Sri BhAshyakArar and Sri VP etc

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -

SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Bharat,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

"A.Bharat" wrote:

> Dear BhAgavatOttamas

> The criticisms of Srimans Anand Karalapkkam and

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

> Harikrishna re aDiyEn's notes on the above subject

> are perfectly valid wherever they refer to what

> aDiyEn actually wrote.

 

Really sorry SrI Bharat, if you felt that adiyEn had

"criticised" your posting. adiyEn just wrote in a

friendly way to share certain view points towards

this discussion.

> RahasyatrayasAram.By quoting further instances where

> the deep knowledge of DP enlivened Sri EmberumAnAr's

> commentaries,he has merely strengthened aDiYEn's

> thin argument re Sri BhAshyakArar's inspiration from,

> and love for, the Divine verses of the AzhwArs.

 

As you said, adiyEn wanted to assert and further

strengthen this point of yours.

 

> The only point on which aDiyEn has a totally respectful

> but firm difference of opinion is -re the basic difference between

> the approaches of SriVP and SriBH with re to PirAtti.

> Sri VP is totally wholehearted and unrestricted in its

> statement that He is Sriyahpati and she is His constant

> consort,anapAyinI,as in "ahalakillEn iraiyum" and goes on to

> present a Stuti which repeats this statement in a hundred

> ways so that there should be no doubt on that point.

> Kindly see the identical chapter in Sri BH for a striking

> contrast in approach.

 

Well, there are instances in SrI BhAgavatham (SB) also wherein

Lord is addressed as "SrIyahpati". Infact, even in the

gOpikA geetham, it appears around three times or so. But, as

SrI Bharat points out, the "SrI" tattva (ie. about pirAtti) is

well brought out in SrI VP, than in SB.

 

Sage ParASara's SrI ViSNu purANam (SVP) concentrates a lot

on explaining the tattvas. Many passages in upanishad and

vEdas are being commented here making it an upabrahmana of

a greater value than other purANas. Thats why it had direct

appeal for being quoted in the Brahma sUtras, wherever the

sUtrakAra (Sage VyAsa alias BAdarAyana) refers to Smrutis

to substantiate the siddhAnta he is making.

The passage from Upanishad/vEdas taken for discussion in

an adhikaraNa of Brahma sUtras is identified by the

commentators of Brahma sUtras and when the sUtra itself

says that the point established above is supported by

Smruti, invariably SrI VP has dealt with the commentry

to that passage of Upanishad/vEdas taken for discussion

in that adhikaraNa. So, SrI VP became extremly important

for understanding the siddhAnta made in Brahma sUtras.

 

Sage ParASara wrote SrI VP to clarify many issues in vEdAnta.

His son Sage VyAsa wrote Brahma sUtras to make a very

systematic and organized presentation of VEdAnta, clarifying

the import of the Upanishads in many difficult issues.

Needless to say, Sage VyAsa had studied SrI VP under his

father and knows the clarity in which his father has handled

many important passages of Upanishads. So, while presenting

the siddhAnta in his Brahma sUtras, Sage VyAsa augments his

arguments with the help of esp. SrI VP as a Smruti text. In

other words, whenever Sage Vyasa asks one to refer to

"Smrutis" as a support to the siddhAnta made, we see

explicitly SrI VP commenting the very issue in hand.

Thats why, SrI VP holds a very high place with regard to

the explanation of tattvas and was used by the commentators

of Brahma sUtras.

 

Sage Vyasa's approach to SB, which is most likely to be

written after the Brahma SUtras, is not to get into deep

issues in VEdAnta for establishing the specific standpoints.

The job was already done through Brahma sutrAs and SrI VP.

Its high time to immerse oneself more in BrAhmAnubhava,

enjoying the Swaroopa, rUpa, guNa and vibhUtIs of the Brahman

that has been well established already. SB's focus was on these

lines and thats why we see many shallow treatment in

explaining tattvas, in comparison with SrI VP.

 

A vidvAn here at chennai, who is an authority in SB and is

well versed in SrI BhAshya etc re-iterated the point reg.

the superior explanation of tattva in SrI VP. For a sample,

he just made a comment on the way "Jagat Srushti" /

"Jagat kAranatvam of Brahman" is explained in SrI VP and

SB. He told that while SrI VP gets into very good details,

SB is more on the surface level. He added that, similar is

the case with many such issues in VEdAnta dealtwith in these

purANas. But, he by himself is a great admirer of SB and

said that one will get into a different plane of bhagavad

anubhava while reading SB and thats not the case with SrI

VP.

 

The bottomline is that SB is glorified as a great purANa

for its excellence in presenting the rasAnubhavas, drenching

one in great bhagavad anubhavam and SrI VP is hailed as a

great purANa ("Gem of the purANas" - as per the words of

SrI YAmunAchArya) for its excellent treatment on the

tattvas.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.