Re:ADiyEn

[Guest guest]

Dear BhAgavatOttamas'

 

Re the point being discussed,after the speculative

explanations, we may also have a look at the

authentic meaning of the word,as used by the AzhwArs and achAryas:

 

It is related that in a 'sadas' of SwAmi

EmberumanAr, his SishyAs were discussing as to

what was the Determining Characteristic (NirUpaka

Dharma)of AtmA.After much discussion,while he

himself could have provided the explanation,

EmberumAnAr,desiring that it should come through

the medium of his AchArya,despatched KoorattAzhwAn

to sri Tiruk-kOTTiyUr Nambi to seek the information

from him.After a six month's sojourn there,as he

was on the point of return,the Nambi pointed out

to him that AzhwAr himself had clearly mentioned it:

 

In TiruvAymozhi 8.8.2,AzhwAr while explaining

the immanence of the Lord both in JIvAtmA and

Prakriti,says,"AdiyEnuLLAn UDaluLLAn.."-"He is

present in both ADiyEn(JIvAtmA) and UDal(Prakriti)"

thus by equating JIvAtmA = ADiyEn, he clearly

states that JIvAtmA is defined not

through its characteristics of JnAna or Ananda

(which are present in ParamAtmA also),but through

its SEshatvam,which is present ONLY in the JIvAtmA.

Which is the reason why in the PraNava before the

letter "ma"(which indicates JIvAtmA with its

qualities of Knowledge and Joy),the letter "U"

(indicating its exclusive SEshatvam to theLord)occurs.

 

Hence when AzhwAr or AchAryAs or SrIVaishNavas

in general call themselves "ADiyEn" they are

indicating themselves in the ONLY correct way

to indicate themselves- as the exclusive servants

of the Lord.The female form "ADichhi" is used

by AnDAL and also AzhwArs while in NAyikA bhAva.

 

But doesn't the AzhwAr also sometimes refer to

himself as "NAn"?

 

NambiLLai says at some place-

"Whether AzhwAr calls himself ADiyEn or NAn,he

means only ADiyEn;Whether we call ourselves

ADiyEn or NAn, in our mind we're thinking of ourselves as NAn only!"

Its all the attitude of one's mind.

EmberumAnAr TiruvaDigaLE SaraNam!

adiyEn

BHARAT

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas

 

Sometime ago, there was a discussion of the word "AdiyEn".

I would like to add my two cents worth on the subject.

 

The word "AdiyEn" means "I, who am at your feet" or

"I, who am Your most obedient servant". The bottom-line is

that the person addressing believes himself honestly and truly

to be the most obedient 'servant' of the person addressed, who by

implication is recognized as the 'master'.

 

This is the spirit of the word as used in Srivaishnava

tradition by Azhwars and AachAryas tersely bringing out the

'Sesha-Seshi bhava' of the BhAgavata in relation to BhagavAn.

 

In the Shaivite tradition also, a similar term is used by

NayanmArs viz. "AdiyArs"- which also means the same but

with reference to their "Ishta Devata"- Shiva.

 

Sri Bharat referred to Nampillai saying-

"Whether AzhwAr calls himself ADiyEn or NAn, he means only

ADiyEn; Whether we call ourselves ADiyEn or NAn, in our mind

we're thinking of ourselves as NAn only!"

 

Sri Narasimhan Krishnamachari amplified this saying-

"We very frequently use it in our list when we really mean

exactly the opposite, especially when we disagree with someone

and want to tell them what "aDiyEn" thinks and knows to be the

correct view, and how misinformed, illiterate, etc. the other

person's view is when compared to "aDiyEn's" view."

This is because we miss the spirit and cling on to the form

in an inane fashion.

 

The famous barrister, Lord Norton was defending an ignorant

client before a judge who was not any brighter than the client.

The barrister would introduce his client to the judge saying-

"My client, your honor is a fool who does not know what

he is saying"

"My client, your honor is an idiot who does not know

what he is doing"

"My client, your honor is a nincompoop, who does not know how

he got into the position where he is now"

 

In the absence of the punctuation mark of a comma after the words

"Your honor"- it would appear as if the descriptions belonged to

the judge and not to his own client!

 

The word "aDiyen" when used by some sometimes appears as if

the intention is that the person addressed was actually the servant

to whom the person addressing is the master!

 

The word has fallen into disrepute because of excessive abuse

divested of the spirit of humility underlying it.

 

Azhagiyasinghar jocularly remarked in the Tele-UpanyAsam on

1stAugust 99. that having been attuned to the PatasAla mode,

even when some distant lady relative called him "Kanna"

(which incidentally was his pet name at home in his

Poorvaasramam, as pointed out in my write up) by force of

habit and almost by reflex action, he would be tempted to respond

with an "AdiyEn'- which obviously was misplaced!

 

Sri Mani quoted my observation -

"an indiscriminate use of expressions such as 'Adiyen' and

'Dasan' without understanding their meaning and purport

also tend to make them look artificial."

 

When so used without feeling and without realizing the true

import of the term, it smacks of false modesty. Also, the use

of the third-person-singular to be in tune with 'AdiyEn",

makes the construction clumsy, belabored and self-defeating

and very often, it is shorn of the spirit of humility that

underlies the expression. If one can consciously adhere to

this spirit of humility, the use of "I" instead of "AdiyEn"

would not be egoistic but would only be easily readable, natural

and equally effective.

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy