Guest guest Posted May 16, 2000 Report Share Posted May 16, 2000 Dear BhAgavataLs: Could somebody explain to me how an archAvatAram (such as Varadaraja PerumaL) can have a thirunakshatram? What does this mean in terms of our common notions of a thirunakshatram - to do with birth, origin, etc... For instance I can understand fairly well how a Vibhava Avataram has thirunakshatram i.e. as per Puranas/Srimad Bhagavatam, the avatara occurred at a certain date/time. But what about archa?? I'll appreciate any response that can clarify this matter. Thanks very much in advance. aDiyEn, -Srinath Chakravarty email: xsrinath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2000 Report Share Posted May 16, 2000 Dear Sri Chakravarthy: Lord VaradarAjA had appeared on Hastha Nakshathram.BrahmA requested Him to stay as an archA mUrthy on that day .That is why Hastha Nakshathram is recognized as His asterism. At the end of the AsvamEdha Yagam performed by BrahmA , on that Chitthirai Sukla Paksha Chathurdasi thithi , on that Sunday morning , Lord VaradarAjA appeared under PuNyakOti VimAnam out of the Yaaga kuNtam with the effulgence of 1000 crores of AadithyAs. Swami Desikan celebrates the avathAram and the glories of the Lord of Kaanchi in his prabhandham known as "Meyviratha Maanmiyam". Best Wishes, V.Sadgopan At 06:43 PM 5/16/00 -0500, you wrote: >Dear BhAgavataLs: > >Could somebody explain to me how an archAvatAram (such as Varadaraja >PerumaL) can have a thirunakshatram? What does this mean in terms of >our common notions of a thirunakshatram - to do with birth, origin, >etc... For instance I can understand fairly well how a Vibhava Avataram >has thirunakshatram i.e. as per Puranas/Srimad Bhagavatam, the avatara >occurred at a certain date/time. But what about archa?? > >I'll appreciate any response that can clarify this matter. Thanks >very much in advance. > >aDiyEn, >-Srinath Chakravarty >email: xsrinath > > >Srimate Sri Laksminrisimha Divya Paduka Sevaka >Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama: > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2000 Report Share Posted May 17, 2000 Dear BhaghavatAs: Eventhough Shri Sadagopan Swamin had answered this question, still it leaves some more matters to be clarified. For example, if you read the sthala puranam of Tirupati etc., all these archa-murthys seem to have been once vibhava avatArams. Also I am also confused about the vyuha forms. From whatever little I now, PancharAtrA doesn't refer to 'TirupArkadal'. Para Vasudeva to Vasudeva-Sankarshana-Pradyumna-Aniruddha are the vyuha forms according to pAncharAtrA. May be our achAryAs have tried to reconcile the different purAnic description of these forms to derive a cogent perspective for our understanding. S. Vijayaraghavan Buffalo, NY ______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2000 Report Share Posted May 19, 2000 Vijayaraghavan Srinivasan writes: > Eventhough Shri Sadagopan Swamin had answered this question, still it leaves > some more matters to be clarified. For example, if you read the sthala > puranam of Tirupati etc., all these archa-murthys seem to have been once > vibhava avatArams. Dear Vijayaraghavan, I think it becomes patently obvious as one researches the various sthala-purANas that they are of relatively recent date, concocted by patrons or priests of a particular shrine to enhance its antiquity and ancestry in the eyes of the believing public. The sthala-purANas usually are an amalgamation of local legend and pure fantasy. Many were probably not intended as serious histories of the deity or temple at all. An example of how easy it is to devise an interesting story about a temple is the "legend" behind the Chicago Balaji Temple, written by Sri R. Raghavan. Little did we know that there were rishis and deva-s actively involved in Chicago as well! S.K. Ramachandra Rao discusses the Tirupati sthala-purANa in his interesting book on that shrine. He points out how the entire story of Vishnu coming down after a tiff with Lakshmi, eventually settling at Tirumalai to settle a debt with Kubera is actually of very recent origin, say the 16th century or so. In addition, the legend of 'varAha-svAmi' being the actual, original deity of the Venkatam Hill really has no basis in fact. One way of getting at the true history of a temple such as this is to look at solid textual evidence such as the Divya Prabandham, Silppadikaaram, etc., as well as inscriptional evidence at upper and lower Tirupati. > Also I am also confused about the vyuha forms. From whatever little I now, > PancharAtrA doesn't refer to 'TirupArkadal'. Para Vasudeva to > Vasudeva-Sankarshana-Pradyumna-Aniruddha are the vyuha forms according to > pAncharAtrA. May be our achAryAs have tried to reconcile the different > purAnic description of these forms to derive a cogent perspective for our > understanding. The vyUhas have many interpretations. One of them is that the vyUhas represent Vishnu's emanations for the purpose of creation. This matches quite well with the theology of Vishnu reposing in kshIrAbdhi in yOga-nidra, contemplating his work of creation. I cannot say for certain without doing a little more research, but I am pretty sure the idea of kshIrAbdhi does exist in the pAncarAtra. Another idea behind the vyUhas is that they represent different forms of Vishnu that rule over the different states of consciousness. Along these lines is the idea that the sAnkhyan evolutes of buddhi, manas, ahankAra, etc., have these different vyUha forms of Vishnu as their overlord. This is why the pAncarAtra says in one samhita "sankarshaNo nAma jIvo jAyate" -- "Sankarshana is born as the jIva". In these various ways, the vyUha forms play a central role in meditation and the yogic process according to the pAncarAtra. Not being schooled very well in the pAncarAtra metaphysics, I cannot say much more, but one is supposed to progressively meditate on the various vyUha forms, each of which keep two of the six principle attributes of Vishnu at the forefront. The idea is that trying to meditate on all the six attributes (the "SADguNya" of jnAna, bala, aiSvarya, vIrya, Sakti, tejas -- knowledge, strength, lordship, steadfastness, power, and splendor) is too difficult, and that the aspirant should proceed in stages. An aid to this progression of meditation is metaphorically described as a "sacrificial pillar" (viSAkha-yUpa) standing in Vaikuntha. Each level of this pillar has one of the vyUha forms manifesting two of these six divine attributes. One progresses in one's contemplation from the lower levels to the higher levels, culminating in para-vAsudeva. It is interesting to note that Adi Sankaracharya Bhagavatpada also d to this six-fold description of divine attributes. In his gItA-bhAshya avatArikA, he described Narayana as being eternally endowed (sadA-sampanna) with these six guNa-s. Unfortunately, it is my understanding that most of the yogic/ meditational ideas in the pAncarAtra have lost currency over the years. Virtually no one in the Sri Vaishnava tradition studies or practices yOga, especially along pAncarAtrika lines. While other Agama traditions (SAkta, Saiva) remain well-developed in their meditational aspects, the Vaishnava one seems to have suffered over the years. aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2000 Report Share Posted May 23, 2000 Dear BhavatOttamAs: I would like to thank Mani for the well thought out clarifications provided on pancharAtra doctrine on vyuhAs. On stahla purAnams another point that may strengthen the line of reasoning may be the following. Eventhough, Lord Rama and Krishna are worshipped in archa forms, still they are considered as 'VibhavavatArams'. Also in Daya Satakam Swami Desikan does not seem to refer to any of the stahala purAnams associated with Tirupati (pointing to the fact that thaey are of recent origin). dAsan Vijayaraghavan Buffalo, NY >Mani Varadarajan <mani >Mani Varadarajan <mani >bhakti-list >Re: Archa thirunakshatram >Fri, 19 May 2000 14:07:54 -0700 (PDT) > >Vijayaraghavan Srinivasan writes: > > Eventhough Shri Sadagopan Swamin had answered this question, still it >leaves > > some more matters to be clarified. For example, if you read the sthala > > puranam of Tirupati etc., all these archa-murthys seem to have been once > > vibhava avatArams. > >Dear Vijayaraghavan, > >I think it becomes patently obvious as one researches >the various sthala-purANas that they are of relatively >recent date, concocted by patrons or priests of a >particular shrine to enhance its antiquity and ancestry >in the eyes of the believing public. The sthala-purANas >usually are an amalgamation of local legend and pure >fantasy. Many were probably not intended as serious >histories of the deity or temple at all. An example >of how easy it is to devise an interesting story about >a temple is the "legend" behind the Chicago Balaji >Temple, written by Sri R. Raghavan. Little did we know >that there were rishis and deva-s actively involved in >Chicago as well! > >S.K. Ramachandra Rao discusses the Tirupati sthala-purANa >in his interesting book on that shrine. He points out how >the entire story of Vishnu coming down after a tiff with >Lakshmi, eventually settling at Tirumalai to settle >a debt with Kubera is actually of very recent origin, >say the 16th century or so. In addition, the legend >of 'varAha-svAmi' being the actual, original deity >of the Venkatam Hill really has no basis in fact. One way >of getting at the true history of a temple such as this is >to look at solid textual evidence such as the Divya Prabandham, >Silppadikaaram, etc., as well as inscriptional evidence at >upper and lower Tirupati. > > > Also I am also confused about the vyuha forms. From whatever little I >now, > > PancharAtrA doesn't refer to 'TirupArkadal'. Para Vasudeva to > > Vasudeva-Sankarshana-Pradyumna-Aniruddha are the vyuha forms according >to > > pAncharAtrA. May be our achAryAs have tried to reconcile the different > > purAnic description of these forms to derive a cogent perspective for >our > > understanding. > >The vyUhas have many interpretations. One of them is that the vyUhas >represent Vishnu's emanations for the purpose of creation. This matches >quite well with the theology of Vishnu reposing in kshIrAbdhi in >yOga-nidra, contemplating his work of creation. I cannot say >for certain without doing a little more research, but I am pretty >sure the idea of kshIrAbdhi does exist in the pAncarAtra. > >Another idea behind the vyUhas is that they represent different >forms of Vishnu that rule over the different states of consciousness. >Along these lines is the idea that the sAnkhyan evolutes of >buddhi, manas, ahankAra, etc., have these different vyUha forms of >Vishnu as their overlord. This is why the pAncarAtra says >in one samhita "sankarshaNo nAma jIvo jAyate" -- "Sankarshana is >born as the jIva". > >In these various ways, the vyUha forms play a central role >in meditation and the yogic process according to the pAncarAtra. >Not being schooled very well in the pAncarAtra metaphysics, >I cannot say much more, but one is supposed to progressively >meditate on the various vyUha forms, each of which keep two >of the six principle attributes of Vishnu at the forefront. >The idea is that trying to meditate on all the six attributes >(the "SADguNya" of jnAna, bala, aiSvarya, vIrya, Sakti, tejas -- >knowledge, strength, lordship, steadfastness, power, and >splendor) is too difficult, and that the aspirant should proceed >in stages. An aid to this progression of meditation is metaphorically >described as a "sacrificial pillar" (viSAkha-yUpa) standing in >Vaikuntha. Each level of this pillar has one of the vyUha forms >manifesting two of these six divine attributes. One progresses in >one's contemplation from the lower levels to the higher levels, >culminating in para-vAsudeva. > >It is interesting to note that Adi Sankaracharya Bhagavatpada >also d to this six-fold description of divine attributes. >In his gItA-bhAshya avatArikA, he described Narayana as being >eternally endowed (sadA-sampanna) with these six guNa-s. > >Unfortunately, it is my understanding that most of the yogic/ >meditational ideas in the pAncarAtra have lost currency over >the years. Virtually no one in the Sri Vaishnava tradition >studies or practices yOga, especially along pAncarAtrika lines. >While other Agama traditions (SAkta, Saiva) remain well-developed >in their meditational aspects, the Vaishnava one seems to have >suffered over the years. > >aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, >Mani > > > > > > ______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2000 Report Share Posted May 23, 2000 > I think it becomes patently obvious as one researches > the various sthala-purANas that they are of relatively > recent date, concocted by patrons or priests of a > particular shrine to enhance its antiquity and ancestry > in the eyes of the believing public. The sthala-purANas > usually are an amalgamation of local legend and pure > fantasy. Many were probably not intended as serious > histories of the deity or temple at all. I've always wondered why (or how come, rather) there is such a proliferation of divya sthalams in the southern part of the Indian subcontinent - especially when almost all the vibhava avataras existed in the north. Certainly appears to have more to do with history than with divinity, i.e. the revival/evolution of certain religious traditions during the last two millennia, coupled with the constant threat of Moslem invasions after the first millennium A.D. In any event, I was reminded just recently that Srivaishnavism recognizes only SEVEN svayamvyakta archa forms, including the SAlagrAmam. All the other divyasthalams have been consecrated through pratiSThai/samprokshaNai. I would appreciate it if knowledgeable members could list those seven svayamvyaktas. Personally I would be content with obtaining authentic information about just the svayamvyakta khSetras - the other sthala purANas although well intentioned, could be simply a result of devotional fantasies. Therefore I request some help in finding out "true" origins of svayamvyakta kShetras. Along the same lines, it would be very useful to "investigate" the sthalapurANas of various other divyadesams and determine how much of those (if any) derives from ancient sources like Vishnu PurANa, prabandham etc. Where does all this leave our 108 divyadesams (and perhaps) all their sthalapurANas? Are we questioning the legends of certain kShetrams outside the fold of the 108 only, or does our inquiry extend into every temple town including the svayamvaktas? If and when we do separate the wheat from the chaff, what will we be left with? I believe that Sri. Vijayaraghavan wrote in response to Sri. Sadagopan's reply to me about the archa thirunakshatram of Kanchi Varadaraja PerumaL. I was quite curious to know in the first place, how an archAvatara could have a thiru- nakshatram, what that really meant, and if it was based on the Vishnu purANa. I will appreciate any responses to my questions. Thanks in anticipation, aDiyEn -Srinath Chakravarty email: xsrinath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.