Am Namo Narayanaya

[Guest guest]

Namaskaram,

 

Regarding the arguments for and against recitation of the Ashtakshara

mantra by non-brahmin Vaisnavas. I believe this is one of those

Vadakalai/Tengalai differences of opinion. Recently Sri Sadagopan has

quoted the view that the mantra has the same effect when chanted with or

without the Pranava. I believe the Tengalai Acharyas disagree with this

statement. I mean no disrespect of Sri Vedanta Desika or his followers by

pointing this out. I would also like to point out that Ashtakshara means

eight letters (syllables) and it is not correct to call a mantra of only

seven letters (syllables) Ashtakshara. I believe that Vadakalai Acharyas

have tried to compensate for this lack of one letter by giving the letter

"Am" to ladies and non-brahmins in place of the Pranava. I would humbly

request where the shastra pramanam for such a substitution can be found.

 

I can certainly see the sense in not speaking any mantra in public which is

considered secret (rahasya). However it seems to me that a group of

initiated Tengalai Sri Vaisnavas (whether male/Brahmin or not) could openly

discuss it. Similarly a group of initiated Vadakalai Sri Vaisnavas (if

male/Brahmin) could also, and if not male/Brahmin could observe their

protocol by omission or substitution of the Pranava. However it seems

strange to directly speak a secret mantra in an assembly of those who have

not received it.

 

adiyen

 

Keshava das

[Guest guest]

At 07:05 PM 6/21/98 -1000, Greg Jay wrote:

>Namaskaram,

>

>statement. I mean no disrespect of Sri Vedanta Desika or his followers by

>pointing this out. I would also like to point out that Ashtakshara means

>eight letters (syllables) and it is not correct to call a mantra of only

>seven letters (syllables) Ashtakshara. I believe that Vadakalai Acharyas

>have tried to compensate for this lack of one letter by giving the letter

>"Am" to ladies and non-brahmins in place of the Pranava. I would humbly

>request where the shastra pramanam for such a substitution can be found.

>

 

Namaskaram,

 

In Rahasyatrayasaram, Sri vedanta desika goes into details in chapeter

"prabhava vyastadhikara" (chp 25).

I will not go into real details here due to lack of time. But the shastra

pramanam is :

 

in sesha samhita, for dvijas :

 

bramhe muhurte cha utthaya gacchet cha atha nadim prati, satchitrani urdhva

pundrani pavitram cha dvijottama.....

 

for others :

 

sthri shudranam vidhim vakshya .... (for women, and sudras and others )

 

:

 

Pranavam varjayet samyak vidhi syat sarva karmasu

mula mantrena virajam smritva snanam vidhiyate

evam niyama yuktanam stri shudranam tadhiva cha

bhagawat bhakti yuktanam stri sudranam chaturmukha

 

This says : stri sudras who are bhagavatas they should avoid pranava and

say moola mantra. Then one can say just stick with namo narayanaya. THen

it will become 7 syllable and hence I guess, Sri Vedanta Desika has

suggested am instead of pranava. I would be surprised if Sri Vedanta

Desika writes something without backing himself up with tonnes of other

pramanas. This is amply evident in his works such as tatparya chandrika

etc. in which it is tough to say whether Sri Ramanuja has written bhasya

better or Tatparya Chandrika which is a tika on this bhasya is better than

the bhasya !!

 

Just to point out Sri Vedanta Desika did show tremendous respect in life

and even in his works to SEveral great bhagavatas of non-bramhanic origin :

Nammalvar, Tiruppan Alwar etc. This makes it clear that he had enough

backing behind his clear cut views on this varnashrama dharma issues. So

did Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Ramanujacharya & Sri Shankaracharya which is

evident from their bhasyas on "chaturvarnyam ... and several other

statements of prastana trayas.

 

adiyen Krishna Kalale