Question relating to bhagavad rAmAnuja's major works.

[Guest guest]

SrI Anand KaralappAkkam:

BhAgavatottama-s:

 

The following mail relates to the following posting from SrI Anand

Karalappakkam on the topic of SrImad bhAgavatam vs. SrI vishNu purANam

etc.

 

Message: 10

Sat, 15 Apr 2000 00:31:05 +0530

Anand Karalapakkam <kgk

Re: Sri Bhashyakarar and Sri Vishnupuranam etc

 

I had originally raised the question a week back or so, on why bhagavad

rAmAnuja had not quoted DIRECTLY from any of the aruLicceyals or from

pA'carAtram in any of his major works. To this, SrI MaNi added that

emperumAnAr had not quoted DIRECTLY from SrImad bhAgavatam as well. I

had included the explanation in my pA'ncarAtra-5 write-up that for the

case of divya prabandham and pA'ncarAtra, this can be attributed to the

fact that in emperumAnAr's time these were not accepted by everyone

universally as vedic in character, and emperumAnAr could establish his

points based on the quotes from the Sruti and SmRti-s only without

biasing his case by including quotes from sources that might have been

considered sectarian at that time. The mails from SrI Murali KiDAmbi,

SrI MaNi, SrI Bharat etc., confirmed, at least as I read it, the above

point.

 

The question that was initially raised was: Why did bhagavad rAmAnuja

not DIRECTLY quote from divya prabandham, pA'ncarAtra, SrImad

bhAgavatam etc. The question was NOT whether SrI rAmAnuja did or did

not base his philosophy on nammAzhvAr, pA'ncarAtra etc., and NOT

whether his commentaries on gItA etc. were heavily influenced by

AzhvAr's aruLicceyal. The points made in SrI Anand KaralapAkkam's mail

are that SrImad bhAgavatam is a very valid and authoritative work, that

emperumAnAr has extensively used the ideas conveyed by nammAzhvAr in

his gItA bhAshya etc. This was NOT the issue. I agree that the

statements made in SrI Anand's note are valid.

 

The explanation I had included in the pA'carAtra write-up for the

original question I had raised (as stated in the 1st para above) seems

to be confirmed based on postings from SrI Murali Kidambi, Sri Mani,

Sri Bharat, etc. No one so far seems to have disagreed with this point

openly in the bhakti list. I had a couple of people who privately felt

strongly that my position was at the minimum lilely to generate

controversy, and probably will be considered an affront to our

sampradAyam. I posted the question in the bhakti list to find out what

the position of our pUrvAcArya-s is on this matter, and to correct

myself if I am contradicting any accepted sampradAyam. While the

explanation I had offered initially seems to be confirmed based on the

mails, the additional thought that came out of the discussion is that

since others (such as SrI Samkara, the MimAmsaka etc.) in and around

SrI rAmAnuja's time were writing in samskRt and quoting only from Sruti

and smRti-s to support their points, he was responding to them on

their own terms, and so was not quoting from divya prabandham. So now

we have two possible explanations, neither of which seems contradictory

or contrary to our sampradAyam as I have heard from our members.

 

So the question on which I need advice and help from SrI Anand and

others is:

1) Is there any other explanation than the ones we have discussed so

far,

2) have our pUrvAcArya-s offered any different explanation, and

3) is there any documented evidence of any other explanation than the

two so far that we have seen.

 

I fully understand and agree that

- emperumAnAr was a great devotee of our AzhvArs,

- was heavily influenced by their thoughts in all his writings and

philosophy,

- that nammAzhvAr's tiruvAimozhi etc. are nothing but a great benefit

to us because they simplified the otherwise difficult-to-comprehend

veda-s so that we can benefit and thus understand the way to reach Him,

 

- that he was well-known as the tiruppAvai jIyar,

- that he personally approved the rAmAnuja nURRantAdi by

tiruvara'ngattamudanAr which repeatedly confirms his great devotion to

our AzhvArs,

- that the pA'ncarAtra is entirely vedic in character,

- that his philosophic thoughts were heavily influenced by both the

divya prabandham and the pA'ncarAtra,

- that his gItA bhAshyam has a lot of places where one can clearly

trace the influence of aruLLIceyals on his thought

- etc. So these are not the issues.

 

-dAsan kRshNamAcAryan

 

 

 

 

 

 

Send online invitations with Invites.

http://invites.

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Krishnamachari,

namO nArAyaNa.

> The question that was initially raised was: Why did bhagavad rAmAnuja

> not DIRECTLY quote from divya prabandham, pA'ncarAtra, SrImad

> bhAgavatam etc. The question was NOT whether SrI rAmAnuja did or did

> not base his philosophy on nammAzhvAr, pA'ncarAtra etc., and NOT

> whether his commentaries on gItA etc. were heavily influenced by

> AzhvAr's aruLicceyal. The points made in SrI Anand KaralapAkkam's mail

> are that SrImad bhAgavatam is a very valid and authoritative work, that

> emperumAnAr has extensively used the ideas conveyed by nammAzhvAr in

> his gItA bhAshya etc. This was NOT the issue. I agree that the

> statements made in SrI Anand's note are valid.

 

Sorry for any confusion. Your question was pretty

much answered by others and adiyEn just wanted to

share certain information which had good link to

the posting made by SrI Bharat. Though it may not

be answering "Your issue", adiyEn thought that its

a worthwhile information to be shared with other

devotees and enjoy the varies commentries.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.