(On narayaNa's paratvam again) Digest Number 654/message 6.

[Guest guest]

Dear devotees,

Let me end this discussion with my last summary. I apologize if I

hurt anybody's feelings and sensibilities.

 

Interpretation of Vedas:

To say that "only my interpretation of the Vedas is correct" and

those who do not conform to this have "crooked vision" doesn't seem

like a logical position to me. To re-iterate,

 

"The vedas declare Vishnu and Vishnu alone as the supreme" is a

statement, whose validity can be verified. My claim is, we need to go

beyond the vedas themselves and use purANas, vaishnava tantras and

the work of our pUrvAchAryas, as exactly shri Parthasarathy did.

 

Vishnu in Sanga ilakkiyam:

I doubt that the tamils of sangam era were 'Vaishnavites' or

considered him to be the only supreme. Paripaadal which explicitly

deals with Vaishnavite themes is dated to be around 5 A.D. Please

provide references from other sangam works.

 

 

Regards,

Kasturi Rangan .K

 

ramanuja, "thirunarayanan parthasarathy

iyengar" <shyamala45@r...> wrote:

>

> SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA

> APPAN THIRUVADIGALE SARANAM.

>

>

> Dear Srivaishnavas, Accept my pranam.

>

> A prolonged discussion is going on the issue"Supremacy of

Narayana"

> Our great Ramanuja has discussed this issue in his "Vedartha

Sangraha" in slokas 101 to 112.

> Whose explanation, other than him do we require on this issue?

> We are the followers of Ramanuja.

> Those who can dispute his arguments can be:

>

> 1. Those who has no faith in Vedas.

> 2. Those who believe in Vedas; but, interpret vedas according to

their whims and fancies.

> 3. The present generation who get confused on account of various

modern versions without any base.

>

>

> Sri Ramanuja's explanations are based on "Sabdha—Vedas" as

pramanas. He follows the way shown by his elders, predecessors, great

Rishis…Badarayana, Danga, Brhama nandi,Ghuha Deva. Kabhardhi,

Bharuchi etc.,

>

> (This is the proper way as advised by Sri Manavala Mamunigal as

advised in URM.71.

> (MUUNNOR MOZHINTHA MURAI THAPPAME, PINNOR ATHANAI OORNTHU

THAMATHANAI PESU).

>

> We can ignore the statements of those under class 1 as they view

things in a different footing. Let them have their own way.

>

> " AVARAVAR THAMATHATHU ARIVARI VAKAI AVARAR IRAIYAVAR ENA

ADI ADAIVARKAL' Thiruvaimozhi.1.1.5.

>

> We can ignore the explantions or arguments of the class.2. as they

are known as "KUTHDRISHTIS' or those do not view things in the

correct way.

>

> The third case requires explanations.

>

> We should thank our stars that we are followers of Ramanuja.

> We can simply believe his statements.

> Because, He was the master on all Vedas, NDP and all sastras..

> He never accepted which is not conforming to sound logic. His life

started questioning his masters whenever he could not agree with his

master's views.

>

> His cousin brother Govidan, later known as Embar, asked him as to

how he could believe that Sriman Narayana is having Chakra, Conch and

other Divya ayudhas?

>

> He replied " Lord revealed himself to me as such and it is up to

you to believe it or not."

>

> One Sishya, Trilokya maha devi, who is not a scholar said that she

would believe whatever Ramanuja said, even if he said that the

Jeyshta Devi is the ultimate supreme Lord. Such was strong faith of

these disciples.

>

> One Yagnja moorthy, later known as Arulala perumal Emperumanar, a

versatile scholar argued with him and later became the disciple of

Ramanuja.

>

> One Madhavachariar, a great scholar was won over by Bhattar, became

his disciple and was known Nanjeeyar.

>

> Such was the intellectual honesty and integrity of these people.

>

>

> 2. The difference of opinion on `Parathva" is of later origin.

Tamil Sangam literature which belong to a period prior to 500.B.C,

mentions the worship of many gods including Narayana(Thirumal). But,

Parathvam or Jagat Karanathvam is attributed to HIM ONLY. There was

no dispute on this point during that period.

> 3. After 500 B.C, Jainism and Buddhism began to flourish

and "Sanadhana Dharma " was in shadows.

> 4. No concrete information is available for the periods during 1st

Century AD to 3rd Century. From 4th Century onwards, Azhvars and

Nayanmars began to spread Vaishanvam and Saivam respectively.

> 5. From this period only Saivites began to claim Supremacy to Lord

Siva. They can have their own way as they do not have faith in Vedas.

> 6. But, Vedhanthins cannot have such a claim. They have always held

Vishnu or Narayana as the Supreme one.

> 7. Sri.Alavandar in his Stotra Ratna sloka 11 says.

>

> `SVABHAVIKA ANVATHIKA ATHISAYA EESITHVAM KHAHA;VAIDHIKA NA

> MRUSHYATHI ? SIVA SADHAMAKA ITHI YETHE ABHI YASYA THE

MAHIMARANAVA VIPRUSHAHA;

> In other words, Vaidhikas cannot question your overlordship as

Siva; Brahma and others form part and drops in your mighty ocean.

>

> Of course some Vedhantins who saw reason in Ramanuja's arguments

became his disciples. Those who cannot tolerate the splendor of

Srivaishnavam, in later periods. became Saiva Advaithins and started

confusions.

>

> Pillai Lokachariar has contributed 18 Rahasyas . `THATHVA SEKARAM;

which deals with this issue also, is one among them.

>

> Those who can go through these texts can get convinced of the

Supremacy of Lord Narayana. It is advisable for them to get the

guidance and advice of learned well-qualified unbiased persons of our

cult.

>

> That is best way for ametures.

>

> Adiyen Ramanuja dasan, T.Parthasarathy.

>

>

>

>

> \

>

> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 ramanuja wrote :

> >------------------------ >(

>

>