RE: demigod worship

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namah:

 

Dearest Bhagawathas,

 

Thanks very much for your encouraging words on adiyEn's rambling. Thanks to Sri

TV Venkatesh for repsonding one of the queries.

 

Other queries are:

 

1. Sri Rajaram wrote:

 

Q.1

What is the sastric definition of demigods are devatas. Does it refer to

Indra & his courtiers alone or does it also include Siva. If yes, what is

the sastric evidence, if any ?

 

Answer:

 

Yes. Siva is also included.Mahopanishad says ¡ÈFrom NarayaNa, Rudra was

born¡É.

Rudra is clearly mentioned that Sriman NarayaNa had created him. upanishad says

¡ÈNarayaNaath Brahmaa jaayathey; NarayaNath Rudro jaayathey¡É

confirming the

above again. The Veda has clearly declared the birth of Rudra, which is because

of his Karma. Therefore it is ascertained that Rudra is a baddha jeevaatman

subject to the three qualities of the material universe namely satva, rajas and

tamas, just like four faced BrahmA. Thirumazhisai AhzwAr says: Naanmuganai

NarayaNan padaitthaan; naanmuganum thaanmugamaay sankaranaitthaan padaitthaan.

 

Q.2

We read that great devotees like Arjuna worshipped Siva for pasupathastra

and Indra as well.

Gopis worshipped Karthikayini to get Krishna as their husband (SB).

 

Answer:

 

Arjuna had worshipped even Siva offering flowers on his head and found the same

flowers at the feet of Sri KrishNA. This Karthikayini nOnbu was discussed in the

list. (in 98). Sri Anand Karalapakkam had written beautifully when he wrote on

ThiruppAvai. (I have no internet access and will search and keep you informed

later, if you are not able to locate

==========

2. Sri Jaisimman had asked:

 

Could you please elaborate more on the Markandeya pastime. Most of the time

this point is not mentioned at all in books ! They only mention the pastime

with Lord Shiva.

 

Is this the same Markendeya Rishi who had the bhagyam to see the Lord on the

aalilai during pralaya kaalam ?

 

Answer: Sri TV Venkatesh wrote this: "nakkapiraan anRu uyyak koNdadhu

naaraayaNan aruLaal"- It is very much true. Siva came, saved MaarkaNdEyan from

yamA and then asked MaarkaNdEya (when he had asked Siva to save him from future

births), to meditate on Narayana. Then is the history. Sri BhUmi PiraaTTi also

appeared as his daughter and married Oppiliappan (Peerless Lord- Sriman

Narayanan). (one can have a darshan of Oppiliappan and Sage MaarkaNdEyar at this

sthalam along with BhUmi piraaTTi).

 

(Please remember Siva is the great Bhagawatha of Sriman narayanan, who composed

"manthararAjapadha sthOthram" on Sriya: Pathi.)

 

The same MaarkaNdEyar is the One (saakshi) who had the Bhagyam to see the Lord

as you rightly asked.

 

=====================

 

Sri Alavandhar- asks:

a. Who saved the Vedas and returned them to Chathurmukha brahmA (when the Vedas

were snatched away by Madhukaitabhars?

 

b. who removed the curse of Sivan, with the skull stuck in his hand?

It is all our most merciful Sriya: Pathi Sriman Narayanan.

 

========

 

"maRRumOr deivam uLadhu enRu iruppaarOdu, uRRilEn.. says AzhwAr. I will not

associate myself with those who say there is other god (than Sriya: Pathi Sriman

Narayanan). With no disrespect to any of demi gods, let us surrender at the feet

of "NaaraayaNan". Sri Mani wrote beautifully on this thread and it is true that

we are not here to preach others. We are only cautioning and reminding ourselves

of "our" relationship with Him (which is ozhikka ozhiyaadhu). PeriyAzhwAr says:

yerutthukkodiyaanum piramanum indhiranum maRRum oruttharum ippiRavi yennum

nOykku marundhu aRivaarum illai" (Sivan, Brahman, Indran- and others- There is

none who knws the medicine to get rid of this disease of births and deaths-

(other than Him.)

 

==========

3. Sri Sridharan had asked:

 

Also, there seems to be more than a mere coincidence to the avatars

of Vishnu starting with Matsya avatar and the evolution of life.

 

No. The avtaars sequence is not in the same order as what we think they are.

 

The jIvans, the beings - all exist with the same capacity, potential, from time

immemorial. Darwin's theory does not fit into our Vedic religion. (Erudite

scholars -please correct me if I am wrong)

 

(This subject again was discussed and Sri Mani superimposed excellently Darwin's

theory with our sampradic views. Let me tell the exact month in which it

appeared later- someone else can search and inform please.)

 

===============

when you know that NarayananE NamakkE.. then, you have mathi niRaindha nannaaL..

(says ANdAL). when we think there are other Gods, then we are all "mathi yillaa

maanidargaL"- says ThoNdaradippodi AzhwAr (anubhavam of Sri Anand of Singapore)

 

Regards

Narayana Narayana

adiyEn Narayana dAsan

[Guest guest]

Sri:

 

SrimatE Gopaladesika MahadesikAya Namaha,

 

Dear Bhaktas,

 

Before launching tirades and deploring the writings of

respected Sri Vaishnavas (like Sri Madhavakkannan Swamin), it is

advisable for new members of the list to check the archives to see

if the topic in question has already been discussed. In the six years

of its existence, the subject of demi-God worship has been

extensively

discussed in this forum. Sadacharyas in the line of Swami NammAzhwar

have indicated the position to be adopted by Prapannas towards other

deities. Sriman Madhavakkannan Swamin was merely articulating this in

his response. Those who may not be familiar with the nuances to be

practised by a Prapanna could do well to study this under the feet of

an Acharya or a qualified Bhagavata before engaging in adhominem

attacks on respected Bhagavatas.

 

Adiyen has known Sri Madhavakkannan Swamin as a distinguished Sri

Vaishnava ever since he joined this forum. He is a

fellow-Shishya of adiyen's Acharya, H.H. Srimad Andavan Swami of

Srimad Poundarikapuram Ashramam and his adherence to Acharyan's

dictates is exemplary. He has rendered yeoman service to the cause of

our Sampradayam by propagating Acharya Sri Sookthis in Singapore,

Malaysia, and Indonesia. Therefore, adiyen requests new members to

refrain from launching tirades against respected Bhagavatas of this

list.

 

Namo Narayana,

 

SriMuralidhara Dasan

[Guest guest]

Sri Murali wrote:

> Before launching tirades and deploring the writings of

> respected Sri Vaishnavas (like Sri Madhavakkannan Swamin), ...

> ... Therefore, adiyen requests new members to

> refrain from launching tirades against respected Bhagavatas of this

> list.

 

Sri Madhavakkannan's comments echo the expressions of many

of the acharyas of our sampradAya. When taking refuge

in the Lord, Narayana is reckoned as the groom, the jIva

the bride, the acharya the priest, and the sacred dvaya-mantra

the mAngalya-sUtra. Saranagati is the wedding. So pursuing

any lesser deity or goal is akin to unfaithfulness.

 

However, our acharyas were very careful to write and speak

like this in the context of 'upadEsa', or explanations of

the deepest mysteries of the Sri Vaishnava tradition. Such

upadESa was carefully given to disciples only after the

acharya inspected their mental makeup, and in preparation for

and enhancing the idea of Saranagati. It was not taught

out in the open, where the ideas were liable to be misunderstood.

Nor was it taught to someone who has not himself or herself

sought the acharya.

 

This is what has happened here. Our group is a large one,

with many people of various backgrounds mental makeups.

I feel that we must be extremely careful in disseminating ideas

which were earlier only taught as 'rahasya'. Not everyone may

appreciate, nay, even understand, the deeper idea behind these

teachings. The idea of comparing the worship of lesser gods

with adultery naturally strikes many as offensive, at first glance.

This is because they have not been given the proper context. In fact,

I would go so far as to say that the people to whom this strikes

as offensive aren't even the proper *audience* for such comparisons.

Our acharyas intended this to be told to people who have done

samasrayanam and prapatti, and not for the ordinary lay soul

who lacks context.

 

At the same time, we have to be very careful to not compromise on our

core principles. The key in mediating between these two values is,

I think, to be very judicious in *how* we write. The idea that one's

relationship to the Paramatma is like a sacred marriage is fundamental

to our sampradaaya. But, as expressed above, it needs to expressed

with careful attention to every word used, and with appreciation of

how ordinary bhagavatas may receive it.

 

In this vein, I totally understand Smt. Shuba's reaction, and

I don't think we should ask her and others to withold it. We are,

after all, a forum for exchanging opinions, and I don't think

she insulted Sri Madhavakkannan or launched any tirade. No one

should be above having people react honestly to what they write.

I think our group is better served if people are able to express

heartfelt emotions such as this out in the open, so we may all

learn from the interchange. In fact, I would say Smt. Shuba's

openness is a breath of fresh air compared to the stale formalism

that often plagues our group.

 

 

And now a note on an entirely different issue. Lately, I have

seen more and more people send messages containing ideas that

are based purely on writings from teachers outside our sampradAya.

Most of the time, these people quote verbatim from a translation

by Sri Prabhupada or another Hare Krishna author. It is also

apparent that many of these people have not studied any of the

ideas of Sri Ramanuja. Their only exposure is through the

works of these outside teachers.

 

I urge strong caution before assuming that these ideas, particularly

Hare Krishna ideas, are compatible with the Visishtadvaita

Sri Vaishnava sampradAya. Often, the entire approach of these

teachers differs markedly from ours. Many times, the translation

of the scriptures is out-and-out wrong, or is taken in a totally

different manner by Sri Ramanuja.

 

Please do not write with these assumptions when posting to

the bhakti-list. Please also do not quote from a Hare Krishna

or other translation unless you can verify that it is accurate.

This way, we all can maintain our focus on Sri Ramanuja's teachings

and make progress without distractions.

 

Thanks for your patience.

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathas,

>From my personal experience, I would like to add a little to the topic.

 

The key to gaining a better and quicker understanding of Sri Vaishnavism is

directly proportional to the 'trust factor'. However difficult or illogical

it may appear, we have to give the 'benefit of doubt' to the teachings of

our Acharyas, up-front. And then it all makes sense, one after the other,

within a couple of months or years. You would be surprised as to why it took

you so long to understand such a simple concept.

 

For the logically bent, here is a simple rule of thumb, every time you

*think of* or *come across* other deities.

 

Ask yourself the following:

 

"What form or incarnation or power or compassion of Sriman Narayana does

this deity reflect? Do I not see this 'guna' or 'attribute' directly in

Sriman Narayana? Is there a reference somewhere in our epics or purAnAs that

talk about this attribute and its association with Sriman Narayana, that I

see in this deity? What am I missing here? Is there a better alternative

available in Sriman Narayana's incarnations?"

 

And then promptly do the follow-up. Try and get the answers.

 

If you do this self-introspection a handful of times, the thought process

will automatically guide you to our Perumal. From then on, you would not

even have time to think about other deities, unless you run into one

head-on.

 

And by the way, there is no question of 'tolerance factor' at that stage -

for, you are way beyond that.

 

As always, I would be glad to hear your opinions.

 

Thanks,

Sriram