Guest guest Posted May 6, 1999 Report Share Posted May 6, 1999 Namaskaram Iam really confused by the terms srivaishnavas ,iyengars,iyers etc. All iyengars are srivaishnavas but all srivaishnavs are not iyengars.Am i right? Like people get converted into chiristianity ,islam and buddhism can anybody get officially converted as iyengar or srivaishnava.I think the term srivaishnavas can be used for all brahmins as even most smarthas worhip sriman naryana. Suyamacharys is term used for srivaishnavas who where th e descendants of the original 74 disciples of ramanuja and who donot have an acharyan outside their family? Where these 74 brahmins? Are most iyengars brahmins by birth?.Because some people say that ramanuja converted people belonging to different race, caste and even religion as brahmins and called them as iyengars and so if u trace out the hereditory of iyengars none of them would have been brahmins by birth.Is it true? srimath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 1999 Report Share Posted May 7, 1999 Dear Sri Mani I agree entirely with your assessment. In fact, I had written once in Bhakti list itself (if my memory serves me right) that while there are umpteen akritya karanas and kritya akaranas that we here in USA indulge in (knowingly and unknowingly) and more so, by the very fact of our coming over here crossing the oceans against the dictates of Sastras due to sheer lure of the lucre (let alone not performing oupasanas etc) - we have already forfeited our claim to be called brahmins. I have also listed the circumstances in which a brahmin forfeits the claim to brahminhood as explained in the Vajrasoochika Upanishad. If we read the list, we would be convinced that we have to feel guilty on each and every count of the circumstances listed therein. It would be vainglorious on the part of anyone thus guilty to strut about petulantly with a 'holier than thou' air. The only consolation is that being aware of our pathetic plight we are struggling to resusticate ourselves with the Satsangam provided by Saranagathi journal, SDDS, Bhakti list, Malolan Net, Nama, Sri Ramanuja Mission, Thondarkulam and such other organizations. The joint efforts of all these, I believe, would lead us back to the mainstream, help us correct ourselves and seek Upadesams from our Acharyas onm the right course, in due course. Indeed, every sinner has a future, if corrective steps are taken betimes. Dasoham Anbil Ramaswamy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 1999 Report Share Posted May 7, 1999 Hi Here are some answers for your questions, #1) All iyengars are srivaishnavas but all srivaishnavs > are not iyengars.Am i > right? Answer: First of all, All Iyengars are not SriVaishnavas, some Iyengars still pray to demi gods, like Ganesh, Siva, etc.. If they do so, then they are not srivaishnavas... Sri Vaishnavas are devotees of Sriman Narayana, and sri Mahalakshmi.. They pray only to Him and His manifestations, and none other than that. You are partly right on that question, All Srivaishnavas are not Iyengars.. Becasue anyone can become a sri Vaishnava... Question #2) Like people get converted into chiristianity ,islam > and buddhism can > anybody get officially converted as iyengar or > srivaishnava.I think the term > srivaishnavas can be used for all brahmins > as even most smarthas worhip sriman naryana. Answer : Srivaishnava term can be used to anyone, not necessarly be only to iyengars.. even if someone converted from christianity to srivaishnavism and strictly pray only to Sriman Narayana,yes they are also srivaishnavas, but if you are praying to Narayana and as you said some smarthas also pray to him but they inturn also worship other devi devathas, they are not called as sri vaishnavas.. See for instance, among doctors, everone is a doctor, but he is called a surgen only if he specializes in surgery, just as that, everyone prays everyone, but in order to attain moksham, one should pray one and only to Narayana, becasue Moksham itchat Janardhana, because He is the only one who give Moksham. The only thing that everyone should understand is, that If he could give Moksham then he can give anything and everything in Life... Becasue there is nothing beyond or greater than Moksham, for this jeevathma. Ok last but not least, When we say svayam acharyas, they were not necessaryly from Sri Ramanujas diciples, it was even exsisting even before him, for example yamunacharya had 15 diciples, and manakal nambi had 5 diciples, and Nathamuni had 10 diciples, and if they had continued thier tradition and kept giving smasrayanam and bharanyasam through their family decendents, it was then carried out, like that, well not only that just to give you an other quick reference, Sri Ramanuja spreaded Sri Vaishanavism, not only through 74 simhadhi pathis, who are swayam ahcaryas, he also established almost 700 aharyas, throughout the India where ever he went to bless the devotees of lord Sriman Narayana, to get Smasrayanam and Bharanyasam... so if we analyse the statistics, what happened was, the amount of devotion and the acaryam they have to follow slowely got diminished and then instead of forwarding the tradition of swayam ahcaryas, they inturn went to great Acharyas like Ahobilamutt, Sri Andavan, Parakalamutt, and also like Sri Tridandi jina jeeyar swami, etc... so its basically carried out through them and now we have only a few of those parampara, who are carriying this out in thier life.... to answer your final question, yes the 74 Acharyas, were all bramhmins, and Vaishnavas. Sri Ramanuja did give Vaishnavism to anyone who is interested in it, and who were not neccessaryly be Brahmins, i agree to it, but the acharya purushas who were 74 were all brahmins, because, its like this, no one is a brahmin unless he goes through the process of upanayanam, at that stage he is called a dvija, which means its his second birth, though he was born in a brahmin family he will not be one, if he didnt get that process done, and secondly even after getting it done, if he dosent follow the basic principle of doing sandhya vandhana, then he is not qualified for that either, because the necessary qualification of a brahmin is to obtain brahmha gnyana, and thats through sandhya vandana, etc.. so one has to analyse these things too.. well you can say how many are following these rules, believe it or not, there are quiet a few, even in america who still goto work and do their jobs, yet at their regular life style they have all these proceess, going on... So hope i was a help, and if you have any questions at all, please donot hesitate to email any questions.. i will try my best to explain... by the way these explanations are confirmed and true to my best of my knowledge... Adiyen krishna --- Sugantha Jagannthan <suganth wrote: > Namaskaram > > Iam really confused by the terms srivaishnavas > ,iyengars,iyers etc. > > All iyengars are srivaishnavas but all srivaishnavs > are not iyengars.Am i > right? > > Like people get converted into chiristianity ,islam > and buddhism can > anybody get officially converted as iyengar or > srivaishnava.I think the term > srivaishnavas can be used for all brahmins > as even most smarthas worhip sriman naryana. > > Suyamacharys is term used for srivaishnavas who > where th e descendants of > the original 74 disciples of ramanuja and who > donot have an acharyan > outside their family? > > Where these 74 brahmins? > > Are most iyengars brahmins by birth?.Because > some people say that > ramanuja converted people belonging to different > race, caste and even > religion as brahmins and called them as iyengars and > so if u trace out the > hereditory of iyengars none of them would have been > brahmins by birth.Is it > true? > > srimath > > > > > > > > > > _______ Get your free @ address at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 1999 Report Share Posted May 7, 1999 kk_22 wrote: > When we say svayam acharyas, they were not > necessaryly from Sri Ramanujas diciples, it was even exsisting even > before him, for example yamunacharya had 15 diciples, and manakal nambi > had 5 diciples, and Nathamuni had 10 diciples, and if they had > continued thier tradition and kept giving smasrayanam and bharanyasam > through their family decendents, it was then carried out, like that, Krishna, thanks for your comments. What you say may indeed be the case; however, according to the "guru parampara prabhAvam", Ramanuja appointed only 74 disciples to minister pancasamskAram of the growing Sri Vaishnava community. Included in these were the descendants of the disciples of Yamunacharya, Manakkaal Nambi, etc. For example, Sottai Nambi, Yamunacharya's son (purvASrama), is the first simhAsanAdhipati listed among the 74. This implies that all the traditional acharyas came under Ramanuja's fold and were part of the 74. This also makes sense given Ramanuja's proven capability for tremendous reorganization and reform. There are still many traditional acharya-purushas who are descended from these original 74. In fact, their numbers are far greater than the few sannyAsi swamis who are acharya-purushas today. However, the traditional acharya-purushas are not well-known and do not have the reach that the modern, big maThas have. > a necessary qualification of a brahmin is to obtain brahmha gnyana, and > thats through sandhya vandana, etc.. so one has to analyse these things > too.. I hasten to correct this. Brahma-jnAna is certainly not attained through sandhyA-vandana and other karmas. sandhyA-vandana, etc., are merely Vedic forms of worship, which are to be performed exclusively as bhagavat-kainkaryam. The only ways to attain brahma-jnAna are devotion and self-surrender. > well you can say how many are following these rules, believe it > or not, there are quiet a few, even in america who still goto work and > do their jobs, yet at their regular life style they have all these > proceess, going on... I think people in this country too easily think they are living a "brahminical" lifestyle. Frankly, no one that I know of in this country has a right to be called a brahmin, and very few people in India do either. You write that people go to work and maintain "all these processes". I presume you mean the traditional worship and rituals ordained on a brahmin. It is lamentable that people still believe they are leading a traditional, shastraic lifestyle in this country, and therefore can be called brahmins. This stems mostly from a misunderstanding of how much is required of a brahmin. For example, how many brahmins do you know in this country who perform "aupAsana"? How many do the panca-mahA-yajna? How many actively do veda-adhyayana, with correct svara and pronounciation? Zero. Yet all these are absolutely required of a brahmin and were practiced by many brahmins as recently as a 100 years. And the opinion of the traditional acharyas was that people who did not perform these rituals were in no way fit to be called brahmins. One need only look at the 'Ahnika' and 'dinacaryA' texts of our pUrvAcAryas to see what a real brahmin lifestyle was like. So it is foolhardy to think that people can live in this country, go to work, and still maintan a lifestyle as befits a brahmin. Mani 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.