Divya Prabandhams

[Guest guest]

Dear Members:

 

I recently heard a remark by someone that set me thinking and I am

not sure how to respond to it.

 

The person in question was referring to a situation wherein a

proposal to chant the divya prabandhams in lieu of veda parayanam in

a temple. The person said " How can they do it ? Divya prabanadhams

are not equal to the vedas. Only when the vedas are recited can

perumal wear the pavitram. This is a poor substitution"

 

Now, I was under the distinct impression that our Ubhaya Vedanta

Tradition upholds both the prabandhams and the vedas as being equal.

Are their certain exclusions to this rule. Is this the same in both

the schools of thought in Sri Vaishnavism ?

 

could someone enlighten me and provide me with specific examples -

for examples by the writings of the acharyas and references to

specific temple practices.

 

thank you

mukund srinivasan

[Guest guest]

Mukund wrote:

> The person in question was referring to a situation wherein a

> proposal to chant the divya prabandhams in lieu of veda parayanam in

> a temple. The person said " How can they do it ? Divya prabanadhams

> are not equal to the vedas. Only when the vedas are recited can

> perumal wear the pavitram. This is a poor substitution"

 

Mukund,

 

The question of chanting Prabandham "in lieu" of the Veda

or vice versa should not arise. Each has its appropriate

and essentially equal place during temple worship and festivals.

For example, during festivals when PerumaaL is in procession,

the Prabandham is chanted antiphonally by the cantors in front

of the Lord, while the Vedas are simultaneously chanted by those

following the Lord.

 

Similarly, thiruppaLLiyezhucci is normally recited in the

morning to wake the Lord up. Later, during his thirumanjanam

(sacred bath), the Purusha Sukta and other sections of the Vedas

are normally recited. In this way, we switch off between

Sanskrit and Tamil Vedas, as the two go hand in hand.

 

Generally, however, our tradition holds that it pleases

the Lord most to hear the Prabandham. While the Vedas are

eternal and declarative, the Prabandham contains the loving

and longing words of his dear bhaktas.

 

Others who are unfamiliar with Sri Vaishnava temple practice

and tradition are bound to object to the recitation of

the Prabandham in the presence of the Lord. This is especially

true of those who have a fundamental antagonism towards

Tamil, or those who consider Tamil to not have the sanctity of

Sanskrit. This is nothing new, as Ramanuja, Desika, and

ManavaaLa MaamunigaL all had to deal with this in their contiual

efforts at maintaining the Alvar tradition in India itself.

 

Perhaps the best thing is to point out that one does not

"replace" the other -- they go hand in hand during the Lord's

worship, and omitting one is like seeing a three-dimensional

object with one eye. It would also do good to inform these

people of the significance of the Alvars. If it were not for

them, perhaps Vaishnava temple worship as we know it would

not exist today?

 

Mani

 

P.S. There is no difference of opinion between Sri Vaishnavas

on this issue.

[Guest guest]

I imagine that there are plethora of validations within our tradition to

equate the tamizh and Sanskrit vEda. I would also be very interested in

hearing about these, to respond to similar issues.

 

I would like to expand on one of the concerns raised by Mr. Srinivasan:

>Now, I was under the distinct impression that our Ubhaya Vedanta

>Tradition upholds both the prabandhams and the vedas as being equal.

>Are their certain exclusions to this rule. Is this the same in both

>the schools of thought in Sri Vaishnavism ?

 

I am under the same impression, and am also under the view that this does

indeed apply to both schools, unconditionally. However, during informal

conversation at a recent NAMA function, two gentlemen maintained the view

that Vadakalais traditionally prefer Sanskrit, while Tenkalais place greater

emphasis on Tamizh in their respective chants. Indeed, these men contended,

the very names of the two schools themselves have been derived from the

geographic origins of their respective preferred language.

 

I cannot find any validation for this in the books that I have read, except

for a brief discussion in Mumme's "SriVaishnava Theological Dispute." Mumme

states that at the time of Swami Desikan and Swami Lokacharya, Srirangam,

with its more homogeneous tamizh society, had become the center of learning

for the Azhwars' paasurams, while the teachers in Kanchi leaned more towards

teaching in Sanskrit to validate their views among the scholars of this

religiously diverse city. From what I understand, though, Mumme can find

little evidence that such a linguistic dichotomy had an influence on either

school's view of Ubhaya vEdanta.

 

I look forward to clarifications from the more erudite in this forum.

 

dAsAnu dAsan,

 

Mohan