sandhyAvandanam

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

A few of you have sent me private mails wondering why I am making "so much

unnecessary fuss" on the "list" on a seemingly "trivial matter of doctrine"

in the ongoing debate on "sandhyavandanam".

 

I have to tell you this discussion is not mere doctrinal hair-splitting. It

involves the central issue of what is our position on "gAyatri"/

"sandyAvandanam".

 

My position is that the unfailing performance of "gAyatri-sandyAvandanam" as

"nitya-naimittika-karmA" is a paramount obligation on us … NO MATTER WHAT!

There is simply nothing in the Vedic religion which compromises on this.

 

When this position is sought to be undermined, when it is openly being

suggested on the list that those who perform it with anything less than

so-called perfect "dhyAna" turn it into "useless ritual" … to question the

very need of "gAyatri" for one who has become an "enlightened" 'sOmbAr'…to

me all this sounds dangerous and terribly slighting. Somewhere in all this

there is travesty of "gAyatri" --- the Mother of all Vedic thought?

 

How can one remain silent, then? Perhaps you can. I can't.

 

DAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

 

____

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

[Guest guest]

Dear fellow bhAgavathas:

 

The Sri VaishNava tradition is a hoary one, one where the lineage of

Acharyas have demonstrated how gnyana, bhakti and vairagya come

together in recognition of SrimannArAyaNA as the ultimate upAyam

and kainkaryam under His feet as the ultimate purushArtham (as swami

nammAzhwAr would say, aDikkeezh amarndhu puhundhEnE). An even more

notable facet of our Acharya tradition has been the remarkable

consistency between their divine insights/preaching and anushTanam,

from emberumAnAr, koorathAzhwAn, dEsikan all the way down to maNavALa

maamunigaL and current day Acharyas. And I can say this

unequivocally, no where will you find a suggestion that one should

give up one's nitya naimittika karma. Just that they will all,

uniformly, exhort you to offer everything as kainkaryam to the lord,

even the ordained naimittika karmas. Swami Pillai lOkachAryAr goes

on to clarify it for those of us suffering from dense comprehension,

in no uncertain terms, in srI vachana bhUshaNam:

 

karmamum kainkaryathilE pugum (all the duties, karma, that one has to

perform become a subset of kainkaryam that we offer to

SrImannArAyaNA).

 

So, when swami thonDaraDippoDi Azhwaar extols the virtues of sOmbhar

in mEmborul pOgaviTTU as sOmbarai ugathi pOlum, he is not heaping

praise on those of us who have given up performance of our nitya

karmas, he is referring to those exalted souls (as per Sri Periya

Vaacchan piLLai) who have total dereliction of thought when it comes

to being aware of thier effort in taking care of themselves, those

who have displayed mamathA thyAgam, kartrutva buddhi thyAgam and

phala sanga thyAgam. There cannot be a better reiteration of vEdic

thought of thyAgam as a basis for bhakti, as delineated by lord

KrishNa in the Bhagavadgeetha, than this.

 

In fact, I reproduced a more detailed version of swami PVP's

vyAkhyAnam in my earlier posting (than the one above), to reiterate

the idea that our sampradAyam asks us to imbue devotion towards lord

in every aspect of our nitya, naimittika karma. (Pl. see bhakti

digests v004, No. 59 in the archives). But, what happens?

 

Sri Sudarshan writes, with much apparent anguish,

>

> When this position is sought to be undermined, when it is openly

> being suggested on the list that those who perform it with anything

> less than so-called perfect "dhyAna" turn it into "useless ritual" .

> to question the very need of "gAyatri" for one who has become an

> "enlightened" 'sOmbAr'.to me all this sounds dangerous and terribly

> slighting. Somewhere in all this there is travesty of "gAyatri" ---

> the Mother of all Vedic thought?

 

I ask myself, what is the basis for such exaggerated pain and

anguish?

 

An especially surprising state, given that Sri Sudarshan was an

active participant in the discussion in the past few days? Unless,

of course, he has failed ( or refused) to read /comprehend the

expositions provided with reference to the above pasuram. There has

never been a suggestion that implies "a questioning the need for

gAyathri for one who has become a sOmbhar". To the contrary, Sri

Sudarshan's suggestion of separation of the physical act of sandhya

vandanam (and an initial adequacy of a physical act bereft of any

thought of the lord) from the mental process of devotion was

countered as follows by aDiyEn in an earlier posting:

 

"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."

 

Is there a significant suggestion of something 'dangerous' and

'terribly slighting' in the above monograph? I did not think so.

 

I hope you can relate to my difficulty in understanding Sri

Sudarshan's claims of 'travesty' to our 'vEdic mother' for I have

seen no suggestion whatsoever, from anybody, that advocates giving up

gAyathri or sandhyA vandanam. To me, the only suggestion that

sounded ludicrous in this whole discussion, was the

adequacy of sandhya vandanam performed purely as a mechanistic

process, with just a possible soupcon - hint - of devotion. For such

a thought would be anathematic to our Acharyas. and who did that

come from? Sri Sudarshan himself. And such an idea is in direct

contrast to the fundamental tenet of srI vaishNavam propagated by our

Acharyas, that every little action, every little thought, evey minute

aspect of our samsaric existences should be imbued with thought

of the lord. Was it not Sri KrishNa who said,

 

yath karOshi yad asnAsi yajjuhOshi dadAsi yat

yat tapasyasi kaunthEya tat kurushwa math arpaNam?

 

In any case, my sincere suggestion to ease SrI Sudarshan's pain is

that he pick up a copy of thirumAlai (and SrI PVP's vyakhyAnam)

and gain familiarity with its contents. I have every confidence

that what some of us on this wonderful forum have had difficulty in

accomplishing will be achieved just as a matter of course, of course,

God (and SrI sudarshan) willing.

 

Azhwaar EmberumAnAr Jeeyar thiruvaDigaLE sharaNam

 

sridhar