proselytization and srivaishnavism

[Guest guest]

Dear bhaktas:

I gratefully acknowledge the sincere responses to my questions and

comments in the earlier message titled "on the nature of our faith".

As a matter of fact, several related disussions have occurred in

previous bhakti postings as pointed out by Mani. I should make it a

point to dig into the archives more often, especially now that we have

the new search feature added to it.

I read in the archives about the Srirangam acharyas Vs the Kanchi

acharyas and I liked that description very much. It is perhaps true,

that what began as different learning environments in those two ancient

cities may have eventually led to an unprecedented split in

the ranks, fostered by over-zealous disciples during the centuries that

followed. Later the impact of British administration, coupled with the

recourse to legal wranglings by Srivaishnavas over the control of

temples [having economic implications] served to polarize

the community even further. Well, I'm sure there is more to this

odyssey but the discussion certainly added to my knowledge.

Some members did agree with me on a couple of other things that I'd

mentioned, such as the issue of vadamozhi, and about proselytization.

Let me dwell on this proselytizing matter once more, for in my mind it

has some very fundamental implications. Mani writes that anyone,

irrespective of age, gender or faith can convert to Srivaishnavism by

undergoing samASrayaNam through an AchAryan. Now that raises some

questions in my mind. Firstly, should I consider myself as one born

into the Srivaishnava community, since both my parents were

Srivaishnavite? Also, since I have not undergone samASrayaNam yet,

should I be considered a non-Srivaishava? Further, my parents had not

undergone samASrayaNam at the time of my birth. In that vein, I could

not have been born a Srivaishnavan. In any case, if the possibility of

being "born" a Srivaishnavan does not exist, then the argument is

moot. If so, then I am not a Srivaishnavan because neither could I be

born into the faith, nor have I been indoctrinated into it as of now.

Perhaps Mani intended to say [and this is speculation on my part]

that samASrayaNam can convert a non-Srivaishavan to Srivaishnavism, by

embracing them into the thondarkulam. That may be a recourse for me, if

the previously mentioned considerations are true. So then, the faith is

truly universal, isn't it... since any human being can convert to it

through samASrayaNam. Well, wait a minute. We know that unlike the

advaita matams, OUR AchAryas continue to bear the identifiers of

brAhminhood, such as Shikha and yagnyopavEtham. In theory, any member

of the thondarkulam can rise to the level of an AchAryan and occupy the

peetham of the mutt. So we could have AchAryars devoid of brahminical

externals, if they were not brahmin to begin with. Mani says that

brahminhood is an entirely different matter. Certainly, because there

is no conversion to it [as far as I know, but surely I do have a lot to

learn...]

So here is THE question: Do the mutts require swAmis to perform

certain brAhminical rituals, and if so, could it be possible to bestow

brahminhood upon one that wasn't so born, in order to fulfill the

requirement? A community is truly egalitarian, if just about any of its

members could ascend to prominence irrespective of their origins.

Is Srivaishnavism so? Regardless of the answer, there is a related

question... how many non-brahmin Srivaishavites do we know of [other

than certain AzhwArs]? And of course, no one has yet ventured an

estimate of the total number of adherents to Srivaishnavism today...

I will end here, and hope to hear from some of you with regard to

these doubts that I have. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with me

so far.

 

adiyEn

-SrInAtH

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

> So here is THE question: Do the mutts require swAmis to perform

>certain brAhminical rituals, and if so, could it be possible to bestow

>brahminhood upon one that wasn't so born, in order to fulfill the

>requirement? A community is truly egalitarian, if just about any of

its

>members could ascend to prominence irrespective of their origins.

>Is Srivaishnavism so? Regardless of the answer, there is a related

>question... how many non-brahmin Srivaishavites do we know of [other

>than certain AzhwArs]? And of course, no one has yet ventured an

>estimate of the total number of adherents to Srivaishnavism today...

 

 

As far as my understanding goes, there are more restrictions for

one becoming an Jeeyar of a Matham. This is probably not so for

other AchAryAs (mostly among Tenkalai). For example, Sri Pillai

Lokaachaarya had a Sishya named Vilaan chOlaip piLLai who was from

a lower caste. He is the same person who composed the pure

tamil song Sapthakaathai for which Sri Manavaala maamunikaL wrote

a commentary. Sri Vilaan chOlaip PiLLai has many sishyaas as he

was very well learned and respected.

 

Technically an AchAryA can be any one who performs UpadEsam. There

are many AchAryAs who are proficient in certain aspects of

the Vedanta. For example, Periyavaachaan pillai enumerates a whole

list of possible AchAryas and concludes that one who instructs a

sishya in the Bagavad Vishayam is the real AchArya. This statement

possibly implies that to be an AchArya practicing Bagavad Vishayam

can be from any caste. It is also true that we find many women

who fall in this category (please refer to Sri Sadagopan's earlier

posting on this).

 

Thanks

 

 

Venkatesh K. Elayavalli Cypress Semiconductor

Data Communications Division 3901 N. First St. MS 4

Phone: (408) 456 1858 San Jose CA 95134

Fax: (408) 943 2949

 

email: elayavalli (external)

Home Page Location: http://www.SriVaishnava.org

 

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

Srinath Chakravarty wrote:

> Some members did agree with me on a couple of other things that I'd

> mentioned, such as the issue of vadamozhi, and about proselytization.

> Let me dwell on this proselytizing matter once more, for in my mind it

> has some very fundamental implications. Mani writes that anyone,

> irrespective of age, gender or faith can convert to Srivaishnavism by

> undergoing samASrayaNam through an AchAryan. Now that raises some

> questions in my mind. Firstly, should I consider myself as one born

> into the Srivaishnava community, since both my parents were

> Srivaishnavite? Also, since I have not undergone samASrayaNam yet,

> should I be considered a non-Srivaishava? Further, my parents had not

> undergone samASrayaNam at the time of my birth. In that vein, I could

> not have been born a Srivaishnavan. In any case, if the possibility of

> being "born" a Srivaishnavan does not exist, then the argument is

> moot. If so, then I am not a Srivaishnavan because neither could I be

> born into the faith, nor have I been indoctrinated into it as of now.

> Perhaps Mani intended to say [and this is speculation on my part]

> that samASrayaNam can convert a non-Srivaishavan to Srivaishnavism, by

> embracing them into the thondarkulam. That may be a recourse for me, if

> the previously mentioned considerations are true. So then, the faith is

> truly universal, isn't it... since any human being can convert to it

> through samASrayaNam.

>From what I have learned from Sri Tridandi Jeear Swamy, one cannot in the

ideal sense be regarded to be SriVaishnava until he/she takes samAsrAyanam

from an elder or achAryan. And, this opportunity is available to anyone,

irrespective of race, caste, age or gender. But, what is required on the

part of the individual is that he/she wholeheartedly accepts the principles

and practices of the tradition, including, most importantly, that Sriman

Narayana is the upAyam and upEyam, and that we in our true nature, are His

sEsham.

 

The only advantage that I can see in being born into a SriVaishnava family,

particularly a practicing SriVaishnava family, is that the environment and

heritage would be more conducive to the acceptance and practice of such

principles. If such were the case, I suppose that it could be argued to

some extent that people born into such families are SriVaishnavas from

birth.

> Well, wait a minute. We know that unlike the

> advaita matams, OUR AchAryas continue to bear the identifiers of

> brAhminhood, such as Shikha and yagnyopavEtham. In theory, any member

> of the thondarkulam can rise to the level of an AchAryan and occupy the

> peetham of the mutt. So we could have AchAryars devoid of brahminical

> externals, if they were not brahmin to begin with. Mani says that

> brahminhood is an entirely different matter. Certainly, because there

> is no conversion to it [as far as I know, but surely I do have a lot to

> learn...]

> So here is THE question: Do the mutts require swAmis to perform

> certain brAhminical rituals, and if so, could it be possible to bestow

> brahminhood upon one that wasn't so born, in order to fulfill the

> requirement? A community is truly egalitarian, if just about any of its

> members could ascend to prominence irrespective of their origins.

> Is Srivaishnavism so?

 

The very fact that our Jeears continue to wear the shikkha and

yagnopaveetham is proof of their continued commitment to Brahminical rites

and responsibilites, in stark contrast to the sanyAsis of other

communities. There are SriVaishnava monks, known, I believe, as ekAngis,

who have many of the same rites and responsibilities as the Brahmin Jeears,

except for the practice of these vEdic rites. However, I am not sure

whether they have the authority to perform samAsrAyanam or not (I look

forward to learning from Sri Mani and others about this.)

> Regardless of the answer, there is a related

> question... how many non-brahmin Srivaishavites do we know of [other

> than certain AzhwArs]? And of course, no one has yet ventured an

> estimate of the total number of adherents to Srivaishnavism today...

 

According to one un-official statistic that I heard a couple of years ago,

there are approximately 60,000 Brahmins (I do not know the source for this

number, or whether it is even accurate) who identify themselves as being

followers of the Sri sampradAyam.

 

I am not sure about the number of non-Brahmin followers of the faith.

However, I do know that in Andhra Pradesh, the vast majority of the Reddy,

Naidu, and silver/goldsmith communities generally regard themselves as being

 

SriVaishnava, and that many of these families do follow the tradition under

the guidance of an achAryan.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

 

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Bhagavatas,

 

Thiru Srinath has raised very interesting questions.

I humbly express my views as I have understood our Heritage.

 

In the Varna System, We generally don't talk about the Sanyasa or the

Sanyasins. Sanyasa is generally tied to the Ashrama division of one's

lifetime.

 

But we have to accept the fact that Sanyasins are beyond the defination

of Varnashrama. Sanyasins cannot be divided as Brahmanas or Sudras. They

have risen above all these mental tempraments by renunciation. Alwars

are perfect examples of renunciate monks but different from Vairagis or

Mayavadi sanyasins. Therefore Alwars are beyond caste. They are the

supreme devotees of the Lord and therefore they are closer to Narayan

than to all the three gunas. Infact they have transcended all the three

karma causing gunas.They are not even pure sattwic for being pure

sattwic brings great merits neccesiating a heaven for enjoying and

exhausting them. Alwars were thirsty for just the love of the Divine

Couple. Once glance from Narayana was all that they ever wish all their

life for. They were beyond the three bonds of Nature.

 

Thus we may infer that:

1. A SriVaishnava is a SriVaishnava - irrespective of the family he is

born into! We address each other as the Dasa of the Lord. I am your

servant- Adiyan!

2. Once we begin Bhakthi, we automatically aquire sattwic nature and our

thoughts deeds and speech turns sweeter with the love of God and this is

characteristic of the true brahmana mind and essence. Without regard to

our family background, proffession, ashrama we are in, we become

brahmanas of mind. The Gitacharya has decreed that the Brahmana is he

who has the following qualities born of his nature: peacefulness,

self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowlege, wisdom

and religiousness. The Supreme Lord has voiced his opinion. It is this

words that shall direct us in determining who is a brahmana. In fact a

brahmana doesn't need or wish for this 'title'. it belongs to him in

essence. There is no real need to bother with the Brahminship. Bakthi

produces jnana and jnana makes him a perfect brahmin. (comments welcome)

 

3. Sanyassins are the cream of the society. They are superior to

brahmins and they are the real teachers- Alwars are our gurus- of

brahmanas also. Only after sanyasins like our beloved alwars come the

brahmins.

4. The ceremony of initiation into SriVaishnavism apart from formally giving

you acceptance into the religion, serves no other purposes for one's

spiritual progress.Initiation is a invitation to love and serve God. It

is only the means and it should not be confused with the end. Althought

Samasranayam or initiation is a necessary ceremony for imparting of the

Mula Mantra and the Sampradaya- The illustrous lineage of starting from

Sri Lakshmi herself, a person initiated is not strictly a Sri Vaishnava

nor is one who doesn't have the right oppurtunity or chance to meet his

guru and get initiated, cannot be called a SriVaishnava. The

essence of Alwars treachings inspire us to throw away the karma kanda

part of Vedas which teach ceremonial and elaborate ritualistic worship

and turn to the Glorifull and beautiful face of Sriman Narayanan, the

primal being. It is Bakthi that matters. Ceremonies and rituals come

next. SriVaishnavism is a state of the heart and mind. Initiation and

rituals only help depict and express this emotion. You are a

SriVaishnava whether you know it or not, once you develop extreme bakthi

for Lord and believe in the basic philosophy of Vishistadwaita.

3. The Core teachings of Vaishnavism teach only one thing!

Its Love for the lord. All philosophies and arguments and scholarship

are just ornaments and help in beautifying the bride of love in our

hearts for the lord. Surely ornaments without the bride are of no use to

the bridegroom who would be pleased enough with just the bride.

 

To summarise:

Alwars are SriVaishnavite Sanyasins (renunciation of the world out of

sheer love of God is true renunciation)

Sanyasins are the gurus of Brahmins.

Sanyasins are not brahmins. They are beyond any class or division. They

are unique- They can belong to only one class- The class of Azhwars-

Those who are submerged in love for the Lord.

Being or becoming a Brahmin is secondary to transforming of the mind and

the subjuction of the senses hereby developing Sattwic nature.

Hence it doesnt matter (much) if you are not born to SriVaishnava

Parents, or if you are not a Brahmin or if you are anything else.

 

It is this age-old dilemma of Brahmanism as birthright that has deprived

Hinduism of its rightfull position as the World ('s Only) Religion.

 

Adiyen Jagan Mohan

 

 

On Wed, 20 Jan 1999 17:29:24 PST

"Srinath Chakravarty" <nallaan wrote:

 

 

Srinath:-) Perhaps Mani intended to say [and this is speculation on my part]

Srinath:-)that samASrayaNam can convert a non-Srivaishavan to Srivaishnavism, by

Srinath:-)embracing them into the thondarkulam. That may be a recourse for me,

if

Srinath:-)the previously mentioned considerations are true. So then, the faith

is

Srinath:-)truly universal, isn't it... since any human being can convert to it

Srinath:-)through samASrayaNam. Well, wait a minute. We know that unlike the

Srinath:-)advaita matams, OUR AchAryas continue to bear the identifiers of

Srinath:-)brAhminhood, such as Shikha and yagnyopavEtham. In theory, any member

Srinath:-)of the thondarkulam can rise to the level of an AchAryan and occupy

the

Srinath:-)peetham of the mutt. So we could have AchAryars devoid of brahminical

Srinath:-)externals, if they were not brahmin to begin with. Mani says that

Srinath:-)brahminhood is an entirely different matter. Certainly, because there

Srinath:-)is no conversion to it [as far as I know, but surely I do have a lot

to

Srinath:-)learn...]

Srinath:-) So here is THE question: Do the mutts require swAmis to perform

Srinath:-)certain brAhminical rituals, and if so, could it be possible to bestow

Srinath:-)brahminhood upon one that wasn't so born, in order to fulfill the

Srinath:-)requirement? A community is truly egalitarian, if just about any of

its

Srinath:-)members could ascend to prominence irrespective of their origins.

Srinath:-)Is Srivaishnavism so? Regardless of the answer, there is a related

Srinath:-)question... how many non-brahmin Srivaishavites do we know of [other

Srinath:-)than certain AzhwArs]? And of course, no one has yet ventured an

Srinath:-)estimate of the total number of adherents to Srivaishnavism today...

Srinath:-) I will end here, and hope to hear from some of you with regard to

Srinath:-)these doubts that I have. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with me

[Guest guest]

Balamurali asks:

> What does the term *lower* in the words "lower caste" convey

> here. What is the scale of reference in which the word *lower* is

> used.

 

I don't mean to speak for the author, but I presume "lower caste"

means "lower in the opinion of conventional society", and not

Sri Vaishnava society. Among Sri Vaishnavas, one should not

even think of superiority or inferiority on the basis of caste.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Bhagavatas,

I presume it is necessary to add at the beginning that, being new to

this list, and of not being a scholar in various Sri-Vaishnavite

literature like many of the Bhaktas here, I might be wrong in many ways.

But I take the liberty of expressing my opinions and thoughts freely and

without guilt in view of the fact that you all might be understanding.

 

The Sannyasi

 

On 25 Jan 1999 20:36:20 -0000

Thiru Mani Varadarajan <mani wrote:

Mani:-)According to our tradition, a brAhmaNa, even after becoming

Mani:-)a sannyAsi, retains many of the duties that are incumbent

Mani:-)on his being a brAhmaNa.

 

Thiru Mani has rightly said, but between the lines I can read: even after

becoming a Sannyasi, retains MANY of the duties...

A Brahmana, becoming a Sannyasi, doesn't have to give up every duty that

his earlier ashrama has ordained for him. True renunciation is not

achieved by complete abstinence from all the duties of the world. It is

but a state of mind reflected in the works. Afterall renunciation of

various previously held responsibilities and duties is for substituting

them with perpetual thought and love of Bhagavan. In the other

ashramas, concern and care for the family, animals and the Sannyasi,

Guru, and the essential sacrifices to gods, ancestors etc have to be

performed. When all these duties are fulfilled, irrespective of the

varna, a person accepts Sannyasa or renunciation. But some duties stay

on. But this doest and should not be interpreted as follows: That

Sannyasins have distinction of Varna. Varna is for distinction in the

combination of the Gunas that make up one's mind.

Now if we hold on to caste as being formed only by birth, we may

conclude that there can be a Brahmin Sannyasi, a Kshatriya Sannyasi and

likewise. But when we retrospectively inspect, we may find that Sannyasi

Ashrama is freed from all Karma (refer Chap. 18, verse 49 of the Bhagavad

Gita), family ties, duties of the brahmacharya ashrama, the grihasta

ashrama (including offering of pinda to ancestors), etc. and ultimately

the duties of heroism, courage in battle, leadership (BhagavadGita

Ch.18:43), farming, cowprotection, labour and service to others (verse

44). Thus he transcends varna also. Therefore Sannyasins don't have

varna although they may retain some of the most important duties and

promises.

 

Mani:-)None of the Alvars were sannyAsis. They are beyond "varNa"

Mani:-)(let us use this term instead of "caste") in the sense that

Mani:-)irrespective of their physical origin, they are to be treated

Mani:-)with the utmost respect because they are parama-bhAgavatas,

Mani:-)exemplifying the highest level of sainthood. Furthermore,

Mani:-)according to our tradition, _all_ bhAgavatas are to be given

Mani:-)the utmost respect, irrespective of their caste, varNa, or

Mani:-)physical origin. One acharya states that even wondering about

Mani:-)the jAti of a bhAgavata is an offense.

Rightly and Best said.

But why none of the Azhwars are not Sannyasins? This sentence depends on

how Sannyasa Ashrama is defined. If some Bhakta might be kind enough to

explain in Vaishnavite terms, what constitutes the Ashrama of Sannyasa,

we might clear this point. After all the Azhwars, preoccupied with love

and the agony of separation having renounced all the material joys

cannot but be called Sannyasins for they have no other greater joy or

duty than to glorify Bhagavan, his name and his pastimes.

 

Jagan:-)> 3. Sanyassins are the cream of the society. They are superior to

Jagan:-)> brahmins and they are the real teachers

 

Mani:-)There is no such division between sannyAsis and brAhmaNas.

Mani:-)They refer to two different things; one is ASrama, the other

Mani:-)is varNa. Today, most of our sannyAsis are brAhmaNas.

If there is no division between Sannyasins and Brahmanas (who might be a

brahmachari or a Grihasta), in the spiritual hierarchy, is there a

union (always)?

perhaps I am misunderstood. May I put it this way: In Ashramas, the

Sannyasa is the superior ashrama, In Varna, the Brahmana is the superior

varna. And in general, a Grihasta Brahmana is lower in hierarchy and

offers respects to a Sannyasi irrespective of the Sannyasi's caste. And

the (true) Sannyasi commands the respect of all the other ashramites and

varnites irrespective of his caste. This is because he has transcended

all the differences and is situated in the Sattwic guna, and free from

karma. Thus was my intention to convey. This is purely my own

intrepetation and I know that I might be grossly wrong.

 

Mani:-)the rituals of the karma kANDa are extremely important, are

Mani:-)must be practiced by those who have had the samskAras of

Mani:-)upanayana, etc.

Mani:-)Please do not condemn cermonies and rituals; such worship is

Mani:-)recommended by the Lord himself and commanded by the SAstras,

Mani:-)which are nothing but His word.

 

What I meant by the karma kanda are the sacrifices and rituals performed

merely and only for the attainment of heaven, worldly gifts like good

children etc and for the appleasement of various gods and demigods.

The rituals and ceremonies , I agree are a essential part of our

tradition and should be performed only for the pleasure of Bhagavan.

 

Adiyen

Jagan Mohan.