Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 Dear Sri Vanamalai Padmanabhan Swamin, I agree that the following apercu given by you reflects, by and lage, my humble opinion: Quote. "I hasten to add that before i react, I require the following clarifications/whether my understanding of your post is correct. My understanding is as follows. i. AzhwAr's have tacitly approved dhevatantara bhajana whereas pUrvAchAryas have toed an orthodox line ii. pUrvachAryas have toed the orthodox line -which are inferred from some interpretations which may give room for multiple interpretations-due to time difference between Azhwar-sand AchAryas iii.God is omnipresent and hence other deities can be worshipped. After all this also tantamounts to nArAyanA worship? iv.piLLai perumAL iyengar is a vEra vaishNavite." Unquote. I am grateful that you are in agreement with my spelling of the Sanskrit word "devatantara". The word, used mainly by Sri Vaishnava Acharyas, has been frequently spelt as "devatandhara" and even "devadhandhara", in phonetically sympathy with Tamil speech. To point this out may be visceral, but there is no harm in submitting one's notion of correct spelling. Sriman Thirumanujanam Swamy pointed out my mistake in rendering "Kan'n'inun" as "Kan'n'inum" and what he considered as mistake of many in rendering "mannulagam" as "man'n'ulagam". Sri T.A.Krishnamacharya, the octogenarian doyen of scholars at Tirupati, once told me that he mentioned to Sri PBA Swamy of a scholar's pronunciation of the word "syandana"[chariot] in Sri Varadaraja Panchasat of Sri Desika as "syandhana"[cot]. Sri PBA Swamy humourously replied that since Sri Varadraja temple was not as rich as Tirupati, that scholar perhaps wanted to strengthen it by preferring guttural to velar sound. Sri PBA Swamy himself referred once to a scholar using "khidyate"[becomes sad] to "vidyate"[becomes known], because in Grantha script, the letters, v and kh, look similar.He also pointed out that Sri Brahmatantra Swatantra Peria Parakala Swamy, in his Tiruppavai commentary, rendered "ven'pal tavattavar" in 14th Pasuram as "vambu atra attavar", probably going by sound of recitation, not knowing Tamil as well as he did Kannada. Adiyen,TCASrinivasaramanujan --- ramanuja wrote: > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > ------ > > There are 8 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. Regarding Kamadeva worship by Andal > Nanmaaran <nanmaaran > 2. Devatantara Bhajanam > Srinivasaramanujan TCA > <tcasr > 3. Re: Archakas and dirt in temples > Vkr4 > 4. Devatantara > "Padmanabhan" <aazhwar > 5. thiruppavai 28 > "Padmanabhan" <aazhwar > 6. Re: Regarding Kamadeva worship by Andal > TCA Venkatesan <vtca > 7. kAmadEVa discussion > "tavaradhan <tavaradhan" > <tavaradhan > 8. Mumukshuppadi - 113 > "vtca <vtca" > <vtca > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 1 > Sat, 11 Jan 2003 21:46:13 -0800 (PST) > Nanmaaran <nanmaaran > Regarding Kamadeva worship by Andal > > Dear Swamins, > Shri TCA Venkatesan has given an example of a > worried father to take his child wherever the cure > is. This example will not suit to Andal as she > clearly expresses her conviction that "narayananE > namakkE paRai tharuvaan". So she cannot be comapared > to people with wandering mind due to agyaanam. > And back end question is that why the pasurams sung > in praise of kamadeva (anya devata) included in > divya prabandams ? > > Regards, > > Nanmaaran > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 2 > Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:12:08 -0800 (PST) > Srinivasaramanujan TCA <tcasr > Devatantara Bhajanam > > Dear Fellow Bhagavatas, > The posts of Sri T.C.A.Venkatesan, whether there is > need to worship Srimannarayana through other > Devatas, > when He can be directly worshipped,is > thought-provoking.Probably there is no need. The > question is whether it is bad. > In all Divyadesas the same Lord reveals in different > names. Azhwars worshipped everywhere.There is a > tradition that Tondaradippodi Azhwar said, > Aranganaip > paadiya vaayaal kuranganaip paaduveno.There is a > contrary guidance of Tiruppaanazhwar who sang both, > Aranganaik kanda kangal matrondrinaik kaanaave and > Mandi paai vada vengada maamalai. > The other Devatas can be viewed as > [a]fictitious > false > [c]inferior or subordinate to God > [d]hostile or rivals to God > [e]manifestations of God. > Within the pale of Vedic traditions, [a] and > will > not be tenable. There is no tradition in Itihasas > and > Puranas to justify [d]. Supposing [e] is not > preferred, [c] remains. Perhaps, they can be > propitied > to reach God. Madak kiliaik kai kooppi > vananginene[Thirunduntandagam]. > Adiyen ,TCASrinivasaramanujan > > > ===== > T. C. A Srinivasaramanujan > Email: tcasr > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 3 > Sun, 12 Jan 2003 08:06:45 EST > Vkr4 > Re: Archakas and dirt in temples > > I believe each one of us have a responsibility to > spend a few minutes to > hours in cleaning temples, or alternatively get > involved in social service as > part of our living, by giving a fraction of our > time, skills and resources to > the community without expecting any reward. > > Regards. V K Ranganathan > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 4 > Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:29:24 +0530 > "Padmanabhan" <aazhwar > Devatantara > > DEar sri TCA Srinivasa Ramanujam swami, > It is a pity that no sooner the ink in my pen( in > this case the stress on the keyboard)has dried the > discussion on this subject has cropped up. > It appears that from prima-facie reading of your > post, that I may have to concur only with the > following. > > There has been a lively discussion on Devatantara > bhajana[Devata-God; Antara-Different; > Bhajana-worship. > Eponymous words to Devantara are Bhashantara-Other > languages; Desantara-Other countries; > Namantara-Other > names; Kalantara-Other times; Vishyantaras-Other > interests etc.]. > > > I hasten to add that before i react, I require the > following clarifications/whether my understanding of > your post is correct. > My understanding is as follows. > i. AzhwAr's have tacitly approved dhevatantara > bhajana whereas pUrvAchAryas have toed an orthodox > line > ii. pUrvachAryas have toed the orthodox line -which > are inferred from some interpretations which may > give room for multiple interpretations-due to time > difference between Azhwar-sand AchAryas > iii.God is omnipresent and hence other deities can > be worshipped. After all this also tantamounts to > nArAyanA worship? > iv.piLLai perumAL iyengar is a vEra vaishNavite. > > Is my understanding correct. On your response I > shall react. > aDiyEAn rAmAnuja dhAsan > vAnamAmalai padmanAbhan > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 5 > Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:15:00 +0530 > "Padmanabhan" <aazhwar > thiruppavai 28 > > kaRavaigaL pin chenRu > > This pAsuram details the upAuya swarUpam. The next > pAsuram details the upEya swarUpam. > > We do not have sAsthric/vedic knowledge to attain > You(gnAna yOgam).We do not perform our duties > meticulously(karma yOgam).They do not have enough > bhakthi (aRivondrum illAdha).Dont they have enough > devotion? Yes they do have devotion but the devotion > is not considered as a means to attain HIm. We are > going behind the cows and our knowledge is naught. > Is this a qualification for attaining emperumAn? Do > they have anything else? > Yes they have got Lord krishNA Himself.(puNNIyam > yAmudaiyOm). > === message truncated === ===== T. C. A Srinivasaramanujan Email: tcasr Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 14, 2003 Report Share Posted January 14, 2003 Hats off to Padmanabhan swamin for bringing out the meanings of the "karavaigal pin sendru" paasuram in such a lucid manner in plain and simple English. TCA swamin, do you have plans of putting this also in www.acharya.org in "vyakyanams section". it will be very useful thing to be done. Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan, Varadarajan > > ramanuja [sMTP:ramanuja] > Monday, January 13, 2003 7:21 PM > ramanuja > [ramanuja] Digest Number 410 > > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > ------ > > There are 8 messages in this issue. > > Topics in this digest: > > 1. Regarding Kamadeva worship by Andal > Nanmaaran <nanmaaran > 2. Devatantara Bhajanam > Srinivasaramanujan TCA <tcasr > 3. Re: Archakas and dirt in temples > Vkr4 > 4. Devatantara > "Padmanabhan" <aazhwar > 5. thiruppavai 28 > "Padmanabhan" <aazhwar > 6. Re: Regarding Kamadeva worship by Andal > TCA Venkatesan <vtca > 7. kAmadEVa discussion > "tavaradhan <tavaradhan" > <tavaradhan > 8. Mumukshuppadi - 113 > "vtca <vtca" <vtca > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 1 > Sat, 11 Jan 2003 21:46:13 -0800 (PST) > Nanmaaran <nanmaaran > Regarding Kamadeva worship by Andal > > Dear Swamins, > Shri TCA Venkatesan has given an example of a worried father to take his > child wherever the cure is. This example will not suit to Andal as she > clearly expresses her conviction that "narayananE namakkE paRai > tharuvaan". So she cannot be comapared to people with wandering mind due > to agyaanam. > And back end question is that why the pasurams sung in praise of kamadeva > (anya devata) included in divya prabandams ? > > Regards, > > Nanmaaran > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 2 > Sun, 12 Jan 2003 00:12:08 -0800 (PST) > Srinivasaramanujan TCA <tcasr > Devatantara Bhajanam > > Dear Fellow Bhagavatas, > The posts of Sri T.C.A.Venkatesan, whether there is > need to worship Srimannarayana through other Devatas, > when He can be directly worshipped,is > thought-provoking.Probably there is no need. The > question is whether it is bad. > In all Divyadesas the same Lord reveals in different > names. Azhwars worshipped everywhere.There is a > tradition that Tondaradippodi Azhwar said, Aranganaip > paadiya vaayaal kuranganaip paaduveno.There is a > contrary guidance of Tiruppaanazhwar who sang both, > Aranganaik kanda kangal matrondrinaik kaanaave and > Mandi paai vada vengada maamalai. > The other Devatas can be viewed as > [a]fictitious > false > [c]inferior or subordinate to God > [d]hostile or rivals to God > [e]manifestations of God. > Within the pale of Vedic traditions, [a] and will > not be tenable. There is no tradition in Itihasas and > Puranas to justify [d]. Supposing [e] is not > preferred, [c] remains. Perhaps, they can be propitied > to reach God. Madak kiliaik kai kooppi > vananginene[Thirunduntandagam]. > Adiyen ,TCASrinivasaramanujan > > > ===== > T. C. A Srinivasaramanujan > Email: tcasr > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 3 > Sun, 12 Jan 2003 08:06:45 EST > Vkr4 > Re: Archakas and dirt in temples > > I believe each one of us have a responsibility to spend a few minutes to > hours in cleaning temples, or alternatively get involved in social service > as > part of our living, by giving a fraction of our time, skills and resources > to > the community without expecting any reward. > > Regards. V K Ranganathan > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 4 > Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:29:24 +0530 > "Padmanabhan" <aazhwar > Devatantara > > DEar sri TCA Srinivasa Ramanujam swami, > It is a pity that no sooner the ink in my pen( in this case the stress on > the keyboard)has dried the discussion on this subject has cropped up. > It appears that from prima-facie reading of your post, that I may have to > concur only with the following. > > There has been a lively discussion on Devatantara > bhajana[Devata-God; Antara-Different; Bhajana-worship. > Eponymous words to Devantara are Bhashantara-Other > languages; Desantara-Other countries; Namantara-Other > names; Kalantara-Other times; Vishyantaras-Other > interests etc.]. > > > I hasten to add that before i react, I require the following > clarifications/whether my understanding of your post is correct. > My understanding is as follows. > i. AzhwAr's have tacitly approved dhevatantara bhajana whereas > pUrvAchAryas have toed an orthodox line > ii. pUrvachAryas have toed the orthodox line -which are inferred from some > interpretations which may give room for multiple interpretations-due to > time difference between Azhwar-sand AchAryas > iii.God is omnipresent and hence other deities can be worshipped. After > all this also tantamounts to nArAyanA worship? > iv.piLLai perumAL iyengar is a vEra vaishNavite. > > Is my understanding correct. On your response I shall react. > aDiyEAn rAmAnuja dhAsan > vAnamAmalai padmanAbhan > > > > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 5 > Sun, 12 Jan 2003 20:15:00 +0530 > "Padmanabhan" <aazhwar > thiruppavai 28 > > kaRavaigaL pin chenRu > > This pAsuram details the upAuya swarUpam. The next pAsuram details the > upEya swarUpam. > > We do not have sAsthric/vedic knowledge to attain You(gnAna yOgam).We do > not perform our duties meticulously(karma yOgam).They do not have enough > bhakthi (aRivondrum illAdha).Dont they have enough devotion? Yes they do > have devotion but the devotion is not considered as a means to attain HIm. > We are going behind the cows and our knowledge is naught. Is this a > qualification for attaining emperumAn? Do they have anything else? > Yes they have got Lord krishNA Himself.(puNNIyam yAmudaiyOm). > You have got all the qualities without any dilution (kuRai vondrum > illAdha) for rescuing us. > Okay, He may have all the strengths to save us, but why should He save us. > He has the characteristic to save us ( gOvindhA) > He may have the characteristic to save, but why He should save us- That is > because we are the souls and He is the owner of the souls and this > relationship can never be disowned (vuRavEal namakkingu vozhikka > vozhiyAdhu) > Even if we have done any mistakes You please condone us and grant us our > requirement. What is the mistake referred to here. 'sirupEAR'. We had > called you as 'nArAyanA'and this is the mistake we have committed. How is > this a mistake? > The ARAyirappadi vyAkyAnam has clearly stated this. > "thangaLukku asAdhAranamAyiruppavanai sAdhAranamAyiruppavan enRu > solluvadhu kuRRamiRE" . The Lord has been very kind to them. He has been > one among them unlike for others. They have expressed the common > "nArAyanA" instead of the unique relatinship. > The term 'nArAyanA' can be expressed for establishing supremacy. For those > who are submerged in His saulabhyam , saushElyam and rakshagathvam-swayed > by 'gOvindhA'-is it fair to express the name 'nArAyaNa'? This is being > explained for 'sirupEAr' by swAmi azhagia manavALap peurmAL nAyanAr in the > great ARAyirappadi. > > The karma,gnAna and bhakthi yOgam are not considred as means by > srEvaishNavites. SAkshAth dharmam is sri krishNA who with His immense > strengths and by His grace can save us, which we realise after considring > the relationship with Him and the emptiness in our hands -as quid-pro-quo. > He is the upAyam. > vAnamAmalai padmanAbhan > > > > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 6 > Sun, 12 Jan 2003 11:52:02 -0800 (PST) > TCA Venkatesan <vtca > Re: Regarding Kamadeva worship by Andal > > Dear bhAgavatas, > > I think there has been a misunderstanding of my example. > > I did not say that the father was "taking the child > wherever the cure is" (which would then lead to the wrong > inference that Andal did not know that Sriman Narayana is > the only one who can answer her pleas). The example I > chose was where parents would take the child to a person > who they knew could not help, but nevertheless they had > to try because the right doctor was not responding. Here, > the agnyAnam is that they know it is the wrong solution, > but still they give it a shot. > > Please note that Andal later on uses birds, flowers, > clouds etc to try and reach Him. It is not that Andal > does not know that He is the only upAyam - here too, > adiyEn simply infers that she is willing to try > anything. > > Regarding the other query, perhaps the more pertinent > question would be: how could Andal's divine suktis be > not part of the divyaprabandham? Particularly one in > which she says "vengkadavaRku ennai vithi", "mAnidavark- > kenRu pEccupadil vAzakilEn", "kesava nambiyaik kAl > pidippAL". > > The phrase "include" gives the impression that there > was a choice in front of Sriman Nathamunigal on what > to include in the compilation of the prabandhams. From > what I have read about his vaibhavam, he was given the > 4000 verses by Swami Nammazhvar and he collected them > and set them into the order we see today. If that is > the case, then it is Nammazhvar's thiruvuLLam and there > is no need for us to question its presence. We can of > course look to acharyas for their interpretations on > the significance of the pasuram and its meanings. > > apacArAnimAn sarvAn kshamasva purushottama. > > adiyEn > TCA Venkatesan > > --- Nanmaaran <nanmaaran wrote: > > Dear Swamins, > > Shri TCA Venkatesan has given an example of a worried > > father to take his child wherever the cure is. This > > example will not suit to Andal as she clearly expresses > > her conviction that "narayananE namakkE paRai tharuvaan". > > So she cannot be comapared to people with wandering mind > > due to agyaanam. > > And back end question is that why the pasurams sung in > > praise of kamadeva (anya devata) included in divya > > prabandams ? > > > > Regards, > > > > Nanmaaran > > > > > > > > > Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. > http://mailplus. > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 7 > Mon, 13 Jan 2003 06:43:08 -0000 > "tavaradhan <tavaradhan" <tavaradhan > kAmadEVa discussion > > srImathE rAmAnujAya namah > > dear bhAgavathAs, > > recently, there has been some discussion about ANdAL's approaching > kAmadEva (termed as "worshipping" in some of the discussions), and > how it fits in our sampradAyam. > > The following is a very *rough* paraphrashing of the introduction > (urai avathArikai) for the nAchchiyAr thirumozhi vyAkhyAnam by > srI prathivAdi bhayankaram ANNangarAchArya svAmi. > > -- > In thiruppAvai, ANdAL establishes the object to be achieved > through "ERRaikkum EzhEzh piRAvikkum unthannOdu uRROmE AvOm, > unakkE nAm AtcheivOM" - we will be for ever Your belongings, > and we will do service *only* to You. Even though ANdAL has > developed such an affection/longing for the Lord, kaNNapirAn > did not take her (mingle with her - "kalavi seidhu niRka-k-k > kANAmayaalE). Because of that, ANdAL becomes disoriented > , without the ability to think clearly/skillfully - > {very very rough translation of yuktha ayuktha nirUpaNam > paNNa mAttAdhapadi kalangi}. Like those who are seperated from their > loved ones, who perform the ritual of madal Urdhal for > being united with their loved ones again {like thirumangai > AzhvAr in siriya/periya thirumadals), ANDAL falls at the > feet of kAmadEva, whose nature is to join those who are > separated! > > Now a question arises. ANDAL is the daughther of the head of > all sAthvikAs - periyAzhvAR. Such a person should follow the > dictum of "marandhum puram thozhaa mAndhar" {one who does > not worship anyone other than the Lord, even forgetfully}. > Is this appropriate? If such a question arises, then the > answer is that it is appropriate in this case. {porundhum!}. > How? ANDAL approaching kAmadEva here is a result of her > infinite longing/affection {prAvaNyam} for the object > of affection {prApya vasthu - in this case, the Lord}, and NOT > because of her independent thinking that kAmadEva is > the all-superior person {dEvathAndharathin idaththu > svathanthiramaagap parathva budhdhi paNNuvadhanaal anRU}. > This kind of behaviour (or trait) is not one that is > detrimental (or one that brings bad name) to the person > who is immersed in extreme love (prEma paravasar-ku). > > Even then, a question may arise "Isn't this a trait > because of disorientation? Should we not discard all > things done because of agjnAna?". The answer to that > is as follows. The traits that are developed as a result > of disorientation caused by the non-achievement of the > desired objects, the desire for which is caused by > extreme bhakti, which is caused because of knowledge > is something to be praised!. The agjnAna that is to > be discarded is the one that arises because of the > karmavAsanAs. > > Another question arises. The Lord is One such that HE > does not tolerate any effort (pravritti) on the part > of the chEtana to reach Him. Would not this extreme > effort (athi-pravritti) of ANdAL come in the way of > the doings of the Lord? If that is the question, the > answer is as follows. This extreme effort of ANDAL is > to be considered as the fruits of the efforts of the > Lord Himself! {emperumAN paNNiNa krushiyin payan > enna-k karudha-th thakkadhaam}. Isn't HE the one > who is the cause of the birth of this knowledge, > and the cause for the growth of this knowledge {in > ANDAL}? So, our pUrvAchAryAs have determined that > these traits (those caused due to bhakti-pAravasyam} > are strengths {upAyabalam}. Even again, all these > confusion/running helter-skelter by ANDAL {due > to a desire to reach the object *immediately*} are > considered by the Lord as "Oh! This soul is doing > all these things out of Love for ME!", and are > things that make Him happy {avan mugam malarugai-kku uRuppu}. > Performing madal, nOnbu etc. , and all such > doings then can be considered as things similar > to those that bring happiness to Him. > > So, the approaching of kAmadEva by nAchchiAr is > *not* against the svarUpa of the jIVa. > > Just as ANDAL did, are there others who approached > dEVatAntarAs as a result of extreme bhakti? If > that is the question, then here is an instance. > In rAmAyaNA, the people of ayOdhyA knew of noone > but the Lord rAma. Even they approached all the > dEVathAs *for the welfare of the Lord* {sarvAn > dEVAn namasyanthi rAmasyArththE!}. > > --- > The following are *adiyEn's* comments: > 1. ANDAL is in such a state of mind where she is > about to try *anything* to join the Lord. {In > tamizh, the proverb "eththai thinnAl piththam > theLiyum", comes to the mind}. > 2. In that state, given the common belief that > there is this person called kAmadEva, whose > nature is to join one with his/her lover, > ANDAL approaches him in the hope that he will > join her with the LOrd. > 3. In the Azhi mazhai-k kaNNA pAsuram, our elders > have taught us that the key meaning is that > the *duty* of all the dEvathAs (agni, indra, > varuNA etc..) is to help the Lord's devotees > reach Him!. This was taught to us by the same > ANDAL. One can also make the argument that > ANDAL is approaching kAmadEva as his duty is > to join her with the Lord. > > The key seems to be her approaching kAmadEva > and requesting him to help her get the Lord. > i.e. this, obviously is not *worship* in the > traditional sense, but more of doing something > so that this person (who, in common belief, has > the ability to unite her with the Lord) will > help her towards the Goal. > > > AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam. > > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, > varadhan > > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > Message: 8 > Mon, 13 Jan 2003 03:42:50 -0000 > "vtca <vtca" <vtca > Mumukshuppadi - 113 > > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > > Sri Pillai Lokacharya's > Mumukshuppadi > > Sutra: > 113. ettizhaiyAy mUnRu saradAyiruppathoru mangaLaSUthram > pOlE thirumanthram. > > Meaning: > This thirumanthram, made up of eight strands (the eight > aksharas) and three threads (the three parts), is like > the holy thread used in a marriage. > > Sri PBA Swami's Sarartha Deepikai: > In this world (in some cultures) we see that a woman > wears a holy thread in marriage which signifies that she > is wedded to someone and cannot belong to anyone else. > Similarly, the faith in the Thirumantram shows that the > chEtana belongs to the Lord and no one else. Therefore, > the Thirumantram is like the holy thread used in a > marriage. > > Unlike the worldly holy thread which is made up of > sixteen strands and two threads, the Thirumantram is > made up of eight strands and three threads. The eight > divine aksharas are the eight strands and the three > parts are the three threads. > > Pillai Lokacharyar Thiruvadigale Saranam > Azhvar Emperumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Saranam > > adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan > TCA Venkatesan > > Mumukshuppadi Sarartha Deepikai Series: > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/index.html > > > > > ______________________ > ______________________ > > > > Your use of is subject to > 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.