Purushakaram

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA;

APPAN THIRUVADIGALE SARANAM.

 

Last part of mail on Purushakara.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Numerous references could be pointed out; not only from Thiruvaimozhi but also

from NDP and other scriptures to show the relationship between Emperuman and

Pirattti

She forced Sri Rama to take her along with him to forest. Though she could have

used her divine powers to

get away from Srilanka. When Hanuman offered to carry her from Lanka she not

only refused; but also informed him that she will not behave in anyway that will

reduce the prestige of Sri Rama. All these acts go to show that Piratti was

absolutely dependendant on Emperuman and was very careful to uphold his

Lordship. When Ravana approached her in Asokavana with the intention of making

her queen, she advised him to shed away such thoughts. She also advised him to

make friendship with Rama, if not surrendering to him. All these go to show her

intent of absolute dependence of Emperuman and her subordinate position.

There is another instance worth pointing out. Ravana and “kakausura” have done

similar crimes towards Piratti. Kakasura was spared from death because of

Piratti’s intervention ( or her mercy or Purushakara ). When Kakasura fell down

on ground to spare his life she adjusted his head in such a way it was touching

the feet of Rama.

 

What else is required to show her position? Is it necessary to say that she is

protecting her children by recommendation?

 

 

In Thiruvaimozhi the first song ‘ UYARVAR UYAR NALAM UDAYAVAN EVANAVAN….

………………

;;;;;;;

AVAN

THUYARARU SUDARADI

THOZHTHU EZHU MANANE ‘

( There is no specific instruction as to whom we should worship.)

 

In 1st ten, 2nd Thiruvaimozhi, 10th Pasuram.

“Van pugazh

Naranan thin kazhal chere”

Here the clue is given.

In the 3rd of the same ten, “ PATHUDAYAVARKELIYAVAN

PIRARKALUKKARIYA

VITHAKAN MALAR MAGAL VIRUMBUM NAMARUMPERAL

ADIKAL

Now, the position is complete. We can link all these and come to a

conclusion as to what should be done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Though Sri. Ramanuja intensified the movement of SV by winning over opponents,

streamlining of the same was necessary. He made ThirukurgaiPiran Pillan to write

commentary on Bhagavt Vishya. He appointed Sri Parasara Bhattar, son of

Kurathaazhvar as his successor. He himself could have written the commentary.

But, there after nobody will dare to change a word in it.

 

Thirukurugai Piran Pillan’s commentary (6000 Padi) is very concise. Not only

that; usage of Sanskrit is more than Tamil.

Next commentary is by Nanjeeyar, sishya of Parasara Bhattar. It is a little

improved version of Aarayirappadi, now 9000 padi.

Next comes period of Nampillai.. Sishya of Nanjeeyar.

A versatile scholar, gave discourses ( Kalashebam); but did not commit himself

in writing. The prominent sishyas under him are PERIYAVACHAN PILLAI AND VADAKKU

THIRU VEEDHI PILLAI. He commissioned Periyavachan Pillai to write commentary on

Bhagavat Vishyam and that is 24000 Padi.

Vadkku thiru veedhi Pillai of his own accord put down on record of Nampillai’s

discourses (at night he used to record daily discourses). Later on when

Nampillai came to know of it he seized that copy and kept it under his

possession. Later on it was released to Eeyunni Madhavar. This document is

known as EEDU 36,000. Another commentary, rather meaning of word by word with a

short commentary. (known as 12,000 padi) by Azhagia Manavala Jeeyar, sishya of

Periya vaachan pillai came into existance.All these 3 commentaries were of the

same period. 36,000 Padi is exhaustive than 24,000 Padi. But, both are of the

same material i.e Kalashebam of Nampillai. Both are excellent ones in

manipravalam, compraising of more tamil words. A beautiful treat for those who

know ‘Manipravalam” Here only, the usage of the word

‘Purushakara ‘ is mentioned. The act of Piratti was recognised in earlier

period ;but was not identified as “Purushakara” Now, that deficiency was made

good.. The ‘ Purushakaram” is well explained in ‘Srivachanabhooshanam’ by Pillai

Lokachariar, son of Vadakku thiruveedhi Pillai. Let us take a glimpse of it.

 

Sutra. 1.Vedartham aruthi yiduvathu smruthi,ithihas puranathigalale

2. Smruthiyale Poorvabhagathilartham aruthiyidakakadavathu;

Marrayirandalaum Utharabhagathilartham aruthiyidakadavathu.

3. IVAI YIRANDILUM VATHUKKONDU ITHIHASAM PRABALAM

5. Ithihasa sreshtamana sri ramayanathal chirai irundhaval yerram

chollukirathu. Mahabharathathal Dhoothu ponavan erram chollukirathu.

 

( Brahmakandam of vedas are to be explained with the help of Ithihasam. Sri

Ramayana speakes about the greatness of (SITA )who was imprisioned;

Mahabharatham speaks about the greatness of (Sri KRISHNA ) who went as messenger

(for Pandavas)

 

6. IVAI IRANDALUM PURSHAKARAVAIBHAVAMUM UBHAYA VAIBHAVAMUM CHOLLIRRAYIRRU. ( By

this two, greatness of Purushakaram (Ramayanam) and Upayam (mahabharatham) are

explained.

 

Hereafter these two are explained detail.

 

 

Nampillai has developed the commentaries started in a small scale in an

admirable level. Initially, Periavachaan Pillai’s vyakyanam was in force, as

EEDU 36, 000 was later made public by Sri Manavala MaMunikal in his Kalashebham

before Namperumal for one Year and he got due honours.

Azhvar’s Arulicheyals which were dormant prior to Sriman Nathaminigal have been

elavated to highest position during Nampillai’s perioid. Even wards of great

men Naduvil thiruveedhi Bhattar (Kurathazhvar vamsam) and Kanthadai Thozappar (

Mudaliandan Vamsam) became jealous of Nampillai. Later they reconciled and

became his disciples of Nampillai. Needless to say who held Vedas in high esteem

would have become envious. The work of Pillai Lokacharyar

"“Srivachanabhooshanam"”was not welcomed. “Acharya Hrudhayam “(Mind of

Nammazhvar ) was also brought into existence by the brother of Pillai

lokacharyar, Azhakia Manavala perumal Nayanar.

 

All these event s appear to have paved way for disgruntlement. During this

period Islamic Invasion of Srirangam took place and Namperumal was taken for

safety in exile for a longer period. Sri. Vedantha desikar, contemporary of

Pillai Lokachariyar did not go with Namperumal. He left for Satyamangalam.

Namperumal returned in 1371 to Srirangam. Sri Manavala mamunigal gave a

discourse on EEDU 36,000 for one whole year in (1431)

 

It is understood from Parakala Matham ‘s web site that matam was established in

1360 by Brhamatantra swtantra Jeeyar. Now you can understand the situation for

the division of one branch from SV.

 

Adiyen feel that some justice has been done now, in replying your questions.

 

Adiyen Ramanuja dasan, T.Parthasarathy

 

_______

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

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