Article by Sri TA Krishnamacharya Swami

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear BhAgavatas,

 

Adiyen some time ago obtained a book containing

several articles by Nyaya Vedanta Vidwat Siromani

Sri U.Ve. T.A. Krishnamcharya Swami.

 

I have translated the first of the articles

titled "Sri Ramanuja Siddhantham and

Thiruvenkadamudaiyan" and posting it here. As

time permits I will translate some of the other

articles as well.

 

Any errors in the translation are entirely mine

due to my poor knowledge and poor grasp of

language and I ask everyone's forgiveness for

the same.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

TCA Venkatesan

http://www.acharya.org

 

--

 

Sri Ramanuja Siddhantham and Thiruvenkadamudaiyan

 

 

Translation of an article by Sri. TA Krishnamacharya

Swami. The article by sri TAK Swami was based on

an upanyasam made by Sri Karappankadu Venkatacharya

Swami in the 1940s in the Nammazhvar Sannidhi at

Thiruppathi.

 

 

As Visishtadvaitam has been mentioned in the Vedas,

it is considered as being timeless. At different

times it has become hidden and has been brought

forth by Azhvars and Acharyas. Swami Nammazhvar

and Swami Ramanujar are considered as the leaders

among Azhvars and Acharyas and both have brought

this sampradhayam to the front and made it shine

for the world.

 

Amongst the 108 divyadesams that Azhvars sang about,

Koil (Srirangam), Thirumalai and Perumal Koil

(Thirukkacci Varadaraja Perumal Koil) are

considered as the prime three. Srirangam was sung

by all Azhvars, while Thirumalai was sung by all

Azhvars but Thondaradippodi Azhvar. This could be

one reason to consider Koil as the first and

Thirumalai as second among the divyadesams.

 

However, looking at it in a certain way it can be

taken that Thirumalai should be considered as the

first. Thiruppanazhvar enjoyed Sri Ranganathar from

feet to head and sang the glorious "amalanadi piran"

pasuram. At the end of these pasurams he said that

his eyes having seen Arangan will not see anything

else. However, even he sang about Thiruvenkadavan

in his first and third pasurams of amalanadi piran.

When the vyakyanam for these pasurams are read, it

is understood that the Lord when descending from

Sri Vaikuntam stood first at Thirumalai and then

rested at Srirangam. Since He stopped at Thirumalai

first, it can be considered as first even ahead of

Srirangam. Also, since Thiruvenkadavan and Sriranga

nathan are one and the same (based on the amalanadi

piran pasurams), we can consider that Sri

Thondaradippodi Azhvar also sang about

Thiruvenkadamudaiyan. After all, all the Azhvars

speak in one voice and speak the same words.

Therefore, Thirumalai can be considered as the

primary divyadesam.

 

In bringing the light on the Srivaishnava

siddhantham, Swami Nammazhvar and Swami Emperumanar

both were deeply attached to Thirumalai.

 

The first part of the Dvaya mantram explains the

Saranagati thathvam. That is, attaching one's

self to the Lord's lotus feet through His consort

Sri. The second part of Dvayam requests the fruit

of eternal kainkaryam following the surrender.

These two thathvams of Saranagati and Kainkaryam

were both presented to Thiruvenkadamudaiyan by Sri

Nammazhvar through the "agalakillen" and "ozhivil

kalam" pasurams. Sri Ramanujar also began Sri

Bhashyam by praying that he attain Bhakti to Lord

Srinivasa, who is the para brahmam. Emperumanar

also presented the great Vedartha Sangraham to

Lord Srinivasa. Thus, as Sri Nammazhvar and Sri

Ramanujar were greatly attached to Thirumalai,

it can be thought of as the first divyadesam.

 

It must be understood that Srirangam is not being

put down through these words (nahi ninda nyayam).

 

It is said that the only refuge for the soul is

that which is presented by an acharya. As

acharyas, we need to know what Sriman Narayana,

Sri Nammazhvar and Sri Ramanujar have told and

followed.

 

Sriman Narayana has pointed to Bhakti as the path

to Moksha in many places but He has also

emphasized Sarangati as the main path for

mumukshus ("mumukshurvai SarNam aham prapadhye").

Sri Nammazhvar also has advised Bhakti margam in

several pasurams but he performed Saranagati

through the "agalakillen" pasuram. Sri Ramanujar

also emphasized Bhakti in several places in Sri

Bhashyam but performed Sarangati through the

Gadya Trayam. Thus, as acharyas all of them have

pointed to prapatti as the primary method even

ahead of Bhakti, and that the prapatti would lead

to the fruit of eternal kainkaryam.

 

Let us look further at Azhvar's prapatti. Sri

Lakshmana swore that he would do everything for

Sri Rama ("aham sarvam karishyAmi") and obtained

the fruit of kainkaryam through Sita pirAtti.

Sri Nammazhvar also wished to do kainkaryam to

Lord Srinivasa and through pirAtti's purushakAram

surrendered to Thiruvenkadamudaiyan. However,

Nammazhvar's Saranagati is to be considered

greater than even that of Sri Lakshmana. Even

though Ilaya Perumal said he would do everything

that Sri Rama commanded, he did not accept Sri

Rama's command to stay back in Ayodhya. Sri

Nammazhvar's word was that he should do every

kind of service and without break to the Lord.

As there are no false words in Azhvar's works,

it is clear that he performed that kind of

service to the Lord. Thus Azhvar's saranagati

is considered higher.

 

Let us look at the agalakillen pasuram further.

Here Sri Nammazhvar expressing his inability to

do anything surrenders to Thiruvenkadamudaiyan,

who is the repository of all kalyANa guNas,

through pirAtti. By reahing the Lord through

Her in the very first line, Azhvar makes sure

that he will get what he is seeking. It is said

that there are four requirements for the

attainment of moksham. They are the body, the

soul, the Lord and His consort. Sri Varaha

Perumal when advising Bhooma Devi indicates

that the body is a requirement ("susvasthe

shariire sati"). The nama: term in the

Thirumantram shows that the soul (that has

understood its incapacity to save itself and

surrendered to the Lord) is a requirement. In

the Carama sloka, the Lord has shown that He

is a requirement. And the Dvaya mantram shows

that without pirAtti's sambandham He will not

complete this work. Since it is clear that the

purpose of Sarangati is incomplete without

pirAtti, Nammazhvar approaches Her in the very

first line of the pasuram.

 

That pirAtti sambandham is needed for Sarangati

to work is clear when looking at Kakasuran and

Ravanan. Due to the fear of a curse, Ravana

did not even touch Sri Sita, whereas Kakasura

did an unthinkable sin against Her. Ravana during

the war lost everything and stood incapable of

doing anything in front of Sri Rama. Kakasura

ran the three worlds to escape Sri Rama's astra

and failing fell at His feet without even being

able to move. Since Saranagati is falling at

His lotus feet expressing our inability to do

any thing, both of them should have been saved.

Yet while Kakasura's greater sin was forgiven,

Ravana was killed. The reason being that in the

case of Kakasura, Sri Sita was with Sri Rama

but not so in the case of Ravana. In addition,

after Ravana was killed, Sri Hanuman requested

Sri Sita that She permit him to kill all the

rakshasis that were guarding and torturing Her.

Sri Sita however told Hanuman that everyone

sins in this world and that he should let them

go. It is clear that if She can convince Sri

Hanuman, who was born in the vAnara race that

does not easily give up any thing, She can

convince the Lord who would listen to Her to

forgive our sins.

 

During the avatara times, She might be separated

from Him for some time. But, She never leaves

Her Lord at Thirumalai and as such Nammazhvar

surrenders to Him there. By Her presence, the

kalyANa guNas that come to the fore are

Vatsalyam, Svamitvam, Sauseelyam and

Saulabhyam. Nammazhvar further talks about

these guNas in the pasuram as "nigaril pugazhAy",

"ulagam moonRudaiyAy", "ennai ALvAne", and

"thiruvEnkadaththAne". In the final line of the

pasuram he performs complete surrender to Him.

 

Thus Nammazhvar shows the upAya and upEya

meanings that are Saranagati and Kainkaryam

through his pasurams "agalakillen" and

"ozhivil kalam". This Ramanuja siddantham,

that kainkaryam is the moksham and that it

is obtained through His grace, is seen in

surrendering to Thiruvenkadamudaiyan and in

performing service to Him.

 

Azhvar Emperumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Saranam

 

 

 

Health - your guide to health and wellness

http://health.

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote:

> Sriman Narayana has pointed to Bhakti as the path

> to Moksha in many places but He has also

> emphasized Sarangati as the main path for

> mumukshus ("mumukshurvai SarNam aham prapadhye").

 

Venkatesan,

 

I have some concerns about this interpretation.

Mumukshu simply means one who is desirous of

liberation and the teaching of saranagati is

presented entirely in the context of bhakti

and upAsana. The interpretation presented above

presumes that saranagati is divorced from bhakti,

that they are two totally different paths. This

assumption appears to be totally absent in the

Upanishads, the Gita, and for the most part, in

Divya Prabandham.

 

For the Svetasvatara Upanishad quote cited above,

it merely declares that one desirous of liberation

takes refuge in Supreme Lord, the First Cause.

As we know, taking refuge is part and parcel of

the devotional attitude in bhakti itself. Sri

Krishna teaches this many times in the Gita.

 

mAm eva ye prapadyante mAyAm etAm taranti te |

 

Indeed, those who surrender to Me cross this maya

(known as prakRti). -- Gita 7.14

 

tam eva cAdyam purusham prapadyet |

 

One should take refuge with that Primeval Person alone.

-- Gita 15.4

 

These are only a couple of examples and in each case

Bhagavad Ramanuja has interpreted this as an attitude

to be cultivated in bhakti-yoga, and not as something

different. He also mentions it as the beginning

point of bhakti-yoga in his comments on Gita 18.66.

 

Without resorting the pAncarAtra Agama, is there

any source in shaastra for the assumption that

prapatti is indeed totally divorced from bhakti

in the manner described above?

 

In other words, in Sri Ramanuja's system, does not self-surrender

dictate a cultivation of one's attitude of the bhakta himself,

since the wise bhakta is defined by Sri Ramanuja as

'bhagavat-seshataika-rasa-Atma-svarUpa-vit' -- one who knows

his self's true nature as finding enjoyment purely in existing

for the sake of the glory of Bhagavan?

 

'veedumin muRRavum veedu seydhu; ummuyir veedudaiyaan idai

veedu ceymminE'

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Mani and others,

 

First thing I wanted to point out was that it was a

translation of an article, but the words used were

mine, without any approval from Sri TAK Swami. So,

it is possible that I have misinterpreted what the

author had intended. Having said that, let me

answer Sri Mani's point.

 

I do not want to go deep into the interpretations

on Bhakti and Prapatti as it is a topic in itself.

However, we do need to understand what the term

Bhakti means and what is the context in which I had

used it.

 

For ease of understanding I will use the terms

Bhakti yoga and Bhakti marga. The Bhakti that is

refered to in the Sastras is Bhakti yoga. This is

one of the highest forms of approach to the Lord

as was practised by highly evolved souls such as

Rishis. This is the constant remembering of the

Lord through manas, vak and kayam without any

break whatsoever. There was also the Bhakti

practised as sheer love for the Lord as shown by

the Azhvars. Our acharyas have placed this above

that of the Rishis. There are other paths shown

to reach the Lord such as Gnyana Yoga and Karma

Yoga.

 

Bhakti marga on the other hand is what most of

us practice which is the daily upAsana, following

rituals, going to the temple, etc.

 

To address your query, is Prapatti separate from

Bhakti yoga - I think it is. Is it separate from

Bhakti marga - I don't think so. The jeevan having

done prapatti continues on in the path of Bhakti

marga in praising and living his remaining life

for the Lord.

 

You seem to imply that taking refuge in the Lord

as part of the Bhakti yoga is to be considered as

the same as Prapatti. It is my understanding that

this is not the case. Prapatti defined as a separate

path shows complete and abject surrender with the

knowledge that there is nothing further needed

on the part of the jeevan to do to reach Him,

at the end of that life itself. Bhakti yoga is

something that is expected to be constantly

practised through many lives, even after taking

refuge, before moksha is attained.

 

One final point. There appears to be a constant

refrain that while Bhakti yoga is a very

difficult path, Prapatti is an easy method of

reaching Him. From my limited understanding, this

appears as incorrect. The requirements for a

prapannan appear to be very stringent which

perhaps many do not follow. As an example,

consider the quality of maha vishvasam. Is it

easily practised? It is perhaps this understanding

of our inabilities that led Him and other acharyas

to allow acharyas to intercede on behalf of jeevans

in the performance of prapatti.

 

Please note the above ramblings are entirely an

exhibition of my poor knowledge and as such are

subject to criticism and corrections.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

TCA Venkatesan

http://www.acharya.org

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Mani,

 

I do not know much or rather anything about the vEdAs and upanishads. I am only

trying to present my humble views. In fact I am writing this in an off-beat

line.

 

In my humble opinion, "bhakti" should be more of a soul related experience,

rather than a physical act. If this can be accepted, then your very statement

that saraNAgathi is part and parcel of Bhakthi cannot be disputed at all.

However, if it is construed as a physical act of performing some rituals, with

definite postures, etc, then there will be difficulty in accepting saraNAgathi

as part and parcel of Bhakti. It depends on the individuals faith.

 

May be our poorvAchAryAs considered Bhakti as a soul related experience and

hence they have said that bhakti and prapatti are means to attain salvation.

 

Well this is purely my humble opinion. If this is absurd, please do forgive me

and correct me.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

--- mani2 *mani*

wrote:

 

<pre><a href="javascript:MessageSubmit('bhakti-list')"

class="c6">bhakti-list</a>, TCA Venkatesan <<a

href="javascript:MessageSubmit('vtca@y..')" class="c6">vtca@y..</a>.> wrote:

> Sriman Narayana has pointed to Bhakti as the path

> to Moksha in many places but He has also

> emphasized Sarangati as the main path for

> mumukshus ("mumukshurvai SarNam aham prapadhye").

 

Venkatesan,

 

I have some concerns about this interpretation.

Mumukshu simply means one who is desirous of

liberation and the teaching of saranagati is

presented entirely in the context of bhakti

and upAsana. The interpretation presented above

presumes that saranagati is divorced from bhakti,

that they are two totally different paths. This

assumption appears to be totally absent in the

Upanishads, the Gita, and for the most part, in

Divya Prabandham.

 

For the Svetasvatara Upanishad quote cited above,

it merely declares that one desirous of liberation

takes refuge in Supreme Lord, the First Cause.

As we know, taking refuge is part and parcel of

the devotional attitude in bhakti itself. Sri

Krishna teaches this many times in the Gita.

 

mAm eva ye prapadyante mAyAm etAm taranti te |

 

Indeed, those who surrender to Me cross this maya

(known as prakRti). -- Gita 7.14

 

tam eva cAdyam purusham prapadyet |

 

One should take refuge with that Primeval Person alone.

-- Gita 15.4

 

These are only a couple of examples and in each case

Bhagavad Ramanuja has interpreted this as an attitude

to be cultivated in bhakti-yoga, and not as something

different. He also mentions it as the beginning

point of bhakti-yoga in his comments on Gita 18.66.

 

Without resorting the pAncarAtra Agama, is there

any source in shaastra for the assumption that

prapatti is indeed totally divorced from bhakti

in the manner described above?

 

In other words, in Sri Ramanuja's system, does not self-surrender

dictate a cultivation of one's attitude of the bhakta himself,

since the wise bhakta is defined by Sri Ramanuja as

'bhagavat-seshataika-rasa-Atma-svarUpa-vit' -- one who knows

his self's true nature as finding enjoyment purely in existing

for the sake of the glory of Bhagavan?

 

'veedumin muRRavum veedu seydhu; ummuyir veedudaiyaan idai

veedu ceymminE'

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

 

 

 

-----------------------------

- SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -

To Post a message, send it to: <a

href="javascript:MessageSubmit('bhakti-list

')" class="c6">bhakti-list

</a>

Group Home: <a href="bhakti-list

" class="c6" target="_blank">bhakti-list

</a>

Archives: <a href="http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

" class="c6" target="_blank">http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/

</a>

 

 

Your use of is subject to <a

href="" class="c6"

target="_blank"></a>

 

 

</pre>