Sri as per two schools of thought...

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

 

Dear Sri Parthasarathy,

 

I(hope others too) am fortunate to have your posts

atleast once in awhile. Now I'm getting into our sampradAyam and I'm

a beginner. I am trying to understand the two differing views

on "concept of Sri" that persist in the two different schools namely

Tennkalai and Vadakalai. My post may be slightly lengthier! Pardon

for all my ignorances in this post.

 

Sri Ramanuja mentions in all his genuine(vedantic)works

about Sri in the dedicatory verse itself and does not mention

elsewhere(I listened to Sri U.Ve Srirangam Narasimhachar's

upanyAsam). For example "Srinivasa" in SribhASyam; "Sriyah kanta" in

vEdAntadIpa;"Srimat" in vEdAntasAra. Again in GItabhASya,he mentions

Sri in the beginning itself. Only in vEdArthasamgraha,there are more

references from sruti and smrti but again they are brief. Since Sri

Ramanuja does not explain this brief description of

Sri,interpretation becomes difficult.

 

On the contrary,we find first a separate prayer to Sri

and second to NArAyaNA in the beginning of SaraNAgati gaDyam. There

is no description of Sri in SriRanga gaDyam and we find a brief

description of Sri in the VaikuNTa gaDyam.

 

VK school considers Sri to be infinite like the Lord

whereas the TK school considers Sri as the first among the finite

spirits. Please correct me if I'm wrong in my usage of words and also

the information.

 

Questions:

1.Does EmperumAnAr mention anywhere in his works "the distinct

function" of goddess Sri as puruSakAra?

 

2.Which statements of Ramanuja clearly express that "Sri" is

puruSakAra?

 

3.Why didn't EmperumAnAr offer separate prayer to Sri in his vEdAntic

works? Is there any reason for it? What do our AchAryAs say about it?

 

4.Does EmperumAnAr closely follow the thoughts/ideas of yAmunAchAryA

in all his major works? How does yAmunAchAryA handle the "concept of

Sri" in his Stotra Ratna and CatusslOki?

 

PS:I have the gItAbhASya of Ramanuja by van buitenan. In that the

author mentions that Ramanuja owes everything to yAmunAchAryA and

Ramanuja uses yAmunA's own words whenever the occasion arises.

 

5. What is the role of Sri and ViSNu in Pancharatra Agamas? Is it in

this you find temple worship being mentioned? How does Ramanuja

refute Sankara's interpretation of Tantric view(soundaryalahari is a

hymn where Sankara says that without Sakti,Siva wouldn't be able to

move anything. Am I right)?

 

6. Is it true that Ramnauja's immediate successors

(KUrathAzhvAn,ParAsara bhattar,Tirukurihai PirAn PiLLAn)gave more

emphasis on Sri(and other divine consorts bhUmi,nILA)as "puruSakAra"

than Ramanuja himself?

 

7. If EmperumAnAr had very clearly stated in his works that Sri is

puruSakAra(also on nirhEtuka krpa),there wouldn't have been any kalai

disputes. Was Swami Desikan of the same view as TennAchAryAs

regarding the concept of Sri? Who was the main person in VK school to

have a differing view regarding the "nature of Sri".

 

8. Did EmperumAnAr want his immediate successors(who were in close

association with him in thought)to stress that "Sri is puruSakAra"

rather than he himself doing it just as he wanted Tirukuruhai PirAn

PiLLAn to write a detailed commentary on Tiruvoimozhi instead of he

himself writing the commentary.

 

I request all to forgive my ignorance in asking too many questions.

Since I don't have any pUrvAchAryAs works(i'll be getting soon),I

want to know how the two interpretation started.

 

AzhwAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar TiruvadigaLE saraNam

nappinnai

[Guest guest]

_______

There is always a better job for you at Monsterindia.com.

Go now http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs

Attachment: nappinnai.doc [not stored]

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya nama:

 

Dear Sri Parthasarathy,

My humble pranams and thanks to you for giving me a

nice reply. I do see the point that there can't be two causes.

Primary cause has to be only one and that is parabrahman(NArAyaNA).

My only concern was saraNAgati gaDyam versus RAmAnujA's other works.

>From saraNAgati gaDyam one can easily make that Sri is the mediator

for the jIvAtmA seeking mOkshA. But as you said,yAmunA and RAmAnujA

might not have thought that such a dispute would arise in future and

also RAmAnujA's vEdAntasUtrAs was mainly to refute non-vEdAntins and

vEdAntins of other schools. I'm very happy and proud that TK school

has SOUND logic in its philosophy.

 

AzhwAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar TiruvadigaLE saraNam

nappinnai

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

Revered Sri Parthasarathy Iyengar,

Regarding your reply on SRI,

may I request you to go through the following, do some related study

and come out with your views, which will be immensely useful to us.

-Mumukshuppadi, dvayapprakaranam, 119 to 133.

-to be related to

-SRI tattwa as found in SRI SOOKHTHAM, particularly verse 3, (aswa

poorvaam.. omkar)

-to be related to

- Mumukshppadi onceagain, in Thirumanthra prakaranam, verses 32 and

33, wherein the a-kara, u-kara and makara aspects (oomkar)are related

the three vedas,

-to be related to Taiittriyam, chapter 1,Mahasamsya's maha tattwa.

 

This is the route that occured to me. your revered self can apply in

the way that is deemed correct and suitable.

I request you to kindly go through the above and give your opinion.

In adiyaval's case, there is s tendency to see logic and common sense

in everything. In adiyaval's humble view all these are primarily

tattwas which the seekers are expected to contemplate on for

liberation. These, particul;arly the SRI tattwa has been made a

figurative conception at a later period to simplify the tattwa for

the sake of better understanding of the seekers.

Kindly pardon me for mistakes found in this mail,

 

jayasree sarnathan.

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA:

APPAN THIRUVADIGALE SARANAM.

 

 

Smt. Jayasree Saranathan, Accept my pranam,

 

Regarding your suggestion for study on 'SRI" Adiyen

have to express my inability for the present, as Adiyen is far

away from my books( books are in Velachery...Self in Toronto,

canada). It may take some more months to return to India and

Adiyen will keep in mind your suggestion.

With best wishes,

Adiyen, Ramanuja dasan, T.Parthasarathy.

 

On Fri, 12 Jul 2002 jayasartn wrote :

>SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

>Revered Sri Parthasarathy Iyengar,

>Regarding your reply on SRI,

>may I request you to go through the following, do some related

>study

>and come out with your views, which will be immensely useful to

>us.

>-Mumukshuppadi, dvayapprakaranam, 119 to 133.

>-to be related to

>-SRI tattwa as found in SRI SOOKHTHAM, particularly verse 3,

>(aswa

>poorvaam.. omkar)

>-to be related to

>- Mumukshppadi onceagain, in Thirumanthra prakaranam, verses 32

>and

>33, wherein the a-kara, u-kara and makara aspects (oomkar)are

>related

>the three vedas,

>-to be related to Taiittriyam, chapter 1,Mahasamsya's maha

>tattwa.

>

>This is the route that occured to me. your revered self can apply

>in

>the way that is deemed correct and suitable.

>I request you to kindly go through the above and give your

>opinion.

>In adiyaval's case, there is s tendency to see logic and common

>sense

>in everything. In adiyaval's humble view all these are

>primarily

>tattwas which the seekers are expected to contemplate on for

>liberation. These, particul;arly the SRI tattwa has been made a

>figurative conception at a later period to simplify the tattwa

>for

>the sake of better understanding of the seekers.

>Kindly pardon me for mistakes found in this mail,

>

>jayasree sarnathan.

>

>

>------------------------ Sponsor

>

>azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

_______

There is always a better job for you at Monsterindia.com.

Go now http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs