Response to some BHAKTI issues

[Guest guest]

Memphis April 28 1997.

 

Dear Shri Mani Varadarajan,

 

This is to ack yr message 23rd accepting Sri UchANi Deivachilai's

request

made on my behalf. May I say thanks to you, Shri Mani, and to Shri

Dileepan Parthasarathy, for so cordially admitting me to yr conversation

about Srivaishnavam. As required in yr message, hereunder

 

=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=

SPEAKING OF MYSELF ~~ T.S. Sundara Rajan,

=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=

 

My name wd read TIRUMANJANAM Srinivasa Sundara Rajan. I am the

father-in-law of Shri UchANi Deivachilai who has introduced me.

The Lord at the 'divya-desam' TiruppullANi (near the setu) has been

christened by Tirumangai-mannan as DeivacchilaiyAr. This is a

data in paranthesis for those who have not been to TiruppullANi, or

have not come upon the relevant Peria Tirumozhi verse. UchANi is

a native of AzhvAr Tirunagari; my wife and I belong to Srirangam

where I have returned & settled down, in retirement after 34 yrs

in Government of India in New Delhi as Under Secretary in Ministry

of Human Resource Development.

 

The family name Tirumanjanam stands for the service of organising

the ceremonial bath of the deity namperumAL (= azhaGiamaNavALan

= SrirangarAja-svAmi) of Srirangam. This honorofic attached to one

of the 'sthalattAr' functionaries (administrators) of the Srirangam

Peria Koil; he was also among the personal attendants ('kinkara') of

'udaiyavar' (Sri rAmAnuja). The Tirumanjanam is of the fortunate many

counted among the disciples of the House of Sri Mudali ANDAn, the nephew

of Sri rAmAnuja and the principal of the 74 'simhAsana-adhipati'

preceptors identified by Udaiyavar. My sparse but precious knowledge of

the Srivaishnava 'sampradAya' is owed to my father's extraordinary book

collections and my mother's unobtrusive devotion and, not the least,

that the Lord had granted unto me to meet some of the great personages

of our times.

 

I have received Grace in one particular respect: both while in service

and out of it, there were opportunities for me to make my small

contributions to the 'sampradAyam' either through crucial writing or

supporting important publications. Lately (at the request of the

district collector of Tiruchirappalli) I wrote a handy booklet entitled

'The Great Temple of SRIRANGAM ~~ an Introduction'; this was presented

to the President of India, Shankar Dayal Sharma, when he visited the

Temple on Oct 26 1996. I shall be glad to disseminate this booklet

through this internet eventually.

 

I am pleased to receive A.K. rAmAnujan's translation of "kaRpAr".

I recall I did an interview of A.K.R. in the HINDUSTAN TIMES

in 1969 when he had just published his rendering of the Sangham classic

'kuruntogai' and 'Speaking of Siva'. I wrote to him to attempt the

Tiru-voy-mozhi, and I like to believe that his eventual rendering of

Tiru-voy-mozhi resulted from this.

 

My wife and I are visiting my daughter in Memphis, and plan to return

to Srirangam by end of July'97.

 

=======================================================================

 

The text:

 

"seththadin vayiRRil siRiyadu piRandAl,

eththai thinRu engE kidakkum?"

 

occurs in the account of madhurakavi AzhvAr incorporated in the chapter

on Sri nammAzhvAr in the 'Guru-paramparA prabhAvam' (pinbazhagia-perumAL

jeeyar). The note thereunder goes like this: 'seththadu' is the

inorganic

and the 'siRiyadu' is the diminutive, that is the soul. The soul

animates

and subsists on the corporeal.

 

Dileepan, Mani and Krishna Kalale have made a triangular seminar on this

text. Kalale points out this text is not from the body of the arulic-

cheyal (divya-prabandham) itself. (Is Shri Kalale possibly a native

marAThi-speaker? If so, it is gratifying evidence that discussions on

AzhvAr theme are enlisting scholars outside of the Tamil heartland!)

 

That the text is not from the divya-prabandham (but figures in the Guru-

paramparA-prabhAvam) does not diminish its importance as a philosophic

episode. The GPP would have the same relationship with the Divya.P as

'smrti' has with 'sruti'; cf 'itihAsa-purANAbhyAm vedam samupa-brhmayet'

~~ a dictum which occurs not only in the opening chapter of MahAbhArata

but in every PurANam as well.

 

The text is a verbal vignette of the 'jeeva' (the soul) situated in the

'Sareera' (the body, or its material abode). This would eventually

provide the title and framework ('SAreeraka-meemAmsA') for the later

Sribhashyam of Udaiyavar. Apart from this, two additional metaphors

can

also possibly emerge from the text; 'padma-patram ivAmbhasA' (like the

lotus

leaf arising from water but remaining un-wetted), ~~ and 'dvA suparNAh'

(like the bird that passively looks on while its companion pecks at the

berries off the branch where they rest), ~~ both from the Bhagavad GeetA

~~

of being with it but not of it. [This is not the same as modern

management

principles of motivation & involvement or lack of them.] If one can

think

about it aright, then one is lodged in karma-yoga. The two metaphors

available in the Bhagavad Geeta can also represent the jeeva-para (the

soul

individuate and the soul absolute) equation; the 'siRiyadu' signifying

the

Absolute, going by "angushTha-mAtrah purusho janAnAm hrdaye

sannivishtah",

and "aNoh aNeeyaan" of the upanishad.

 

On this text, I sign off for the while.

 

============================================================================

 

Kalale makes an incidental remark, "if we strive towards spiritual

progress,

we may reach arciradi marga". Good action has, no doubt, its built-in

good effect, but in my humble opinion, a life of spiritual protocol is

not

to be regarded in terms of input-output situation. We are to practise

the

religious observances merely because they are prescribed in the sAstra:

sAsan trAyate iti sAstram (it protects by ordaining). There is always

the question whether we speak of the authentic sAstram, or get beguiled

by

false and cynical texts ('poi noolaiye mei noolenRu', in the words of

Tirumangai mannan). For the present, I will merely cite two texts:

"yameva esha vrNute tena hi labhyah" and, "aduvum avanadu innarule".

 

============================================================================

 

Mani Varadarajan has asked for the right 'sabda-roopam' (orthography)

of brahma (God absolute, in neuter gender, and if the terminal ma is not

accented, ~~ or, the deity of that name, in masculine gender, and if the

terminal is accented); vahni (fire); and jahnu (the rshi who held the

Ganga in spate in his ear).

 

I am glad that Mani has asked about this, since it is important to know

the words in correct form. 'yadakshara-pada-bhrashtam...' and

'visarga-

bindu-mAtrANi...', is how we have worried about knowing the words

aright!

 

I have written the correct forms. In Sanskrt, the phonetics is built

into the spelling, hence you pronounce as it is written.

"brhat iti brahma" is the 'vyutpatti', (Brahm because it is large).

bram-ha has, as such, no sense. Further, the suffix 'haa' is archaic

(Arsha-prayogam) for 'slayer'; as 'Indro vrtra-hA' in the vedam;

the vedic 'hA' becomes 'ghnah' in PaNini, as in Satru-ghnah.

Nara-simha is right, and not -sihma.

 

The Hindi politicians solicit yr votes for their 'chinha' (emblem);

we cannot oblige, since we want to vote for someone's 'chihna'.

One renders the ShrAddham (and not 'ShrArddham') on the anniversary of a

parent's demise. The temple prasAdam consists of puLi-orai (and not

puliyodarai), and dadhyodanam (and not dadhyonnam). We are all devoted

to Vaishnavam (or Vishnuism), and NOT Vaishnavism; in Sanskrit,

Vaishnavam

is the sufficient inflexion to signify the sixth case of declension;

in English, the early Indologists properly referred to it as Vishnu-ism

(by adding the suffix abstraction). Can someone secure a project

assistance for compiling a Dictionary of Errors, please? ~~ we need

such a

dictionary in Tamil.

 

===========================================================================

 

I am a little uncertain about writing Tamil or Sanskrit texts over the

English language key-board, without diacritical support. I have

carefully

gone thro the 'bhakti' messages and tried to adopt the phonetic system

to the extent I understood.

 

T.S. Sundara Rajan, care UchANi Deivachilai, Memphis.

Phone 901-367-2185.

[Guest guest]

Kalale points out this text is not from the body of the arulic-

>cheyal (divya-prabandham) itself. (Is Shri Kalale possibly a native

>marAThi-speaker? If so, it is gratifying evidence that discussions on

>AzhvAr theme are enlisting scholars outside of the Tamil heartland!)

 

Hi SHRI T.S. Sundara Rajan, many folks mistake me that I am a marathi. I

am not. My mother tongue is tamil.

I am a srivaishnava by birth. Please note that I am not a scholar by any

measure, particularly not in Alwar Literature.

 

>also possibly emerge from the text; 'padma-patram ivAmbhasA' (like the

>lotus

>leaf arising from water but remaining un-wetted), ~~ and 'dvA suparNAh'

>(like the bird that passively looks on while its companion pecks at the

>berries off the branch where they rest), ~~ both from the Bhagavad GeetA

 

 

Please note: Dva suparna analogy is from the Upanisads and not from

Bhagawadgita

>

>Kalale makes an incidental remark, "if we strive towards spiritual

>progress,

>we may reach arciradi marga". Good action has, no doubt, its built-in

>good effect, but in my humble opinion, a life of spiritual protocol is

>not

>to be regarded in terms of input-output situation. We are to practise

>the

>religious observances merely because they are prescribed in the sAstra:

>sAsan trAyate iti sAstram (it protects by ordaining). There is always

>the question whether we speak of the authentic sAstram, or get beguiled

>by

>false and cynical texts ('poi noolaiye mei noolenRu', in the words of

>Tirumangai mannan). For the present, I will merely cite two texts:

>"yameva esha vrNute tena hi labhyah" and, "aduvum avanadu innarule".

>

>============================================================================

>

 

This is a serious controversy between "nirhetuka krpa" and "sa hetuka krpa"

- (grace without reason and grace with reason. NOTE: I DONT WANT TO START

A CHAIN OF CRITICISMS ETC. ON THIS CONCEPT. ALL I WANT TO DO IS TO POINT

OUT SOME ISSUES REGARDING THIS EFFORT Vs. NO EFFORT

 

Incidentally, if one sees the sribhasya, - tadvadseekaranam

tachharanagatireva. (to attain or control the lord, one has to do

Sharanagati - is the statement made by Sri Ramanuja.

 

If everything is God's grace, we need not even follow any religious

observance!! One need not do nityakarmas also!! "Oh what fun!! no

sandhyavandana no shraddha, no nothing!, not even thinking of Lord's

names". CAn I make this conclusion?

 

NOT AT ALL.

 

Even the injunctions such as : tasmad yogi bhavarjuna, "be a yogi, O ARjuna"

 

and even injuntions like " man mana bhava, madbhaktaha madyaji, maam

namaskuru" - " keep me in my mind, be devoted to me, offer sacrifices to

me, bow down to me" - bhagawadgita :

State that one should strive or do something towards a goal.

 

if I flout these laws in the shastras, I will most probably not be chosen -

( note: yam eva esa vrunute ). HE will choose who will be dear to him.

WHo will be dear to him ?

One who observes his ajnas (commandments) which are the commandments ? --

shruti smrithir mamaiva ajna - ie. srutis and smrithis.

 

Even for one who observes religious commandments, Fruit is not gauranteed

since,

 

brahma sutras state : phalam ata upapatteh - the fruit is only from HIM.

Note, HE is the main giver of fruit and he is independent. Nothing can

bind him. An individual's action is a sahakari karana - ie. associate

cause not the prime cause. If one does not have to do anything, why not

GOD grace everyone the paramapada right now?. God does have grace for all

beings - ie. this is known as sahaja karunya - or common grace, ie. giving

each of us a brain and say some normal functionality for us to lead this

life. But special karuna - or special grace is showered only to the

deserving based on karma. one element of karma is the free-will which

should be excercised to evoke God's grace.

 

Even though the phalam is only because of HIM, one has to atleast staY

WITHIN some norms.

 

Note that bhaktiyoga in the shastras is a VIDHI - ie. a commandment stating

do this - upasitavyah - He should be meditated upon.

 

If a particular ALWAR's experience of GOD - seems to be without any effort,

all it means is that such an effort was done in a prior JANMA. In the case

of NAMMALWAR or Tiruppanalwar, neither is the prior janma issue is valid,

since they are NITYA SURIS according to our tradition; NOR can we compare

us to NITYASURIS!!

 

NOTE: if an ALWAR states : what did I do really? nothing! compared to the

GRACE of my LORD. THis is OK as it just states that effort is only a VYAJA

or reason only not significant at all compared to the great gift graced by

LORD.

 

PLease note the parallel in karma yoga - karma yoga has to be done, with

(SATVIKA TYAGA) the feeling that he is not the karta (agent), the fruits

thereof is not for him but bhagawat preetyartham (to please the lord), the

karmayoga itself is not an upaya or act, just an observance of scriptural

injunction; but there is a goal - atmasaksatkara. Similarly, prapatti is

also done this way.

 

BUT, Lord Krishna States: 'karmanyeva adhikaraste, ma phalesu kadachana,

ma karma phala hetur bhooh, ma te sanghostu akarmani!!. Ie. YOU (arjuna

and others) should not refrain from "WORK" or KARMA.

 

I just want to make a point that, ascribing all activities and achievements

to GOD, no doubt proves ultimate glorification of LORD, BUT could

potentially cause chaos in the minds of the aspirants, if they think that

they have no responsibility whatsoever.

 

While doing anything for instance, one could say, HE is behind this thing I

am doing. But cannot completely resign and state, let HIM do everything, I

am going to keep mum.

 

>

>I have written the correct forms. In Sanskrt, the phonetics is built

>into the spelling, hence you pronounce as it is written.

>"brhat iti brahma" is the 'vyutpatti', (Brahm because it is large).

>bram-ha has, as such, no sense.

 

I somehow am still confused about this.

 

I did learn some vedic chanting ( though, I havent done much vedic chanting

at all:) and I believe my gurus were authentic. One of my gurus directly

got a MEDAL for CHANTING from the President of India. I believe, if he is

erroneous in pronunciation, so will be several thousand others.

 

I remember, BRAHMA - pronounced as BRAMHA

 

note the verse satyam jnanam anantam brahma - HAVE YOU EVER LISTENED TO

THIS FAMOUS TAITTIRYA UPANISAD VERSE with a BRAH-MA pronunciation???

 

 

 

SARVAM KRISHNARPANAMASTU

 

ASMAD GURUBHYO NAMAH

Krishna Kalale

619-658-5612 (phone)

619-658-2115 (fax)

[Guest guest]

There are many points that Krishna K. brought up

that need to be addressed. I will try to do so in

a note sometime over the next few days.

 

At the outset, however, I ask that the Bhakti members

be a little more careful in their style of writing,

especially when responding to the first article of

a new member, such as our new acquaintance Sri Sundara Rajan.

It is important that no one be scared away from posting

their views, and it is especially important that we be

sensitive about this when it comes to new members.

 

I am sure Krishna Prasad meant only well and was inspired

by thoughts of his understanding of SaraNAgati, but articles

with sentences in all CAPITALS generally come across poorly.

It often looks like the author is shouting when he merely

wishes to be strident.

 

Regarding the content of Krishna's article itself, I believe

there are several misconceptions about our pUrvAcAryas'

views of the Alvars as well as the variety of views on the

nature of self-surrender. I believe Krishna's views

are based on a slightly mistaken understanding of Sri

Vedanta Desika's works, as well as a misreading of the

views of Pillai Lokacarya and Manavala MaamunigaL. I will

address these in a longer article in a day or two.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

At 11:27 AM 4/30/97 -0700, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>Regarding the content of Krishna's article itself, I believe

>there are several misconceptions about our pUrvAcAryas'

>views of the Alvars as well as the variety of views on the

>nature of self-surrender. I believe Krishna's views

>are based on a slightly mistaken understanding of Sri

>Vedanta Desika's works, as well as a misreading of the

>views of Pillai Lokacarya and Manavala MaamunigaL. I will

>address these in a longer article in a day or two.

 

 

Mani, eventhough I agree that I should not have used capital letters to

make my points, I had some reasons to do so. Let me clarify those issues.

 

At the very outset, I wish to apologize to Shri Sundarrajan. I did not mean

to offend you at all. I got carried away by the issue of "Effort Vs.

Grace", particularly because I had discussed this issue for couple of years

with my close friends and the same issue was accidentally initiated in this

group. As Mani has mistaken, I was not even referring to Vedanta Desika or

Manavala Mamuni or even Visistadvaita for that matter. The only thing that

caught my interest was the issue " to strive for spiritual progress or

leave it God's grace"- this issue is very fundamental and I have had

disagreements with a number of well known spiritual leaders whom I

sincerely have great regard for even now!!. I have this disadvantage of

being a close acquaintance of many religious leaders in our sampradaya.

This has given me easy access to them and also at times made me commit

"bhagawatha Apacharam", since I have taken freedom to freely discuss these

issues face to face with them without hiding any of my feelings and

questioning them very seriously. I have always been humble in my own

style, even though I dont come across that way. In fact I have seen many

devotees being so humble that they dont even stand up and ask acharyas any

question. They think that they are not informed enough to ask such

questions. I have always been different. If I cannot ask a question to such

acharyas who else is there who can really put our questions to rest;

moreover, why would I ask lay folk and "laukika" people such questions-

knowing well that I may not be totally convinced by them anyway?

 

Coming to the issue, since I have had disagreements with several folks

regarding this issue of "Effort Vs. Grace" (please note I am not talking

about prapatti and its different modes). This relates to the fundamental

concept of karma in hinduism and not only restricted to visistadvaita

philosophy. complete exaltation of "Grace" could practically mean

"fatalism" which is against hindu karma theory. If I have mistaken some

issue, I request the bhagawathas in this group to clarify. If Grace does

not mean fatalism what is the definition of grace and what are its limits ?

 

 

Asmad Gurubhyo namaha

 

Sri krishnarparnamastu

 

Krishna Kalale

619-658-5612 (phone)

619-658-2115 (fax)

[Guest guest]

Mani writes:

>Regarding the content of Krishna's article itself, I believe

>there are several misconceptions about our pUrvAcAryas'

>views of the Alvars as well as the variety of views on the

>nature of self-surrender. I believe Krishna's views

>are based on a slightly mistaken understanding of Sri

>Vedanta Desika's works, as well as a misreading of the

>views of Pillai Lokacarya and Manavala MaamunigaL. I will

>address these in a longer article in a day or two.

>

 

With all due respect to Mr. Kalale, I would have to concur with Mani

regarding these misconceptions. However, the issue of Nirhetuka Krpa has

been, so far, a relatively ignored subject for this forum, despite it being

one of the most important aspects of our Sampradayam. So, such

misconceptions are leading to a positive result, a direct discussion of the

subtle ideas and unresolved issues that make our philosophy so unique. Let

us all pray to Him that such a discussion will not only lead to better

understanding of the teachings of our poorvacharyas, but will also increase

our devotion to Him.

 

I look forward to learning much from this discussion.

 

Daasanu Daasan,

 

Mohan

[Guest guest]

At 12:14 AM 5/2/97 +0000, Mohan Sagar wrote:

>

>With all due respect to Mr. Kalale, I would have to concur with Mani

>regarding these misconceptions.

 

I request Sri Mohan Sagar to expand on this. Since Sri. Krishna did not

say anything about Sri. PL or MM there is no question of misunderstanding

them. As far as Swami Sri Desikan is concerned I would like the objectors

to clearly prove that Sri Krishna's stated views are misconceptions. Just

asserting will not do. Please be mindful that one must first understand

what Sri Krishna is saying before labelling it to be misconceptions. I

hope this time my request for elaboration will be answered unlike the

previous instances.

 

Thanks, Dileepan