Please console me..

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

Sri Balaji Swami,

 

Let me segregate your queries on puranas and other

information you have written in your recent mails,

into three parts and try to and find answers for them.

 

(1) About your opinion on Thiruvalluvar, yes,

Thiruvalluvar speaks like a Sri Vaishnavite. The Urai

Asiriyar, ParimElazhagar who happens to be a

Srivaishnavite interprets the very first Thirukkural

‘agara mudala’ from the standpoint of Vaishnavite

philosophy by alluding the ‘agaram’ of the KuraL to

‘akaaram’ of srivaishnavism (rakshakathwam and

kAraNathwam) and the ‘bhagavan’ in ‘Adhi bhagavan

mudatrE’ to the 6 qualities of bhagam which is equated

to Brahman or Narayana. (also note :- ‘anthamil

Adhiyam bhagavan’ by Nammazhwar)

 

Moreover the last kural in the first 10 is to be

interpreted as the resultant of the first word in the

first KuraL, namely ‘agaram’. The release from the

cycle of birth and death (10th KuraL) is possible only

by the kataaksham of the bhagavan who is denoted by

akaaram (1st KuraL). This is one way of interpretation

of the entire first adhikaaram on ‘kadavuL vAzhtthu’.

 

We don’t know whether Thiruvalluvar purposefully

framed these verses with an inclination on vaishnavite

philosophy. But what we can say with certainty is

that any mind steeped on gyana margam can not say/

read/ catch/ write anything other than the Eternal

Truth, no matter whatever be one’s back ground. And

that this eternal Truth is / happens to be the core

vaishnavite theology ( as depicted by the KuraL (to

show an instance) which is known as Tamil vEdam or

Tamil Marai) must set at rest other queries that you

have raised!

 

(2) The next issue that is taken up here is about the

saastras (from among Sruti and Smriti) that have to be

taken up as pramana. From times of yore, there have

been some unwritten rules on pramana to be used in

arguments and debates among scholars. As a rule the

texts which glorify a particular Thought or deity is

not taken up for argument in favour of the deity.

Because such a text will speak of nothing else but the

glory of the deity of that text. The text comes into

picture only as a final and established Truth. Only

cross references from other texts are interpreted to

substantiate the truth of the text under reference.

 

It is for this reason and for the reason of its being

‘apourushEya’ nature, upanishads were vastly quoted by

seers to establish this or that deity. (See also the

mail by this writer to Tiruvenkatam on

why vedas and upanishads are taken up as chief

pramanas).

 

Sticking to the rules expressed above, we find

Bahgavad Ramanuja taking up the seemingly mis-leading

and controversial passages from Shvethasvathara

upanishad on Rudra and establishing that the Rudra of

this upanishad is none other than Brahman who is none

other than Narayana.

 

Similarly writing on the Badarayana’s Vedanta sutras

on Indra, Jyothis,Prana, Gayathri, etc, he establishes

that whenever and wherever the names of deities such

as Rudra or Indra or Prana etc., are used in

consonance with qualities of Brahman, it is to be

understood that they are indeed (about) Brahman. The

essence of this is encrypted in his last part of the

Sri Bashya to the 32 nd Sutra.

 

It is for the reason said above (about the texts to be

used as pramana), we find Ramanuja relying heavily on

Uapanishads (more than 90% of the quotes are from

Upanishads and vedas) in his Sribhashyam to Bramha

sutras and only on a limited basis on Geethachryan’s

vachan and Vishnu purana and that too mostly to

further the already established views. The texts

(purana etc) on a particular deity are relied upon

mainly to discuss the finer parts of the Thought

pertaining to the Belief around the deity.

 

It is in the similar vein, sage Yagyavalkhya

recommends ‘shatarudreeyam’ also known as

‘Rudropanishad' for release from death or for

attaining Mukhthi. As deliverance from Death is

granted by none other than Sriman Narayana (B.G), it

is to be deduced that it is He as In-dweller of Rudra

who grants such deliverance.

 

(3) This brings us to the interesting part of how

or/and when to view or decipher whether a particular

reference to a diety is about Brahman (Narayana) as

explained in the above passage.

 

 

The lead is given in the 32 nd sutra of BAdarayana

(Brahma sutra I-32) and elaborated by Sri RAmanuja.

This portion talks about 3 -fold meditation of which

the 1 st one is about continuous meditation on Brahman

and the second one about "continued meditation (of the

Brahman)as having the enjoyers (or the individual

selves) for His body" (this is about deities like

Shiva or Durga or any other one who is meditated upon

as Brahman like in worshipping as 'para-brahminai

namaha' or 'saashwathaayai namaha' or 'bhavathyai

namaha' and so on.)

 

The 3 rd one is about "the continued meditation (of

the Brahman) having the enjoyable (material) things

and the auxilliary (material)helps to enjoyment for

His body.The meaning is that here, that in the

present context also, this three fold meditation of

the Brahman is appropriate,"

 

The puranas on other deities need to be interpreted in

the light of the above, which Ramanuja says has been

supported by other scriptures also.

 

But wherever deities like Shiva are described as

having shown exemplery valour (shiva as in the case of

destruction), supremacy of Narayana alone has been

established (1) due to Narayana being the In-Dweller

of the deity and (2) deities like Shiva in being

created ones having specific responsibilities and

specific life-span that ends with deluge.

 

An example for the former case was the presence of

Vishnu-amsa at the tip of Shiva dhanush (which was

later broken by RAma in JAnaka's court)that helped

Shiva in destroying Thripura asuras. (Refer Rama-

Parasurama samvadam in Valmiki RAmayana)

 

The second scenario can be better understood from

Hanuman's Hitopadesam to RAvana in Sundhara khandam

whereby it is understood that deities like Shiva and

Brahma attain their respective power only during

destruction and creation respectively.But Narayana (as

Rama in this context) can assume any role as per the

requirement of the situation.

 

(By quoting the above 2 instances, this writer also

stands to commit the error of quoting from texts on

the god glorified. The writer wishes to refute such a

criticism on the basis of nature of the text quoted,

namely, Valmiki Ramayana which is being regarded as a

contemprory record of Rama's life and not a story of

imagination or one derived from hearsay. The same

thing can not be said of other Puranas)

 

regards,

-jayasree saranathan

--------------

 

 

Sri balaji wrote:-

Adiyaen's Pranams.

 

Adiyaen is surprised/embarrassed to know new things by

reading

your mail.whatsoever it be, for us to get rid of this

birth ,death

cycle, we approach our almighty.

 

Tamil(Dravidian) people's favorite poet Thiruvalluvar

also ,

i think , may be a Shri Vaishnavite. here is a clip.

 

Vendunkaal vendum Piravaamai matrathu

vendaamai venda varum.

 

See What our beloved kaarimaaran ji says: (

complimented)

 

 

 

 

_______________________________

 

Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!

http://vote.