ViNNUlAr -again

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

Disclaimer:- The following is entirely an explorative exercise and not against

any established views but only to arrive at a better understanding of viNNuLAr,

by method of deduction by sifting data / information from various sources.

 

Some observations:-

 

(1) The term nithya soori appears in vyakhyanams only and not in any paasuram

in prabhandham.

 

(2) The term nithya soori, though a Sanskrit one, has not been adopted in

Tamil as no Tamil work of yore contains this term, nor is it found in olden

Tamil dictionaries. In contrast, there are a number of Sanskrit words, accepted

in Tamil, like sodhi (jyothi), vidhaatha, bhagavan, seemaan (Srimaan), seepathi

(srIpathi), amalan, nimalan. etc . to name a few.

 

 

(3) There are 26 pro-nouns for devas as found in different sutras of

ChoodamaNi nigamdu, one of the oldest thesaurus of Tamil lexicon, whose author

is not known. Of these there is not even one as an adaptation / equivalent of

nithya soori. But if by meaning, nothya soori is one who is always luminous

like the sun, (may I be corrected, if this is wrong), then the very term

‘devan’ or ‘deva’ is the exact synonym of this, for deva means the one who is

luminous, (prakaasham udaiyavar)

 

(4) Even in vyakhyanams, it is found that this term is loosely used, and not

strictly to mean garudan, chakrathaazhwar etc as nithya suris. The description

by PBA Swamy starting from ‘ImayOr adhipathi’ for verse 212 of Acharya

hrudhayam and the subsequent vyakhyanam for verse 216, wherein it is stated

that nithya suris have this ‘piNangiya-maar pidhatrrum guNam’ goes to show that

all those who are ‘imayOr’, ‘ayarvaru amararrgaL’ etc are sooris, the ever

luminous ones. This is perhaps about ‘muppatthu mokkOdi’ devas (33 crore devas)

who soon after creation attained Him and started to be with Him.

 

(5) That devas also are born as such is established by the fact that there are

‘chathur vida deham’ (Acharya hrudhayam 16) such as deva, manushya, dhiryak and

sthavara. This means Devas are born as such, just as manushyas are born as

such. But manushyas can attain deva-land such as swarga, but will be born

again on earth (as manushyas obviously) once the good karma responsible for

elevating them to swarga are spent (Gita). As such swarga can only be a bhoga

bhoomi, not a place of permanent residence to manushyas. Swarga is a permanent

abode for devas only. That is why ‘achchuvai perinum vEdaen’ – here the

reference is to the abode of “indra lokam’ mentioned in previous line, not

Vaikuntham. This lokam is peopled with suris – who are luminous beings also

known as devas. They can not be said to be leaving Vaikuntham (as residents

there) and coming to leela vibhoothi, because there is absolutely no pramana to

this effect. The Brahma sutras, declared as pramana by Githacharyan Himself in

BG and as the foremost one to be read, understood and followed by followers

of Dharshanam as ordained by Emperumaanar clearly do not support this view.

 

(6) This is further strengthened by the write-ups of yore from

Nachchinaarkkiniyaar to ParimElazhagar in Tamil. ParimElazhagar in his opening

urai to Thirukkural characterises the 4 (dharma, arththa, kaama, moksha or aRam,

pOruL, inbham, veedu) as means of reaching two abodes, 1) the abodes of devas

like Indra (‘Indran mudhaliya iraiyavar padhangaLum’) and 2) the permanent

abode of mOksham (‘andamil inbhaththu azhivil veedum’). Thus a distinction is

being made between the abode of devas and the permanent abode, popularly known

in Tamil as veedu.

 

The inference from this is that

(1) even the devas (though exalted) are not residents of Permanent abode. This

means they too have to ‘plough’ their way to attain ‘piravaamai’ even as a deva.

 

(2) Since theirs is not a permanent abode, they too come under prakruthi

sambhandam of created world. This is established in verse 5 of Neeththar

perumai of Kural,

“ Aindhavitthaan aattral agal visumbuLaar kOmaan

IndiranE saalum kari”.

(Indran is supposed to have controlled the 5 senses as He is Lord of devas.

Yet he could not control. Indran is the best example for how even the

amarar-pati falls prey to senses as in Ahalya episode.) The reference in the

text to ViNNuLar, that Smt Vedavalli pointed out perhaps refers to this. Since

Indran is a prakaashan, a devan, he has been referred to as nithya suri.

 

(7) In contrast to imayOr padham, we do have Tamil words for permanent

residence. Like Veedu. The Veedumin muttravum 10 of mudhal patthu, is crystal

clear about the non-return. Particularly verse 8 & 9 reflects the final verses

of Brahma sutras. Ullam, urai and seyal are all given up when the mukhthan

attains Him (1-2-8) . Then from where can he get them, if he were to come to

the created world? If at all he is given the 3, it then means that he has

gotten into the cycle of creation, even if it means taking up a deva-deham.

But pramanas clearly discount this notion.

 

(8) In contrast, veedu menas ‘viduthalai’ or ‘viduthal’, ‘mudivu’ etc. Veedu

seidhal means ‘viduthalai seidhal’, ‘thuratthal’ and ‘arpaNam seidhal’. In

tamil lexicon, Veedu is synonym for ‘mutthi’ or ‘mukhthi’. This also means

‘vidu padugai’ and ‘viduthalai’ or liberation. The mention of various types of

devas in ‘Soozh visumbhu’ 10 must be about those that have attained Him. (They

are different from those others mentioned in other paasurams as in VinnuLar,

who are in their created worlds.)

 

A pramana for this is as follows:-

 

Verse 3-3-31 of Brahma sutras – “ Those who hold certain offices (like vasishta

etc., ) have to remain a s long as their offices last.” Even though great souls

like Vasishta have attained eligibility to attain Moksham, they are not released

immediately. Their particular offices do not come to an end. As long as their

offices last, the karma which generated that office remains. There is no

movement on the path of Light for them even after the fall of their bodies.

 

Similar logic to be applied in the case of Nithya suris or devas or call them

whatever you may. They have their particular offices which they can not demit

at will. As long as they are there holding the office, the karmas which caused

the office also remains. This means there is a possibility to add karma as

they are still endowed with the 3 - ullam, urai and seyal (Veedumin..-8) . The

shedding of the 3 happens only when they merge with Him (Ullil vodungi)

 

This above notion is supported by verse 3-4-51 of Brahma sutras which says that

even Final Release can not be automatically granted if there exists an

obstruction to such fruit. As in the case of Indra, in the case of other

ViNNuLar, if there is some karma, their Release is delayed. It is also note

worthy that an Indra does not remain an Indra throughout all the manvanthrs.

Indras change, meaning, when a particular Indra’s office comes to an end and

there exists no obstruction to gaining Veedu, he reaches Him in Vaikuntham,

only to not to return. Someone else, eligible to hold the office becomes Indra

then.

 

 

from

Jayasree saranathan

[Guest guest]

Dear Mrs. Saranathan,

 

By terming that certain words contain only in vyAkyAnam and not in the text, we

are trying to undermine both.Both in the sense that, The texts are better

understood from vyAkyAnam-s

refer upadhEsa rathinamAlai - ariya aruLich cheyal poruLai

AriyargatkippOdhu-aruLich cheyalAith thARindhu.It is unfortunate that this

argument springs from the premise that there is no nexus between the text and

the vyAkyAnam. NOthing can be far from truth.

 

The terms -Thirumandhiram, dhvyam and Charama SlOkam are not mentioned in the

texts. Nor they would appear in tamin nigandu. The vykyanam-s are replete with

such srEvaishNavic terms. The texts do not contain such terms. The vyAkyAnam

for 'OrAyiramAi' -Thirumandhiram; agalakillEan -dhvyam; vArthai aRibavar

-chrama slOkam will become null and void ab-initio, if we accept the argument

that the text and nigandu do not contain this term.

 

First we tried to overlook vyAkyAnam Now we are trying to say that vyAkyanam-s

do not reflect the spirit of text. I do not think this is the spirit of

argument nor it shows reverence for our pUrvAchAryAs.

 

Any researfch should be to open the eyes in tandem with vyAkyAnam but not at

the cost of vyAkyAnam-s

 

As I said earlier, The vyAkyAnam for this particular pAsuram categorically

mention nithya-Suri=-s and also gives a precedence. If one does not like it,

that is different matter altogether. Undermining vyAkyAnam-s for the sake of

education will NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE.

 

Yes, dhEvAs take rebirth. brahmA's has got a life longevity after that his post

is gone. -nAnmugan nAL migai.ref. Periya ThiruMozhi. There is no argument

regarding this.

 

In this particular pAsuram, it is categorically mentioned nithya-sUri-s.

Therefore, there is no point is referring to Suzh-visumbu vyAkyAnam which is in

an entirely a different context.

 

Yes, vEdu is Moksham. Yes it is also vidu min muRRavum -nETTal vihAram - refer

nannUl sUthram.It has go thus grammatical connection as well as content

connection. How does it matter in this context? I cannot go against EDu. I

cannot undermine EDu.

 

Your disclaimer does not insulate against apachAram on EDu.

 

..

 

Conclusion: This will throw an impresssion that our sampradhayam is a water

tigtht one does not encourage any research. Absolutely not.

If it had been so, so many vyAkyAnam-s for a single prabhandham could never have emerged.

The Versatile Genius -MahAvidhvAn- PrathivAthi Bayankaram -Kanchi swamy has done

extensive research. EAch of his articles are eye openers for us and help us in

understanding the vyAkyAms and texts clearly.

 

He has pointed out several instances where aruLich cheyal/vyAkyAnam-s contain

contradiction-s/gaps with idhihAsa purANangaL. Far from citing the lack of text

in vyAkyAnam or nigandu he always concludes that The AzhwAr-s are blessed ones

and any such contrary thiking should be accepted as it is, as they come out of

'mayaRvara mathi nalam aruLap peRRvargaL'

 

Thank God YOu accept AchArya Hrdhaym which in no uncertain terms after comparing

The divine Gospel Bhagawath GEThA declares supremacy of ThiruvAiMOzhi.

Therefore, any contradiction between the two, the ThiruvAimozhi should

supersede and hold good.

 

I do not want to continue such type of discussion undermining either AchAryAS or

AzhwAr-s in the name of research. The research if it can be called so, should go

in tandem and not tangential to AzhwAr and Acharyas. I am not wiser than them

and therefore I cannot argue further.

 

rAmAnuja dAsan

vanamamalai padmanabhan

 

Thank You.

 

rAmAnuja dAsan'

vanamamalai padmanabhan