Need advice and clarification.

[Guest guest]

Dear bhAgavatottama-s:

 

I have the following two questions, and would like to request the

members of the list to help me understand the issues.

 

1. I came across a comment that bhagavad rAmAnuja has never included

any reference to AzhvArs' aruLicceyals or quotes from the prabandham in

any of his major works. I would like members of this list to confirm

whether this is a correct statement.

 

2. If the above is a correct statement, I would like to request the

members in the list to share with me how our pUrvAcArya-s have

explained this.

 

I sincerely appreciate any input on the above.

 

-dAsan kRshNamAcAryan

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

Dear BhAgawatAs,

 

In this connection, I have one more question. Is it

true that bhagawad rAmAnuja does *not* quote from even

the bhAgawata purANa in his srI-bhASya?

 

In an informal discussion with U. Ve. SMS Chari, I

learnt that the reason rAmAnuja sticks strictly to the

upanishads and other authoratative texts such as

vishnu purANa in commenting on the sutras is because

previous commentators like sankara did so. If

rAmAnuja had used the AzhwAr srI-sooktis that would

not be palatable to or even accepted by the rival

camps. SMS Chari continued to point out that the

influence of the AzhwAr srI-sooktis on Ramanuja is

unmistakable from the fact that his direct sishya

ThirukkurukaippirAn piLLAn uses a style very similar

to Ramanuja's to interpret the Thiruvaimozhi.

 

|| All errors are mine ||

 

-- adiyen, murali

 

 

--- Narasimhan Krishnamachari <champakam

wrote:

> Dear bhAgavatottama-s:

>

> I have the following two questions, and would like

> to request the

> members of the list to help me understand the

> issues.

>

> 1. I came across a comment that bhagavad rAmAnuja

> has never included

> any reference to AzhvArs' aruLicceyals or quotes

> from the prabandham in

> any of his major works. I would like members of

> this list to confirm

> whether this is a correct statement.

>

> 2. If the above is a correct statement, I would like

> to request the

> members in the list to share with me how our

> pUrvAcArya-s have

> explained this.

>

> I sincerely appreciate any input on the above.

>

> -dAsan kRshNamAcAryan

>

>

>

> Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

> http://im.

>

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Krishnamachari and Murali,

 

Yes, it is true that Sri Ramanuja is extremely selective

in his sources. Excepting a few taniyans that are ascribed

to him (not universally acknowledged as his by scholars),

he wrote entirely in Sanskrit. Therefore he does not refer

directly to or quote Divya Prabandham anywhere. Sri Kanchi

P.B. Annangaracharya Swami jokingly says in a lecture

I have on tape, "Emberumaanaar never uttered a single word

in Tamil" (vay thiRandhu emberumaanaar thamizhilE onRum

sollavillai).

 

Sri Ramanuja also never quotes from Srimad Bhagavatam,

preferring Sri Vishnu Purana throughout. He praises

Sri Vishnu Purana to the sky in Vedarthasangraha as

"being accepted in the north, south, east, and west

as a most authoritative Purana". Among his successors,

a few do quote Srimad Bhagavatam, but only sparingly.

Parasara Bhattar, his (very) junior contemporary, uses

it here and there in his commentary on Sri Vishnu

Sahasranaama Stotra. Desika quotes here and there from

it. In the Divya Prabandha vyAkhyAnams, to my knowledge

Sri Vishnu Purana is quoted much more often, with a

smattering of Bhagavatam here and there. By and large,

the tradition prefers Sri Vishnu Purana when it comes

to matters of 'tattva'.

 

In fact, Parasara Bhattar compares the authority of

Sri Vishnu Sahasranamam to the authority of Sri Vishnu

Purana, and not the Bhagavatam.

 

In Ramanuja's 'nitya grantha', there is a reference

to recitation of things described only as 'Sruti Sukha',

or pleasing to the ear. Universally this is understood

as a reference to Divya Prabandham.

 

In fact, he concludes his description of daily worship

with a recommendation that one should recite 'those prayers

that are pleasing to the ear' (Sruti sukhaiH stotrair

abhishTUya). This is understood to mean the 'saaRRumuRai'

that we now recite.

 

And as Murali writes, it is clear that Ramanuja lectured

on and constantly meditated on the Divya Prabandham, as

we have a large number of his 'nirvAhams' or interpretations

recorded in the 'eedu' commentary on Tiruvaymoli and other

works. Pillan's 'ArAyirappadi' reads like it could have

been written by Ramanuja himself, since Pillan uses

Ramanuja's characteristic Sanskrit expressions constantly,

and also restricts himself to the same Sanskrit sources

that Ramanuja did, i.e., refraining from quoting Srimad

Bhagavatam, instead preferring Sri Ramayana, Bharata,

Sri Vishnu Purana, and a select few other smritis.

 

adiyen

mani ramanuja dasan