worship of Srivaishnava purvArcharyas (was kamba rAmAyanam)

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimate Ramanujaya Namaha

 

--- Sri Laksmi Narasimham wrote:

> In fact I have another point which cannot

> be(I guess) denied by any one. If

> we worship Shri Ramanujar, Shri Manavala

> Maamunigal and Shri

> Desikan then

> there is nothing wrong in worshipping Shiva

> who is also a great

> Vaishnava.

 

 

Dear Sri Narasimhan,

 

I'm not sure if this is your viewpoint, but it appears

misleading.

 

In Nyasa Vimshati(shloka 2), Swamy Desikan states 8

reasons why an Acharyan must be worshipped like God

Himself. Among other important reasons listed by Swamy

Desikan here, it would be relevant to point out that--

an Acharyan blesses us a spiritual birth that

prevents rebirth (Janma pradhvamsi janma pratha

garimathayA).

 

Srivaishnava Archarya saarvabhoumars (and prapannas of

the highest order) like Emperumaanaar, Swamy Mamunigal

and Swamy Desikan himself, are prime candidates for

this definition.

 

Can the same be said, with certainty, of anya-devatas

like Siva? Which shastra/Acharya has recommended

*mumukshus* to worship these deities?

 

Besides, Siva is a post. We can't be sure which

jivatma is being referred to. (refer Swamy Desikan's

Varadaraja Panchashat shlokas 10 through 15).

> If one says he just respects the acharyas then he

> could also

> respect Shiva.

 

As you have noted yourself, having "respect" for someone does

not imply that we must "worship" them.

 

In conclusion, I don't agree that the established

practice of aradhanam of Srivaishnava poorvAcharyas

can justify the worship of anya-devatas including

Siva.

 

 

Bhagawathas are requested to pardon and correct my

errors.

 

(Please refer a very informative and relevant post

by Sri Anand Karalapakkam:

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/feb98/0044.html

)

 

emperumaanaar thiruvadigale sharanam.

adiyen srikrishna dasan.

(Shreyas)

[Guest guest]

> In conclusion, I don't agree that the established

> practice of aradhanam of Srivaishnava poorvAcharyas

> can justify the worship of anya-devatas including

> Siva.

 

Dear Shreyas,

 

True. I was going to respond the same way too.

 

-Malolan

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

Dear Shri Shreyas and other respected Shri Vaishnavas,

This is a long mail, learned scholars please do correct me if I am wrong.

 

Sorry if my post were misleading. My point was that, mumukshus should not

worship anyone else other than Shriman Narayana. We should not even worship

Shri Ramanujar or other Sarvabhoumars. That is the basic difference between

our Shri Vaishnava philosophy and other philosophies('cos they worship human

beings as the lord). In one of my earlier posts I had mentioned that Shri

Ramanujar had disregarded and burnt the first Ramanuja Nootrandhadhi that

was written by Thiruarangatthamudhanar. The reason being, it was completely

in praise of Shri Ramanujar. Shri Ramanujar was totally against the

nara-sthuthi and that included himself too.

 

Vedas, do say mother, father and acharyan is god, and that is from a

different perspective. Respect is TOTALLY different from worship. In fact

that is the reason why we don't have separate temple for ANY OF THE

ALWARS/ACHARYAS. We only have temples of Shriman Narayana and later we added

the Alwar/Acharya vigrahams so that they would be remembered.

 

Worship according to Shri Ramanuja Siddhantham is doing Sharanagathi to the

ultimate. Probably the word worship is misleading or probably I took the

wrong word from english - I am sorry about that.

 

Aaradhanam is not Sharanagathi. We don't do sharanagathi to acharyas. We go

to them and they teach us how to do sharanagathi to the ultimate. We do

respect our acharyas for what they taught us and the way they guide us. But,

worshipping them is completely wrong, even according to Shri Ramanujar.

 

As I said, we should respect our aacharyas and so should we respect deities

like brahma, siva etc.

 

IF WE WORSHIP our ACHARYAS, I would definitely say, we could also worship

anya-devatas like Siva, Brahma etc. Well, there is a catch here. Shri

Vaishnavas worship acharyas and that is not for any materialistic benefit.

So, if the same perception is maintained with other devatas, in that case,

any one may be worshipped who are of higher order to the jeevatmas i.e if we

worship Shiva with the perception that he is a great Vaishnavite then there

is nothing wrong. BUT, people worship Shiva or anya-devatas for material

benefit and that is WHY Shri Vaishnava philosophy strongly condemns

worshipping anya-devatas.

 

Bottom-line. Intent of condemning the anya-devata worship is not because

they are not Shriman Narayana. Worshipping any devata including the supreme

for materialistic benefit - is condemned. And if we worship any devata,

other than Shriman Narayana, they can't give moksham. So, the point of the

Sri Vaishnava philosophy is that - goal of a mumukshu is to attain moksham

and not any materialistic benefit. If the moksham can be given only by the

ultimate, we don't need to go to anyone else. In case of Acharyas, they show

the path for Moksham.

 

One should clearly remember that the Shri Vaishnava philosophy condemns when

a person does anya-devata worship EVEN AFTER KNOWING about the MOKSHA PATH.

If a person has no idea of the moksham, they could still worship

anya-devatas, because they act as acharyas too. Thirumazhisaippiran

worshipped so many anya-devatas and they all pointed him towards Shriman

Narayana. And that is what our acharyas do too.

 

Finally, all our acharyas have told us to treat acharyas as god and that is

for a reason - that is to make sure we follow - 'munnor mozhindha murai

thappamal kettu'. The moment we see them as jeevatmas, we might tend to ask

questions or might tend to go against them. This in NO WAY means we should

worship the acharyas i.e do sharanagathi to them(not for mumukshus at least)

 

 

Kindly accept my apologies if I was wrong and please feel free to correct me

 

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

Lakshmi Narasimhan.

 

----

 

bhakti-list

Thursday, November 21, 2002 23:00:16

bhakti-list

Re: worship of Srivaishnava purvArcharyas (was kamba rAmAyanam)

 

Sri:

Srimate Ramanujaya Namaha

 

--- Sri Laksmi Narasimham wrote:

> In fact I have another point which cannot

> be(I guess) denied by any one. If

> we worship Shri Ramanujar, Shri Manavala

> Maamunigal and Shri

> Desikan then

> there is nothing wrong in worshipping Shiva

> who is also a great

> Vaishnava.

 

 

Dear Sri Narasimhan,

 

I'm not sure if this is your viewpoint, but it appears

misleading.

 

In Nyasa Vimshati(shloka 2), Swamy Desikan states 8

reasons why an Acharyan must be worshipped like God

Himself. Among other important reasons listed by Swamy

Desikan here, it would be relevant to point out that--

an Acharyan blesses us a spiritual birth that

prevents rebirth (Janma pradhvamsi janma pratha

garimathayA).

 

Srivaishnava Archarya saarvabhoumars (and prapannas of

the highest order) like Emperumaanaar, Swamy Mamunigal

and Swamy Desikan himself, are prime candidates for

this definition.

 

Can the same be said, with certainty, of anya-devatas

like Siva? Which shastra/Acharya has recommended

*mumukshus* to worship these deities?

 

Besides, Siva is a post. We can't be sure which

jivatma is being referred to. (refer Swamy Desikan's

Varadaraja Panchashat shlokas 10 through 15).

> If one says he just respects the acharyas then he

> could also

> respect Shiva.

 

As you have noted yourself, having "respect" for someone does

not imply that we must "worship" them.

 

In conclusion, I don't agree that the established

practice of aradhanam of Srivaishnava poorvAcharyas

can justify the worship of anya-devatas including

Siva.

 

 

Bhagawathas are requested to pardon and correct my

errors.

 

(Please refer a very informative and relevant post

by Sri Anand Karalapakkam:

http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/feb98/0044.html

)

 

emperumaanaar thiruvadigale sharanam.

adiyen srikrishna dasan.

(Shreyas)

 

 

(Note from Moderator: SrI Lakshmi Narasimhan's main points regarding the

treatment of AcArya-s in our sampradAyam, their role vis-a-vis anya-devatA-s,

etc., are contrary to my understanding on this subject. As I had requested in

the note to SrI Lakshmi Narasimhan's previous posting on this topic, I would

like to once again make a request that it will be helpful if he can share the

basis for his views, with support from AcArya-s etc., for his main points. In

other words, has any AcArya of SrI vaishNava sampradAyam taken the position that

he is advocating, or is there any SAstric or other evidence for this position.

I would like to reqeust him to approach the issue from this perspective if he

plans to pursue this line further).

[Guest guest]

/Om namO nArAyaNAya |

 

/namaskArams to all members.

 

There are so may postings so sure of non-worship of Lord /SivA. I am not sure

that in the light of statements made by no less an /AzvAr than /nammAZvAr, it is

possible to make definite statements about the so-called other deities.

 

Here is a /pAcuram from /nammAZvAr, which is beautiful in its humble approach to

a complex subject. Please note that no conclusive statement is made other than

the fact that the Lord is truly mysterious. Notice also the employmnet of a

specific neutral word like /kaNNan to denote the Supreme Being. (/kaNNan is not

/rAman, or vishNu in its meaning. It is neutral in the sense that it is specific

to Lord /krushNA. It means darling or pupil of the eye.)

 

/oLir/maNi vaNNan enkO;

 

/oruvan enR/Etta ninRa;

 

/naLir/mati caTayan enkO;

 

/nAn/mukak kaTavuL enkO;

 

/aLi/makiZ t/ulakam ellAm;

 

/paTaittavai Etta ninRa;

 

/kaLi/malar tuLavan emmAn;

 

/kaNNanai mAyanEyE ||

 

Meaning: /nammAZvAr is in a dilemma. Sure, God is One and Only One. As the One

God, He needs to be Praised. : /2nd line: /oruvan enRu Etta ninRa.

 

/nammAZvAr has chosen to praise Lord /kaNNan, the Mysterious /mAyOn. Last line:

/kaNNanai /mAyanaiyE. The /AzvAr is wanting to praise the Mysterious /kaNNan as

the One and Omly One God.

 

But how to address this mysterious Lord? /enkO? The word is used three times.

 

Shall I address this Supreme Lord as the Colorful Effulgent /maNi/vaNNan? First

line: /oLir/maNi vaNNan enkO?

 

Or, shall I address this Supreme Lord as /naLir/mati caTayan --- the Lord Who is

adorned with the delicate /cantiran in His matted Locks? Third line: /naLir/mati

caTayan enkO?

 

Or, shall I address Him as the Four-Faced Lord /brahmA? Fourth line: /nAn/mukak

kaTavuL enkO?

 

So in the face of this dilemma, what can the /AzvAr say? He knows what matters!

 

All I know is that all created beings (/paTattavai) of all the worlds rejoice

in singing the praise of the Lord. Like beetles droning, all created beings

praise Him with Joy. Fifth line: /aLi/makiZ t/ulakam ellAm paTaittvai

Etta/ninRa; It is implied that the name does not matter. All worship is to the

Supreme Being, no matter what the name is. It is the spirit of joy and praise

that counts.

 

Oh, Our Lord, Who is truly pleased with the /tuLaci leaves, the Lord of /tuLaci,

is truly Mysterious. Penultimate line: /kaLi/malar tuLavan emmAn;

 

The /pAcuram speaks to the point. The sharpness of the meaning of the poem

reminds one of an incident in the life of the young Mohandas Karam Chand Gandhi.

 

Gandhi was already on his way to a relentless pursuit of God in action in life.

He had already began his experiments with God as Truth. This meant Gandhi was

harsh on himself and his immediate family and friends. That is, he demanded of

them a standard of personal and public conduct that was higher from normal

behavior by several orders of magnitude. His harshness and his love for his

friends had a mixed effect on his friends.

 

Once unable to take any more of Gandhi's unceasing and seemingly difficult

demands, a friend (it may be Mr. Kalenbach, I am not sure) wrote him a letter

and delivered it personally to Gandhi. He asked Gandhi to read the letter. The

person apparently wanted to test Gandhi and had called him all names. It was

written in a harsh debilitating language.

 

The letter was several pages long. The author had compiled all minute details of

Gandhi's harshness and what to the author appeared to be a kind of egoism. The

writer was expecting Gandhi to explode in anger.

 

In those days, there were no stapler or staples. A document of several pages

was usually held together by a pin with a head called /kuNt/Uci in /tamiZ. Since

this defiling letter was several pages long, the sheets were held in place by a

/kuNT/UCi (a pin).

 

Gandhi took the time and read the letter from the beginning to the end, while

the person was still waiting. When he had finished reading the letter, Gandhi

very carefully unhooked the /kuNT/Uci and saved it for later use. Then he folded

the letter into a quarter of the original size, and threw it away.

 

The writer was astonished at Gandhi's reaction. So he asked Gandhi, "So what do

you think?". To which Gandhi replied that he had already saved the most

important message of the letter for later use and smiled. Gandhi was very famous

for his captivating smile!

 

The writer was disarmed!

 

The same can be said of the /pAcuram. It just disarms any

argument on the name of the Supreme Being!

 

It is never too much to remind ourselves of this majestic /pAcuram.

 

/nalan/tarum collai nAn kaNTu/koNtEn; nArAyaNa ennum nAmam.

 

/anpuTan, visu

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

Dear Sri Visu,

What a quote it was! Waaw. It was probably the best pasuram to quote in this

context. What I tried to put across in my big mail had been simply explained

by azhwar in just 4 lines:) Thanks a lot for bringing out the appropriate

reference and explaining the bottom-line - that "He(azhwar) knows what

matters!" Yes. That is what it is, really. It doesn't matter what we call

him and what form we address, as long as we know what really matters:)

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

Lakshmi Narasimhan

 

 

 

 

 

>Visu9

>bhakti-list

>bhakti-list

>CC: visu9

>Re: worship of Srivaishnava purvArcharyas (was kamba rAmAyanam)

>Fri, 22 Nov 2002 23:25:34 -0500

>

> /Om namO nArAyaNAya |

>

> /namaskArams to all members.

>

>There are so may postings so sure of non-worship of Lord /SivA. I am not

>sure that in the light of statements made by no less an /AzvAr than

>/nammAZvAr, it is possible to make definite statements about the so-called

>other deities.

>

>Here is a /pAcuram from /nammAZvAr, which is beautiful in its humble

>approach to a complex subject. Please note that no conclusive statement is

>made other than the fact that the Lord is truly mysterious. Notice also the

>employmnet of a specific neutral word like /kaNNan to denote the Supreme

>Being. (/kaNNan is not /rAman, or vishNu in its meaning. It is neutral in

>the sense that it is specific to Lord /krushNA. It means darling or pupil

>of the eye.)

>

>/oLir/maNi vaNNan enkO;

>

> /oruvan enR/Etta ninRa;

>

> /naLir/mati caTayan enkO;

>

> /nAn/mukak kaTavuL enkO;

>

> /aLi/makiZ t/ulakam ellAm;

>

> /paTaittavai Etta ninRa;

>

> /kaLi/malar tuLavan emmAn;

>

> /kaNNanai mAyanEyE ||

>

>

Note from Moderator: SrI Viswanathan's statement "I am not

sure that in the light of statements made by no less an /AzvAr than

nammAZvAr, it is possible to make definite statements about the so-called

>other deities", and the current follow-up posting by SrI Lakshmi Narasimhan,

are obviously their personal opinions. tiruvAimozhi consists of 1102 pASuram-s,

and knowledgeable interpreters interpret the message of nammAzhvAr in the

context of the all the pASuram-s taken toegether. In the ten pASurams,

nammAzhvAr describes the different vibhUti-s of perumAL, just as Lord kRshNa

describes His different vibhUti-s in SrImad bhagad gItA chapter 10. The proper

interpetation for these is that each one of these forms that has something great

about it, owes its greatness purely to Him. It is an incorrect interrpetation to

infer that all the things (such as milk in pASuram 3.4.6 - pAl enko) that are

referred to in these pASuram-s are same as parmAtman. The issue of anya-devatA-s

has been discussed extensively in this list. Maybe the proper way to learn the

message of the AzhvAr-s is to approach an AcAryan.