"sandhyAvandanam" and "visEsha-bhagavath-kainkaryam"

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

I have been following with very keen interest your discussions on

"visEsha-bhagavath-kainkaryam Vs. nitya-kainkaryam" like "sandhyAvandanam".

 

Just a few observations of mine as I have learnt it from my elders:

 

On such occasions when the two come into conflict with each other it is

advisable to perform "bhagavath-kainkaryam" first before proceeding to

perform "nitya-kainkaryam" with the necessary "prAyaschitta".

 

The duty to perform "visEsha-kainkaryam" takes precedence over "nitya-karma"

only in the order of sequence and not in the order of importance. It is not

an "either/or" situation here. It is a "before/after" situation and the

"sAstrA" relating to "sAmanya/visEsha dharma" very clearly enunciates this

principle. The 'sAstrA' does not place premium on one at the cost of

discounting the other.

 

Mani wrote that "sandhyAvandanam" performed without the mental attitude of

offering it as "kainkaryam" to the Lord becomes nothing but "useless

ritual".

 

I can appreciate the true spirit behind Mani's statement but I must caution

other members on the list against taking it literally, loosely or laterally.

 

"sandhyAvandanam" is no doubt a "ritual"… a daily obligatory sacrament. But

its paramount importance in the Vedic religion cannot be over-emphasized

because it contains the "gAyatri-mahA-mantra" ---- the mother of all vedic

practices, precept and thought.

 

Neither the "mantrA" nor the ritual itself can ever be trivialized since the

Lord Himself in the Bhagavath Gita (CH.X.35) declared "…gAyatree

chhandasAm-aham!"… "Amongst the Vedic hymns I am, verily, the "gAyatri"

metre itself!".

 

The Vedas say that the Supreme One manifests Himself in many ways… as

"para", "vyUha", "vibhava", "antaryAmin" and "archA". The same Veda also

says in another place that the Supreme One manifests Himself also as

"yagnyam"…: yagnyam" is Vishnu and Vishnu, verily, is "yagnyam"" the Veda

clearly declares.

 

So it is clear that the Almighty chooses to manifest in the world in the

form of "yagnyam" or "ritual" also.

 

Now, if we accept the Vedic "pramANa" above, then "yagnya-kAryam" like

"nitya-karmA-s" too should be accepted by us as being the very presence of

the Almighty. There is no doubt then that the very act of

"sandhyAvandanam", in itself, constitutes the Lord's Living Presence…. In

other words the deed itself is Vishnu, according to the Vedas.

 

That being the case, the question of performing "sandhyAvandanam" without

the so-called "proper attunement of one's mind towards the Almighty"… that

question simply does not arise at all.

 

"gAyatri" is "chandasAm-mAtA"… she is our dear Mother. How can one not be

possessed of the "proper attitude" to one's own mother? Isn't a mother-child

relationship a matter of natural truth? Even if one expects nothing from

one's mother, can one be indifferent to her presence or her needs? Even if

one renders great service to society and to one's brethren, can that suffice

if one neglects one's mother on the pretext that "kainkaryam" to society is

greater than "kainkaryam" to one's mother?

 

Even if one does not perform "sandhyAvandanam" perfectly, even if we do not

have the right mental state of obeisance to the Lord while undertaking the

ritual, it is still obligatory for us to perform the "nitya-karma". The

"sandhyAvandanam" ritual does not become "useless ritual" simply because its

performer goes through it mechanically. Whether done mechanically or in full

earnestness, as long as it done with a modicum of reverence, the ritual is

well done and 'ipso facto' becomes 'bhagavath-kainkaryam".

 

Even if one is in the habit of paying one's due respect to one's mother in a

mechanical and indifferent manner, is it not better than not paying any

attention to her at all? Of course it is! The mother's heart of unqualified

kindness will understand everything and she will still rest content and

satisfied that her son at least shows her token, if not, real affection.

 

The Vedic "achAryA-s" have again and again repeated it… and it will bear

repetition a million times…: without performing "sandhyAvandanam" there is

no use performing even "vAjapEya-maha-yagnyam" or going off on a grand tour

of the 108 "divya-dEsam-s". Doing so would be like earning the reputation of

being a grand philanthropist in the eyes of the world and keeping one's

mother at home starving and ill-dressed!

 

So in these discussions of "sandhyAvandanam" and "bhagavath-kainkaryam"

please do not be carried away by the devotional lines of a "pAsuram"

divorced from the real context in which it was sung. Yes, the lines of the

AzhwArs are, of course, beautiful and very evocative. But they are the

outpourings of liberated mystic souls. We are not AzhwArs…. We must learn

to first temper devotion with duty before we venture to transcend duty in

favour of devotion.

 

adiyEn dAsAnu-dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

 

____

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

[Guest guest]

Sri Sudarshan wrote:

> The "sandhyAvandanam" ritual does not become "useless ritual" simply because

> its performer goes through it mechanically.

 

[...]

> So in these discussions of "sandhyAvandanam" and "bhagavath-kainkaryam"

> please do not be carried away by the devotional lines of a "pAsuram"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> divorced from the real context in which it was sung. Yes, the lines of the

> AzhwArs are, of course, beautiful and very evocative. But they are the

> outpourings of liberated mystic souls.

 

Sri Sudarshan:

 

What is your basis for dismissing the clear message of both the Alvar

and two great pUrvAchAryas? Certainly the Alvars were great mystic souls,

but this in no way gives us an excuse to disregard their advice, especially

when it is patently clear that they are counselling us on behavior.

In this particular case, there is no other alternative but to read

the Alvar paasuram as advice to people of the world.

 

Now, no one is suggesting that people should give up sandhyAvandanam,

least of all the Alvar. But I cannot see any reason to disagree with

Alvar and Swami PV Pillai when they declare that sandhyAvandanam must

done with bhakti and with reflection on the kalyANa-guNas of PerumaaL.

 

It seems your position is that it is ok to do sandhyAvandanam without

thinking of PerumaaL. I respectfully request pramANa-s from acharyas'

writings in the Sri Vaishnava sampradAya. In the meantime, I will take

Swami Periyavaaccaan Pillai's explanation over yours.

 

Thank you,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sudarshan:

 

The flair with which you put forth your viewpoints is indeed

commendable, nay, invigorating. Though, sometimes, and on this

instance, I have some difficulty with a few of your interpretations.

>

> Mani wrote that "sandhyAvandanam" performed without the mental attitude of

> offering it as "kainkaryam" to the Lord becomes nothing but "useless

> ritual".

>

> I can appreciate the true spirit behind Mani's statement but I must caution

> other members on the list against taking it literally, loosely or laterally.

 

Our upanishadic lore and Acharya vyAkhyAnams are replete with the

paramount importance attributed to the state of mind ("mental

attitude"). In fact, all of bhagavad geetha (BG) is a testament to

the need for the state of mind, that mental attitude devoid of

extraneous considerations when performing one's duty.

 

The charama slokam, the crown jewel in BG akin to the mEmboruL

pasuram in tirumAlai, provides the basis for the ultimate upAyam, the

lord himself, on the basis of simply a state of mind (sharaNAgathi).

In fact, the charama slOkam allows you the luxury of relinquishing

all dharmas and attendant karmas and pursue Him as the ultimate

dharma.

>

> Even if one does not perform "sandhyAvandanam" perfectly, even if we do not

> have the right mental state of obeisance to the Lord while undertaking the

> ritual, it is still obligatory for us to perform the "nitya-karma". The

> "sandhyAvandanam" ritual does not become "useless ritual" simply because its

> performer goes through it mechanically. Whether done mechanically or in full

> earnestness, as long as it done with a modicum of reverence, the ritual is

> well done and 'ipso facto' becomes 'bhagavath-kainkaryam".

 

The difficulty in descriptions that you provide above is with some of

the qualitative nature of the 'qualifications' above. Will some

thing done 'mechanically' produce the same results as dhyAna

performed in "full earnestness"? Is not dhyAna, the very essence of

sandhya vandanam, a contradiction in terms when utilized in

association with mechanical orientation spiced with tangential

thought? Is it all one needs, a modicum of reverence, to obtain

equivalence with the ultimate reward?

 

Or is this a remnant of justification for mediocrity in practice that

stems from a refusal to indulge in requisite anushTanic purity in

thought, given our inability to wallow out of samsaric miasma that we

create for ourselves? Is this another interpretation that is all too

common, given our unwillingness to let go of the mechanistic bondage?

Is this another step in the path of the modernistic interpretation

of "acharyas" (along the lines of may be Sri ART who was referenced

on bhakti recently) to usher sharaNAgathi and sacred vEdic,

essentially mental processes, practices into the new millenium?

 

I raise these points not to simply question your interpretation per

se, but to reflect on a growing trend, esp. for those of us living in

the US, where the need for purity of thought has been displaced by

justification of mechanical expediency. Not another month passes by

without an upanayanam for a child raised in the opulence of the west

is held with great fanfare. These occasions, marked by great

fanfare and significant paucity of thought towards devotion, also

provide a stark testimony to the current day accent on the

performance of the very sacred practices for the sake of

external aggrandizement it may bring. And when something is done

mechanically, divorced of bhakthi/dhyana/sense of kainkaryam, it

simply becomes a mockery upon itself. No wonder very few of these

children raised here will ever perform sandhya vandanam (in thought

or deed), given the purfunctory bases that form the foundation of

these initiations.

 

And it is the purfonctory notion of practices that our

Azhwaars/ Achaaryas have come out stridently against. When

thonDaraDippoDiyAzhwaar says

 

mEmboruL pOgaviTTU : give up on external, impermanent, physical

attribute-laden substance (achit)

meymaiyai miga uNarndu: comprehend the supreme nature of the inner

self, your jeevatma, the soul that is bonded permanently not to

materialism but to paramatma, the ultimate care-giver

aam parisu arindhukonDu: comprehend the supreme nature of your

reward, His kainkaryam, contemplation at His lotus feet

 

they are not directed towards other 'liberated' souls. They are

meant for all of us incorporate in our corporeal duties, so that we

too can benefit from the joy of the vision that Azhwaar has been

given.

>

> The Vedic "achAryA-s" have again and again repeated ita and it will bear

> repetition a million timesa: without performing "sandhyAvandanam" there is

> no use performing even "vAjapEya-maha-yagnyam" or going off on a grand tour

> of the 108 "divya-dEsam-s". Doing so would be like earning the reputation of

> being a grand philanthropist in the eyes of the world and keeping one's

> mother at home starving and ill-dressed! So in these discussions of

"sandhyAvandanam" and "bhagavath-kainkaryam"

> please do not be carried away by the devotional lines of a "pAsuram"

> divorced from the real context in which it was sung. Yes, the lines of the

> AzhwArs are, of course, beautiful and very evocative. But they are the

> outpourings of liberated mystic souls. We are not AzhwArsa. We must learn

> to first temper devotion with duty before we venture to transcend duty in

> favour of devotion.

>

 

To separate dhyAna, bhakthi and ultimately a sense of bhagavath

kainkaryam from the physical activities of nitya karmAs is like

separating the soul from the physical body. Without the soul, the

physical body is just a largesse of flesh that is deserving of the

attention of vultures looking for rotten carcasses. It is the

soul that gives the human being the exalted platform of relevance in

leela vibhuthi. Likewise, nitya karmas devoid of the

mental state or attitude of dhyAna have no significance in the real

scheme of things.

 

Duty and devotion are not mutually exclusive. Rather, recognition of

their symbiotic, integrated nature in our practices will allow us to

elevate ourselves to mental states closer to that of attaning the

ultimate anubhavam. To even think that devotion requires

relinquishment of duty ("venture to transcend duty in favour of

devotion" in your words) may take us down a path where we will

neither be performing our duties nor have the benefit of being

devoted to the lord. And yes, Azhwaar/Acharya outpourings are not

meant for their own ilk, they are directed towards us, for our

specific benefit, as a consequence of divine insight that those

exalted souls were given, a vision that we may never hope to get

near if we are NOT willing to even consider that they are meant for

us.

 

Azhwaar EmberumAnAr Jeeyar thiruvaDigaLE sharaNam

 

sridhar