RE: Sri Narayaneeyam-99th dasakam, 10th slokam

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Kristijan Vesel,

 

thanks for noting that point. I dont remember who wrote the posting and I

am sure that person has done an accurate translation of that verse. As I

understand, Narayaneeeyam was written by Narayana Bhattadri, a great

devotee in Kerala, near Guruvayoor. My guru, Dr. N.S. Anantharangachar

once mentioned to me that Narayana Bhattadri - was a "trimurthi atita

vadi", ie. One who thinks that the Highest Brahman is other than brahma,

vishnu or maheswara. He is not a visistadvaitin as per definition, though

personally I love his "narayaneeyam". In fact, I was driving today

listening to "Santana Gopalachar's Narayaneeyam" with tears in my eyes

since it was so bhakti oriented. Even visistadvaitic scholars are all

praises to Narayana Bhattadri due to the amount of Bhakti he had to Lord

Guruvayoorappan. Narayana Bhattadri is excellent and there is no doubt

about it. Personally, I have little knowledge about narayaneeyam, other

than the fact that Lord Guruvayoorappan, one of my favorite krishna forms

is being prayed to in that sloka.

 

Incidentally, Lord Narayana in visistadvaita has different types of forms,

one is amurta or "formless"; Dont jump to the conclusion that this

formlessness is same as attributeless. Formlessness is the state of being

"vibhu" or omnipresent. How can he have form and still be omnipresent?

this question is natural. Once Dr. Anantha rangachar told me that

omnipresence is defined differently - "sarva murtha dravya sambadhitvam"

-meaning He could have form and still be omnipresent. As per this

definition, omnipresence is that aspect by which lord is connected to all

entities with or without form. To my mind omnipresence still makes Lord

more formless like space than with form. I still have to understand what

Dr. Anantha rangachar means.

 

 

However,

 

what is said here as "attributeless form" is somewhat confusing to me,

other than taking that to be what was mentioned by Narayana Bhattadri. I

am sure He is a bhakta par excellence and hence he could not be meaning

totally attributeless.

 

adiyen Krishna Kalale

 

 

 

 

Kristijan Vesel [sMTP:narayana99]

Tuesday, August 24, 1999 1:19 PM

bhakti

re:Sri Narayaneeyam-99th dasakam, 10th slokam

 

 

 

Respected members,

Namo Narayana.

 

This posting is a bit late but I hope it will still be answered by you.

 

On bhakti list there was recently a posting on 10th slokam of 99th

dasakam of Sri Naarayaaniyam. The translation, I believe, went

something like :"O lord, your attributeless (!!!) form is not easily

attainable

(or sth like that).

 

You have to forgive me if my knowledge of Vishishtadvaita is a bit weak

but I thought that in Sri Ramanuja's philosophy Brahman is always full

of auspicious qualities. Isn't this "attributeless form" just some

thing propounded by Sri Sankara and rejected by Ramanuja and Swami

Desika.

If so what is this posting doing on bhakti list? Is the author a

vishishtadvaitin?

 

This message is by far not meant to offend anyone in any way it's just

that I feel a bit confused since my (poor) knowledge of

vishishtadvaita doesn't favour this "attributeless form".

 

Hope this is taken in good spirit...

 

Kristijan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri KrishNa KalalE :

 

Thanks for your note on Sri Bhattadhiri's

Sri NaarAyaNIyam .

 

I wrote that article under my own name .

Sri SantAna GopAlAchAr , Sri Mukkur

Lakshmi NrusimhAchAr and others have

enjoyed Sri NaarayaNIyam in addition to

Dr.N.S.AanantharangAchAr .

 

When it comes to Ishta Dhaivams ,Some BhakthAs

like Saint ThyagarAjA experience " ThrimUrthi

atitha Bhavam/Vaatham ". Saint Thyagaraja in

one of his krithis weighs the thrimurthis

in one scale of the balance against Sri Ramachandran

and declares that the side containing Sri RaamA

stayed below and the other side went up.

 

Sri NaarAyana Bhattadhiri's KrishNa Bhakthi

is summed up in the verse that he composed for his

Guru, when latter asked him to compose a poem .

His poem was :

 

KrishNO rakshathu maam charAchara Guru:

KrishNam NamasyE sadhA

KrishNainEva SurakshithOahamasakruth

KrishNAya dhattham mana:

KrishNAdhEva SamudhbhavO mama VibhO;

KrishNasya DaasOsmyaham

KrishNE BhakthirasanchalAsthu Bhagavan

hEy KrishNa Thubhyam nama:

 

Sri Bhattadhri has included all the Vibhakthis

in this slOkam that he composed as a boy.His

Poorva samskAram blossomed as Sri KrishNa Bhakthi .

 

Bhakthi is pradhAnam in Sri NaarayaNIyam .

It is a condensation of Srimadh BhAgavatham .

Sri NaarAyaNa Bhakthi need not be tested

against familiar arguments about Advaitham

and VisishtAdvaitham . Sri naarAyaNIyam can

be simply enjoyed as a Bhakthi-laden experience

of an illustrious Sri KrishNa Bhakthar .KeraLA

with its deep attachment to the dasama Skandham of

Srimadh Bhagavatham had great Sri KrishNa Bhakthars

like Sri LeelA Sukhar of Sri krishNa karNAmrutham

fame and Sri naarAyaNa Bhattadhiri of Sri NaarAyaNIyam

fame. Anyone standing in the early morning hours at

Sri GuruvAyurappan Sannidhi immersed in " Sri NaarAyaNA ,

Hare KrishNA " ghOshams can not but be thrilled

by the intensity of Sri Krishna bhakthi of

the sevArthis . Srimadh Azhagiya Singhar

visite Sri GuruvAyurappan's temple recently

and I amwaiting to read his anubhavam

at Sri KrishNan Sannidhi .

 

In a separate note , I have responded to

Mr.Vesel's question .

 

V.Sadagopan

 

At 04:34 PM 8/24/99 -0700, you wrote:

>Dear Sri Kristijan Vesel,

>

>>thanks for noting that point. I dont remember who wrote the posting and I

>>am sure that person has done an accurate translation of that verse. As I

>>understand, Narayaneeeyam was written by Narayana Bhattadri, a great

>>devotee in Kerala, near Guruvayoor. My guru, Dr. N.S. Anantharangachar

>>once mentioned to me that Narayana Bhattadri - was a "trimurthi atita

>>vadi", ie. One who thinks that the Highest Brahman is other than brahma,

>>vishnu or maheswara. He is not a visistadvaitin as per definition, though

>>personally I love his "narayaneeyam". In fact, I was driving today

>>listening to "Santana Gopalachar's Narayaneeyam" with tears in my eyes

>>since it was so bhakti oriented. Even visistadvaitic scholars are all

>>praises to Narayana Bhattadri due to the amount of Bhakti he had to Lord

>>Guruvayoorappan. Narayana Bhattadri is excellent and there is no doubt

>>about it. Personally, I have little knowledge about narayaneeyam, other

>>than the fact that Lord Guruvayoorappan, one of my favorite krishna forms

>>is being prayed to in that sloka.

>>

>>Incidentally, Lord Narayana in visistadvaita has different types of forms,

>>one is amurta or "formless"; Dont jump to the conclusion that this

>>formlessness is same as attributeless. Formlessness is the state of being

>>"vibhu" or omnipresent. How can he have form and still be omnipresent?

>> this question is natural. Once Dr. Anantha rangachar told me that

>>omnipresence is defined differently - "sarva murtha dravya sambadhitvam"

>>-meaning He could have form and still be omnipresent. As per this

>>definition, omnipresence is that aspect by which lord is connected to all

>>entities with or without form. To my mind omnipresence still makes Lord

>>more formless like space than with form. I still have to understand what

>>Dr. Anantha rangachar means.

>>

>>

>>However,

>>

>>what is said here as "attributeless form" is somewhat confusing to me,

>>other than taking that to be what was mentioned by Narayana Bhattadri. I

>>am sure He is a bhakta par excellence and hence he could not be meaning

>>totally attributeless.

>>

>>adiyen Krishna Kalale

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>Kristijan Vesel [sMTP:narayana99]

>>Tuesday, August 24, 1999 1:19 PM

>>bhakti

>>re:Sri Narayaneeyam-99th dasakam, 10th slokam

>>

>>

>>

>>Respected members,

>>Namo Narayana.

>>

>>This posting is a bit late but I hope it will still be answered by you.

>>

>>On bhakti list there was recently a posting on 10th slokam of 99th

>>dasakam of Sri Naarayaaniyam. The translation, I believe, went

>>something like :"O lord, your attributeless (!!!) form is not easily

>>attainable

>>(or sth like that).

>>

>>You have to forgive me if my knowledge of Vishishtadvaita is a bit weak

>>but I thought that in Sri Ramanuja's philosophy Brahman is always full

>>of auspicious qualities. Isn't this "attributeless form" just some

>>thing propounded by Sri Sankara and rejected by Ramanuja and Swami

>>Desika.

>>If so what is this posting doing on bhakti list? Is the author a

>>vishishtadvaitin?

>>

>>This message is by far not meant to offend anyone in any way it's just

>>that I feel a bit confused since my (poor) knowledge of

>>vishishtadvaita doesn't favour this "attributeless form".

>>

>>Hope this is taken in good spirit...

>>

>>Kristijan

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>