Guest guest Posted November 6, 2003 Report Share Posted November 6, 2003 Dear all, I have a doubt regarding Lord Srinivasa's murthy at Tirupathi as given below. 1.Many people say that idol of Lord Srinivasa of Tirupati does not confirm to Rules laid down by Agama sastra. (eg. Shanka & Chakra are not integral part of murthy) 2.This has lead to claims by various people that the murthy must be Siva, skanda, shakti etc.. May I request you please to share your thoughts on this so that I can learn about the same. Adiyen Mohan Ramanujadasan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 2003 Report Share Posted November 11, 2003 Dear Sri Mohan, A work called Sri Venkateswara itihAsa mAla provides great detail into the arguments that Bhagavad Sri Ramanuja presented in order to prove, without a doubt, that Srinivasa at Thirumalai is the archAvathAra of Sriman Narayana, and that His thirumEni is in accordance with Agama sAstra. As I have not studied the work under an AchArya, I would be reluctant to quote from the English synopsis that I have. But, one thing that I can share is that this historic record makes it clear that the Lord's Sankha and Chakra had been removed for specific reasons, and that these had been replaced by Sri Ramanuja at the time when this great debate had been resolved. It is interesting to note that since he reminded the Lord Whom He Really Is, and also "emblazened" Him with the Sankha and Chakra, Sri Ramanuja is regarded to be the Acharya to Srinivasa, just as Manavalamamunigal is the AchArya to Ranganatha. It is to recognize Srinivasa's role as his sishya that Sri Ramanuja's Sannidhi is situated a few feet higher than the garbha griham. I hope this helps. adiyEn Ramanuja dAsan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: Dear Sri Mohan, Sri Mohan Sagar is right. Sri Venkatesa Itihasamala which is believed to be authored by Sri Anandazhvan, one of the 74 disciples of Swami Ramanuja, shows in great detail all the arguments put forward by Saivites that Sri Venkatesa is either Skanda or Siva and the brilliant manner in which Ramanuja refuted their claims and showed with extensive evidence that Lord Srinivasa is none other than Sriman Narayana. These claims are therefore not new. And, they are kept being made in spite of the fact that such claims have been soundly defeated. I believe that Arunagiri Nathar or some other person has even written poems stating that it is Skanda who is on the seven hills. There are even attempts made to substantiate these based on popular sayings such as "kunRu niRkum idamellAm kumaran niRkum idam"!! Let's take a brief look at some of these arguments and what Sri Ramanujar had to say about them. One argument is that the water is called Svami Pushkarini and that the Swami is from Kumara Swami, another name for Skanda. They also pointed to the Varaha purana which states that Skanda came to the hills to do penance. Ramanuja rejected these claims showing from many evidences including the Varaha purana and many other puranas, that the kshetram itself is a Vishnu kshetram and that Skanda came there to meditate on Sriman Narayana. Also, the name Swami Pushkarini came because the waters are considered to be the Swami of all puNya thIrtthams. Finally, while Skanda might be called Kumara Swami, the word Swami by itself is not used for him in any puraNas. It is reserved only for Sriman Narayana. Besides many others have meditated on Tirumala hills and therefore the kshetram cannot be said to be dedicated to any one of them. Also, the Lord of the Seven Hills has four shoulders. This is not a characetristic associated with Skanda. Azhvars have all praised Lord Srinivasa as Sriman Narayana. Azhvars are detached from this world's normal matters. There is no need for them to go to a temple for Skanda and claim that it is Sriman Narayana. And their description of the Lord cannot be attributed to Varaha Perumal on the mountain. They fit only Lord Srinivasa. The lack of conch and discus on the archa mEni of the Lord: He gave His weapons to His devotee King Thondaman to help him in battle - that is the reason why He is present without the conch and the discus. The saivites then claimed that it must be Siva because of the use of bilva leaves to worship Him, which is usually done in Siva temples. However, Ramanuja established that usage of bilva leaves is not exclusive to Siva. It is said that Sri Mahalakshmi likes bilva tree (Sri suktam)and therefore Narayana likes its leaves just as much as He likes thulasi leaves. There are many works that say that Sriman Narayana should be worshipped with bilva leaves and other flowers. Next the saivites made the same claim based on the fact that He has long hair and wears a snake around His neck. However, Ramanuja once again was able to quote from many works to show that these too are normal characteristics of Narayana. Also, he showed that during Lord Srinivasa's wedding, snake ornaments were given to Him to wear around His neck. They then used Peyazhvar's pasuram where he says that the Lord enjoys both forms in Thirumala and used that to claim that He was HariHara. However, Ramanuja showed that the poem was meant to show that Sriman Narayana enjoys both forms and not that He is HariHara. In spite of all such convincing arguments, the Saivites kept complaining and so history records it that in the presence of the king, the conch and discus were placed in front of the Lord as well as the ayudhams of Siva. The sannidhi was then sealed and when it was reopened the next morning, the Lord stood smiling wearing the conch and the discus. If people choose to still argue, then what can we say? Azhvar Emberumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan ramanuja, "Mohan Sagar" <m_raghavan@e...> wrote: > Dear Sri Mohan, > > A work called Sri Venkateswara itihAsa mAla provides great detail into the > arguments that Bhagavad Sri Ramanuja presented in order to prove, without a > doubt, that Srinivasa at Thirumalai is the archAvathAra of Sriman Narayana, > and that His thirumEni is in accordance with Agama sAstra. > ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2003 Report Share Posted November 13, 2003 Sriman, I thank you very much for educating me on this. Adiyen Mohan Ramanujadasan. On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 vtca wrote : >Sri: >Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > >Dear Sri Mohan, > >Sri Mohan Sagar is right. Sri Venkatesa Itihasamala which is >believed to be authored by Sri Anandazhvan, one of the 74 >disciples of Swami Ramanuja, shows in great detail all the >arguments put forward by Saivites that Sri Venkatesa is >either Skanda or Siva and the brilliant manner in which >Ramanuja refuted their claims and showed with extensive >evidence that Lord Srinivasa is none other than Sriman >Narayana. > >These claims are therefore not new. And, they are kept being >made in spite of the fact that such claims have been soundly >defeated. > >I believe that Arunagiri Nathar or some other person has >even written poems stating that it is Skanda who is on >the seven hills. There are even attempts made to >substantiate these based on popular sayings such as "kunRu >niRkum idamellAm kumaran niRkum idam"!! > >Let's take a brief look at some of these arguments and what >Sri Ramanujar had to say about them. > >One argument is that the water is called Svami Pushkarini and >that the Swami is from Kumara Swami, another name for Skanda. >They also pointed to the Varaha purana which states that >Skanda came to the hills to do penance. > >Ramanuja rejected these claims showing from many evidences >including the Varaha purana and many other puranas, that >the kshetram itself is a Vishnu kshetram and that Skanda >came there to meditate on Sriman Narayana. Also, the name >Swami Pushkarini came because the waters are considered >to be the Swami of all puNya thIrtthams. Finally, while >Skanda might be called Kumara Swami, the word Swami by >itself is not used for him in any puraNas. It is reserved >only for Sriman Narayana. Besides many others have >meditated on Tirumala hills and therefore the kshetram >cannot be said to be dedicated to any one of them. >Also, the Lord of the Seven Hills has four shoulders. This >is not a characetristic associated with Skanda. > >Azhvars have all praised Lord Srinivasa as Sriman Narayana. >Azhvars are detached from this world's normal matters. >There is no need for them to go to a temple for Skanda and >claim that it is Sriman Narayana. And their description of >the Lord cannot be attributed to Varaha Perumal on the >mountain. They fit only Lord Srinivasa. > >The lack of conch and discus on the archa mEni of the Lord: >He gave His weapons to His devotee King Thondaman to help >him in battle - that is the reason why He is present without >the conch and the discus. > >The saivites then claimed that it must be Siva because of >the use of bilva leaves to worship Him, which is usually >done in Siva temples. However, Ramanuja established that >usage of bilva leaves is not exclusive to Siva. It is said >that Sri Mahalakshmi likes bilva tree (Sri suktam)and >therefore Narayana likes its leaves just as much as He >likes thulasi leaves. There are many works that say that >Sriman Narayana should be worshipped with bilva leaves >and other flowers. > >Next the saivites made the same claim based on the fact >that He has long hair and wears a snake around His neck. >However, Ramanuja once again was able to quote from many >works to show that these too are normal characteristics of >Narayana. Also, he showed that during Lord Srinivasa's >wedding, snake ornaments were given to Him to wear around >His neck. > >They then used Peyazhvar's pasuram where he says that the >Lord enjoys both forms in Thirumala and used that to claim >that He was HariHara. However, Ramanuja showed that the >poem was meant to show that Sriman Narayana enjoys both >forms and not that He is HariHara. > >In spite of all such convincing arguments, the Saivites >kept complaining and so history records it that in the >presence of the king, the conch and discus were placed >in front of the Lord as well as the ayudhams of Siva. >The sannidhi was then sealed and when it was reopened the >next morning, the Lord stood smiling wearing the conch >and the discus. > >If people choose to still argue, then what can we say? > >Azhvar Emberumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam > >adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan > > >ramanuja, "Mohan Sagar" <m_raghavan@e...> >wrote: > > Dear Sri Mohan, > > > > A work called Sri Venkateswara itihAsa mAla provides great detail >into the > > arguments that Bhagavad Sri Ramanuja presented in order to prove, >without a > > doubt, that Srinivasa at Thirumalai is the archAvathAra of Sriman >Narayana, > > and that His thirumEni is in accordance with Agama sAstra. > > ... > > > >azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > >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.