SwAmi and dEvarir

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas:

The article of Sri MK Sudarshan prompted me to look back to an article

written in 1999 in the Bhakti list in response to a criticism by an

anonymous Bhagavta objecting to the use of the words "Swami" and "Devarir"

while addressing an Acharya. I am reproducing the same for information.

 

 

 

 

Subj: SwAmi and dEvarir

8/20/99 7:07:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Ramanbil

Sender: bhakti-errors

bhakti

 

 

Dear Bhagavatas,

 

Please forgive me for writing about what is partially a personal

matter, but a recent occurrence among our small Sri Vaishnava

community here has prompted me to discuss some issues publicly.

Hopefully, we can all learn something in the process.

 

Usage of the term "swAmi"

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

 

During the Tele-upanyasam of H.H. Azhagiya singhar on 9th May 99,

I enquired him whether he had received the copy of my 20 part

write up eulogizing Prakritam Azhagiya singhar - sent to his camp

address earlier. (The AchArya has since acknowledged receipt and

conveyed his benediction through Sri Devanathan of AhObila Mutt,

Hyderabad). Several bhAgavatas were appreciative of this mentioning,

as they were previously unaware of the write up and now were able

to learn more about the kalyANa-guNas of the Prakritam Azhagiya

Singar, with whom I have been in close personal contact for

many years.

 

However, after this upanyAsam, one Bhagavata, (who unfortuantely has

preferred to remain anonymous), is reported to have observed:

 

" Sri Anbil kept addressing Azhagiyasingar as "swAmi", "dEvarir"

etc. This is actually considered as an insult in our sampradAyam.

'Azhagiyasingar" is the way with which we must address HH Jeeyar

(OR at least Jeeyar/Jeeyar swAmi etc for those who can't pronounce

"Azhagiyasingar" properly. "swAmi", "dEvarir" etc. are used for vidvAns,

bhAgavathAs in general. But, Azhagiyasingar is above such

vidvAns/bhAgavatAs for reasons we know. Thus one shouldn't insult

a matAtipati [sic] by such addressing. Of course, no one is doing this

intentionally. But, the standard maintained in our sampradAyam

must be known to others especially those who listen to the

upanyAsam on direct on-line connection".

 

I appreciate the depth of AchArya bhakti with which the said

bhAgavata took umbrage at the expressions "SwAmi" and 'dEvarir."

But is usage of expressions such as "SwAmi" and "dEvarir" for

Azhagiya Singar really an insult? This is the question I wish

to address.

 

Let me hasten to assure that my AchArya bhakti is second to none.

But, let's explore what "SwAmi" actually means. In one of his kAlakshepams

(in his PoorvAsramam), Azhagiya singhar himself explained the etymology

of the word "swAmi" to bring home what a powerfully respectable word

it is.

 

He explained:

 

The word "swAmi" is made up of "swam" meaning "property" and

"ami" meaning "Possessor" (i.e.,) the owner of the property.

And, that the word "swAmi" conveys the "sEshatvam" and

"dAsatvam" of the person addressing to the person addressed.

 

In other words, the word expresses the *Lordship* or the

*mastership* or the *ownership* of the addressee in relation to

the status of the person addressing - being the *servant* and the

*property* of the * Lord - master - owner * - a property which could

even be sold by the owner in terms of Periyalwar's statement

"PesuvAr aDiyArgal yenthammai virkavum peruvArgal" (4.4.10)

 

In my humble opinion, there is perhaps no better word than "swAmi"

which packs in itself the power and punch of all this significance

especially when addressing an AchArya on one-to-one basis in the

2nd person.

 

You will remember how Azhagiya singhar in his Tele-upanyasam

On 1st August 99 made a point that in "*Unn* aDikkeezh amarndu

pugunthEn", Nammalwar found it more effective to address the Lord

in 2nd person than using a vague and nondescript 3rd person expression.

 

As everyone in our group knows, my relationship with Azhagiya singhar has

been

intimate, up, close and personal spanning well over 20 years:

 

- before as friend, philosopher and guide,

- during his Sannyasa Sweekaranam when he became "Chinna Azhagiya singhar

and

- thereafter, when he became mathAdhipathi as"Azhagiya singhar".

 

I say this not to boast but to express my great fortune at my having

had such a connection; Azhagiya singhar has been gracious enough to

have written an introduction for me, which many of you have read before

on these lists.

 

Now, besides being my AchArya, he continues to be my "friend, philosopher

and guide".

 

In all my personal conversations and communications with

Azhagiya singhar, Poundarika puram Andavan and other mathAdhipatis.,

I have been using 'swAmi" and dEvarir" while addressing them.

 

None of them had taken exception to this because -

 

* They know that when I use these words, I do so with full and

complete understanding of their spirit and significance as per

the above clarification of Azhagiya singhar.

 

* They know that the words were used with genuine feelings of

'sEshatvam' and "dAsatvam" to the AachArya.

 

* They also know that they were within the respectable

norms and "standards maintained in our sampradAyam" and

 

* They know that no 'disrespect' or 'insult' either intentional

or unintentional was involved.

 

I am, however, thankful to the anonymous bhAgavata for the small mercy

in conceding, "Of course, no one is doing this intentionally".

 

The objection by the aforesaid bhAgavata arises because, the

word 'swAmi' has become another casualty like "aDiyEn."

By constant overuse and abuse, it seems to have lost its spirit

and charm and has been irreparably trivialized.

 

For example, it has so degenerated that we see devotees of

"Ayyappa" greeting each other - "*sAmi* saranam'.

Obviously, they do so without even knowing what they are saying!

 

Our psyche has been conditioned by the indiscriminate

and mindless misuse of the word "swAmi" ad nauseam from

"Alpha swAmi" to "Omega swAmi" and everyone liberally ensconced

in between like, for example, "pAmban "swAmi", "mouna swAmi" and

even a "soraikkAi swAmi"- rendering it cheap, if not vulgar.

 

Thus, it has been debased and desecrated so much so that

we tend to underestimate the power of the word and think that

it cannot be applied to ' madathipatis' but only to ordinary

'' vidvAns" and "bhAgavatas in general."

 

If the word were taboo, why would our AchAryas call

'swAmi Nammalwar," 'swAmi NAthamuni", 'swAmi Desikan" etc

whenever they refer to them?

 

Does it mean that they were no better than mill-of-the run

'vidvAns' and commonplace 'bhAgavatas' and NOT AchAryas?

 

I respectfully submit that the usage of these terms

only expresses an obeisance to an AchArya (in this case my

genuine obeisance to *my* acharya).

 

Usage of the term dEvarir

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

 

"dEvarir" is a Tamil word derived from the Sanskrit "devaha"

which means "God.dEvarir" means "Oh! My God!"- In essence,

all that the word ' swAmi ' connotes as explained above.

 

I quote a great authority on the use of the word:

 

"dEvarir being a Tamil word has no etymology I could think of.

It is a respectful term, while speaking to elders or *AachAryA *

as you know"

 

For me, my AachArya is God incarnate. I believe that there can

be no power-words comparable to "swAmi" and "dEvarir"

especially while addressing an AachArya in the 2nd person on

one-to-one basis.

 

How incongruous would it have been if Arjuna had addressed Lord

Krishna, the GeethAchAryan in the 3rd person as if he was

referring to some odd and distant third person and not the Jagadguru,

standing physically in front of him face to face and delivering ' the Song

celestial?'

 

The use of the term "Azhagiya singhar" at every step, in season

and out of season, in the "3rd person" smacks of distancing as if

addressing some " 3rd person" and not the AachArya physically

listening to you, and conversing with you - while 'swAmi" and

" dEvarir" exude genuine humility and devotion and denote a

closeness that is unique and satisfying to both the

AachArya and the sishya.

 

In this context, the individual opinion of the said bhAgavata becomes

out of place.

 

That is why the form "Azhagiya singhar" was not used

repeatedly - not because of any difficulty in 'pronouncing' it.'

 

My request to the anonymous bhAgavata and others who share his/her

opinions is this: please, do not impugn the motives or attitudes

of others, particularly when such criticisms are made from a dearth

of knowledge and experience. If such criticism must be made, please

justify it with suitable pramANas.

 

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

 

_______________

Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail