viShNu sthAnam

[Guest guest]

"Malolan Cadambi" <mcadambi wrote:

>Actually, all the names of Sarveshwaran can connote Maheswaran.

>Appayya Diskhita had authored a work wherein he equates all names of

>Sarveshwaran found in the Vishnu Sahasranamam to Maheshwaran.However,

>he fails to connote the word "nArAyanA" to maheshwara.

 

Sri mAlolan and others: adiyEn believes that nArAyaNa as the

supreme entity is irrefutably established by paNini's vyAkaraNa

sootra (aphorisms on Sanskit grammar) - where the trailing "Na"

letter of nArAyaNa (called "mooNRu suzhi 'Na'" in Tamil) renders

the term nArAyaNa as superiormost in the universe. Even in free

translation, "nArAyaNa" is the ayana of naras, i.e. the super

being from which all else emanates.

 

The pramANa (proof) that nArAyaNa is viShNu himself is based on

the viShNu purANa, which was accepted as an authoritative scripture

by Adi Sankara, who also rejected the siva/linga/other purANas.

In practice, "viShNu sthAnam" is the ultimate honor one can bestow

upon anybody in this universe - Kings, noblemen, preceptors and

anyone who embodies something supremely important is accorded the

sacred "viShNu sthAnam" all across the Hindu religion.

 

In recognizing the true identity of nArAyaNa in this manner,

together with his inseparability and equality with the divine

mother (SrI) - rAmAnuja sampradAyam has grasped the very essense

of the vedic religion spanning the entire land from "SrI"Rangam

upto "SrI"Nagar...

 

bhAgavatas kindly excuse any unintended errors in my statements.

Truly,

-Srinath C.

--

 

 

 

 

________________

Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience

the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!

http://shopnow.netscape.com/

 

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at

http://webmail.netscape.com/

[Guest guest]

> Sri mAlolan and others: adiyEn believes that nArAyaNa as the

> supreme entity is irrefutably established by paNini's vyAkaraNa

> sootra (aphorisms on Sanskit grammar) - where the trailing "Na"

> letter of nArAyaNa (called "mooNRu suzhi 'Na'" in Tamil) renders

> the term nArAyaNa as superiormost in the universe. Even in free

> translation, "nArAyaNa" is the ayana of naras, i.e. the super

> being from which all else emanates.

 

Adiyen certainly accepts what Sriman Srinath Chakravarthy has posted.

 

 

Adiyen posted the note only to point out about the uniqueness and the

utmost superiority of Sriman Naarayana who is the very brahman

extolled by Wodeyavar Ramanujar as the Brahman in Thirumala. Also

wanted to make a small note about the unique word "nArAyanA" which

can be split in as; narAnAm ayanam yasya saha.

 

Yathirajar Composed the Sri Bhaashyam in tirumala where in the very

first mangala slokam equates the para-brahman with Sriman Naarayana.

 

Adiyen posted the note only to point out about the uniqueness of

narAyana. Adiyen by mistake forgot to punch this line.

 

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and

Music Charts

http://uk.my.

[Guest guest]

Malolan Cadambi <mcadambi wrote:

>Adiyen certainly accepts what Sriman Srinath Chakravarthy has posted.

>Adiyen posted the note only to point out about the uniqueness and the

>utmost superiority of Sriman Naarayana who is the very brahman

>extolled by Wodeyavar Ramanujar as the Brahman in Thirumala. Also

>wanted to make a small note about the unique word "nArAyanA" which

>can be split in as; narAnAm ayanam yasya saha.

>Yathirajar Composed the Sri Bhaashyam in tirumala where in the very

>first mangala slokam equates the para-brahman with Sriman Naarayana.

>Adiyen posted the note only to point out about the uniqueness of

>narAyana. Adiyen by mistake forgot to punch this line.

 

The heart of the issue really, is that while SrIvaishNavas are

vaishnavites, smArthas are *not* Saivites! It is somewhat

absurd to try compare a qualifier with a disqualifier - but

that's as specific as it gets over there in the murky realm of

numerous demigods and confusing messages.

 

But IS there any confusion on the central question - i.e. that

of supremacy of nArAyaNa (embodied by viShNu alone)? There is

none. All SankarAchAryas (as legatees of AdiSankara) sign off

their written statements with "nArAyaNa smrithi". Further, the

viShNupurANa is one of their source texts (alongwith Bhagavad

geethA and the 10 principal upanishads). So if at all there is

some uncertainty it is because the smArtha tradition does not

confine itself to viShNu alone (even as it recognizes the primacy

of viShNu sthAnam) but includes other demigods in its worship.

 

As we all know, there are highly "vaiShNavite" smArthas - who

traditionally do not associate with demigods and have close ties

with vaiShNava divya deSams. Almost all the early AchAryas in

SrIvaiShNavam were born into such smArtha families, which over

time became the brahminical portion of rAmAnuja sampradAyam.

SrIvaishNavas are therefore, the "focused" version of vaiShNava

smArthas - who additionally, believe in SrI (the divine mother) sampradAyam and

follow the teachings of rAmAnuja bhashya.

 

adiyEn,

-Srinath C.

--

 

 

 

 

________________

Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience

the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape!

http://shopnow.netscape.com/

 

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at

http://webmail.netscape.com/

[Guest guest]

> The heart of the issue really, is that while SrIvaishNavas are

> vaishnavites, smArthas are *not* Saivites! It is somewhat

> absurd to try compare a qualifier with a disqualifier - but

> that's as specific as it gets over there in the murky realm of

> numerous demigods and confusing messages.

 

Sriman Murali Seshadri's question was about anya-devata aradhana.The

heart of the issue addressed by my reply to Sri.Murali Sheshadri was,

what are the implications on anya-devata worship/bhajans some Sri

Vaishnava groups outside of India?

 

It is understood from his email that due to physical proximity to

such groups, and consequently involvement in the group's activities,

what are the implications of anya-devata worship?

>From a Sri Vaishnava Stand point, it is circuitous to worship

anya-devatas or for that matter, to regard anya-devatas as

paramAtma.But given the fact of certain geographical constraints, and

a wider mode of participation, the Sri Vaishnava involved in bhajans

which extoll the anya-devatas as paramatma should realise that all

the namaskArams finally reach keshava who is undoubtedly the

"chaturvan" as Thirumangai Alvar describes him.

 

>

> But IS there any confusion on the central question - i.e. that

> of supremacy of nArAyaNa (embodied by viShNu alone)? There is

> none. All SankarAchAryas (as legatees of AdiSankara) sign off

> their written statements with "nArAyaNa smrithi". Further, the

> viShNupurANa is one of their source texts (alongwith Bhagavad

> geethA and the 10 principal upanishads). So if at all there is

> some uncertainty it is because the smArtha tradition does not

> confine itself to viShNu alone (even as it recognizes the primacy

> of viShNu sthAnam) but includes other demigods in its worship.

>

 

No there is no doubt that the ultimate veda swaroopi is lakshmi

sametha sriman nArAyana.

 

When adiyen sent a mail about Appayya Dikshita's literary works,

adiyed was seeking to extoll the uniqueness of the word nArAyana and

that nArAyanA is the parabrahman is doubtless.

 

Regards,

 

Malolan Cadambi

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and

Music Charts

http://uk.my.