Guest guest Posted May 4, 1999 Report Share Posted May 4, 1999 On Mon, 3 May 1999 Sri Srinath Chakravarthy wrote: > > I also have another thought regarding the nature of ubhaya vedAnta. As we > all know, it entails approaching PerumAL through both Veda and the Prabandham. > I am wondering as to why only the school of rAmAnujar encompasses this unique > tradition. For instance, the Saiva tradition (in addition to its monastic > school of advaita) also has nayanamArs, just as we have AzhwArs. Also, the > majority of madhwAchArya's (dvaita school) followers are either kannada or > marAThi speaking, and they too have saints whose compositions were in the > respective local languages. So then, "Why is it just SriVaishnavas who > recognize a concept such as ubhaya vedanta?" I realize that it has largely > to do with rAmAnujar's promise to nAthamuni, but my question still remains... > As we know, VaikhAnasa priests though considered to be belonging to Sri Sampradayam, their guru paramparA is totally different from ours.(lakshmI vallabhArambhAm vikhanO muni madhyamAm).Unlike in pAncharAtra temples, priests in VaikhAnasa temples never join the dravida prabandha goshthI( though most of them are either Tamil or of Tamil origin). When these priests were unable to perform their duties properly atop TiruvEngadam, AdiSEshar came to the earth(with several other missions) to save the holy shrine from people having "kudrushti".When such people enetered into an argument with these priests of diminished knowledge, Bhagavad rAmAnuja was invited to TiruvEngadam to prove that the Lord on the southern bank of the pushkariNI is none other than JagatkArANa bhUtan Who came to the rescue of gajEndran.SrI rAmanuja soon defeated Saivas. Then BhagavadrAmAnuja took up the task of establishing proper pUjA vidhAnam for PerumAL as per the VaikhAnasa Agama to which the priests of the sthAnam traditionally belonged.He read many samhitAs of the Agama and interpreted them properly without any difficulty.As per the rules laid down by AchAryar only, nowadays abhishEkam is performed only once in a week(before that it was done everyday) and we can quote many such things. Here the point relevant to us is , while interpreting VaikhANasa Agama (which has nothing to do wih our guruparamparA), BhagavadrAmAnujar interpreted the term "VEDA PARAYANAM" as both samskruta and dravida vEdam.Thus he started the tradition of doing -------------------------------- Divya prabandha pArAyaNam on Tirumala.So let us not have any doubts about the supremacy of our ALwAr's works.They are second to none.When chanted with proper swaram, their dhvani is as pleasant as samskruta vEda ghOshA. It is only our tradition which has vEdas in two languages and vEdam is chante in both the languages at parama vaidika kshEtras like SrIrangam and Tirumalai. anantArya dAsan V.Srimahavishnu (from SrImattirumalai anndANbiLLai's vEnkatAchalEtihAsamAlA) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 4, 1999 Report Share Posted May 4, 1999 >The Dvaita school of Ananda Tirtha (Madhvacharya) has its own >vernacular songs. The songs, mostly in Kannada, were propagated >by saints known as the Haridasas, who communicated and preached >bhakti by composing simple songs and singing them in the streets >to the common people. (This tradition is somewhat loosely associated >with the smArta bhAgavata tradition). It is important to note >two things: first, the Haridasas composed the songs much after >Ananda Tirtha had set down the tenets of the school in Sanskrit, >unlike the Alvars, who preceded Yamuna and Ramanuja. Second, >the songs of the Haridasas contain much more popular bhakti >than philosophy. >The songs of Purandara Dasa, for example, >contain a great deal of wisdom and sentiment; but they simply >do not constitute a basis for a system of philosophy, unlike the >Tiruvaymoli. No doubt, the Haridasa songs are sung more towards bhakthi, but those bhakthi songs are indeed associated directly to the Dvaitha philosophy. One can learn Dvaitha philosophy through DAsara padas. The philosophical song such as "Sathyam jagathithu pancha bedhavu nithya sri govindana" sung by Purandara DAsa conveys dvaita doctrines including tAratamya (the status of jivas), that is gradation of jivas right from us ordinary devotees to Brahma. Sriman Narayana who is the Supreme. There are many songs like this composed by other DAsas also. For example, Jagannatha DAsa, who composed 1034 verses in his magnum opus Hari KathAmrutha SAra, quotes heavily from upanishats and purAnas. This work is filled with philosophical notes throughout. I can elaborate more from this work if anybody is interested thru private mail. >Recall that Ramanuja gained many insights into the meaning of >the Upanishads by studying the Tiruvaymoli (see Acharya Hrdayam). >Nothing even close is claimed by anyone of the songs of the Haridasas. Noted madhwa saints such as Sri Sripadaraya, Sri Vyasa Thirtha, Sri Vadiraja tirtha and Sri Raghavendra Swami have also composed many songs in kannada. These saints were also noted for their scholarly contributions in the arena of vedanta and have compressed the essence in their compositions. So it is not true that haridasa's compositions lack philosophical or upanishatic views. Infact, Sri Purandara Dasa's compositions are also popularly called as Purandaro upanishads. > >Furthermore, it is not true that the Haridasa songs strictly >espouse Dvaita philosophy. Can you please give us an example? >popular bhakti that is acceptable to any sect. Some of them >may have had association with other Vaishnava traditions. >Kanaka Dasa in one of his songs, says that Ramanuja is his >refuge! Does this song has the angitha "Adi Keseva"? Can you please let me know thru private email the name of the song so that I can refer into my Kanaka DAsara song book which I possess. Infact, Sri Aralumalige Parthasarathy, who has written number books on Haridasas & their works is currently touring USA. I can even contact him if I do not have that particular song in my book to ask him whether it is true. > >I request others who are knowledgable in these other traditions >to add to what I have written. I am not trying to defend Dvaita in Bhakthi list, but truth should not be twisted. > >rAmAnuja dAsan >Mani Hare SrinivAsa Shobha Srinivasan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 1999 Report Share Posted July 4, 1999 SrI varavaramunayE namah. Dear BhAgavatas, namO namah. On Mon, 3 May 1999 Sri Mani wrote: > > Sri Mohan Sagar wrote: > > 1.BhagavadgItA sarvasvam with Telugu translation > > to MaNavALa MAmunigaL's > > sanskrit commentary. > > Sri Manavala Maamunigal's commentary on the Gita, if he > did at all write one, is not extant today. In his edition > of Maamunigal's works, Sri Kanchi P.B. Annangarachariar > Swami mentions the possible existence of this work at one > point in time, but that it is not extant today. He also > mentions that some people have published something that > that they say is Maamunigal's commentary, but after extensive > research, he has concluded that it is clearly not the work > of Manavala Maamunigal. > > Just FYI. > > Mani > Following is the essence of the letter written to me by SrImAn u vE nadAdUr V L N Ramanujacharya swami, secretary, ubhaya vEdAnta sabhA, Pentapadu, W G Dist (A.P.). ViSada vAk SikhAmaNi SrImadh varavaramuni blessed us with "gItArtha sangraha dIpikA", commentary on SrimadbhagavadgitA. However, many people (not SrI PBA) do not know this. Though a few know this (again not SrI PBA) , they doubt whether SrI JIyar was the author, as the author wrote the following mangaLAcharaNa SlOkam: sajayati gOvindAryah Samadama karuNAdi sadguNaika nidhih yasyAhamatra janmani charaNau samSritya labdha sattAkah The normal traditon is to salute the author's own AchArya. So a few opine that SrI JIyar didn't write it as SrI Jiyar's AchAryar is SrI ThiruvAimozhippiLLai and not "gOvindAryar". But it is not right. While it is not well-known why SrI periya JIyar salutes gOvindAryar instead of SrI SrISailESar, gOvinadAryar is the sanskrit name of his father "ThirunAvIrudaiyapirAn thAtharaNar" where thirunAvIrudaiyapirAn literally means "vAgmI" (how to translate?!). However, gOvindArya is also yuktam as "gO" Sabdam means "vAk". Sri gOvinadAryar did brahmOpadEsam to Periya jIyar and thus is his upakArakAchAryar, while SrI SrISailESar did rahasya mantrOpadESam and thus is considered tobe his uttArakar (though he is none other than SEsha). thus it is cent percent right to salute SrI gOvindAryar.SrI Jiyar might also have written this work before approaching SrI ThiruvAimozhippiLLai. "yatIndra pravaNa prAbhavam" says "Ittukku pramaNathirattu sangrahattaruLiyum, gItaikku tAtparya dIpamenRu oru vyAkhyAnamum" while listing the works of SrI periya JIyar. "PaLanadai viLakkam" also recoginses this work to have been authored by SrI JIyar. This book was first published by u vE mahA vidwAn kAnchI prativAdi bhayankaram anantAchArya swAmI, as 25th book in the series "SAstra muktAvaLi granthamAlA", in 1906. iN 1945, JagadAchArya simhAsanAdhISar SrImath P B aNNangarAchArya swAmi blessed us with "SrI varavaramuni daNdaka stuti", in which, in the fifth daNdakam he says SatAntAdi sadgrantha nirmANa chAturya vikhyAta kIrtih sugItArtha dIpAbhida grantha dAtA and thus salutes SrI ramya jAmAtru munIndrar for blessing us with ThiruvAimozhi nUtthandhAdhi, and GitArtha saangraha dIpikA. So it is obvious that Sri P B A is referring to some other work on gItA claimed to have been authored by SrI JIyar. Justlike BhagavadrAmAnuja blessed us with vEdArtha sangraham and vEdAnta sAram to enable us to undertsand his work on brahmasUtras known as SrIbhAshyam, emberumAnAr in his next incarnation as maNavALa mAmunigaL blessed us with this gItArtha sangraha dIpikA to summarize his gItAbhAshyam. SrimaNavALamAunigaL thus blessed us with the essence of nammAzhvAr's thiruvAimozhi in "ThiruvAimozhi nUtthandhAdhi" and with the essence of SrIrAmAnuja's work "gItAbhAshaym" in the form of this gItArtha sangraha dIpikA. Also if one carefully reads both yatirAja vimSati and this work, one can easily judge that both are works of thesame author, as the wording is quite similar and style is same. All mistakes are solely mine ne and credit goes to SrI NVLN swAmi for this insightful posting on SrI Jiyar's work. Now I would like to request all telugu knowing bhAgvatas to buy a copy of this book and other books being publisheed/marketed by ubhayavEdAnta sabhA, Pentapadu. This sabhA needs BhAgavata Alambanam. Its secretary SrI NVLN swAmi is very mjuch enthusiastic to do as mcuh kainkaryam as possible. That is his life's mission. We should support his kainkaryams. As we know, nowadays we don't have much SV literature available in Telugu in AP, though Sri PBA swAmi, T K gOpAlaswAmi et al. blessed us with many excellent works in past. nowadays, many are relying on BhagavadgItA as tranlated/ commented on by advaitins or ISKCON AchAryas thinking that something is better than nothing. Why shouldn't we buy a copy of a work by SrI JIyar, who is none other than BhagavadrAmAnuja? I would also like to mention that this book was pubilshed by gOdA grantha mAlA, Musunuru, Krishna Dist. well-known for publishing authentic works of our sampradAyam. this organization is almost defundt now and a few copies of this book are with SrI NVLN. Telugu translation is given by SrI NVLN's brother SrI KS Ramanujacharya swami, in the book publihsed by gOdA granthamAlA itself. SrimAn Mohan Sagar has kindly volunteered to make copies of books of ubhaya vEdAnta sabhA available to bHAgavatas in US. Copies can also be had from SrImAn NVLN Ramanujacharyulu. Secretary, Ubhaya Vedanta Sabha, Pentapadu, West Godavari Dist (AP) India-534166 AlwAr emebrumAnAr JIyar ThiruvadigaLE SaraNam dAsan Vinjamuri Srimahavishnu PS: If bhAgavatas have any queires reg. this work, please send copies of your mail to v.murali and s.vinjamuri as I don't know when I may stop operating on this email. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.