ALWARS_ NITYASOORIS OR BHADDA JIVATMAS ?

[Guest guest]

ALWARS- NITYA SOORIS OR BHADDA JIVATMAS?

 

Dear Bhagavatas,

 

Though I did not want to revert to the topic again, certain observations

made compel me to place some facts as explained by our Acharyas often in

their Kalakshepams.

 

Mr. Mani has observed that "One needs to dig deeper and more broadly into our

Puravacharya’s works to see how they viewed the Alwars" I think this applies

to Mr. Mani himself more than anyone else. None could have "dug deeper and

more broadly" than H.H Azhagiyasinghar, H.H Poundarikapuram Andavan, Uttamur

Abhinava Desikar and Srivatsankachariar. They have pronounced in no uncertain

terms that Alwars are indeed Nityasuris and NOT mere bhadda Jivas as held by

Bhuvarahachariar.. They have made this clear in all their Kalakshepams time

and again.

 

"Mayarvara Madhinalam Arulinan". When ? Even before their Avatara , Not after

- because they were Nityasuris, NOT Nitya Samsaris. They came into this world

with what is known as "Jayamaana Kadaaksha."(i.e) even at their Avatara; Not

that the Lord entered into them at some future date when they started singing

their soul stirring psalms.

 

I agree with the distinction mentioned by SR as between "Srishtithaan" for

Anya Devatas and "Avatarippithaan" for Alwars. "Avatara" means "Incarnation"

which happens before birth while creation takes place at or after birth.

 

If the Alwars lamented on their faults etc. it is nothing but

"Naichyaanusanthaanam" on their part. It is not that they were guilty of

faults. It should be understood that they were representing us and pleading

our case for Lord’s mercy by extrapolating our faults, foibles and failings

on themselves.

 

Lord Rama, being the Lord Himself, had no need to go about asking every tree

and river whether they had seen Sita.. If he did so, it is only to show how

we WOULD react and how we SHOULD react.

 

Similarly, If the life stories of Alwars point to any indiscretions, it is

only to show us (ordinary humans liable to such indiscretions), the way by

which we can also hope to surmount them by the grace of the Lord.

The term "Nityasamsari" with reference to Nammalwar is another way of

expressing the "Naichyanusanthanam" and should not be taken literally.

 

The statement that the Lord having realized his mistake during Vibhava

Avatara, entered the souls of these "bhadda jivatmas" does not sound well.

Nammalwar, as per the Katapayadhi Samkhya, is said to have appeared on the

46th day after the commencement of Kaliyuga, the Mudal Alwars much earlier

with Tirumazhisai Alwar sometime in between - when Lord Krishna was very much

there. It is far fetched to conclude that the Lord took stock and passed a

judgment on his own failure and tried to ‘enter’ these souls who were very

much coeval with him to accomplish what he himself could not.

 

It is a tall claim to say that "very very few scholars today can match his

erudition". With due respects to Sri Bhuvarahachariar, a RELATIVELY LESS

KNOWN personality, in comparison to the great Yathivaras like H.H. the

Jeeyar, H.H. PP Andavan, H.H. Srimushnam Andavan , Parakaala Mutt Jeeayar,

and Acharyas like Uttamur Swami and Sri Vatsankachariar and others - who are

recognized world wide for their depth of erudition. In view of this, Sri

Bhuvarahacharya himself would honestly admit that. these stalwarts in the

galaxy of luminaries are certainly better qualified as Acharyas than

himself.

 

Let us remind ourselves of the warning that of the various impediments to

Moksha ( Virodi Swarupam) and Apacharas include-

i. Deeming the Alwars and Acharyas as mere human beings like any of us and

ii. Judging Archa murthis with reference to the material (stone, metal etc)

with which they are made.

I wonder if Sri. B and those who uphold his interpretations are aware of this

.. We should learn to see the wood, not the trees, learn to see the elephant,

not the wood it is made of.

 

I entirely agree with Sri Sampath Rangarajan that one should not rush to

conclusions based on knowledge gained by self-study of books ( especially

the wrong kind of books). One should resort to the feet of one of the

Yathivaras or Acharyas like those listed earlier, serving them for some

time, listen to their erudite expositions to really comprehend the in-depth

meanings of the Vyaakhyaanams of Purvacharyas. Otherwise, one is apt to be

carried away by superficial understanding and arrive at faulty conclusions.

 

Mr. Mani observes " I think it is wiser to use their writings as a basis and

come to a common agreement as to what makes sense rather than dogmatically

sticking what one thinks are Thenkalai or Vadakalais".

 

Truth is not a matter of negotiations, not one that could be settled by a

democratically demonstrated majority vote arriving at an agreement or a pact

among ourselves. We go strictly by what our Acharyas mentioned above have

said in such matters- and they have said what ought to be said without any

ambiguity.

 

..No further debating is needed when Sri Abhinava Desika, after intense study,

has given his verdict

" Soorikalin Avataaram Enpadhu PRAAMAANIKAM" and, perhaps, none can claim

qualification enough to contradict this unequivocal statement.

 

Though I am pretty sure on the point repeatedly emphasized by our illustrious

Acharyas during years and years of Kalakshepams at their feet, , I will

discuss again not only with PP Andavan (as suggested by Sri Rangarajan) but

also with all others Yathivaras and Acharyas during my forthcoming visit to

India and get authoritative replies for the benefit of our members

 

Meanwhile, as pointed out by Mr. Dileepan, let us not indulge in sweeping

statements that may have unintended and unpleasant implications.

 

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

[Guest guest]

At the outset, I would ask revered prapannas in this forum to

interpret my ramblings/viewpoints with the indulgence reserved for

the neophyte, and not as statements of self-proclaimed authority. I

apologize for any jarring errors and seek forgiveness for any affront

my words might cause. Some of my statements here might seem strongly

worded, and they are intended to be so, for I do firmly believe that

turth/fact/pramaaNam is not a matter of barter, and should never be

so.

 

The recent discussions on the nature/life of alwars has been edifying

and illuminating, particularly the viewpoints expressed by our

esteemed elder Sri Anbil Ramaswamy (AR). Since I have had close

association with Sri Bhoovarahacharyar (Sri Swamy) extending well

over twenty years, it was further interesting to see how a person of

his stature and learning in our siddhantham would be viewed in the

larger scope of the catholic, almost secular world of bhakti digest,

replete with ideas, often, from the unqualified fringes that at times

may appear more dominant than those from authoritative sources. This

is not surprising, however, since the truism that those who speak the

loudest and most frequently make the most noise, notwithstanding

substance, holds true here too.

 

Heretofore, I had desisted from posting anything on this topic since

I am unqualified to speak when a giant such as Sri Bhoovarahacharyar

speaks. After all, as Sri Mani pointed out, I think there are very

few scholars and acharyas extant who can match his erudition

(prAvENyam) and total mastery of concepts from the Sri VaishNava

siddhantham. He is a direct descendent of one of the 74

simhaasanadhipathi (acharyas) identified by emberumaanar to

perpetuate our siddhantham. His total fluency in samskritham/tamil

and comprehensive mastery of divya prabandham, upanishads as well as

profound works of such eminent acharyals such as Pillailokacharya,

Swami Deskikan, Parasara bhattar, nambillai, nanjeeyar, azhagiya

maNavALa perumaaL nAyanaar cannot be overstated, and include a

thorough understanding of all the authoritative vyakhyaanams

(Periyavaachan Pillai, MaNavALa maamunigaL et al.). I have had the

good fortune to listen to his upanyaasams on varied topics over a

period of 10 years in Bangalore, and had the unique opportunity of

getting an inkling of both his depth of understanding and breadth of

knowledge in our siddhantham.

 

Sri AR says

> It is a tall claim to say that "very very few scholars today can

> match his erudition". With due respects to Sri Bhuvarahachariar, a

> RELATIVELY LESS KNOWN personality, in comparison to the great

> Yathivaras like H.H. the Jeeyar, H.H. PP Andavan, H.H. Srimushnam

> Andavan , Parakaala Mutt Jeeayar, and Acharyas like Uttamur Swami

> and Sri Vatsankachariar and others - who are recognized world wide

> for their depth of erudition. In view of this, Sri Bhuvarahacharya

> himself would honestly admit that. these stalwarts in the galaxy of

> luminaries are certainly better qualified as Acharyas than

> himself.

 

It was disheartening to see Sri Swamy's credentials questioned by

someone like Sri AR (after all, this person lives, currently, most of

the time in the US) on this forum in a demeaning fashion. In all

honesty (and this only reflects my ignorance), I am totally unaware

of the facts that lend greatness to the likes of Sri Andavan or Sri

Srimushnam and Sri Vatsankachariar etc. But it is foolhardy to

compare.

 

Sri Swamy is very well known in the orthodox Sri VaishNava

circles (and I suppose it is hard to know about this living in

Michigan or Ohio or Tennessee or Houston) and is held in very high

esteem by many wellknown vadakalai scholars (such as Srinivasa

Gopalacharyar, a close associate of jeeyar of parakala mutt). The

vadakalai acharyas mentioned above by Sri AR might very well have

their claim to fame, but what little I know in terms of our

siddhantham (from desikan, pillai loka charyar through to maNavala

maamunigal) seems to not have anything embellished by authoritative

contributions from any of these current acharyas identified by Sri

AR.

 

Sri AR says

> Mr. Mani has observed that "One needs to dig deeper and more broadly into our

> PuravacharyaAEs works to see how they viewed the Alwars" I think this applies

> to Mr. Mani himself more than anyone else. None could have "dug deeper and

> more broadly" than H.H Azhagiyasinghar, H.H Poundarikapuram Andavan, Uttamur

> Abhinava Desikar and Srivatsankachariar. They have pronounced in no uncertain

> terms that Alwars are indeed Nityasuris and NOT mere bhadda Jivas as held by

> Bhuvarahachariar.. They have made this clear in all their Kalakshepams time

> and again.

>

 

Well, it seems, if what Sri AR seems to be accurate, that all these

eminent folks contradict Sri Nambillai's vyakhyaanam on Tiruvaaymozhi

as well as Sri Azhagiya maNavaLa perumAL nAyanAr in Acharya hridayam.

 

Fourth Pathu, ninth thiruvaaymozhi:

 

naNNAdhAr muRuvalippa nalluthAr karainthEnga

ENNArAthuyarviLaikkum ivaiyEnna ulagiyaRkai?

kaNNALa! kaDalkaDaindhay! unagazhaRkevarumparisu

kaNNAvAthadiyEnaip paNikanDaaysAmArE

 

NammAzhwaar here expresses his total disgust with samsaaram, where

even death is greeted by dichotomous emotions (naNNadhar smile and

nalluthAr shed sorrowful tears), which is only filled with

uncountable (immeasurable thuyar - thunbam) and says why can't death

come to me (sAmaare). Nammazhvar entreats repeatedly for deliverance

from samsaara, for he, a samsaari, (NambiLLai's vyakhyAnam, not my

words) is unable to deal with it anymore.

 

then Azhawar goes on to say, I have obtained realization that

SrimannArAyaNa is the upAyam and upEyam, other samsaaris should know

about it too, and says (OnRum devam padigam):

 

OnRumdevum ulagum uyirum maRRum ...... maRRaithaivam nADuthirE

 

Give up devathanthara aradhanam and pursue kainkaryam at the feet of

our lord as prapyam. But he further asks,

 

IRanDu kiTTamirukka onnu ponnAhappOvathEn?

 

Why are there two kinds of entities (it is difficult to find an exact

translation for the word kiTTam - thurumbu), one the unrealized

samsaari, and one, the realized prapanna (Himself), and gives the

answer himself in the fifth pathu, kaiyyAr chakkrathu padigam (this

is such a beautiful padigam):

 

kaiyyAr chakkaraththu enkarumANikkamE! enRenRu

poyyE kymaisolli purame purame AaDi

meyyE pethozhindhEn vidhivAykkinRu kAppArAr

ayyo kaNNabhirAn aRaiyo inippOnale

 

Azhwaar says it is the nirhethuka (uninstigated) kripa of the lord

(vidhivaaykinRukAppaarAr) that gave him the awareness that he is

bhagavadeka seshabhuthan - and the lord gave that to someone who

indulged in vishyAnthara pravaNyam (purame purame Aadi) and spoke

nothing but un-truth (poyye - lied to the world, kymai - deceived

even the lord) and what did the lord return in consequence - meyyE

pethozhinden - nothing but the ultimte truth.

 

Sri AR says

> "Mayarvara Madhinalam Arulinan". When ? Even before their Avatara , Not after

 

What is the pramANam for this?

> - because they were Nityasuris, NOT Nitya Samsaris. They came into this world

> with what is known as "Jayamaana Kadaaksha."(i.e) even at their Avatara; Not

 

Sri NAyanaar says arhta panchaka gnyaanam and agnyaanam stem from

jAyamana kAla kaTAkshangal/janmam - source of jAyamana kAla kaTaksham

- kripa (lord's nirhethuka kripa), janmam - from the jeevathma's

karmic association - jaayamaana kala kataaksham does not imply any

constraints or period to the lord's grace, it is ever flowing and

ever present - it is when we stop being vimukhas to his grace that

realization comes to fore.

> that the Lord entered into them at some future date when they started singing

> their soul stirring psalms.

 

Our siddhantham is the tattva traya siddhantham. There are the 24

achith tattvams (prakrithi-prakrithangaL as Sri VeLukkuDi krishNan

puts it in his upanyasams), the chith tattvam (jeevathma) and the

Eeshwara thattvam. So, where is the opportunity for creating a new

class of beings? Further the notion of jeevanmukthas that Sri AR

talks about is an advaitic concept - realization in this life - and

has no credence in the Ramanuja siddhantham (Sri VeLukkuDi krishNan's

words, not mine), for if we realize our true nature of ananyarha

seshathvam, and pursue service at the lord's feet as the goal and the

purushartha, does he not embrace us into his fold (of Nithyasooris)?

 

Lives of our azhwaars clearly indicate that they unshackled

themselves from the bondage of samsaara at some finite point in their

lives - reinforcement of the infinite kindness of the lord, that the

lowest amongst us can rise if we do not turn ourselves away from his

grace - that I need not recount their life stories to the learned

bhagavathas. In fact, Thondaradippodiyaazhvaar (known as vipra

nArAyaNan) gave up a life of saathvik kainkaryam and became enslaved

by the charms of devadevi (a veshya) to the extent that he gave up

his life of kainkaryam and vairagyam. It was through the lord's

intervention that he reverted back to being a prapanna. Further, in

the thirumAlai paasuram

 

vedhanool praayam nooru ..... pedhai pAlakan adahum ....

 

thondaradippodiyAzhwaar refers to youth as adhu, because the memory

of the torments that he suffered in that stage of his life prevent

him from even identifying youvvanam..

 

Thirumangai mannan's frequent naichyanusandhAnam stems from having

been a samsaari and one deeply immersed at that, and instances to

support that the lord's grace does not need a pre-qualifed state to

flow are innumerable in the lives of azhawaars and acharyaLs..

 

Sri AR writes

>

> I entirely agree with Sri Sampath Rangarajan that one should not rush to

> conclusions based on knowledge gained by self-study of books ( especially

> the wrong kind of books).**** One should resort to the feet of one of the

> Yathivaras or Acharyas like those listed earlier, serving them for some****

 

Sounds like Christian propaganda to me. Identifying a few vadakalai

acharyas as sole carriers of our siddhantham, with scant

regard for what has been said by such great souls as PiLLai loka

charyar, nambiLLAi, azhagiya maNavAALa perumaaL nAyanAr seems

inconsistent with the path laid down by Emberumaanaar and carefully

followed by subsequent lines of "orthodox" acharyas from both

kalais. There is hardly a need to re-invent a new method of

propagating our siddhantham, when Sri Emberumaanaar has already done

so.

 

Of course, in a different frame of reference, folks who live in

a materialistic society such as the US, enslaved by the material

benefits of comfort and conveniences, and wallowing in

intellectual/anushtanic mediocrity can make tall claims. However,

until such claims are backed by shastric pramANam from the

prabandhams and Vyaakhyaanams of Purvacharyas and endorsed by

established authorities such as Sri Bhoovarahachariar or Sri Puthur

swamy or the vanamamalai jeeyar swamy, they would remain as

conjecture, and nothing more.

 

Sri AR says

>

> Truth is not a matter of negotiations, not one that could be settled by a

> democratically demonstrated majority vote arriving at an agreement or a pact

> among ourselves. We go strictly by what our Acharyas mentioned above have

> said in such matters- and they have said what ought to be said without any

> ambiguity.

>

 

I, for once, am in agreement with Sri AR here. The only caveat I

would add is to forswear allegiance to Acharyaas (not the

self-anointed kind) that have florished in the orthodoxy of the

lineage (74 simhaasanaadhipathis) established by our beloved

emberumaanaar and not those outside that lineage. After all, what

better verifiable credentials can one ask for?

 

My sincere apologies to Sri AR if he is offended by my statements

here. However, bhAgavatha sEshatham is a step above

bhagavath sEshathvam and to maintain silence even after knowing about

Sri Bhuvarahacharyar's credentials in the face of blatant

inaccuracies (visavis greater, lesser etc.) seemed both unnecessary

and inappropriate.

 

Azhwaar Emberumaanaar Jeeyar thiruvadigaLe sharaNam

 

sridhar