piLLaiyAr

[Guest guest]

Shri Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>Sri Vaishnavas generally do not do pUja to

>lesser divinities such as Ganesha....

>As part of our "paramaikaantika dharma"

>(extreme focus of mind), we worship only God,

>and God's intimate associates.

 

Reacting to this, Shri Raja Krishnaswamy remarks:

>I take pride in calling myself an iyengar belonging

>to the vadagalai sampradhAyam and my kula dheivam is

>shrI BhUmi dEvi samEdha shrI uppili appan of

>thiru viNNagar near KumbakONam. I however can not

>call other divinities as a "lesser God".

 

================================-o0o-===================================

 

[A CLARIFICATION]

 

There is no religion [living or defunct] but proposes a hierarchy of

divinities. SrIvaishNavam simply happens to lodge in the core

monotheistic religion of the 'vEda', despite that the early western

Indologists assumed that the vEda represented a pantheistic-

polytheistic religion; this was because the vEda spoke of a

multiplicity of divinities personifying 'nature elements'. The vEda

indeed does identify the Supreme by the name of SrIman-nArAyaNa/vishNu,

acknowledging nevertheless other [and, 'lesser' divinities] divinities.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Several of the 'upanishad' have very un-ambiguous affirmations: ~~

following quotes from memory ~~

 

"agnir-dEvAnam avamah, vishNuh parah"

[agni is the least of the divinities;

vishNu the Supreme];

"vishNu-mukhA vai dEvAh"

[the divinities look to vishNu];

"harim harantam-anuyanti dEvAh,

viSvasyESAnam vr*shabham matInAm"

[the divinities follow hari,

the One that draws forth;

He regulates the universe;

He is the (strident) master of (our) thoughts];

"nArAyaNah param brahma, tatvam nArAyaNah parah"

[nArAyaNa the 'para-brahma';

nArayaNa the Truth Transcendant];

"sarvE vEdAh yat-padam Amananti...

tat-tE padam sangrahENa bravImi, Om ityEtat...

yastu vijnAnavAn bhavati sa-manaskas-sadA-Suchih,

sa-tu tat-padam-ApnOti yasmAd bhUyO na jAyatE,

vijnAna-sArathir-yastu manah-pragrahavAn narah,

sO/dhvanah pAram-ApnOti tad-vishNOh paramam padam"

[i shall briefly speak to you of the post

which is hymned by the entirety of the vEda;

it is Om... He who becomes the Knower, in his

mind and in his purity, verily does he reach

that post from where he does not return again;

the man who is piloted by Knowing and reins in

his mind, he gets across the limbo region;

there unto the Supreme Abode, which is of vishNu.]

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The 'sahasra-nAma-mahA-mantram' occurred in answer to yudhishThira's

clear queries: "kim Ekam dAivatam lOkE ? kim vA api Ekam parAyaNam ?"

["Which is the One God of the scripture?" ~~ 'lOkah' is 'scripture', as

is 'the world'; here I remember kAnchi SrI prativAdi-bhayankaram

aNNangarAchArya svAmi who gave the etymology. "And, which verily the

unique shelter?"]

 

SrI-bhIshmAchArya responds with equal directness:

"vishNum sarva-lOka-mahESvaram...dAivatam-dAivatAnAm"

["vishNu the Supreme Lord of the entirety of worlds/

scriptures, God among divinities"]. I always point out with pride to

my friends that this attribute "dAivatam-dAivatAnAm" has been dedicated

to 'periya-perumAL' in SrIrangam by svAmi-dESika in the first SlOkam of

'bhagavad-dhyAna-sOpAnam' ~~ "antar-jyOtih...dIna/nAtha-vyasana-Samanam

dAivatam-dAivatAnAm".

 

The skanda-purANam proposes a four-tier hierarchy of divinities:-

 

"ArOgyam bhAskarAt iCChEt, dhanam iCChEt hutASanAt,

ISAnAt jnAnam anviCChEt, mOksham iCChEt janArdanAt."

 

[seek health from the sun, wealth from agni,

realisation from ISAna, and deliverance from janArdana.]

 

The elephant-faced deity of the Saiva pantheon is singularly missing in

the works of even the great poet, kAlidAsa, who is identified as Saiva;

not to mention the Tamil sangham classics which are the best bet there

be for textual integrity, and which contain several hymns to vedic

rudra, subsequently transmogrified into Siva. The skanda purANam (more

than the innovative upa-purANam of gANapatyam) contains the basic

genesis and profile of the deity 'piLLaiyAr' (itself a later-day Tamil

lingo-ism) fusing into vighnESvara, who is to be propitiated in order

that he withholds troubles and impediments. The primitive concept of

God incorporates inter alia a fear-centric role. nArAyaNa as the One

God is essentially described as the One who cares per se for his

reatures ["rakshAika-dikshE", as in the invocation to SrIbhAshyam],

eliminates fear ['bhaya-nASanah'], bestows Grace ['su-prasAdah'], and

runs obstacles down. This is why the padma-purANa SlOkam ==

 

"SuklAmbara-dharam vishNum SaSi-varNam chatur-bhujam

prasanna-vadanam dhyAyEt sarva-vighnOpa-SAntayE",

 

is recited at the commencement of any auspicious rite, vaidika-kriya, as

invoking vishNu as 'vighna-hartA', to quell the impediments. It is

curious that Sri SEnkAlipuram ananta-rAma dIkshitar, as well as the

Ramakrishna Mission, have carried this SlOkam in their publications, but

constantly translating 'vishNu' into Tamil as piLLaiyAr'.

 

This strategy of disinformation extended to appropriating for later-day

icons the role-names ["nAmAni gauNAni...mahAtmanah, r*shibhih

parigItAni"] of the One God drawn from ancient texts ['gaNAnAm tvA

gaNapatim', 'vishvak-sEnO', 'SastA' etc], and hurriedly putting together

a kitsch-n-pastiche mythology to 'enhance' such icons.

 

It is a sad irony that the SrIvaishNava community had neglected to know

about the 'prasthAna-traya bhAshyam' of SrI Sankara-bhagavat-pAdAh; SrI

Sankara is indeed a beacon-light of vaishNava religion. The AchArya

propounded 'advaitam' and remained a profound vaishNava; for that

matter, krshNa-miSra the author of the allegory play

prabOdha-chandrOdayam', and mahApurush SrI SankaradEva of Assam, were

also vaishNava and advaiti at the same time. Some of our outstanding

literary figures who were professed Saiva, such as kAlidAsa, or

bANa-bhaTTa (author of 'kAdambarI'), or leelASuka have paid natural high

tributes in ample measure to the theme of vishNu 'paratvam'. SrI

leelASuka says ~~

 

"SaivA vayam na khalu tad vichAraNIyam

panchAksharI japa-parAh nitarAm tathA/pi

chEtO madIyam atasI-kusumAva-bhAsam

smErAnanam smarati gOpavadhU-kiSOram."

 

[We are Saiva, and no question about it; we constantly recite

the five-syllabled 'mantra' ~~ namah SivAya. This despite, my

heart dwells on the blue lotus, that is the dear visage of the

infant of the gOpa lady ~~ yaSOdA.]

 

To identify the philosophy of 'advaitam' with Saiva sect is entirely

unwarranted; this would yield the corollary that 'vaishNava' should

include 'smArta' who, however, have their own practices and mode of

worship, but with a basic fidelity to the vEda, same as the vaishNava.

 

No SrIvaishNava should denigrate other beliefs, other practices, others'

gods; even in instances when a caprice generates a cult, a cult grows

into a religion with its own 'prophet' and protocol; such closed

systems are aplenty in India, and in the US. It is each individual,

ultimately, to his own god and diversions. However, when issues of fact

are raised about a particular scripture, then one cannot plead such

personal opinion, but has to produce the evidences.

 

Even if a motivated synthesising of religion is granted simply as

something that goes on, the SrIvaishNava need not be on the defensive,

but can be expected to:-

 

(A) expose blatant inroads into vaishNava institutions

[like tiru-vem-pAvai conferences in vishNu temples, or use of

'kAli' mask last year over the visage of alamElu-mangai tAyAr

in tiruc-chAnUr; on a visit to vaDuvUr near tanjAvUr in

Jan'97, I noticed huge chalk-sketches of 'aiyappA' and

'piLLaiyAr' drawn on the flag-stone 'parikrama' of SrIrAma

temple];

(B) challenge the distortion of historic facts, and

the deliberate corruption of religious and other relevant

texts [the kAmakOTi SankarAchArya-svami of recent memory, had

once taken it upon himself to announce to his wide following

that an expression in the 'tiruppAvai' verse 'vAiyattu' was

denigrative of the aphoristic classic 'tirukkuraL';

it said 'tIkkuraLai', the 'vile kuraL' ~~ so went the

commentary of the learned preceptor! It was kAnchi SrI p.b.

aNNangarAchArya svAmi who pointed out that 'tIkkuraLai'

was in nominal case, prathama-vibhakti/vERRumai, and meant

'foul language', as a thing to abjure during austerities;

this was NOT the objective case, dvitIya-vibhakti, of the

word 'kuraL', and hence would in no way denote or denigrate

the classic of that name, as made out by the kAmakOTi-svami.

"bibhEtyalpa-SrutAd-vEdO mAmayam pratarishyati", the vEda

winces that the man of little learning would subvert it!]

"apriyasya tu pathyasya vaktA SrOtA cha durlabhah".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I appreciate that SrI Mani Varadarajan had made a simple statement which

needed to be made in respect of the important field of 'vaidika'

religion; I would request that he stays with the spelling scheme [which

I had originally picked up from himself] for non-English names like

'gaNESa'.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja-dAsan, T.S. Sundara Rajan.

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, usdeiva wrote:

> There is no religion [living or defunct] but proposes a hierarchy of

> divinities. SrIvaishNavam simply happens to lodge in the core

> monotheistic religion of the 'vEda', despite that the early western

> Indologists assumed that the vEda represented a pantheistic-

> polytheistic religion; this was because the vEda spoke of a

> multiplicity of divinities personifying 'nature elements'.

 

The term coined by an early Indologist to represent the outlook of the

vedas is "henotheism." It is also sometimes described as "kathenotheism."

The idea behind these words is that instead of being strictly monotheistic

or pantheistic or polytheistic, the vedas affirm a multitude of

divinities, but they salute each divinity as if it alone is verily the

supreme. On the one hand, the Supreme Deity can be seen as ensouling the

various Vedic gods, and on the other, each Vedic god is described as the

Supreme, whenever (s)he is invoked and worshipped. Whatever be the other

failings of these scholars, this does capture the spirit of worship in a

vedic ritual.

 

The quotations setting forth that SrI nArAyaNa is parabrahman cannot be

disputed. However, I would like to point out that similar vedic quotations

can be found about rudra, indra, varuNa and other deities. Jan Gonda's

text, "Visnuism and Sivaism" (Athlone Press, London) gives a very large

list of references that one can look up. SrIkaNTha's sUtrabhAshya and

appayya dIkshita's SivArkamaNidIpikA give a large number of such vedic

quotations which say that Siva is the greatest parabrahman.

> The elephant-faced deity of the Saiva pantheon is singularly missing in

> the works of even the great poet, kAlidAsa, who is identified as Saiva;

> not to mention the Tamil sangham classics which are the best bet there

> be for textual integrity, and which contain several hymns to vedic

> rudra, subsequently transmogrified into Siva.

 

I thought there were poems of auvaiyAr addressed to "karimukhan,yAnai"

etc. These would refer to the elephant-faced god, no?

> The skanda purANam (more

> than the innovative upa-purANam of gANapatyam) contains the basic

> genesis and profile of the deity 'piLLaiyAr' (itself a later-day Tamil

> lingo-ism) fusing into vighnESvara, who is to be propitiated in order

> that he withholds troubles and impediments. The primitive concept of

> God incorporates inter alia a fear-centric role. nArAyaNa as the One

> God is essentially described as the One who cares per se for his

> reatures ["rakshAika-dikshE", as in the invocation to SrIbhAshyam],

> eliminates fear ['bhaya-nASanah'], bestows Grace ['su-prasAdah'], and

> runs obstacles down. This is why the padma-purANa SlOkam ==

>

> "SuklAmbara-dharam vishNum SaSi-varNam chatur-bhujam

> prasanna-vadanam dhyAyEt sarva-vighnOpa-SAntayE",

>

> is recited at the commencement of any auspicious rite, vaidika-kriya, as

> invoking vishNu as 'vighna-hartA', to quell the impediments. It is

> curious that Sri SEnkAlipuram ananta-rAma dIkshitar, as well as the

> Ramakrishna Mission, have carried this SlOkam in their publications, but

> constantly translating 'vishNu' into Tamil as piLLaiyAr'.

 

I have not read Sri Anantarama Dikshitar's translations, but the

Ramakrishna Mission publications usually give an etymological meaning for

the word vishNu (i.e. one who has entered everything). This is then

upa-vyAkhyAni-fied as piLLaiyAr, because of the specific role of

vighna-upaSAnti, that is requested in this Slokam. To the general Tamil

reader, the image that first comes to mind in this context is piLLaiyAr.

 

I would also be careful about using the word "primitive" with respect to

any conception of God. The word comes loaded with Euro-centrism and

Christo-centrism. We Indian non-Christians, of whatever sampradAya, should

not use the term lightly. Some of the peoples we would classify as

"primitive," e.g. the toDa tribals in the Nilgiris, seem to have very

sublime conceptions of divinity, while the most "civilized" among us often

seem to have no notion at all, or rather poor conceptions at best.

> This strategy of disinformation extended to appropriating for later-day

> icons the role-names ["nAmAni gauNAni...mahAtmanah, r*shibhih

> parigItAni"] of the One God drawn from ancient texts ['gaNAnAm tvA

> gaNapatim', 'vishvak-sEnO', 'SastA' etc], and hurriedly putting together

> a kitsch-n-pastiche mythology to 'enhance' such icons.

 

It should be well to remember the adage - never attribute to malice

what can be attributed to ignorance. In this particular case, it is

highly debatable whether there is either malice or ignorance. The iconic

representations aside, various dharmasUtra texts mention the worship of

gaNeSa. Specifically, in the pancAyatana pUjA of most smArtas, gaNapati

worship is offered to a specific kind of stone, just as vishNu is

worshipped as the sAlagrAmam. gaNapati is identified with brahmaNaspati,

and is described as kavInAm kavi. In vedic references, kavi means

Rshi/mantra-drashTA. More specifically, the bhAdrapada Sukla caturthi

festival in honor of gaNeSa has been celebrated from ancient times, and by

brAhmaNas, the ones who cared the most for transmission of vedic

tradition. This has been sung by Muttuswami Dikshitar in his song in

Chamaram raga, where he says "brAhmaNAdi pUjitam." In the advaita maTham

at Sringeri, it has been a long tradition to hold vidvat-sadas for the

ten days between the caturthi and caturdaSi, in the gaNapati-sannidhi.

> It is a sad irony that the SrIvaishNava community had neglected to know

> about the 'prasthAna-traya bhAshyam' of SrI Sankara-bhagavat-pAdAh; SrI

> Sankara is indeed a beacon-light of vaishNava religion. The AchArya

> propounded 'advaitam' and remained a profound vaishNava; for that

 

In my humble opinion, it is rather futile to classify Sri Sankara and his

sampradAyam as either Saiva or vaishNava or other. As many recent advaita

AcAryas have pointed out, the general outlook is very inclusive, and we

can accept all mythological/iconic forms precisely because we deny form at

the ultimate level of conception. The texts describe the state of moksham

both as vishNo: paramam padam, and as Sivam. Also, the tradition of

sannyAsam is central to advaita vedAnta. And as should be well-known,

the advaita conception of moksham is not one of eternal kainkaryam in

vaikuNTham, simply because there are no two entities there. Such

philosophical issues aside, within the tradition, at the level of the

religious practices (the details of which are not well-known to the lay

followers), there is much evidence of such inclusive practice. For

example, when a nominated maThAdhipati is first initiated into sannyAsam,

a sAlagrAmam is placed over his head and worshipped. When the sannyAsin

passes away, most often, a Sivalingam is installed over the burial-spot.

Erecting a tulasI-brindAvanam is more the exception than the rule.

 

Far from being a deviation from earlier practice, or a campaign of

disinformation, these traditions fit in well with traditional mythological

roles assigned to Siva and vishNu. I am making an almost Dumontian

statement here, but it seems to well justified. A maThAdhipati, although

he is a sannyAsin, has secular duties to perform, by virtue of his post.

At the time of initiation, therefore, he is seen as a symbol of vishNu,

who rules over worldly order. Siva, on the other hand, is the

world-renouncing ascetic, and therefore, a Sivalingam is an apt

representation of the sannyAsin. Moreover, Siva also destroys the world,

as the sannyAsin is also supposed to have done, if only for himself. No

wonder that the mANDUkya-upanishad calls the turIya state as

prapancopaSamam and as Sivam. Although the words are used in strictly

etymological senses, there is more than sufficient suggestion of a

connection to Siva in this upanishad. One ancient author, maNDana miSra,

who was a contemporary of Sankara, describes moksham as

"paramaSiva-bhAvam" in a work called brahmasiddhi. maNDana miSra was

first a disciple of kumArila bhaTTa, the great mImAmsA philosopher, and

later a disciple of SankarAcArya himself, under the name sureSvara. I

presume that such descriptions/interpretations would not be countenanced

by strict vaishNavas. That is why it is so difficult to label Sankara and

even his immediate followers as vaishNavas. This is further supported by

the fact that padmapAda, sureSvara and toTaka, three of Sankara's

direct disciples, compare him to Siva/bhava/gangAdhara. Not that this

makes Saivas out of Sankara's disciples.

 

Finally, in another recent post, advaitam was compared to a poison which

came out of the kshIrasAgaram, and that too by a SrIvaishNava AcArya. I

suppose this outlook both explains and is explained by the fact that

SankarAcArya's bhAshyas are not well-known among the SrIvaishNava

communities.

> matter, krshNa-miSra the author of the allegory play

> prabOdha-chandrOdayam', and mahApurush SrI SankaradEva of Assam, were

> also vaishNava and advaiti at the same time.

 

Add madhusUdana sarasvatI to the list. He was a great kRshNa-bhakta. In

one of his works, he explicitly draws a parallel between the four vyUha

scheme of the pAncarAtra texts and the viSva-taijasa-prAjna-turIya scheme

of the mANDUkya-upanishad. However, there isn't much evidence that

Sankaradeva of Assam was a professed advaitin. He is more well known

only as a vaishNava saint.

 

Regards,

 

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Sundararajan,

>

> I just read your recent post on the bhakti list. I had a few questions for

> you.

>

> 1. Aren't there auvaiyAr poems dedicated to the "yAnai"? If I remember

> right, she even talks of the yAnai in the context of murukan's marriage to

> vaLLi.

>

> 2. I was surprised to read about the interpretations of the kAncI AcArya

> that you referred to. You might have gathered from my other postings that

> my family members are followers of the Sringeri AcAryas. However, what

> surprises me is the actual interpretation you quote. My usual impression

> of the kAncI AcArya's statements is that he always tries to give a

> goody-goody touch to anything. His analysis of tIkkuraLai seems out of

> character! Is this written down? In "daivattin kural" perhaps?

>

> Vidyasankar

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Dear brahmaSrI vidyASankar,

 

As I have already indicated, I am on a visit to the USA and as such do

not have my collections with me here. If you claim that the Tamil

poetess auvaiyAr had sung of the deity 'yAnai' [shall we say 'Anai' as

in the classical Tamil], you are perhaps not referring to the Tamil

sangham classics which, to my knowledge, do not have any auvaiyAr poem

dedicated to Lord Murugan. It is paripADal which has extensive poems

dedicated to Murugan, none of them from auvaiyAr or referring to Anai.

There are of course several UNAUTHENTIC later-day poems attributed to

auvaiyAr. 'auvaiyAr' has suffered the same fate, as with other

classical authors, in having spurious compositions attributed to her.

 

I confess to have started with admiration for the kAmakOTi svAmi, on the

basis of the media-managed adulations published in 1954 or so, when the

svAmi visited Madras on his 'pAda-yAtrA' during the course of his grand

migration from kumbakonam to kanchipuram. Slowly, it was with much

hurt and disbelief that his eclectic 'discourses' gave short shrift to

the discipline of historiographic studies and textual analysis. He was

in fact a man of learning in some respects, and he could have lived a

great life as an AchArya of advaitam, without confusing and destroying

the evidences of history and religious texts. At the end of all this,

I would reiterate that the name of SrI Sankara-bhagavat-pAda is held

precious in vaishNava religion.

 

It is a little late in the day to say it, but I want to say that your

article on the 'apaurushEyatvam of vEda' was highly perceptive, and I

have preserved it.

 

Best wishes from T.S. Sundara Rajan.

[Guest guest]

At 01:58 AM 9/10/97 -0700, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

>

>Finally, in another recent post, advaitam was compared to a poison which

>came out of the kshIrasAgaram, and that too by a SrIvaishNava AcArya. I

>suppose this outlook both explains and is explained by the fact that

>SankarAcArya's bhAshyas are not well-known among the SrIvaishNava

>communities.

 

 

The reference to "poison" comes right from Swami Sri Desikan himself. The

following is from the original text of chapter 2 from RTS:

 

Sruthi-patha-viparItham Kshvela-kalpam sruthow cha

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

prakruthi-purusha-bhOga-prApakAmsO na pathya: |

thadh iha vibudha-guptham mrithyubhIthA vichinvantha

yupan^ishadhamruthAbdhE: uththamam SaramAryA: |

 

(Kshvela-kalpam = equivalent to poison)

 

Sri Uththmoor Swami's commentary on Srimad RTS called "Saaravisthram" is

also consistent with Srimad Azhagiya Singar's commentary. Sri Uththamor

Swamy describes these issues in great detail. The most relevant passage in

Tamil is:

 

"...athil vEdhabhaahya grandhangaLum, adhvaitham muthalaana

kudhrushti grandhangaLum vishamAgum."

 

 

We should realize that the primary audience for Srimad RTS is Sri

Vaishnavas. In that context hostile outlook towards opposition is probably

not unique to Sri Vaishnava commentators. I would imagine that they would

hold this view irrespective of how well versed they are (were) with Sri

Sankaracharya's bhashyas.

 

 

-- adiyEn