Maayanai Mannu Vada Mathurai....

[Guest guest]

Dear Sudarsan,

 

Nice to hear of the vibrant activity in Singapore.

I have a couple of observations, if you don't mind:

 

(a) The normal order of events during mArgazhi mAsam

is FIRST the usha: kAla visesha ArAdhana, including

tiruppAvai recital and only then the prAta: sandhyA.

The reason for this is that the visesha ArAdhana

is done before sunrise, so it belongs before the sandhyA

(clarified by Srimat Poundarikapuram Andavan Swami).

 

(b) The criticism of the Ganga river sounds rather harsh.

I would consider it a privilege, as nearly all Vaidikas

do, to bathe in the same water that touched the body

of a great bhAgavata such as Siva. When Sage Vishvamitra

was guiding Rama and Lakshmana through the forest, Valmiki

Maharishi writes:

 

bhavAnga-patitam toyam pavitram iti paspRSuH |

 

They bathed in the waters [of the Ganga] considering

it pure because of contact with Siva's limbs

 

[ SrImad rAmAyaNam, bAla-kANDam ]

 

Perhaps it is 'na hi nindA stuti', but still a little

bit troublesome.

 

With regards

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

> The day started with Thiruppaavai recital, followed by Prathas

> Sandhyavandanam, followed by Saligrahma Aaradhanai.

> Even Ganges whose sanctity came from the feet of the Lord, was

> blemished with Brahma and Rudras touched it with the aim of

> cleansing their sins(Ithara Devathaa Samantham), but Yamuna was

> constantly cleansed with Bhagavad Samantham.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Mani Varadarajan,

 

You wrote:

>(b) The criticism of the Ganga river sounds rather harsh.

> I would consider it a privilege, as nearly all Vaidikas

> do, to bathe in the same water that touched the body

> of a great bhAgavata such as Siva. When Sage Vishvamitra

> was guiding Rama and Lakshmana through the forest, Valmiki

> Maharishi writes:

> bhavAnga-patitam toyam pavitram iti paspRSuH |

 

The pramAnam which you quote from the bAla kAndam does not show that ganga came

in contact which shiva's limbs.

According to the purAnam of gangA she was only in touch with the hair on

shivA's head but not his limbs.

 

Ganga originated from the kamandalu of Brahma as he(Brahma) washed Trivikrama's

leg (Sriman Narayana's leg) when Sriman narayana kept his leg on the heavens

during vamana avataram. This way ganga was in contact with the limbs of Sriman

Narayana but not with shiva.

 

Moreover there are no limbs on the hair. *Ganga never came in touch with

shiva's limbs* but only with shivas hair,

 

P.S <I do not intend to extrapolate this thread into a shiva-vishnu debate. I

have expressed my thoughts on the subject.>

Please excuse any mis-interpretations. Errors if any, are entirely adiyEn's.

 

Trivikramar thiruvadigale saranam.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

 

mAlOlan cadAmbi

 

 

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

A fellow bhAgavata sent me the following informative note

in this regard:

 

Reg your quote from SrImad RAmAyanam : While there are many

such references, even AzhwArs have sung a lot about the great

purity of Gangai ( PeriAzhwAr Thirumozhi and Peria Thirumozhi

has more references to my knowledge). "Gangai gangai enRa

vAcakatthAlE kaDuvinaigaL kaLaindiDukiRkum ...."

<PeriAzhwAr : Even the chanting of the name of gangai will

eradicate many sins ; what to speak about bathing in it ? >.

 

Sri Malolan notes:

 

The pramAnam which you quote from the bAla kAndam does not

show that ganga came in contact which shiva's limbs.

 

The literal words from Srimad Ramayanam are "bhava-anga-patitam toyam"

-- the waters that fell on the limbs of Bhava (Siva). I am basing

my understanding of this line on an upanyAsam by Srimat Tirukkudandai

Andavan Swami, popularly known as Kannan Swami. Kannan Swami continues

to give another interpretation. It is said in the shastras that one

should use water from the sky directly, but only that which has touched

the earth. Well, it just so happens that Siva's body has all the tattvas

in it, including 'pRthvi' or earth. So because the Ganga water coming

from the sky touched the body of Siva, it became fit for usage.

 

P.S <I do not intend to extrapolate this thread into a shiva-vishnu debate. I

have expressed my thoughts on the subject.>

 

I concur 100%. Thanks for the positive sentiment!

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Sri M.S. Hari opines:

> Also, the nUpura-ganga (at Tiru-mAl-irun-chOlai, kaL-Azhagar

> sannadhi) is told as "paSupathi jatA-sparsha-sUnyA" by our

> swAmi. [...] This dhAra of gangA is free from the sambandam

> of paSupathi jatA sparsham and thus distinguished from the

> known river gangA. The dEvathAntara-sambanda-varjanam is

> the distinguishing feature of this nUpura-ganga, which is

> held as a special viSEshaNam for nUpura-gangA here.

> These points may be noted here in this context. This is to

> substantiate that dEvathAntara-sambanda-varjanam is a purity

> for SrI VaishNavas. That is, SrI VaishNavas should NOT have

> dEvathAntara-sambandam.

 

The noble doctrine of only meditating on and worshipping

the Ultimate Cause is here reduced to a mockery of its

true self. The true meaning of 'devatAntara-sambandha-varjanam'

is straightforward -- to not take recourse to other means or other

divinities when one has settled on the worship of the First Cause

Sriman Narayana. It is a proof of faith. It does NOT mean, as

Sri Hari suggests, that one should avoid anything even remotely

associated with another divinity. That would be both absurd and

an impossibility.

 

For example, should one stop breathing, because Vayu is the

deity of air? Should one not use fire to warm oneself, because

of contact with the god Agni? Should one not make use of the

sun because Surya is its devatA? Or, is Siva Perumaan the

only one who is shunned, because of prior prejudice? If so,

are we to abandon the crescent moon because it adorns Siva's

head?

 

The premise, as stated above, is that anything that even touched

the body of Siva, is unfit for Sri Vaishnavas. This, plainly put,

is nothing short of abuse of a great jnAni like Siva, but rather

than venture down that line of discussion, I present the

following verse, put in the mouth of Sri Rama by Swami Vedanta Desika:

 

The gentle breeze, which is the lover as it were of the lotus

ponds of the river Kampa, bears with it drops of dew,

cooled by the moon, which is found on the head of Pasupati

[Lord Ekamresvara], who lives near the mango grove. This

breeze shall receive you as a loving friend who has come from

a distant place.

 

mandAdhUtAt tadanumahito nissRtaS cUtashaNDAt

pArSvetsayAH paSupatiSiraS candranIhAravAhI |

dUrAtprAptam priyasakham iva tvAmupaishyaty avaSyam

kampApAthaH kamalavanikAkAmukogandhavAhaH ||

 

-- hamsa sandeSa, 1st AsvAsa, v.28

 

The great scholar Sri A.V. Gopalacharya writes, "[sri Desika] does not

omit to make a charming reference to the shrine of [sri Ekamreswara].

The gentle breeze proceeding from the mango grove brings with it the

dewdrops from the moon on the head of the Lord of Pasus and cools its

wearied friend, the Hamsa, coming from a distance. The sloka is simply

beautiful."

 

Unfortunately, Sri Hari has tried to give his opinions the stamp

of authority of Swami Desika, by quoting the revered acharya entirely

out of context. The phrase 'paSupati-jaTA-sparSa-SUnya', describing

the waters of the second Ganga that came from Lord Vishnu's anklets

as "not touched by the locks of Pasupati" occurs in verse 49 of the

same work. This line is interpreted by Sri Hari as meaning that this

new Ganga is superior to the old one because of the latter's contact

with Siva. How could Sri Desika, who has spoken so beautifully about

the same Lord Pasupati just a few verses earlier, abuse him so profoundly,

as if he were an untouchable?

 

Clearly, Sri Desika had no such intention, and the learned

commentators on the hamsa sandeSa are quick to point this out.

Desika certainly does not mean to criticize the original Ganga

in this verse; nor does he mean to belittle Lord Siva. He merely

means to separate the legends of the origins of the two rivers; the

original Ganga fell from Lord Vishnu's feet onto Siva's locks,

and then fell to the earth. These other waters, the so-called

'nUpura-gangA', fell directly from Lord Trivikrama's anklets onto

the Tirumaaliruncholai mountain. This is explicitly clarified by

both Sri Krishna Brahmantantra Parakala Swami in his elaborate

'rasAsvAdinI' commentary as well as by Mahamahopadhyaya

Sri Kasturi Rangacharya's explanatory notes and brief commentary.

 

Both emphatically declare that it is foolhardy to conclude

that the Ganga should be avoided because of contact with

Siva, and that this would be a misinterpretation of the

verse. [1]

 

The rasAsvAdinI goes on to extol in no uncertain terms the

greatness of the original Ganga, citing the Mahabharata,

Bhagavatam, and Pancaratra Samhitas, which all describe

its origin from the feet of Trivikrama. There is a beautiful

line in the commentary that states that even the omniscient

great god Siva chose to receive the Ganga on his head to

further purify himself: "yAm hi sarvajno mahAdevo'pi

svapAvanArtham eva mUrdhnA'grhNAd ity udghushyanti pramANa-

sahasrANi".

 

Sri Desika in the rahasya-rakshA states that the very fact

that the great god Siva chose to himself bear the sacred waters

of the Ganga is reminder of the river's purifying power [2].

 

Sri K.V. Soundararajan, who introduces the English translation

of the hamsa-sandeSa makes the following salient points:

 

It should be boldly admitted that the author, being

concerned mainly with creating a lyric of great literary

charm, refuses to be inhibited by any sectarian or religious

rancour. In fact, the several places where he introduces

Siva -- as when he even indirectly suggests the famous

sthala of Kalahasti on the Swarnamukhi as a landmark in

itinerary, without any real need or obligation for this

(v.23, A.1) -- ... are uniformly in fine taste, with much

poetic charm, and with a lively familiarity with the legend

and lore about that god...

 

Where he refers to the nupura Ganga of Alagarkoil as

not having come into contact with the matted hair of

Pasupati ... the implication here was clearly not any

sectarian superiority, but his keen desire to keep two

different legends about Ganga well separated.

 

 

We would be well-advised to set aside our prejudices,

exaggerations, and misquotations in light of the comments of

these great scholars. If Sri Desika can hold Bhagavan Siva

in high respect, I think we are capable of it as well.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Mani

 

--

 

[1] From the tippani:

 

yat tu ayam ASayaH na gAhante gangAm ityAdy uktArItyA

SivajaTAsAratvena snAnAdi anarham iti keshAmcid vacanIyam

api nAtra kincid asti. aprApyaiva SivaSIrsham vrshabhAdrAv

avatIrNatvAd iti ... tan na. ... tasmAt AnuSAsanikAdi-pramANo-

panyAsapurassaram rsAsvAdinIdarSitam tac chankAvAraNam eva

yuktam ity avadheyam.

 

Sri Rangacharya Swamin also states, in his own brief

commentary, that the reason Desika uses this image is

to point out to the swan that the nUpura-ganga, being

unfettered by Siva's locks, shines in a way that the

original trapped Ganga simply could not.

 

[2] Commentary on stotra ratna 13:

 

bhavena SirasA dhrtatvAt pavitram iti jnAtvA paspRSuH

ity arthaH |