Anya devatha - a reply

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

This is with reference to the mails that I received in

response to my posting on anya devatha.

I take particular reference to letters sent by Sri

Kannan (a section of it is given below )

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

Let us not mix up the three statements that are

succinctly distinct:

1.Vishnu grants moksham.\\

2.Vishnu alone can grant moksham.\\

3.Vishnu can grant moksham alone.\\

Of these, the third is wrong.\\

Your quotes from Svetasvataram, taittiriyam and

Ramanuja, are clearly making the first statement.Not

the third.\\ On any strech of imagination.\\ Your

"nothing more nothing less" theory is "your own”

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

And Sri Raghunandan who has said

“1. Are you concluding here that for anya phalam, we

have to go through anya devata? Do you think that the

purushothama can give us the best of the purusharthas

(i,e moksha) but will not be able to give us the alpa

phalans that we ask for directly and has to give us

the same through anya devatas? Request you to kindly

provide pramanas for the same from our poorvacharya

sri sookthis! 2. For all SriVaishnavites, is it not

advised that we follow the path followed by our

poorvacharyas? Has any one of our poorvacharyas in

thier shree sookthis shown inclination to the

explanation given by you here? 3. Our poorvacharyas

for whether want of any sort of phalam whether it was

an alpa phalam or the moksha itself did not advocate

going to anya devatha. If there are references against

this request you to quote the same. “

 

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

My consolidated reply is given here.

I have said in the post,

“In summary, if Brahman is meditated upon, one attains

Brahman along with the auspicious qualities of Brahman

and nothing less and nothing more, as 'there is

nothing higher than or different from Him' (sve III.9)

 

To apply this to the issues in question, (remembering

the assumptions we have taken up) meditation on

Narayana for the sake of attaining Him (moksha) gives

one nothing less and nothing more than Moksham. IT IS

Moksham alone. This is repeatedly found in the

Upanishads, BS and conclusively by Ramanuja in

Vedhartha Sangraha.

 

I request the readers to read again the passage

written by Ramanuja on “soshnute sarvan kaaman..”

(taitr) (BS) ( I have quoted the exact words of

Ramanuja in this passage in the post wherein Ramanuja

does not bring in Nirguna vs saguna issue as one

reader wondered. He also clearly makes out that

‘sarvaan kaamaan’ do not stand for all (or whatever)

wishes but and the auspicious qualities of Brahman as

meditated upon in dhahara vidya.) and the succeeding

passage (not quoted in the post to avoid repetition)

wherein he interprets the passage from Kena (11.3) as

saying whenever the Brahman is meditated upon, the

seeker knows Brahman and attains Brahman. “He who

knows Brahman attains the Highest” (Mundaka).

 

That Brahman is equated to Narayana is what I have

attempted in the post. Whenever and wherever Narayana

is meditated upon, the seeker inches towards

Brahman-hood. That is why it is said that Narayana is

one who alone is capable of giving moksham and who

gives moksham alone when He is meditated upon as

SUPREME BRAHMAN who is ‘one without a second’. That

is why he is said to give ‘nothing more or nothing

less’ than Moksham. He gives moksham. But in the

course of meditation on Him, if the seeker diverts his

attention to lesser wishes, the shift occurs from the

object of meditation on the Supreme which our

Purvacharyas didn’t want to happen. That is why they

laid rules of ‘awshya peshitam’ to the SV which

discourages him to think about wishes other than

moksha-siddhi. When such a shift occurs, the Supreme

being however grants them through the modes (forms of

worship or such other devathas) which have been

assigned to grant respective wishes. (It is here that

the differences between the interpretation I have

given and the views of others arise) But in the

process the seeker’s focus gets diverted or diluted.

That is why the acharyas strictly prohibit them from

vacillating from their focus. ( the reason for not

worshipping anya devathas) If in the process, the

seeker, instead of shedding anya-aasai indulges in

denouncing anya-devatha, that amounts to undermining

the very Supreme being, whom he reveres is another

issue that I have tried to convey in my post.

 

That it is He who accepts the worship to other

devathas and grants respective boons is spoken in

Gita. This has been established in my post too using

various quotes. Apart from the passages quoted in my

post one may even look into verses 186, 187 & 188 of

Vedhartha Sangraha (which are given as a nutshell of

what Ramanuja says in BS and the numerous passages of

yajur veda and upanishads) and particularly verse 173

which explains how the verses from vedas which praise

virtues of gods worshipped in other sacrificial

actions must be interpreted. In all it is being said

that different results are sought after through

different modes and forms of worship which are granted

by Brahman (or Narayana for our understanding) But

nowhere it is said, that the brahman (narayana) must

be meditated upon to get such results. It is only

that- meditate on Brahman to attain Brahman. This is a

delicate thread which requires one to have un-biased

understanding. My line of reasoning through out the

post is to establish this.

 

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

 

". You have asked me to come out with quotations in

support of the fact that Vishnu can grant all boons

(not only moksham). You have preferred to avoid (and

understandably so) all passages from"disciples of

Ramanuja" and also from Bhagavadgita (Why? it does not

matter). --By Sri Kannan

 

“Request you to kindly provide pramanas for the same

from our poorvacharya sri sookthis”--- (by Sri

Raghunandan)

 

The reply :-

 

Before I give the reply let me request the reader to

look in to verse 227 of Vedhartha sangraha and the

last passage of the same written by Ramanuja, which

runs thus,

“This work, vedhartha sangraha, has been composed in

the hope that there are persons who are gifted with

discriminative insight into what is essential and

non-essential, who are endowed with breadth of vision

and open-ness of mind and who are solely guided by the

pramanas.”

Let me in all humility say that my post was

conceived with the genuine ‘ava’ to seek the truth

based on pramanas and to understand the nature of

meditation on Brahman in the light of wishes of

sorts. The pramanas I have relied upon are vedas and

upanishads and Ramanuja’s works.

 

Another reason as I wrote to Sri Kannan in my previous

mail to him is repeated here:

A person wanting to declare Muruga as the supreme Lord

will look into Skanda purana, draw inputs from that to

establish that Muruga is the supreme Lord. Similarly

for the other Lords, the reference will have to come

from the respective Puranas. I will be doing the same

error of methodology (error because if one wants to

substantiate a particular god, one has to make

parallel references from other sources and not from

the one that invariably talks high of that Lord)if I

depend on Vishnu purana, Srimad Bhagabvatha, AruLi

cheyal or granthas given by our achrayas. That is why

I relied only on vedas and upanishads and Ramanuja

ofcourse because without his grace and knowledge we

can not think of interpreting ancient passages and

also because his are something like pramana.

 

Another reason I decided to stop with Ramanuja’s

writings is that I found that what he says with

reference to sharanagathi (in verse 251 of vedahrtha

sangraha where he explains the saying, ‘The atman is

attained by one, whom he chooses’) that is once again

reflected in the verses 230 (avanai evan pattrum

pattru ahankaara garbam) and 231 (avanudaiya

sweekaarame rakshkam) of Mumukshuppadi, do not tally

with the views of later day acharyas. This is not my

view alone but of the pandithas and acharyas of one of

the sects who owe allegiance to Ramanuja (I hope the

readers understand what I convey). When such

difference of opinion exits in a crucial concept such

as sharanagathi, it is imperative that we avoid all

the literature that appeared after Ramanuja for

purposes of unbiased understanding of this issue of

anya devatha and to avoid any accusation of

partiality.

 

It is my opinion that any discussion on the above

statement can happen only among those who are prepared

to follow Ramanuja’s concluding statement on

vedahratha sangraha (VS) on open ness of mind and in

the light of historical perspective at the time of

establishment of achraya parampara by Ramanuja in the

back drop of perceived necessity to re-establish

vaishnavism. To quote a simple example to convey what

I mean, it is enough to say that Ramanuja’s all

embracing approach cutting across caste lines was a

historical necessity and if he were with us today, or

born 2000 years ago, his methodology (of hows and

whats), though not the core teaching would have been

different.

 

 

Now to the real issues…

It is very clear from the pramanas that people of

those days worshiped/ conducted yajnas or homas to

particular devathas to reap specific benefits. All the

works including Gita have sought to establish that

though different deities were worshipped for different

phalam, it is Narayana alone who grants the phalam.

This kind of statement alone is found in texts prior

to Ramanuja The reason is obviously to establish to

supremacy of Narayana in a poly theist society and to

avert confusion regarding the respective positions

that the devathas enjoyed vis-a vis Sriman Narayana.

 

But everywhere it is being held that meditation or

yajna (someone questioned this. But I request readers

to refer to verse 191 of VS and other verses too to

know that yajna and meditation were indeed the mode of

worship in those days) is to be done to different

devatas for different purposes. The Brahman in his

capacity as in-dweller of these devatas grant these

wishes. Verse 190 of VS says, “… the sacrifices get

connected to the deities in him (Paramatman). In other

words, the deities like Indra etc, are brought into

relationship with sacrifices, by the fact that they

are the bodies of the Supreme Self who dwells in them

as the inner ruler.’

 

My post goes to say that Narayana as Brahman resides

in all deities which are prescribed as means to grant

specific wishes. It is He who grants them all through

those means. He Himself becomes the means for

moksha-siddhi whereas He grants other wishes through

the respective means which are assigned for such

purposes.

 

To quote pramanas, whenever propitiation had to be

done to ward off dosham of killing, Shiva was

worshipped. Rama worshipped Shiva to get relieved of

dosha of killing Ravana. Parasurama though he did the

penance in the presence of Narayana to propitiate for

the killing of kshatriyas, was relieved of the dosham

not by Narayana but by Shiva who appeared as

Nanjundeshwara in swayambhu form in Nanjangud (near

Mysore). After this only did he offer the lands he

got, to sage Kashyapa. SVB (Srivachan Bhooshanam)

accepts this kind of meditation on others for specific

purposes when it says that ‘yoghyathai’ is the

adhikari for doing prapatti and quotes the incident of

Rama doing shranagathi to Samudra rajan. It must be

once again understood that Brahman as the supreme

accepts and grants the phalam in these incidents.

 

Coming back to Nanjangud, this sthala offers reply for

Sri Raghunandan’s quote about a devotee who was

believed to have stated that she would worship Rudra

if Ramanuja too had worshipped. ( Interestingly,

Ramanuja tells umpteen times in his commentary on

Vedanta sutras that wherever the term Rudra appears

(as in Sve upa) and is meditated upon as brahman, it

means Brahman – you can find this in my post).

Ramanuja had visited this temple from Melkote and has

given guidelines for worship of Narayana which

happens to be the first moorthy in this temple. There

is evidence to this. The interesting point is that

Nanjundeshwara exists just adjacent to Narayana. Did

Ramanuja circumbulate both the deities, taking the

linga as Brahman and also as one who relieved

Parashurama of his dosham? One would like to know. But

by what he has said in VS one can guess what he would

have done!!

 

This brings us to the relevance of pariharas dedicated

to different devathas found in Jyothisha, which is one

among the 5 vedhangas. As one with more than 2 decades

of experience in palm-reading and astrology, I have

understood the importance of propitiation to different

moorthys. In this connection I have studied a number

of palm leaf inscriptions of naadi astrology

(Kaushika’s ) too and am constrained to say that

Vishnu sthals are not to be seen generally as a rule,

for propitiation or for conduction of pujas for

specific doshams or for realisation of specific phalam

which are materialistic in nature. Even in the case of

pariharas prescribed in ancient texts which are

derived from vedas, it is always being held that the

person must make a sankalpa to his family deity (kula

deivam) in form of getting permission to do the

pariharas for other devathas, then proceed to do the

pariharas, in the course of which he is not to visit

any temple other than the ones where he has to do the

pariharas and upon completion visit the temple

dedicated to his kula deivam and conduct puja there as

thanks giving before proceeding for home. This is to

be followed with anna dhanam or some dhanam as is

prescribed according to his horoscope. The purport of

this is that the kula deivam, as one responsible for

the person’s well being presides over the entire

process though He is not directly bringing out the

required result.

 

The question of anya devatha aradhna rises here (in a

context like this) for the SV, I think. When he

renounces “bhoomi, uravu and selvam” (SVB vyakhyanam)

there is no question of going to a temple of anya

devatha. But when he thinks of wishes other than

moksham, he is counseled that Narayana would fulfil

all his wishes. I am sure that the readers would agree

with me that this concept is of recent development.

But no purvacharya had said this. Instead they have

said ‘shed all materialistic thoughts’. Chakravarthi

thirumagan is ready to accept us with all paapam and

Gitacharyan expects us to leave out even our punyam

(Mumukshuppadi), but at no time did they expect us to

go to him with requests other than moksham (Gita).

 

But we as ordinary mortals are a long way to go accept

this proposition. I came across one SV who had strong

opinion about anya devatha. But as he was advised to

do parihara in other temples for the delay in

marriage of his two daughters, he obliged with great

reluctance. He told, “Enna pandrathu, I had to go to

this or that temple…” the ‘enna pandrathu alone is

sufficient for not getting the phalam for the

pariharas. It is faith and thought force that are

important in any worship. It was Narayanan who

according to texts, was the giver of the phalam to

him. The ‘enna pandrathu’ in one stroke distanced him

from the phalam and Sriman Narayana Himself who must

have been having a laugh (tinged with varuththam?) at

the ignorance of this person.

 

Before closing this mail, let me quote an incident

from my own life.

I was 19 then when I contacted chicken pox. A well

wisher of our family on his own volition brought

‘mandiriththa jalam’ from a near-by Mariamman koil, to

be given to me. None of us expected this. But my

father took it with all reverence and poured into my

mouth with his usual chant, “ Aushadham

jhaannaveedhyoyam Vaidhyo Narayano Hari:”. As this

well wisher said that he had made a plea in the amman

sannidhi that we do ‘pongal iduthal’ and abhishekam,

we entered a temple for an anya devatha for the first

time in our life but found ourselves chanting,

‘Devyuvaacha. Deva deva maha deva trikalagya…’

(Lakshmi Ashtothram)…… and thus it goes:-)

 

Regards,

Jayasree saranathan.

 

Quote of the mail :-

............

..........shoozhum

thirandaruvi paayum thirumalai mEl enthaikku,

iranduruvum ondrAi eshaindhu"

(PEyAzhvAr)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vote for the stars of 's next ad campaign!

http://advision.webevents.//votelifeengine/

[Guest guest]

Dear colleague!

You are writing:

"But when he thinks of wishes other than

moksham, he is counseled that Narayana would fulfil

all his wishes. I am sure that the readers would agree

with me that this concept is of recent development.

But no purvacharya had said this."

What a devastation of truth!

The puranas say:

sharirArogyam aishvaryam bhogaan chaiva Anushangjkaan|

dadaati dhyaayinaam pumsaam apavargaprado hari:||

It is the salvation-giver, Hari, who grants health, wealth and other

incidentals to those who meditate on him.

This is meant to emphasise:

There is no need for a SV to resort to anyadevas, even for

'other'benefits.

And our Purvacharyas have quoted this.

Yours Sincerely,

V.Kannan.

Perhaps you may do well by releasing my full mail to you.

 

of the mail :-

> ...........

> .........shoozhum

> thirandaruvi paayum thirumalai mEl enthaikku,

> iranduruvum ondrAi eshaindhu"

> (PEyAzhvAr)

>

> Vote for the stars of 's next ad campaign!

> http://advision.webevents.//votelifeengine/

>

 

 

 

--------

This email was sent using UOH MAIL SERVER.

" Confidential Information!"

http://www.uohyd.ernet.in/