[Doubt on Thridandi Sanyasi]

[Guest guest]

Dear Shree Mani Varadarajan,

 

You have written :

"{I realize that Sri Puttur Krishnaswamy Iyengar and others

are vociferous in their statements about ancient Tamil society,

but such assertions need to be backed up by evidence, properly

understood in context. (Believe me, I would like what you

write to be true myself -- but it is just not convincing)}"

 

I very much appreciate your open statement and your thought that

unless and until statements are backed up by evidence, it cannot

be accepted and further logic is involved in it for properly

understanding. But as I am also a student of Sri Puttur Krishnaswamy

Iyengar, I consider the term "vociferous" that you have used has

disturbed me a bit. Otherwise also, it is so.

 

I would like to add few points regarding the ancient tamil society.

1. The ancient tamil society was having only Parama Vaidika Matham

which is Visishtadvaita Shree Vaishnavam only. If you read the

book publised by the Swamy on "Paripaadal", you may understand that

the Swamy has not told it as "vociferous" but only with Pramaanams

from Sruti, smruthies. Also it can be argued that the same tamil

has not told that "tridandi sanyaasi is anti-vaishnava". Therefore,

as there is no such "nishedam", it can be taken to be understood that

"tridandi sanyaasi is only a parama-vaidika"

 

2. The "Paripaadal" though is a most ancient literature available

in Tamil history, it is not just to be consiered as mere poetry.

It has talked about the religion and philosophy of ancient Tamil

and it clearly proves that the ancient tamil was Shree Vaishnavam.

 

3. The "Tirukural" has clearly talked about "Visistadvaita Shree

Vaishnavam" explicitly. This point is just to substantiate the

above argument and also please note that it is called "Tamil Podu Marai".

 

4. The tamil as well as others have considered only "Nalairya Divya

Prabandam" as "Marai" on the other hand, something else is only

considered as "Murai".

 

5. Though the "Paripaadal" talkes about demi-gods also, it is to be

noted what is told by it regarding the demi-gods and about Tirumaal.

It has clearly told that only "Tirumaal" (Vishnu) is the Paratatvam. It has

not recognised any other divinity as such. I accept that other

religions would have been in existence but when we consider the

available "Paripaadal", it is enough to ascertain as it is ascertained

by Swamy Sri Puttur Krishnaswamy Iyengar with Pramaanams.

 

Your reply would be appreciated.

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI Ramanuja Daasan.

 

 

 

 

 

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

[Guest guest]

> 1. The ancient tamil society was having only Parama Vaidika Matham

> which is Visishtadvaita Shree Vaishnavam only.

 

There is simply no conclusive evidence to back up this assertion.

We know that the sangam and early post-sangam literature contain

references to five divinities:

 

(a) mAyOn, or the Dark One. This god is also known as mAl

and can be identified with Krishna / Vishnu

(b) ceyyOn, or the Red One. This god is also known as murukan

and was later identified with the Sanskritic god

subrahmaNya/skandha

© kaTalOn, or the god of the sea. This god was later

identified with the Sanskritic god varuNa

(d) vEntan, or "the king". This idea merges with the Sanskritic

idea of Indra

(e) Ur-amma, or the mother goddess. This idea evolved into

the modern worship of mInAkshi, kAmAkshi, etc., at the

urban level. We can still see evidence of the the Ur-amma

idea in the grAma-dEvata-s or village deities, who

tend to be female

 

There is evidence for all of these deities in early literature

such as the tOlkAppiyam, the classical text on Tamil poetics and

grammar, as well as the paripATal. By far, the most popular deities

are mAl and murukan. (Note: Even Sivan is secondary compared to murukan.

In fact, the idea of Siva is totally absent in the ancient Tamil poems.

But this is a topic for another day.)

 

We can also see in modern Tamil worship the evolution of these

ideas. Taking Tamil society as a whole (not just brahmins, who are

a very small minority), the Tamil people generally worship murukan, mAl,

and the mother goddesses, as well as their local village deities.

 

Now, what characterizes Sri Vaishnava worship as we know it today?

Exclusive worship of Vishnu, without paying much attention to

other deities, and certainly not exalting them in poetry.

 

Compare this to the texts of the ancient Tamils. Yes, there are

numerous poems in praise of mAl. But there are also numerous

poems of praise to murukan as well. In fact, an entire text,

the tiru-murukARRupaTai is dedicated to the praise of murukan.

There are also murukan poems in the paripATal. We see a marked

absence of the *exclusivity* (aikAntikatva) that so distinctively

marks Sri Vaishnava worship. Any praise of any other deity would be

totally anathema to a Sri Vaishnava.

 

So, how can you sustain the argument that "ancient tamil society

only followed Shree Vaishnavam"? You have three alternatives:

(1) The ancient Tamils were Sri Vaishnavas, but they didn't

mind often exalting and praising other gods such as Murukan

(2) The ancient Tamils were Sri Vaishnavas who often fell under the

sway of tamo-guNa and therefore praised Murukan and other

gods

(3) The ancient Tamils were not strictly Sri Vaishnavas

but were of diverse religious beliefs, some worshipping Vishnu,

others Murukan, others both or all the deities

 

I prefer option (3).

 

Barring any conclusive evidence about the 'tridaNDi' sannyAsis,

we also cannot conclude that they were Vaishnavas, and certainly

there is no evidence to indicate that they were Sri Vaishnavas

as we know them today.

> 3. The "Tirukural" has clearly talked about "Visistadvaita Shree

> Vaishnavam" explicitly. This point is just to substantiate the

> above argument and also please note that it is called "Tamil Podu Marai".

 

It is a tribute to tiruvaLLuvar that every religion claims the

tirukkuraL as its own. But honestly, we really do not know to what

religion vaLLuvar belonged. I have read very convincing arguments

that he was a Jain, and that he used characteristic Jaina images,

terminology, and ideas in his work. I have also read very

convincing arguments that he was a Vaishnava; parimEl-azhagar,

one of the classical kuraL commentators, assumes he is a Vaishnava.

But, in the end, we must call it a tossup; vaLLuvar's primary

purpose was not religious so there is simply not enough

evidence to come to a firm conclusion.

 

 

In any case, none of this really matters in the long run. These are

historical issues, not Vedantic. Our 'AdhAram' are the Alvars'

pAsurams, not what Tamils believed in sangam times or what Tamils

believe now.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

 

P.S. Anyone who doesn't think Sri Puttur Swami is strident (i.e.,

forceful) in his beliefs probably hasn't met him or read his

more argumentative works. I respect him very much (in fact

I have donated quite a bit of money to help him in his publishing

efforts), and spent quite a bit of time talking to him during my

last visit. I used the term "vociferious" as a description of the

conviction with which he writes, not a criticism of him as a person.