Guest guest Posted October 19, 2003 Report Share Posted October 19, 2003 Re: Missing the point on Narayanan Devotees I don't understand why you are all wasting your time by arguing like this. Whoever wants to worship any God they like they can do so, but they all should realise that by worshipping these Gods they don't attain Vaikunta Prapthy and these Gods have no power to grant that. This was seen in the life history of Thirumazhisai Alwar. Once he was a saivite and he had gone all religions and worshipped all Gods and finally came to the conclusion that Narayana is the Supreme and he alone can give Vaikuntam. Whensiva & parvathi came to play with him, he asked siva whether he can give Vaikunta prappthi for which siva replied that can be given only by Narayanan. So for all those who don't want to get another birth and intend to do Kainkaryam to Sriman Narayanan in the Vaikuntam can follow Vaishnavisam & Vishistadwaitham and others can do what they want and worshipp any other God. Let us stop this and discuss some other useful topic. Adiyen Narasimhan >ramanuja >ramanuja >ramanuja >[ramanuja] Digest Number 648 >17 Oct 2003 19:13:02 -0000 > > >azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > >------ > >There are 13 messages in this issue. > >Topics in this digest: > > 1. DEGREE OF COMPASSION > nsp <aazhwar > 2. Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k > 3. Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k > 4. Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k > 5. Gopala Vimsathi, Sri ManavalaMaamunikal and RajaMannargudi > Srinivasan Dwarakanath-DSRINIV1 ><dwarakanathsrinivasan > 6. Missing the point on Narayana > purohit > 7. Re: Missing the point on Narayana > "VenkatarAghavan K.S" <ksvenkat > 8. special maayams of baalan - post 3 > "M.G.Vasudevan" <mgv > 9. Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > sukumar <sukumar > 10. Re: Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > "Mohan Sagar" <m_raghavan > 11. mission > Chitra Madhavan <csmadhavan > 12. Mumukshuppadi - 231 -233 > "vtca" <vtca > 13. A Day in the Life of our Acharyas - 25 > "vtca" <vtca > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 1 > Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:12:40 +0530 > nsp <aazhwar >DEGREE OF COMPASSION > > DEGREE OF >COMPASSION > > > >How does one measure compassion?It is a subjective and relative one. Is it >subject to comparison? It is not quanitifiable like bananas or oranges. >Hence, can be termed as compassionate, more compassionate and most >compassionate or no compassion. > >Who is the most compassionate one? The Lord of course. He is the most >compassionate Supreme Being who strives for our retrieval and again and >again creates the universe and gives us opportunity directly or through >AzhwAr-AchAryAs despite our indifference. He takes pity on us and tries to >elevate us from this samsAra and grant us salvation. He resides in the >inermost of our souls and thinks and does things for our good. He is thus >the most compassionate being. >The first sUthram of AchArya hrdhayam will amply corroborate this point. >"kAruNikanAna sarvEswaran aRivilA manisar vuNarvenum chudarvilakku >yERRi....." >The compassionate Lord bequeaths the sAsthric knowledge for the good of the >souls for discerning between good and the bad. >He does not come in front of the soul as the soul may reject Him outright. >Notwithstanding this indifference The Lord does good for the souls >remaining in the backstage and seeing to it that the soul attains the >benefit-irA madam vUttuvAraip pOlE. > >Full of compassion is the attribute of the Lord. Having said so, can His >compassion be compared with Others? Is there any chance for anybody else to >near to His compassion. Being a subjective phenomenon can this study be >undertaken ? After observing that He is the most compassionate one, >perhaps Ms Vaidhehi will mathematically argue that nobody else can be as >compassionate as He is. 'He being less compassionate and anybody more' will > be categorised into a null set. > >Nevertheless, if somebody else can shower more compassion which in a way >eclipses His, can it not be termed as less compassion or compassionless? >That is really implausible. However, thiru arangahtamudhanAr in his >'irAmAnusa nURRandhAdhi' >has dealt this very topic in the following pAsuram: > >"vuL ninRu vuyirgaLukku vuRRanavE seiyyum , avarku vuyavE paNNum, paranum >parivu ilan Am padi, >palluyirkum viNNin thalai ninRu vEd aLippAn em irAmAnusan maNNin >thalthudithu, maRai nAlum >vaLarthananE" irAmAnusa nURRandhAdhi 95 > >The Lord is inside every soul -antharyAmi- and does only the good for them >for their betterment. However, even the Lord can be termed as >compassionless- parivu ilan Am padi - when compared to sri rAmAnujA who by >his works and deeds granted salvation to one and all by descending to the >earth from the Lord's abode. > >AzhwAr emperumAnAr jEyar thirvadigaLE >vanamamalai padmanabhan > > > > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 2 > Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:46:39 -0000 > "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k >Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > >Dear Shri Mohan Sagar, > I was referring to your post on our "Ubhaya-vedanta tradition" and >bhakti religion from south India in Bhakti list (was it 1995 archive?) >I apologize if I implied that you had doubts regarding Vedas or >Shriman Narayana and your earlier views validate my doubts. I am >sorry for not explicity mentioning that you talked about the origins >of our "Ubhaya vedanta tradition". > >Regards, >Kasturi Rangan .K > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 3 > Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:33:17 -0000 > "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k >Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > >Dear devotees, > I was about to write on the origin of our unique tradition - >synthesized from vedic & tantric traditions, azhwars' devotional >outpourings and systematized by Shri Ramanuja. I figured that Shri >Mohan Sagar had written about this long time back. > >http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan97/0124.html >http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan97/0132.html > >Nowhere does he doubts the authority of Vedas or our perumal's >supremacy. > >I was about to use this as a central claim in my 'discussion' - that >our 'tradition' is not entirely vedic, but a synthesis of vedic, >tantric, puranic as well as our azhwars' works. (Not that this is >wrong or it 'invalidates' our tradition). > >I hope Shri Mohan Sagar would forgive me. > > >Regards, >Kasturi Rangan .K > > >ramanuja, "Mohan Sagar" <m_raghavan@e...> >wrote: > > I cannot recall ever having written anything in which I doubted >whether > > Vedas ever proclaimed the supremacy of Sriman Narayana, but if I >did, it was > > at a time where I failed to place myself under the mercy of an > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 4 > Thu, 16 Oct 2003 18:52:08 -0000 > "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k >Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > >Dear Shri Srinivasachary, > Thanks for your reply. Please do not take my reply as an offence. > >1. Absence of theistic tradition of other 'deities': >This is an interesting question (at least for a student of history). >Let us for the moment ignore sanskrit tradition and visit tamil >sangam literature. Sangam literature talks about five landscapes (5 >thiNai), mullai, marudam, kurinji, neidal and pAlai. It also talks >about five deities presiding over those landscapes - vendan, varunan, >maayon, seyon and kotravai. In 'popular' terms, they are Indra, >Varuna, Vishnu, Muruga and Devi/Goddess. > >From silappathigaram, we see that the Indira-vizha was a colorful, >joyous festival. (I gather that Indra mahotsav is still celebrated in >Nepal). We, tamils don't celebrate. Also, we see that Varuna was >worshipped with 'fish-bones'?! Vishnu was worshipped with a form of >dance (is Ras-lila in Manipur related to this?) >Out of these 5, Vishnu, Murugan and Devi worship became prominent and >Indra, Varuna worship faded into background (maybe except in places >like Nepal). >If we relax our criterion to include Persia, the 'cult' of Mithra, >another Vedic deity was prevalent in Iranian regions upto Roman >colonies (also defunct, thanks to proselytizing religions). > >2. A question on Baudhayana: >I am aware that Shri Ramanuja quotes him as an authority for >Vishistadvaita. I am not aware that he was a Vaishnava (and >Vishishtadvaita tradition could be independent of Vaishnavism, right?) > >3. Samhitas & Upanishads:> >"By the way, I feel that our Purvacharyas > > conviction of Narayana paratva is based more on > > Upanishad texts than the Samhitas.May be one can see > > whole thing only in the light of Vedanta as we any way > > believe that importence of karam mimansa is more in > > karma." >Thanks for mentioning this. I have come across the claim that "for >us, the whole shruthi is authority" (an argument which we supposedly >used against mimamsakas for whom samhita/brahmaNa portions are >sufficient to conduct flawless yagnya and upanishad portions are >redundant). If we include those, aren't we in trouble, as we are >dragging texts that say the supremacy of 'other deities' as well? > > >Once again, if I have offended you and other devotees, I apologize. > >Regards, >Kasturi Rangan > >ramanuja, srinivasa chary <srinivasadasa> >wrote: > > Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan, > > I have a small suggestion here based on my little > > analysis. Kindly see if it makes any sense. > > If you really only go by number of hymns > > dedicated to praise of Indra in say Rigveda, as we > > understand it today, Indra should be ultimate god of > > Vedas. Obviously there should have been a reasonably > > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 5 > Thu, 16 Oct 2003 14:30:51 -0500 > Srinivasan Dwarakanath-DSRINIV1 ><dwarakanathsrinivasan >Gopala Vimsathi, Sri ManavalaMaamunikal and RajaMannargudi > >Sri: >Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha: > >Adiyaen would like to post this messge in response to the query on Gopala >Vimsathi. > >Quote from the Sthala Puranam as well as from a write up from my maternal >Grandfather (Late Sri T.M Thirumalai Iyengar of Mannargudi) and from my >father, > >"The last of the great acharyas, Sri MANAVALA MAA MUNIGAL spent some time >in this shrine and regulated the mode of worship by enjoining the recital >of the 2nd psalms in THIRU VAAI MOZHI in the daily routine. Sri Manavala >Maamunikal has also sung the GOPALA VIMSADHI and the KAMALA STHUTHI in >praise of Sri VidyaRajagopalan of Mannargudi". > >In addition a few more facts related to Sri Rajagopalan are obvious: > >-2 chapters (iv-6 & v-3) of 22 verses in esoteric language of verivilakku >and madal thurais of TAMIL grammar have been sung by the doyen of alwars, >Sri SATAKOPA therein . HE was refereed to as the LORD in HIS 4 >manifestations of VANDHUVARAVAPADHI MANNAN, MANIVANNAN, MANIYIN ANI NIRA >MAYAN and VASUDEVAN.All these names are engraved within the temple >precincts on the basis of these prehistoric idols. > >- THIRUMANGAI ALWAR has adored HIM (Sri VidyaRajagopalan of Mannargudi) in >his stanza 'PONNANAI' (stanza10 in THIRUNEDUNTHANDAGAM) as "GUNAPALA MADHA >YAANAI"; the great commentator PERIAVACCHAN PILLAI refers to Sri RAMANUJA's >views that it refers to SRI MANNAR only. > >- According to the BRAHMANDAPURANAM of VEDA VYASA, the origin of MANNARGUDI >is traced to the two sages (Gopila and GoPralaya), the sons of an ancient >saint "VAHNIMUKKAR". As legends would have it, the sage GOPRALAYA performed >severe penance in the DWAPARAYUGA to seek the boon of LORD VISHNU. The LORD >in his infinite mercy, granted the boon and settled down as a cowherd >GOPALA in the same fashion as he did in DWARAKA in the north. HE appeared >before their human eyes in person ; at their request, the LORD appeared >before them as KRISHNA, from HIS birth as four handed VASUDEVA, to a GOPALA >in a series of 32 scenes enacted during HIS temporal sojourn. Hence this >place is known as "DAKSHINADWARAKA. > >- Lord BRAHMA was said to have worshipped the LORD in the KRITHA yuga to >recover his memory power with regard to HIS creation of the cosmic lives. > >- In the THRETHA yuga, sage BHRUGU and MAHALAKSHMI worshipped the LORD to >rid themselves of curses. As a result the LORD took her in marriage and she >came to be known as VASUDEVA MAHISHI, CHAMPAKAVALLI, AND SENKAMALATHAYAR. > >- In the DWAPARA yuga the GOD, AGNI offered penance on the banks of the >sacred tank in Mannargudi and regained his heat. > >Adiyen Ramanuja dasan >Dwarakanath Srinivasan > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 6 > Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:32:49 +1000 > purohit >Missing the point on Narayana > > >Dear Bhagavatars, some of us seem to be missing the point on this >discussion >on the Vedas and the Supremacy of Narayana. No one is doubting the >"supremacy" of Narayana - seeing that Narayana means the "ground of all >being" - therefore the name in itself is self-evidently absolute. The >problem arises when we enter into this Puranic discussion about who is >supreme - like debating who is the president is it A or is it B. The Vedas >declare "khalvidam brahmasarvam vai rudra", "tvameva (ganesha) sarvam >khalvidam brahmasi", "narayana evedagam sarvam". So by a process of logic >if >A = X, B = X, C = X and D = X then the relationship between A,B,C,D must >be >identical. This is then supported by the Ghataka sruti = "ekam sat vipra >bahudha vadanti" - the Truth is ONE but the wise describe is differently. > >If we regard Narayana as a person who is different to Siva, Ganesha, Brahma >and that they are all contenders for the throne then we are divided into >different camps with different agendas and end up fighting and dirt raking >like a presidential election! When we understand that the Vedas repeatedly >say the trimurti comes from Narayana, and then the same trimurty comes from >Siva, Ganesha etc, we come to a non sectarian conclusion that they are all >aspects of the one Supreme Being, different forms of the same energy. We as >vaishnavas have a personal subjective bias towards Vishnu, but let us not >deny the validity of the Saivite or Ganapatya or Sakta approach. Let us >simply accept what Krishna has said in the Gita - that he accepts all >people >in whatever way they wish to take refuge in Him, be it as Siva, Ganesha, >Sakti Brahma or as Vishnu. > >The truth of Rig veda is that the majority of suktas are indeed addressed >to Indra and Agni, and only 3 or 4 to Vishnu, Narayana does not get a >mention. So let us not get carried away by fundamentalism and dogmatism. >Let >us treasure our sampradaya and also respect and accept the sampradaya of >others. Let us pursue the path of unity in diversity which to me is the >true >message of the Vedas. > >Adiyen >Sri Ram > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 7 > Fri, 17 Oct 2003 04:39:34 -0000 > "VenkatarAghavan K.S" <ksvenkat >Re: Missing the point on Narayana > >SrI: > >Dear all > >This is really reaching a level of annoyance. > >Where in vedas does the so called ganapati aka pilliAr being praised >as supreme?? please quote.also quote about MurugAn being praised as >supreme. > >It is accepted and undipsuted that IndrA is praised very highly so is >rudra so is akAshA so is hirnayagarbhA... and so many other deities.. >No one disputes it. > >I could appreciate a discusssion where one can talk about supremacy of >RudrA and compare it with Vishnu just for the sake of knowing how such >a contradiction is reconcilled.. because there are certainly certain >portions of vedaAs that raise and parise rudra to a very great extent. > >But there are no yes no portions about the much celebrated and hyped >up "pillaiAr" or "Murugan" and hold them as supreme. > >sAktham Saivam are totaly rejected by any vedAnthin be it >Adi-shankarAchAryA who is now being projectd as a shaivite at times >and sAktha at times for some reason or the other which is known only >to shriyapathi. > >gAnabathyam and koumAram dont even get mentioned in any vedAntha work. > >On careful analysis of karmAs vedAntha bAshyAs(BS bAshyA G bAshyA and >Up BAshya) by all the achAryAs of different vedAnthic traditions one >can easily come to the conclusion that if vedAntha talks about theism >it is purely monotheist and so talks about one supreme deity who is >none other than nArAyanA. > >I am afraid that My post would go to pages volumes..I want to avoid >that so please yes please for some sake or the other for which you >have been unnecssarily raising this issue refer to so many articles >posted on bakthi list or mAlolan list. > >If you are in India please take pains to get a copy of works by Puttur >KrishnaswAmy iyengar of tiruchy. > >The answres provide by him in his works on such type of arguments are >befitting. > >"Nail on the head" I would say. > >Or better choose a AchAryA do a grantha kAlakshepam. > >regards >Venkat > > >ramanuja, purohit@b... wrote: > > > > Dear Bhagavatars, some of us seem to be missing the point on this >discussion > > on the Vedas and the Supremacy of Narayana. No one is doubting the > > "supremacy" of Narayana - seeing that Narayana means the "ground of all > > being" - therefore the name in itself is self-evidently absolute. The > > problem arises when we enter into this Puranic discussion about who is > > supreme - like debating who is the president is it A or is it B. The >Vedas > > declare "khalvidam brahmasarvam vai rudra", "tvameva (ganesha) sarvam > > khalvidam brahmasi", "narayana evedagam sarvam". So by a process of >logic if > > A = X, B = X, C = X and D = X then the relationship between A,B,C,D >must be > > identical. This is then supported by the Ghataka sruti = "ekam sat vipra > > bahudha vadanti" - the Truth is ONE but the wise describe is >differently. > > > > If we regard Narayana as a person who is different to Siva, Ganesha, >Brahma > > and that they are all contenders for the throne then we are divided into > > different camps with different agendas and end up fighting and dirt >raking > > like a presidential election! When we understand that the Vedas >repeatedly > > say the trimurti comes from Narayana, and then the same trimurty >comes from > > Siva, Ganesha etc, we come to a non sectarian conclusion that they >are all > > aspects of the one Supreme Being, different forms of the same >energy. We as > > vaishnavas have a personal subjective bias towards Vishnu, but let >us not > > deny the validity of the Saivite or Ganapatya or Sakta approach. Let us > > simply accept what Krishna has said in the Gita - that he accepts >all people > > in whatever way they wish to take refuge in Him, be it as Siva, Ganesha, > > Sakti Brahma or as Vishnu. > > > > The truth of Rig veda is that the majority of suktas are indeed >addressed > > to Indra and Agni, and only 3 or 4 to Vishnu, Narayana does not get a > > mention. So let us not get carried away by fundamentalism and >dogmatism. Let > > us treasure our sampradaya and also respect and accept the sampradaya of > > others. Let us pursue the path of unity in diversity which to me is >the true > > message of the Vedas. > > > > Adiyen > > Sri Ram > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 8 > Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:24:36 +0530 > "M.G.Vasudevan" <mgv >special maayams of baalan - post 3 > >Post 3 > >Dear sri vaishNava perunthagaiyeer, > >We were enjoying 2 excellent mudhal thiruvandhaadhi paasurams. >Just to recall them [reading any number of times these sweet ones, >it does not do any over working and hence one more reading] - > >maNNUm malaiyum maRikadalum maaruthamum >viNNum vizhungiyadhu mei enbar - eNNil >alagu aLavu kaNda seeraazhiyaaikku anRiv >vulagu aLavu uNdO un vaai - 10th paasuram > >baalan thanadhu uruvaai Ezhu ulagu uNdu aal ilaiyin >mEl anRu nee vaLarntha mei enbar - aal anRu >vElai neer uLLadhO? viNNadhO? maNNadhO? >sOlai soozh kunRu eduththaai, sollu. - 69th paasuram > >I also mentioned we have references in sreemadh bhaagavatham on this >krishna episode of aalilaik kaNNan. >We will enjoy these slOkams in this post and complete the topic of specials >maayams of baalan. > >These two slOkams we have already seen. >sa kadhaachith Bhramamsthasmin pruthivyaa: kakudhi dhvija: | >nyagrODhapOtham dhadhrusE phala phallava sOBhitham || 20 > >meaning: when he roamed that brahmaNa [meaning maarkaNdEya] saw in a tender >leaf grown in a branch of fig tree which was hanging downwards, a dark >shining child. > >praaththarasyaam saakhaayaam thasyaapi dhadhrusa sisum | >sayaanam parNaputakE grasantham praBhayaathama: || 21 > >meaning: In that branch which was in the north direction, the child was >sleeping rolling that leaf as the bed putting the foot in the mouth. > >Now more: >thaavath sisORvai svasithEna Bhaargava: sO~ntha:sareeram masakO >yathaavisath | >thathraapyadhO nyasthamachashta kruthasnasO yathaa puraamuhyadhatheeva >vismitha: || >27th slokam 9th chapter 12th skandham sreemadh bhaagavatham > >meaning: bhaargava: saw the boy exhausted and sleepy after eating all, at >the same time with a bewildering smile. while breathing, the maharshi >entered inside the body [stomach] of that baalaakan, [or sisu] >like a mosquito entering a hole [like nose mouth etc]. > >kham rOdhasi BhagaNaan adhri saagaraan dhveepaan savarshaan kakuBha: >suraasuraan | >vanaani dhEsaan saritha: puraakaraan khEtaan vrajaanaasrama >varNavruththaya: || >28th slokam 9th chapter 12th skandham sreemadh bhaagavatham > >meaning: he saw all the worlds [heaven and earth] sun, earth and other >planets inside, hills and oceans, continents and clouds, rain at the peaks >of these hills etc, dhEvaas and asuraas, forests, countries and bays. Also >the towns and villages, the cowherds and the ashramam etc of every >description. [nothing is left out] > >mahaanthi Bhoothaanyatha Bhouthikaanyasou kaalam cha naanaayuga kalpa >kalpanam | >yath kinchith anyath vyavahaara kaaraNam dhadharsa visvam sadhivaava >Bhaasitham || >29th slokam 9th chapter 12th skandham sreemadh bhaagavatham > >meaning: there he saw all that having the great end of all elements in him, >the time and various yugaas and kalpaas [several yugaas combined is one >kalpa and several such kalpaas]. The whole matter he saw and everywhere he >has entered - the maharshi saw. > >Point: now you can see that aazhvaar has included all that, what we have in >bhagavatham in simple tamil for us to understand as kham -maNNUm viNNUm, >adhri -malaiyum, saagaraan -maRi kadalum, savarshaan - maaruthamum etc. > >Dear bhakthaas, Read and enjoy the greatness of kaNNan - the maayams of >baalan through aazhvaar paasurams and bhaagavatham. > >Dhaasan > > Vasudevan m.g. > >PS: I am just including few more slokaas without giving meaning since these >describe how was that aalilaik kaNNan. [since not directly bears an impact >on the paasuram, I am just giving the slokams only. For those who can >understand sanskrit it is a treat to enjoy these slokams also] >mahaa marakatha syaamam sreemadh vadhana pankajam| >kambugreevam mahOraskam sunaasam sundhara Bhruvam|| -22 > >svaasaijadhalaaBhaatham kambu sree karNa dhaaDimam| >vidhrumaadhara BhasEshachchONaayitha suDhaasmitham|| -23 > >padhmagarBhaaruNaapaangam hrudhayahaasaavalOkanam| >svaasaijadhbalisamvignanimnaaBhidhalOdharam|| 24 > >thadhdharsanaadh veethaparisramaO mudhaa prOthphulla hruthpadhma vilOchana >ambuja:| prahrushta romaadhBhudhaBhaavasankhitha prashtum purastha >prasasaara baalakam || 26 > > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 9 > Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:11:09 +0530 > sukumar <sukumar >Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > >Sri Krishnaya Namah! > > >On a question as to whether Sriman Narayana is supreme or not, as per Veda, >here are my views: > >If one were go by Veda, then one should thoroughly go through the entire >Vedas, including karma kanda and seek for answers Period. > >I read somewhere that even Sage Bharadhwaja cannot study the vedas in its >entirety and it requires many births to great sages to digest vedas. Even >Brahma who have been taught Vedas by Narayana Himself, loses it and forgets >sometimes and then meditates on Narayana to gain the knowledge. Just like >a MBBS qualifies one as a doctor, in the same way, Brahma was a qualified >creator after gaining the knowledge of Vedas. > >If one were go by Acharyas(Sri Adi Shankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhwa) - a >question arises as to whether they have commented on Vedas in their own >way(by influencing the work with their notions) or they simply put that >across without any additions, as they have understood. If the former is >true then Vedas has to be left alone and their work can be called an >intellectual work on spirituality and if the latter is true, we must follow >their preachings. Somebody should throw some light on this as the >acharyas (especially the main three) are godsent and have divine powers. > >On a different platform, we have many proofs in terms of Purusha sooktha, >Narayana Suktha, Vishnu Suktha, Sri Suktha, Mahanarayana >Upanishat/Chandogya Upanishat(out of 10 principle upanishats) to prove >WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that Narayana is the Supreme and "NA DWITHIYOSTHI >KASCHITH". Icing on the cake is the celestial song - Bhagavadgita, which >has got such a universality that there is a need for the present day >mankind to study this in its entirety. Vibhooti yoga in BG clearly states >that it is He who is the cause for all and none else, and whatever be our >ishtadeva and our kainkaryams towards Him will finally reach Him and He >will bless us in the form being cherished by us. Somebody should list down >these so that bhagavathas are happy for being a Perumal bhakthas with very >little knowledge on Veda. > >Also, can anyone refute the knowledge behind BG or Srimad Bhagavatha being >a sathvik purana. Atleast in my wildest dreams, I will bank on the >preachings of alwars, acharyas (including Sri Adi Shankara) except for a >miniscule shaivites, shakthites and ganapathites as my mind is made up for >Narayana. > >Let BG lights our mind's eye and thwarts all these doubts. > > >Sukumar > >Sri Krishnaparabrahmane Namah! > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 10 > Fri, 17 Oct 2003 06:23:59 -0600 > "Mohan Sagar" <m_raghavan >Re: Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > >As I had mentioned in my previous note, these words were written long >before >I had placed my full faith and trust in an AchAryan who could teach me >properly. I guess it is true what they say about someone's past coming >back >to haunt them. > >Please note that tantra and prabhandam also are part of Veda, not just the >four famous books that even wegrade school students in America know as the >Four Sacred Scriptures of Hinduism. Veda is wisdom, and as such in >non-contradictory and all inclusive. While from a Western >anthropologist's, >it could be argued to distinguish Tamil from Sanskrit culture, from the >standpoint of Vedic scholars, this arguement has logical basis. > >Ramanuja dasan >Mohan > > > > >- >"amshuman_k" <amshuman_k ><ramanuja> >Thursday, October 16, 2003 12:33 PM >[ramanuja] Re: Vedas & Supremacy of Sriman Narayana > > > > Dear devotees, > > I was about to write on the origin of our unique tradition - > > synthesized from vedic & tantric traditions, azhwars' devotional > > outpourings and systematized by Shri Ramanuja. I figured that Shri > > Mohan Sagar had written about this long time back. > > > > http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan97/0124.html > > http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/jan97/0132.html > > > > Nowhere does he doubts the authority of Vedas or our perumal's > > supremacy. > > > > I was about to use this as a central claim in my 'discussion' - that > > our 'tradition' is not entirely vedic, but a synthesis of vedic, > > tantric, puranic as well as our azhwars' works. (Not that this is > > wrong or it 'invalidates' our tradition). > > > > I hope Shri Mohan Sagar would forgive me. > > > > > > Regards, > > Kasturi Rangan .K > > > > > > ramanuja, "Mohan Sagar" <m_raghavan@e...> > > wrote: > > > I cannot recall ever having written anything in which I doubted > > whether > > > Vedas ever proclaimed the supremacy of Sriman Narayana, but if I > > did, it was > > > at a time where I failed to place myself under the mercy of an > > > > > > > > > > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 11 > Fri, 17 Oct 2003 08:51:57 -0700 (PDT) > Chitra Madhavan <csmadhavan >mission > >Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha > >Priya Bagavad Bandus > >As per our Isthihasas it is true that SriRama naver went as a messanger, >and only Sri Krishna did walk as a messanger. > >But SriRama's messanger SriHanuman was successful in His mission, > >Inspite of SriKrishna going as a messanger His mission was not successful. > >Futhur thoughts on this : > >Hanuman during His mission had His thoughts focused on SriRama and since He >had surrendered to SriRama it was successful. > >Whereas SriKrishna had nobody to focus His thoughts and no one to surrender >to, hence mission failure. > >Onceagain it proves that if surrender to our Acharya and leave our burdens >to Him, He will make our life successful. > >Azhvar EmperumaNar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Saranam >Adiyen Chitra Ramanuja Dasee > > > >Sri: >Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > >A devotee once challenged Bhattar saying "Swamin! You >show great devotion to Sri Rama but not to Sri Krishna. >However, Lord Krishna is greater in one respect than >Lord Rama and even you cannot deny that". > >Bhattar asked him "What is that?" > >The devotee replied "Lord Krishna went as a messenger >for the Pandavas to the Kauravas. Lord Rama never did >such an act. Therefore, you have to accept that >Krishna is the more accesible form of the Lord". > >Bhattar replied "You are saying this without reading >Azhvar's pasuram on thiru-evvuL. > >Thirumangai Azhvar says, > >munnOr thUthu vAnaraththin vAyil mozhindhu, arakkan >mannOr thannai vALiyinAl mALA munindhu, avanE >pinnOr thUthu AdhimannarkkAgip peru nilaththAr >innAr thuthanena ninRAn evvuL kidanthAnE > >That is, it is the same Rama who sent a message through >Hanuman who later walked as a messenger Himself for the >Pandavas. Therefore, you cannot say that Sri Rama did >not go as a messenger. > >However, even if you make such a claim, it is not that >Rama could not be a messenger. He was born as a king and >therefore no one asked Him to be one. Krishna was born >in the yadava clan and therefore it was easy for the >Pandavas to ask him to be their messenger. Had someone >asked Rama to be a messenger, He would have gladly >become one". > >Azhvar Emberumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam > > > > > > > > > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 12 > Fri, 17 Oct 2003 17:24:16 -0000 > "vtca" <vtca >Mumukshuppadi - 231 -233 > >Sri: >Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > >Sri Pillai Lokacharya's Mumukshuppadi > >Sutra: >231. iththai ozhiyavum thAnE kAryam seyyumenRu ninaikkak >kadavan. >232. allAtha pOthu upAya nairapEksham jeeviyAdhu. >233. idhu Sarvamukthi prasanga parihArArththam; budhdhi >SamAdhAnArththam; caithanya kAryam; rAga prAptham; >SvarUpa nishtam; aprathishEthathyOthagam. > >Sri PBA Swami's Sarartha Deepikai: >Since it is His effort that is responsible for the >attachment to this means, He does not do it for this >goal. Even if this surrender is not done, it is to be >understood that He, who is focused on the upliftment >of the chetana, would give what the chetana needs and >remove what he doesn't. > >If not - that is, if the chetana thinks that He will >not do that without this surrender and that the >surrender is required for Him to do it - the greatness >of the siddhopaya (the Lord), which is that it does not >require anything, will be spoiled. > >If that is the case, why is the surrender to be >performed? > >It is needed to answer the question of sarva mukti >prasangam (if the chetana does not have to do anything >for Him to do His act, then shouldn't everyone attain >liberation). > >It is needed so that the chetana does not become >confused as to why He who did not protect him for so >long will do that now. > >Since he is not an achetana, the thought that He is the >means is the result of his being a chetana (using his >knowledge). > >This act which did not happen due to fate but due to >the chetana's love for it born out of his understanding >of its taste, is not opposed to his nature. Instead it >is appropriate to his nature of seeking His protection. > >Since the chetana has rejected His protection for age- >less time, this puts the spotlight on the fact that he >has now given up doing that. > >This is the meaning of this act and not that it itself >is the means. > >Pillai Lokacharyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam >Azhvar Emperumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam > >adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan > >Mumukshuppadi Sarartha Deepikai Series: >http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/index.html > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > >Message: 13 > Fri, 17 Oct 2003 16:08:30 -0000 > "vtca" <vtca >A Day in the Life of our Acharyas - 25 > >Sri: >Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > >A Srivaishnava once asked Bhattar to teach him thiru- >ArAdhana-k-kramam. Bhattar then taught him the kramam >as done by Ramanujar. The Srivaishnava followed that >from that day forward. > >At one time he was staying with Bhattar and was >watching Bhattar do thiruvArAdhana-k-kramam. He >noticed that Bhattar was not following anything that >he had taught him. > >What Bhattar was doing was this: He would take a bath, >wear clothes, wear thirumaN kAppu, go to where he >normally ate, ask his disciples to bring his personal >perumAL, present the food and water to that perumAL >and then himself eat. > >The Srivaishnava then fell in Bhattar's feet and told >him "adiyEn has a question, but I am afraid to ask". > >Bhattar said "Have no fear. Ask your question". > >He said "You taught me the thiruvArAdhana-k-kramam in >one way, but you are doing something totally different. >Why is that?" > >Bhattar replied "Looking at all sastras, I did not >find anything different to teach you. Looking at the >same sastras, I did not see anything different for >myself to do". > >That is, an acharya will teach his disciples many >things in order to correct them, help control their >senses and turn them toward the Lord. But the acts >of the same acharya toward the Lord is beyond the >understanding of the disciples. > >Azhvar Emberumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam > > > > >______________________ >______________________ > > > >Your use of is subject to > > _______________ Send instant messages to anyone on your contact list with MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com 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.