Guest guest Posted August 25, 2005 Report Share Posted August 25, 2005 Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Srimath Varavara Munaye Namaha In one of the e-mail chains related to the origin of Hebbar Iyengars, one of our members Sri.Krishna has mentioned that Swamy Ramanuja was the founder of SriVaishnavism. Sri.Krishna has also mentioned that Swamy Ramanuja made advaita into vishitadvaita. > Before Ramanuja there was only Vishnavism, and the > philosophy existed was only Advita. Sri Ramanuja > made advita into Vishista-advita also called as > qualified advita or qualified monoism.He made > Vishnavism into Srivishnavisam by giving a place to > SRI also known as Godess Lakshmi. Acharya Ramanuja > is the founder of Srivishnavism Sect. I beg to defer with Sri.Krishna. Smt.Sumitra Varadarajan replied to this aspect and adiyen fully agree with her. Vishitadvaitam is undoubtedly a parama vaidhika matham and an eternal matham. The simple logic to understand this is follows: It is established beyond doubt that Vishitadvaitam is the only religion that correctly and logically explains the Vedas and Upanishads. Since, Vedas are eternal Vishitadvaitam is also eternal. Even before Swami Ramanuja, great Vishitadvaita acharyas like Yamunaachar, Naathamunikal and all the great Azhwars existed and propagated the doctrine of Vishitadvaitam. Infact, Swami Ramanuja's Gita Bhashyam is based on Swami Yamunacharyaar's Gitaarta Sanghraha. Also, prior to emperumanaar's period all three doctrines (Advaitam, Dvaita, Vishitadvatam) co-existed. Emberumaanaar made the world realize in a logical and scientific manner the supremacy of Vishitadvaitam. Swami Emberumanaar's greatness is in his nirhetuka krupai to ensure that every jeevatma reaches Him and does kainkaryam to the divya dhampathigal. Kindly accept adiyen's appologies for any mistakes and errors. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Sampath Kumar... --- Sumithra Varadarajan <sumivaradan wrote: > Dear Sri Krishna, > > VishistAdvaita sampradayam is a parama vaidhika > matham. Sri Ramanuja only propagated the already > existing philosophy. EmperumAnAr was not a founder > of Srivaishnavism as you have mentioned. Swamy > before writing Sribhasyam took the reference from > Bodhayana vriththi grandham that was preserved in > the sarada peedam. This bhodhayana vriththi was > full and full based on VishistAdvaita principles. > That shows that even before Sri Ramanuja > VishistAdvaita philosophy was very well there. > Swamy only propagated it to the world. > > Adiyen ramanuja dAsee > Sumithra Varadarajan > - > honganour krishna > Oppiliappan ; > Srivaishnavam_update ; Thengalaiiyengar ; VEDIC_TALK > ; Velukkudi Krishnan ; RAMANUJA GROUPS ; ramanuja > mission ; JEEYAR > Cc: HONGANUR S SESHADRI ; MYSORE K SRINIVASAN ; > SRILATHA SRINIVASAN ; ; HONGANOOR S > VENKATESH ; SRINIDHI VENKATESH ; shylaja > krishnamurthy ; MR. & MRS. BALAJI ; MR. & MRS. Dr. > RAMAPRASAD ; honganour parthasarathy ; SADAGOPAN > Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:23 AM > Re: Fw: RE: > Origin of Hebbar iyengars > > > Swamin: > Before Ramanuja there was only Vishnavism, and the > philosophy existed was only Advita. Sri Ramanuja > made advita into Vishista-advita also called as > qualified advita or qualified monoism.He made > Vishnavism into Srivishnavisam by giving a place to > SRI also known as Godess Lakshmi. Acharya Ramanuja > is the founder of Srivishnavism Sect. If you study > the Life of Sri Ramanuja, you will find that his > Guru taught Ramanuja and his class-mates advita > philosophy.Later came Madhwa Charya and his > philosophy was Dwaitha also called as Dualism. > Before Ramanuja the Red Line signifying Lakshmi or > Sri in the center of the Namam did not exist, it was > Sri Ramanuja who inserted the Red. It is very clear > that Vishsta-advita philosophy did not exist before > Sri Ramanuja. I welcome more arguments in this > subject from learned Scholars. > Adijen Krishna Sri Ramanuja Dasan > sgopan <sgopan wrote: > Sri: > > Dear BhakthAs : > > It is my pleasure to share with you Sriman AMR > Kannan Swamy's > posting in the Sri Ranga Sri list . > > V.Sadagopan > > > > Dear Sri Sampige Srinivasa Swamin, > > > > Thank you sharing us about the origin of the > word Hebbar. That was very > > informative. > > > > You have also mentioned that Sri > Ramanujacharya was not a SriVaishnava > > when he was born and was born to an advaitin. > Could you please refer > > some authentic manuscripts regarding this > claim? I don't think Sri > > Ramanuja was born to an Advaitin. > > > > We first need to understand the social > structure of Sri Ramanuja's days. > > In those days everyone who followed the Vedic > (vaidika) religion wore > > only an urdhava pundram and worshipped Sriman > Narayana as the supreme > > reality. Some of these vedic (vaidika) people > might have followed > > advaita philosophy as well. But the difference > between now and then was > > whether you are a advathi or a vishistadvaithi > you always wore a urdhva > > pundram and worshipped Sriman Narayana as the > supreme reality unlike the > > present scenario. Therefore whatever the > difference between the (present > > day) smarthas and (present day) vaishnavas did > not exists in those days. > > In fact everyone followed smartha dharmam (the > rituals prescribed in > > smrithis) but lived a vaishnavite life. > Therefore even if we say that > > Sri Ramanuja was born in a smartha family, we > need to clearly understand > > that the present smartha-vaishnava grouping > did not exist in those days. > > For example those smarthas did not wear > thri-pundram. They might have > > used thiruman, srichurnam or sandal or gopi or > something else to wear an > > urdhva pundram. Another example is those > smarthas did not accept other > > deities as supreme reality. > > > > Adiyen still remember the words of Sri > Velukkudi Varadhacharyar Swami > > during one of his upanyasams in > Tiruvallikkeni. Swami said, "Vaidikas > > (those who follow vedic religion) may dispute > among themselves whether > > Advaita is the vedic philosophy, or > Vishistadvaita is the vedic > > philosophy or Dvaita is the vedic philosophy. > But these vaidikas will > > never dispute whether Sriman Narayana is the > supreme reality or some > > other deity is the ultimate truth. Because > Sriman Narayana's supremacy > > is what vedic philosophy and that is what all > vaidikas including > > Advaitis, Vishishtadvaitis and Dvaitis > believe." But of course the > > present day situation is different. We should > not gauge those days with > > present day's standards. > > > > Now the question comes, how do we know for > sure? We need to read the > > great works done by those acharyas. For > example, Sri Adhi > > Shankaracharya's Brahma Sutra Bhashayam (in > particular 2nd chapter > > (Avirodhathyayam, Dharga Padham) will be a > good place to start about Sri > > Shankaracharya's position on various religions > practiced in his days. > > Similarly, Sri Shankaracharya's Sri Gita > Bhashayam and Sri Vishnu > > Sahasranama Bhashayam would be equally good to > read in order to > > understand his philosophy. > > > > But if we want to know the essence of these > writings, there are two > > excellent books written by Puththur Sri > Sudharshanam Sri > > Krishnamachariyar Swami entitled: 1. Sanga > Kala Tamizhar Samayam 2. > > Shankararum Vainavamum. These two books were > written with authenticity. > > These books are in Tamil. So, someone needs to > translate them for > > everyone to read. They are truly eye-openers > for many misconceived > > thoughts. > > > > Adiyen Ramanujadasan Kannan > > > > > >>===== Original Message From "Sampige > Srinivasa" <sampiges > > ===== > >>Dear Sri. Balaji, > >> > >>Yes Hebbar Iyengars were not originally > Srivaishnavas as you said and > > also > >>it is true that even Sri. Ramanujacharya was > not a Srivaishnava when he > > was > >>born. He was born to an advaitin! So when > Ramanuja preached > > Vishistadvaita, > >>Srivaishnavism became popular in Tamilnadu and > as you said, when > >>Sri.Ramanjua fled from TN and settled in > Karnataka for 12 long years it > >>spread to Southern Parts of Karnataka. > >> > >>The details of Hebbar Srivaishnava origin was > published long back in > > the > >>Hebbar Srivaishnava magazine called "Hebbar > Kshema" and I remember > > reading > >>this. Also a historical novel written by Smt. > Neeladevi about the life > > of > >>Ramanjuja in Karnataka named "Dhanya" gives > similar answers to the > > orgin of > >>Hebbar Srivaishnavas > >> > >>During the time when ramanjuja was in > Tondanur(Tonnur) === message truncated === __ Start your day with - make it your home page http://www./r/hs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 Followers of Vishnu are called as Vishnavas. And a vishnava could be a brahmin, Kshtarya, or Vysya. To my knowledge nowhere in Ramayana, Mahabharatha, or in Vishnu Purana a single mention of Srivishnava is mentioned. These being the great epics and running in volumes has no mention of Srivishnava brahmin but one will come across mention of mearly vishnava brahmin. Lord Rama and Lord Krishna who were Vishnavas never had Srivishnava Namam on their fore-head. If Srivishnavism existed in the days of Rama then atleast single mention of it would have been made in the Ramayana. We all know Rama had come across so many different catagories of people existing at that time in his journey from north to extreme south. It is very clear that Srivishnavism was not there during Rama and Krishna Days. Srivishnavism must have been started some time later. In Hindu culture most of the great people are very modest that they do not claim there authorship or finding and Srivishnavism is one of them. Adiyen Krishna Ramanuja dasan Sampath Kumar Padmanaban <janasampath > wrote: Srimathe Ramanujaya NamahaSrimath Varavara Munaye NamahaIn one of the e-mail chains related to the origin ofHebbar Iyengars, one of our members Sri.Krishna hasmentioned that Swamy Ramanuja was the founder ofSriVaishnavism. Sri.Krishna has also mentioned thatSwamy Ramanuja made advaita into vishitadvaita. > Before Ramanuja there was only Vishnavism, and the> philosophy existed was only Advita. Sri Ramanuja> made advita into Vishista-advita also called as> qualified advita or qualified monoism.He made> Vishnavism into Srivishnavisam by giving a place to> SRI also known as Godess Lakshmi. Acharya Ramanuja> is the founder of Srivishnavism Sect.I beg to defer with Sri.Krishna.Smt.Sumitra Varadarajan replied to this aspect andadiyen fully agree with her. Vishitadvaitam isundoubtedly a parama vaidhika matham and an eternalmatham. The simple logic to understand this isfollows:It is established beyond doubt that Vishitadvaitam isthe only religion that correctly and logicallyexplains the Vedas and Upanishads. Since, Vedas areeternal Vishitadvaitam is also eternal. Even beforeSwami Ramanuja, great Vishitadvaita acharyas likeYamunaachar, Naathamunikal and all the great Azhwarsexisted and propagated the doctrine of Vishitadvaitam.Infact, Swami Ramanuja's Gita Bhashyam is based onSwami Yamunacharyaar's Gitaarta Sanghraha.Also, prior to emperumanaar's period all threedoctrines (Advaitam, Dvaita, Vishitadvatam)co-existed. Emberumaanaar made the world realize in alogical and scientific manner the supremacy ofVishitadvaitam.Swami Emberumanaar's greatness is in his nirhetukakrupai to ensure that every jeevatma reaches Him anddoes kainkaryam to the divya dhampathigal.Kindly accept adiyen's appologies for any mistakes anderrors.AdiyenRamanuja DasanSampath Kumar...--- Sumithra Varadarajan <sumivaradan >wrote:> Dear Sri Krishna,> > VishistAdvaita sampradayam is a parama vaidhika> matham. Sri Ramanuja only propagated the already> existing philosophy. EmperumAnAr was not a founder> of Srivaishnavism as you have mentioned. Swamy> before writing Sribhasyam took the reference from> Bodhayana vriththi grandham that was preserved in> the sarada peedam. This bhodhayana vriththi was> full and full based on VishistAdvaita principles. > That shows that even before Sri Ramanuja> VishistAdvaita philosophy was very well there. > Swamy only propagated it to the world.> > Adiyen ramanuja dAsee> Sumithra Varadarajan> ----- Original Message ----- > honganour krishna > Oppiliappan ;> Srivaishnavam_update ; Thengalaiiyengar ; VEDIC_TALK> ; Velukkudi Krishnan ; RAMANUJA GROUPS ; ramanuja> mission ; JEEYAR > Cc: HONGANUR S SESHADRI ; MYSORE K SRINIVASAN ;> SRILATHA SRINIVASAN ; ; HONGANOOR S> VENKATESH ; SRINIDHI VENKATESH ; shylaja> krishnamurthy ; MR. & MRS. BALAJI ; MR. & MRS. Dr.> RAMAPRASAD ; honganour parthasarathy ; SADAGOPAN > Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:23 AM> Re: Fw: RE:> Origin of Hebbar iyengars> > > Swamin:> Before Ramanuja there was only Vishnavism, and the> philosophy existed was only Advita. Sri Ramanuja> made advita into Vishista-advita also called as> qualified advita or qualified monoism.He made> Vishnavism into Srivishnavisam by giving a place to> SRI also known as Godess Lakshmi. Acharya Ramanuja> is the founder of Srivishnavism Sect. If you study> the Life of Sri Ramanuja, you will find that his> Guru taught Ramanuja and his class-mates advita> philosophy.Later came Madhwa Charya and his> philosophy was Dwaitha also called as Dualism.> Before Ramanuja the Red Line signifying Lakshmi or> Sri in the center of the Namam did not exist, it was> Sri Ramanuja who inserted the Red. It is very clear> that Vishsta-advita philosophy did not exist before> Sri Ramanuja. I welcome more arguments in this> subject from learned Scholars.> Adijen Krishna Sri Ramanuja Dasan> sgopan <sgopan (AT) computer (DOT) net> wrote:> Sri:> > Dear BhakthAs :> > It is my pleasure to share with you Sriman AMR> Kannan Swamy's> posting in the Sri Ranga Sri list .> > V.Sadagopan> > > > Dear Sri Sampige Srinivasa Swamin,> >> > Thank you sharing us about the origin of the> word Hebbar. That was very> > informative.> >> > You have also mentioned that Sri> Ramanujacharya was not a SriVaishnava> > when he was born and was born to an advaitin.> Could you please refer> > some authentic manuscripts regarding this> claim? I don't think Sri> > Ramanuja was born to an Advaitin.> >> > We first need to understand the social> structure of Sri Ramanuja's days.> > In those days everyone who followed the Vedic> (vaidika) religion wore> > only an urdhava pundram and worshipped Sriman> Narayana as the supreme> > reality. Some of these vedic (vaidika) people> might have followed> > advaita philosophy as well. But the difference> between now and then was> > whether you are a advathi or a vishistadvaithi> you always wore a urdhva> > pundram and worshipped Sriman Narayana as the> supreme reality unlike the> > present scenario. Therefore whatever the> difference between the (present> > day) smarthas and (present day) vaishnavas did> not exists in those days.> > In fact everyone followed smartha dharmam (the> rituals prescribed in> > smrithis) but lived a vaishnavite life.> Therefore even if we say that> > Sri Ramanuja was born in a smartha family, we> need to clearly understand> > that the present smartha-vaishnava grouping> did not exist in those days.> > For example those smarthas did not wear> thri-pundram. They might have> > used thiruman, srichurnam or sandal or gopi or> something else to wear an> > urdhva pundram. Another example is those> smarthas did not accept other> > deities as supreme reality.> >> > Adiyen still remember the words of Sri> Velukkudi Varadhacharyar Swami> > during one of his upanyasams in> Tiruvallikkeni. Swami said, "Vaidikas> > (those who follow vedic religion) may dispute> among themselves whether> > Advaita is the vedic philosophy, or> Vishistadvaita is the vedic> > philosophy or Dvaita is the vedic philosophy.> But these vaidikas will> > never dispute whether Sriman Narayana is the> supreme reality or some> > other deity is the ultimate truth. Because> Sriman Narayana's supremacy> > is what vedic philosophy and that is what all> vaidikas including> > Advaitis, Vishishtadvaitis and Dvaitis> believe." But of course the> > present day situation is different. We should> not gauge those days with> > present day's standards.> >> > Now the question comes, how do we know for> sure? We need to read the> > great works done by those acharyas. For> example, Sri Adhi> > Shankaracharya's Brahma Sutra Bhashayam (in> particular 2nd chapter> > (Avirodhathyayam, Dharga Padham) will be a> good place to start about Sri> > Shankaracharya's position on various religions> practiced in his days.> > Similarly, Sri Shankaracharya's Sri Gita> Bhashayam and Sri Vishnu> > Sahasranama Bhashayam would be equally good to> read in order to> > understand his philosophy.> >> > But if we want to know the essence of these> writings, there are two> > excellent books written by Puththur Sri> Sudharshanam Sri> > Krishnamachariyar Swami entitled: 1. Sanga> Kala Tamizhar Samayam 2.> > Shankararum Vainavamum. These two books were> written with authenticity.> > These books are in Tamil. So, someone needs to> translate them for> > everyone to read. They are truly eye-openers> for many misconceived> > thoughts.> >> > Adiyen Ramanujadasan Kannan> >> >> >>===== Original Message From "Sampige> Srinivasa" <sampiges (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>> > =====> >>Dear Sri. Balaji,> >>> >>Yes Hebbar Iyengars were not originally> Srivaishnavas as you said and> > also> >>it is true that even Sri. Ramanujacharya was> not a Srivaishnava when he> > was> >>born. He was born to an advaitin! So when> Ramanuja preached> > Vishistadvaita,> >>Srivaishnavism became popular in Tamilnadu and> as you said, when> >>Sri.Ramanjua fled from TN and settled in> Karnataka for 12 long years it> >>spread to Southern Parts of Karnataka.> >>> >>The details of Hebbar Srivaishnava origin was> published long back in> > the> >>Hebbar Srivaishnava magazine called "Hebbar> Kshema" and I remember> > reading> >>this. Also a historical novel written by Smt.> Neeladevi about the life> > of> >>Ramanjuja in Karnataka named "Dhanya" gives> similar answers to the> > orgin of> >>Hebbar Srivaishnavas> >>> >>During the time when ramanjuja was in> Tondanur(Tonnur) === message truncated === __Start your day with - make it your home page http://www./r/hs Honganour Srinivasarangachar Krishna E-Mail: hokrishna Start your day with - make it your home page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2005 Report Share Posted August 28, 2005 Dear Sri Krishna : It is not clear whether you are asking a question or making a declarative statement . It sounds more like the latter . Nithya granthams , Urdhva PuNDra dhAraNam as a part of Pancha SamskArams for the AarAdhanam of BhagavAn ( Lord Raamachandra and His ancestors worshipping Lord RanganAtha at AyOddhi ) . I fail to see how one can perform AarAdhanam at one's home or at Temples by adhikAris without Urdhva PuNDrams on their forehead whehter they ar BrahmaNAs, KshathriyAs et al . Saathina Mudali ( those having the sacred thread or SaatthAtha Mudali ( without the sacred thread ) can perform Bhagavadh AarAdhanam prescribed by AchAryAs . All of them are VaishnavAs . The thought that it is not specifically mentioned in Srimadh RaamAyaNam does not suggest that they did not wear Urdhva PuNDram befititgn their lakshaNam as VaishNavAs . I do not understand the thrust of your statements . V.Sadagopan Moderator - honganour krishna Oppiliappan ; JEEYAR Cc: ; Srivaishnavam_update ; Thengalaiiyengar ; ramanuja mission Sunday, August 28, 2005 2:41 AM Re: Origin of Vishitadvaitham Dear Bhakthas, Followers of Vishnu are called as Vishnavas. And a vishnava could be a brahmin, Kshtarya, or Vysya. To my knowledge nowhere in Ramayana, Mahabharatha, or in Vishnu Purana a single mention of Srivishnava is mentioned. These being the great epics and running in volumes has no mention of Srivishnava brahmin but one will come across mention of mearly vishnava brahmin. Lord Rama and Lord Krishna who were Vishnavas never had Srivishnava Namam on their fore-head. If Srivishnavism existed in the days of Rama then atleast single mention of it would have been made in the Ramayana. We all know Rama had come across so many different catagories of people existing at that time in his journey from north to extreme south. It is very clear that Srivishnavism was not there during Rama and Krishna Days. Srivishnavism must have been started some time later. In Hindu culture most of the great people are very modest that they do not claim there authorship or finding and Srivishnavism is one of them. Adiyen Krishna Ramanuja dasan Sampath Kumar Padmanaban <janasampath > wrote: Srimathe Ramanujaya NamahaSrimath Varavara Munaye NamahaIn one of the e-mail chains related to the origin ofHebbar Iyengars, one of our members Sri.Krishna hasmentioned that Swamy Ramanuja was the founder ofSriVaishnavism. Sri.Krishna has also mentioned thatSwamy Ramanuja made advaita into vishitadvaita. > Before Ramanuja there was only Vishnavism, and the> philosophy existed was only Advita. Sri Ramanuja> made advita into Vishista-advita also called as> qualified advita or qualified monoism.He made> Vishnavism into Srivishnavisam by giving a place to> SRI also known as Godess Lakshmi. Acharya Ramanuja> is the founder of Srivishnavism Sect.I beg to defer with Sri.Krishna.Smt.Sumitra Varadarajan replied to this aspect andadiyen fully agree with her. Vishitadvaitam isundoubtedly a parama vaidhika matham and an eternalmatham. The simple logic to understand this isfollows:It is established beyond doubt that Vishitadvaitam isthe only religion that correctly and logicallyexplains the Vedas and Upanishads. Since, Vedas areeternal Vishitadvaitam is also eternal. Even beforeSwami Ramanuja, great Vishitadvaita acharyas likeYamunaachar, Naathamunikal and all the great Azhwarsexisted and propagated the doctrine of Vishitadvaitam.Infact, Swami Ramanuja's Gita Bhashyam is based onSwami Yamunacharyaar's Gitaarta Sanghraha.Also, prior to emperumanaar's period all threedoctrines (Advaitam, Dvaita, Vishitadvatam)co-existed. Emberumaanaar made the world realize in alogical and scientific manner the supremacy ofVishitadvaitam.Swami Emberumanaar's greatness is in his nirhetukakrupai to ensure that every jeevatma reaches Him anddoes kainkaryam to the divya dhampathigal.Kindly accept adiyen's appologies for any mistakes anderrors.AdiyenRamanuja DasanSampath Kumar...--- Sumithra Varadarajan <sumivaradan >wrote:> Dear Sri Krishna,> > VishistAdvaita sampradayam is a parama vaidhika> matham. Sri Ramanuja only propagated the already> existing philosophy. EmperumAnAr was not a founder> of Srivaishnavism as you have mentioned. Swamy> before writing Sribhasyam took the reference from> Bodhayana vriththi grandham that was preserved in> the sarada peedam. This bhodhayana vriththi was> full and full based on VishistAdvaita principles. > That shows that even before Sri Ramanuja> VishistAdvaita philosophy was very well there. > Swamy only propagated it to the world.> > Adiyen ramanuja dAsee> Sumithra Varadarajan> - > honganour krishna > Oppiliappan ;> Srivaishnavam_update ; Thengalaiiyengar ; VEDIC_TALK> ; Velukkudi Krishnan ; RAMANUJA GROUPS ; ramanuja> mission ; JEEYAR > Cc: HONGANUR S SESHADRI ; MYSORE K SRINIVASAN ;> SRILATHA SRINIVASAN ; ; HONGANOOR S> VENKATESH ; SRINIDHI VENKATESH ; shylaja> krishnamurthy ; MR. & MRS. BALAJI ; MR. & MRS. Dr.> RAMAPRASAD ; honganour parthasarathy ; SADAGOPAN > Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:23 AM> Subject: Re: Fw: RE:> Origin of Hebbar iyengars> > > Swamin:> Before Ramanuja there was only Vishnavism, and the> philosophy existed was only Advita. Sri Ramanuja> made advita into Vishista-advita also called as> qualified advita or qualified monoism.He made> Vishnavism into Srivishnavisam by giving a place to> SRI also known as Godess Lakshmi. Acharya Ramanuja> is the founder of Srivishnavism Sect. If you study> the Life of Sri Ramanuja, you will find that his> Guru taught Ramanuja and his class-mates advita> philosophy.Later came Madhwa Charya and his> philosophy was Dwaitha also called as Dualism.> Before Ramanuja the Red Line signifying Lakshmi or> Sri in the center of the Namam did not exist, it was> Sri Ramanuja who inserted the Red. It is very clear> that Vishsta-advita philosophy did not exist before> Sri Ramanuja. I welcome more arguments in this> subject from learned Scholars.> Adijen Krishna Sri Ramanuja Dasan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2005 Report Share Posted August 29, 2005 SrI: Some instances to show that vaishanvism existed before Ramanuja's period. (1) In the very early times, that is, soon after creation, it has been told in scriptures, that Vishnu, after doing Jatha karma and naama karma to His first ever uthpaththi(child) Brahma, proceeded to mark the Shanku-chakra in his shoulders and then applied oordhwa pundaram that culminated in pancha samskaram. Brahma is perhaps the FIRST Srivaishnavan of the universe.This episode also clarifies that Srivaishnavism does not come as a birth right and as old as creation itself. (2) When Thirumangai Alwar wanted to marry Kumuda valli, she said that she could not marry unless the person had undergone pancha samskaram and the Alwar rushed to Thirunaraiyoor (naachiyar koil) and had the samashrayan done by God Himself. This is prior to Ramanuja's period. (3) You will find in Thirunagai (nagapattinam ) sannidhi, the 18 vaarthaigal advised by Thirukkottiyoor nambigal to Ramanuja written on the wall. Vaishnavattwam is said to come at the 10th level only. Prior to coming to attain it, the following must be removed. 1. removal of desire in samsaram 2. this leads to removal of ahankaara, mamakaaram 3. this leads to removal of deha abhimaanam 4. this leads to birth of athma gyanam 5. this leads to hatred towards aeishwarya moham 6. this leads to onset of prema on bhagwan. 7. this leads to shedding of interest in vishayantharangal 8. this leads to bhara thanthruva gyanam 9. this leads to removal of artha-kaama ragadwesham (ref: BG 4-10- Madhbhavam) 10. this leads to onset of srivaishanttwam! (4) It happened in Kulashekara alwar's life. When the ministers of the alwar blamed srivaishnavites,for the disappearance of the navarathna maalai in the thiruaaparana petti, the alwar refused to believe. He was steadfast in his belief that srivaishnavites are pure on tri-kaaran - they are pure in mind, vaak and body. He even put his hand in a pot that had a serpent inside and pledged that he would not be bitten by the serpent, because no srivaishnavite can do such a crime. And he was unhurt. This shows how deep-rooted the ethos which a srivaishnavite is identified with. Unless a strong code culture for vaishnavites had existed for long, the alwar could not have gone to such extremes. (5) A quote on the dialogue between Yama dharma raja and Sri Krishna. I think this comes in Mahabharataha. Yamadjharman instructed his messengers to prostrate before the srivaishnavites. A srivaishnavite can be identified in the following way. " Ye baahu moola parichinha shanka-chakra: Yeva lalaada palakelasa oordhwa pundra: Ye kanda lagna thulasi nalinaaksha mala: Teh vaishnava: bhuvana maashubha vidhrayanthi" The srivaishnavite can be identified by the shanku-chkra chinnam, oordhwa pundaram and the thulasi maala. (6) Sri Krishna was said to have instructed his dwaara- paalagas, before leaving the fort of Dwaaraka, to allow sv-s inside, who can be identified by the shanku-chakra dhaaranam and the oordhwa pundaram. " chakraangitha: praveshtavyaa: Yaavadaagamanam mama, Naamudhritha: praveshtavyaa: Yaavadaagamanam mama" Inference:- Srivaishnavism with the significatory marks and practices had existed for very long. But it was Ramanuja who had arranged or codified them into a body of dos and donts for easy following and hence came to be identified as founder of srivaishnavism. Jayasree saranathan. Oppiliappan, honganour krishna <hokrishna> wrote: > Dear Bhakthas, > Followers of Vishnu are called as Vishnavas. And a vishnava could be a brahmin, Kshtarya, or Vysya. To my knowledge nowhere in Ramayana, Mahabharatha, or in Vishnu Purana a single mention of Srivishnava is mentioned. These being the great epics and running in volumes has no mention of Srivishnava brahmin but one will come across mention of mearly vishnava brahmin. Lord Rama and Lord Krishna who were Vishnavas never had Srivishnava Namam on their fore-head. If Srivishnavism existed in the days of Rama then atleast single mention of it would have been made in the Ramayana. We all know Rama had come across so many different catagories of people existing at that time in his journey from north to extreme south. It is very clear that Srivishnavism was not there during Rama and Krishna Days. Srivishnavism must have been started some time later. In Hindu culture most of the great people are very modest that they do not claim there authorship or finding and Srivishnavism is one of them. > > Adiyen Krishna Ramanuja dasan >it your home page Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.