On tiru-malai.

[Guest guest]

Friends,

 

On Sri Madhurakavi-dAsan's posting, I looked up the Saiva composer Sri

aruNa-giri-nAtha, and found a piece on 'tiru-vEnkaTam', beginning with the line

 

"vari SErntiDu SEl-kayalO enum..."

 

The concluding part is given here in paraphrase ~

 

<<Oh Guha, the one that dwells on

the grand tiru-vEnkaTam hill

rich in gardens and bowers,

the nephew of nArAyaNa, hari, raghu-rAma,

who strung his bow and decapitated rAvaNa's head,

even as He trained against the seven tall marA-trees,

against the ocean with its wide waves,

and against vAli;

The charioteer who managed the horses

of the pANDava's chariot

and made the bhAratam

as to exterminate in battle-field

the array entire of duryOdhana

with his elephants, steeds, chariots and infantry;

He the one who sports the flaming discus.>>

 

In this song, the Saiva devotee's dominant object of adoration seems rather

tirumalai-appan than the multi-fused personality of muruGan-Guha-skanda.

 

The purANa anthology collectively titled "Sri vEnkaTAchala-mAhAtmyam" (Tirumalai

Devasthanam 1959) contains the vyutpatti (explanation) of the name of the

'kumAra-dhArA' spring located on the tirumalai. An aged and impoverished

brahmin was restored to youth by bathing in this spring, and hence its name

'kumAra-dhArA' --

 

"yata: kumAratAm yAta: sadyO vRddha-maheesura:

tasmAt kumAra-dhArEti lOkE khyAtim gamishyati."

 

This name was further confirmed when Lord Sri vEnkaTESvara granted the prayers

of kumAra-skanda who performed penances on the hill uttering the vEnkaTa

mahA-mantram.

 

The fact that a particular site on the tiru-malai is named 'kumAra' does not

affect the majesty and supremacy of tirumalai-appan.

 

The prosodic rhythms of aruNaGiri tiru-p-pukazh songs had inspired the

extraordinary work 'rAmajaya-t-tiru-p-pukazh' (of 370 songs) composed by Sri

bAla-bhArati (original name: rAma aiyanGAr, 17th cent.) of SrivilliputtUr.

The Tirumalai Tirupati Devasthanam edition (1954) contains also an extensive

gloss from an anonymous author. This extraordinary work includes some

passionate hymns devoted to Lord SriranganAtha, his sacred abode of

Sriranga-vimAnam, and the coveted Srirangam environments.

 

Thank you for this opportunity to introduce the 'rAmajaya-t-tiru-p-pukazh' .

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja-dAsan,

tirumanjanam Sundara Rajan,

in Srirangam.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-

<ramanuja>

<ramanuja>

Friday, November 14, 2003 4:43 AM

[ramanuja] Digest Number 668

 

Message: 12

Thu, 13 Nov 2003 15:35:37 -0000

"vtca" <vtca

Re: Tirupathi

 

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>

<ramanuja>

Friday, November 14, 2003 4:43 AM

[ramanuja] Digest Number 668

 

Message: 7

Tue, 11 Nov 2003 13:45:45 -0700

"Mohan Sagar" <m_raghavan

Re: Tirupathi

 

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