially acoustic in nature, they have to be

learnt from

an 'achaarya' adept in its practice and not from all and sundry.

4) Mantras being acoustic in essence have to learnt by "word of

mouth", so

to say, at the feet of an 'achaarya'and not through the medium of

the

written word or through other modern accessories and appliances like

cassettes, CDs etc.

5) The reason for the above restrictions are that "mantras" being

acoustic

in essence have inviolable phonetic features (lakshaNangal) like

'sruti','swaram', 'mAtr'; to these one may add, using the idiom of

classical

Carnatic music, the feature called "manOdharma" or the mental

"fitness" of

he who articulates the 'mantra'.Lack of such "fitness" can also be

fatal to

the spiritual aspirant's progress as surely as jogging can be to

someone who

is unaware he has a heart condition.

6) Improper articulation/enunciation of the "mantra" will mutilate

its

essential form and far from facilitating the spiritual aspirant's

progress

towards the reality he aims for, it will positively impair his

efforts.

-----------------------end quote

 

I would point out, though. that while the mantra's acoustic and

symbolic role is of importance, the essence of Thirumantra lies in

its profound meaning, which leads us to the recognition of the Lord

as both Upeya and Upaya.

 

As is stated in Sutram 25 of Mumuksupatti:

------------------------begin Mumme's translation

Manavalamamunigal: Even though the power of the Mantra itself -

which brings results as a sadhana in its own right or as an aid to

other sadhanas - is well established, the Poorvacharyas held more

firmly to the One who is referred to in the mantra than to it. The

reason for this is because they reverenced the Lord Himself as the

Upaya and the Upeya. Thus they were not like those who are devoted

to other goals, who take this mantra as a sadhana, or like those

devoted to other means, who take this mantra as an aid.

-----------------------end quote

 

Please pardon me for any offenses I have made due to my ignorance.

 

 

Daasanu Daasan,

 

Mohan