Azhwars Nitya suris or baddha jivatmas

[Guest guest]

When I was in India, I put the question to Sri Srivatsarangachariar, the

prime disciple of Uththamoor Veer Raghavachariar as to whether the

Azhwars are Nitya Suris or baddha jivatmas, simply by their being on

earth.

 

He told me that in the Vadagalai tradition, Swami Desikan made it very

clear that the Azhwars are incarnations of the Shankhu etc and are Nitya

Suris. He also mentioned that in the Tengalai tradition the Azhwars are

considered baddha jivatmas who got moksham at the end of that life. I

guess as far as we are concerned, Sri Bhuvarahacharya Swami has stuck

faithfully to his tradition. Vadagalais do not have to accept this part

of his message, but can take the message of remembering the Azhwars and

their works as an instruction from Sriman Narayana. What I gathered

from my discussions with and various Upanyasams I have heard from Sri

Srivatsarangachariar, is that Nitya Suris and mukta jivatmas can and do

take avatarams to serve Sriman Narayana in the leela vibhuti.

 

adiyen

jaganath.

[Guest guest]

Considering Swami Desikan's explicit statements about

the Alvars' toils through samsAra, and most Vadagalais'

wholesale acceptance of Periya Vaaccaan Pillai and

Nambillai as authoritative commentators, I am surprised

to hear that Srivatsankachariar Swami takes this position.

But I am not one to disagree with his erudition, so I

will have to ask him about this in person. It does seem,

however, to devalue the life histories of the Alvars

if they are simply divine incarnations. The stories

of Thirumangai and Thondaradippodi make no sense anymore.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Regarding Azhwars Nitya suris or baddha jivatmas

---------------

 

Two quotations are submitted here for your careful

consideration from Arayirappadi guruparampara

prabhaavam by Pinbazhagiya PerumaaL Jeeyar from

the chapter "dhivya prabhandha praamaaNya

Samarththanam".

 

This chapter starts out with a discussion of

dEvathanthra issues and establishes the primacy of

Sriman Narayana over other devthaas such as Brahmma

and Sivan. This follows with a comparison of

the status of Azhvaars and these other devathaas.

The following quote appears in this section where

the Jeeyar argues that the Azhvaars should not be

equated to the other devathaas. Here, "avargaL"

refers to Brahmma, Siva, etc., and "ivargaL" refers

to Azhvaars.

 

"ini avargaLOdu SamarO ivvaazhvaargaL? ennil:- anRu;

karmaththaiyittu Srushtiththaan enRadhu avarkaLai;

Sva ichchaiyaalE avadharippiththaan enRadhu ivargaLai."

 

(Free translation: Now, are they alike? No; the

Lord created them (Brahmma, Siva, etc.) according

to their karmas. But the Lord created Azhvaars

out of His own compassion.)

 

 

.....

 

"raajaSa thaamaSamisra Sathvam thalaiyeduththa pOdhu

bhagavath vishaya pravruththi ganaththu irukkaiyaalE

sEshaboothar engiRadhu avargaLai;

mukguNaththiraNdavai agaRRi onRinilonRi ninRu" enRum,

"nilai ninRa thoNdaraana aRanthigazhum manaththavar"

enRum sollugiRa sudhdha sathva nishtaraagaiyaalE

theLivuRRa sindhaiyaraana sEshaboothar engiRadhu ivargaLai."

 

 

(Free translation: Brahmma, Siva, etc. are said

to be SEshaboothas of our Lord only when Sathvam

is on the ascendancy and Rajas and Thamas are

feeble for them. However, since the Azhvaras

are said to be free of rajas and thamas, and

characterized by _sudhdha sathvam_, they are

clear minded SEshaboothaas.)

 

 

p.s. Jeeyar's use of "Sudhdha sathvam" seems

to be significant here.)

 

 

 

At 11:32 AM 11/12/97 -0800, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>

> But I am not one to disagree with his erudition, so I

> will have to ask him about this in person.

> It does seem, however, to devalue the life

> histories of the Alvars if they are simply

> divine incarnations. The stories

> of Thirumangai and Thondaradippodi make

> no sense anymore.

>

 

 

Azhvaar stories are fascinating one way or the other.

They making sense is not dependent upon whether Azhvaars

were baddhas or nithyasoories. Threatening the Lord

with a sword is fantastic which ever way you look at,

especially in the light of ARAyirappadi proclaiming

that the Lord was only "jyAna SAkshaathkaaram" and not

"prathyaksha SAkshAthkaaram" for the Azhvaars.

 

Further, Azhvaar's verses are considered divinely

inspired. ARAyirappadi says, "yaanaayth thannai

thaan paadi" (He Himslef sang in His own praise).

Perhaps Azhvaar's life histories must be understood

in this context. Then how does it matter whether

they were (are) baddhaas or nithyasoories? Either

way the life histories can be inspirational for

the rest of us. Garuthmaan and AthisEsha are

just as much of role models for us as the kainkaryaparars

serving the various Sri Vaishnava Mutts and Ashramams

today. Someone being a Nithyasoori does not make

them too lofty for us bhaddhaas. Is not the assurance

that we can serve the Lord in just as much as the

Nithyasoories that make us long for mOksham?

 

 

-- adiyEn

[Guest guest]

One of our Bhakti list correspondents has rightly

suggested that I carefully read Swami Desika's "Rahasya

Traya Saaram" to understand the acharya's opinion on

the nature of the Alvars. Reading Desika's words

along with Sri Rama Desikachariar's explanatory notes

proved even more insightful and conclusive than I

expected!

 

[From p.7, "Sree guru parampara saaram", introductory

section of Desika's "Rahasya Traya Saaram"]:

 

``pUrvotpanneshu bhUteshu teshu teshu kalau prabhuH |

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

anupraviSya kurute yat samIhitam acyutaH || ''

 

[vishnu dharmam 108.50]

 

engiRapadiyE paraankuca parakaalaadi roopaththaalE

abhinavamaaka oru daSaavataaram paNNi ...

 

 

Translation, according to Sri Rama Desika Swami's notes:

 

According to the sloka --

 

``In Kali Yuga, the great Lord Achyuta accomplishes

what He desires by entering into creatures already

^^^^^^^

born.'' --

^^^^

 

the Lord made 10 new descents in the form of

Parankusa [Nammalvar], Parakala [Tirumangai Alvar],

etc. ...

 

 

Swami Desika's intention in quoting this particular sloka

while discussing the advent of the Alvars should be apparent

to the discerning reader.

 

Some have assumed that since Sri Bhuvarahachariar's

statements about the humanity of the Alvars differed from

their received understanding, this must point to a

Thengalai / Vadagalai difference of opinion. This conclusion,

in my opinion, is the easy way out, since it requires little

intellectual effort and research. It is neither interesting

nor accurate to hastily trace differences of modern opinion

and practice to the ancient acharyas. I think it wiser

to use their writings as a basis and come to a common

agreement as to what makes sense, rather than dogmatically

sticking to what one things are "Thengalai" or "Vadagalai."

 

In any event, the "Vadagalai" viewpoint, if one must

characterize it as such, is identical in this case to what

Sri Bhuvarahachariar initially wrote. It was brought to

my attention that Dr. S.M. Srinivasa Chari's latest work

on the Alvars understands their divinity as being one

of inspiration and divine "Avesa", either by the Lord

or His divine attendants. In his discussion of this

topic, he quotes the same passage of Desika's excerpted

above.

 

Perhaps not surprisingly, this very issue was discussed

and settled hundreds of years back. I am indebted to

Sri M. Srinivasan of Chicago for mentioning Puttur Swamy's

explanation of Pinpazhagiya PerumaaL Jeeyar's "vaarththamaalai"

no. 188:

 

[p. 225, Puttur Swamy's edition]

 

188: "emberumaanaar thaanE nammazhvaaraay vandhaar"

enRu aaLavandhaar aruLicceyvar; "nityasamsaarikaLilE

oruvanai ubhayavibhoothi vilakshaNanaambadi

emberumaan aakkinaan" enRu embaar aruLicceyvar.

 

Alavandar would graciously say, "The Lord Himself came as

Nammalvar"; Embaar would graciously say, "The Lord took

one of those eternally caught in worldly existence and

made him unique in ubhaya vibhoothi."

 

Puttur Swamy writes that both these acharyas were expressing

the same belief from different viewpoints. It was believed

that the Lord at Thirukkurungudi manifested Himself as Nammalvar,

and yet it was also believed that the Lord displayed his grace

most abundantly in the personality of the Alvar. The nature

of the vibhUti avatAra is taken to be the same as when

Lord Krishna speaks of his infinite glories in Chapter 10 of

the Gita -- wherever there is anything great, holy, or magnificent,

He is there.

 

It seems that our acharyas wrote and thought with more

subtlety and touching humanity than we sometimes give them

credit.

 

daasan Mani

[Guest guest]

At 06:52 PM 11/18/97 -0800, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>

 

[..]

>

>Swami Desika's intention in quoting this particular sloka

>while discussing the advent of the Alvars should be apparent

>to the discerning reader.

>

 

Unfortunately the above makes Sri Abinava Desika

Veeraghavachariar, popularly known as Sri Utthamoor Swamy,

into a not very discerning reader of Swami Sri Desikan.

 

Given below is a passage from Sri Uttamoor Swamy's commentary

on Sri Rahasya Thrayasaram known as "Saaravisthram".

 

Page 24:

-------

"AzhvaargaL baddha jeevarkaLA, soorikaLA enRa vichaaramuNdu.

'AdhibhakthAsthu ananthagaruda dhIthAmiNcha vadhAgbhEdhA:

ithi purANa prasidhdham' enRu sadha dhooshaNiyil alEpaka padha

bhangaththil aruLich cheydhiruppadhaal soorikaLin avathaaramenpadhu

pramaaNikam."

 

(Free translation: There is a question as to whether the

Azhvaars are baddhas or Nithyasoorees? Based on Swami

Sri Desikan's words in Sadhadhooshani it is evident

that they are Nithyasoori avatharas.)

 

(Those with Sanskrit knowledge please translate the

sanskrit passage in the above)

 

>

>Perhaps not surprisingly, this very issue was discussed

>and settled hundreds of years back. I am indebted to

>Sri M. Srinivasan of Chicago for mentioning Puttur Swamy's

>explanation of Pinpazhagiya PerumaaL Jeeyar's "vaarththamaalai"

>no. 188:

>

 

Pinpazhigiya PerumaaL Jeeyar clearly states in GPP that the

Lord sent Azhvaars down to the earth due to "sva ichchai"

and not due to karma. He also says that the azhvaars

were characterized by sudhdha sathvam, an element unique

to Vaikuntam and Vaikuntavaasees. These are direct

quotes and no interpretation is needed. (Please see

my earlier post on this subject for the exact quotation.)

 

So, saying that this issue was settled hundreds of

years in one particular way seems rather rash.

 

 

>

>It seems that our acharyas wrote and thought with more

>subtlety and touching humanity than we sometimes give them

>credit.

 

 

Then Sri Uththammor Swamy is guilty of missing these

subtleties and touching humanity, and failed to give

credit to Swami Sri Desikan and PPJ.

----------------------

 

Why would the Azhvaar's touching humanity be any less if

they are considered nithyasoori avatharas escapes me.

Then, would Lord Sri Rama be any less divine if He had

not wallowed in grief and self pity.

 

Finally, please, let us not be so sure of ourselves and

make sweeping statements that may have unintended and

unpleasant implication.

 

 

-- adiyEn

[Guest guest]

I originally did not intend to participate in this discussion, as I have

little knowledge of the subject. But, Sri Ramaswamy's recent comments have

brought back some thoughts I had during the original discussion, which I

would like to share with all of you. What I am about to present is not at

all a traditional view, so please take this for what it is worth. But,

with all due respects to Sri Ramaswamy, Sri Dileepan, and the other erudite

members of this forum, I feel that Mani's statement, "One needs to dig

deeper and more broadly into our Puravacharya's works to see how they viewed

the Alwars" is implying something more than just the superficial implication

for further study. I would suggest that this delving be a more spiritual

one, reaching out more to our emotions than our logic.

 

The debate - or should I say, paradox - as to the divinity or humanity of

saints and religious leaders is quite a common one among the theistic,

devotion based philosophies. Take for example the Catholic Church in their

adoration of Mary. The Church portrays Mary as the Divinely Ordained Holy

Mother, the one who in her compassion acts as the mediary between Christ and

humanity. But, at the same time, Mary, the human mother of Jesus, is also

known as the one who cries as only a mother could at the suffering and

untimely demise of her son. Interestingly, the Church is able to accept

both, the the sad plight of the human side of Mary and the exalted role of

Mary the "purusakAram." For in a sense, her very role as the Compassionate

Mediator for Her Divine Son results out of her own human experience, as she

can certainly empathize with what it means to go through this samsAram.

 

Similar views can be found "closer to home," too. In my plethora of

readings in college on the subject, I came across a brief blurb about what I

believe is a popularly held view in the Ramanandi tradition. It stated that

the Lord chose to incarnate as Sri Rama not only out of His Saulabhyam, but

to truly show us how much He can understand and empathize with what it means

to be human. To me, this is a beautiful concept, which makes us enjoy Him

even more! Similar ideas are suggested in our own KurattazhwAn's ati mAnusa

stavam.

 

I would like to suggest that a similar mood be taken in the appreciation and

adoration of the AzhwArs. Whether or not the AzhwArs were born Divine, or

whether the Lord descended into them later will always be based on how one

looks at it. But, the facts remain from their lives that they knew all too

well about the trials, tribulations, goods and bads of being human, and in

their own Divine outpourings both beseeched and wondered at the Kindness of

He who saved them from all of this. It is only in the recognition of this

undeniably human experience that we can see the the fullness of His Saulabhyam.

 

Please forgive me for any offenses made in my unqualified ramblings.

 

 

dAsan Mohan Raghavan