Guest guest Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA. Respected Sri Vanamamalai Padmanabhan swamy, ramanuja, Padmanabhan <aazhwar@v...> wrote: >>>>>>>> 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.<<<<<<<<<< Please read the first 4 points of my mail. The implication is that for different terms such as imayavar, vaanOr, anthamil amarar etc, the term nithya sUri is used, as for the understanding of my 'podiyinum podi' arivu. Kindly let me know the terms used in vyakhyanams. Since the term 'nithya sUri' is used to denote them all, it is inferred in the mail that the meaning of nithya sUri or who nithya Suris are - is not what we think or understand today. In that context, the probable deduction is that they are 'luminous ones' and therefore 'devas'. The contention that there is no nexus between vyakhyanam and the text is yours, and not mine for the very reason the entire exercise is to know who ViNNuLaar are and not about philosophical import of passages. This is also proved by the following from your mail which I have not said, nor will I say, for I know, as you also know that these are found in texts. >>> The terms -Thirumandhiram, dhvyam and Charama SlOkam are not mentioned in the texts. <<<<< The discussion is about VinNulaar and whether they refer to Nithya sUris. Please enlighten me / all of us who Nithya sUris are and what the term means in the light of vyakhyanams- preferably by grammatic equation (which I have attempted in the mail and this may be wrong) or the 4-fold signification of deriving the meaning of a word (like denotative, figurative, purportive and suggestive), if not, the 3-fold derivative by which Ramanujacharya derived the meaning of Brahman in the first verse of Brahma sutras. I am sure that if we do that we will know as you said what is conveyed in the vyakhyanams. >>> 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.<<<<< No one is undermining the vyakhyanams. But when contradictions appear in our understanding, we know that there must be more than what is conveyed by the vyakhyanams, say, some hidden implication. What is that hidden implication is what stalwats like yourself are requested to give. In this context only, do we get to wonder whether nithya sUris are just Garudazhwar, and others closer to Bhagavan's Thirumeni, or the 33 crore devas who reach Him upon creation or the beings in Deva-deham. My mail is a further attempt on how to reconcile the senses aspect, in their being. >>>> 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. <<<<< Soozh visumbhu is brought in to show that there exists a definite reference to iamyavar etc to be residents of Vaikuntham in NDP as in these 10. >>>>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? <<<<<< Certainly.. the verses 8 & 9 tell what a mukthan attains – shedding the 3 and attaining in whole. That shows the difference between what it means to be a mukthan – no return and no afffiction from senses – come whatever may. But the way it is different for nithya sUris is the cause for this discussion. >>>>>>>>I cannot go against EDu. I cannot undermine EDu. > > Your disclaimer does not insulate against apachAram on EDu.<<<< My conscious knows – that I am only ‘nimitthaani bhava’- I am only an instrument in His scheme of things. Glory unto Him!!! > >>>>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.<<<<<<<<< I am sorry again, a disclaimer. You have unconsciously or without provocation landed up into that ‘impression’, which tells the scene. Our Sampradhayam , ney , even our sanatana dharma does not discourage research. The following is the introduction I used to give in the beginning of any research on any Vedantic principle in other forums / group, but have not given it to any vaishnavite forum thinking that Ramanuja followers are aware of them already. --In the study of any concept of Vedanta, we encounter three problems. n 1) understanding the meaning of the text and its purport n 2) the methodology that is applicable and appropriate to the given issue and n 3) the level of mental and spiritual growth of the seeker. It is because of this we arrive at a variety of inferences which at times lead us away from the original purport. But the remarkable feature of Vedanta is that all methods lead us to the one conclusion, provided we undertake the right methodology. There is an element of choice, even of innovation in the Vedic system and together with the mental system, they help us arriving at answers appropriate to the mental level of the seeker. There is always scope for improvisation, if and when the seeker is not satisfied with the existing level of understanding. It is with this awareness, the issues must be explained.--- I also add that the system has not discouraged any from doing research with awareness of rules and limitations, but people have. If at all the 3 unexplained issues of sanatana dharma in Dharshanam (which perhaps Ramanuja had felt not necessary to explain in his times) were to be clarified, and if Ramanuja himself were to be re-born to tell them, there is every scope to believe that he will not be accepted as Ramanuja-incarnate nor his revelations accepted. > 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 for taking the discussion far removed from the points in my mail. If not anything else, I am still stickler of Ramanuja’s 6 commandments starting with reading of Brahma sutras and my humble admission is that my mails are an extension of the same. Regards, Jayasree saranathan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 Dear Ramanuja SriVaishnavas Adiyen wish to intervene in btw (without knowing the head / tail) sorry for that, still wish to check with the group that whether all these concepts are under the umbrella of "Nirhethva Krupai", Adiyen's manda butty sense once we accept that then the Question of Re birth for all is under His Will , we cant define that by any means , let it be any Sutras, "Seyan Aniyan yavarkkum sindhaikkum kosaram allan" TVM 1-9-6 As I understand that now its a question of what Alwars meant as Nithya Suris or imayavar , amarar etc in their Pasurams, AdinAyen's simple request is not to get into complicated quotes from different context as this will lead into confusion only . Adiyen Guna On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 saranathan wrote : >SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA. > > > >Respected Sri Vanamamalai Padmanabhan swamy, > > > > > >ramanuja, Padmanabhan <aazhwar@v...> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> 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.<<<<<<<<<< > > > > > > > >Please read the first 4 points of my mail. The implication is that for different terms such as imayavar, vaanOr, anthamil amarar etc, the term nithya sUri is used, as for the understanding of my 'podiyinum podi' arivu. Kindly let me know the terms used in vyakhyanams. Since the term 'nithya sUri' is used to denote them all, it is inferred in the mail that the meaning of nithya sUri or who nithya Suris are - is not what we think or understand today. In that context, the probable deduction is that they are 'luminous ones' and therefore 'devas'. > >The contention that there is no nexus between vyakhyanam and the text is yours, and not mine for the very reason the entire exercise is to know who ViNNuLaar are and not about philosophical import of passages. This is also proved by the following from your mail which I have not said, nor will I say, for I know, as you also know that these are found in texts. > > > > >>> The terms -Thirumandhiram, dhvyam and Charama SlOkam are not mentioned in the texts. <<<<< > > > > > >The discussion is about VinNulaar and whether they refer to Nithya sUris. Please enlighten me / all of us who Nithya sUris are and what the term means in the light of vyakhyanams- preferably by grammatic equation (which I have attempted in the mail and this may be wrong) or the 4-fold signification of deriving the meaning of a word (like denotative, figurative, purportive and suggestive), if not, the 3-fold derivative by which Ramanujacharya derived the meaning of Brahman in the first verse of Brahma sutras. I am sure that if we do that we will know as you said what is conveyed in the vyakhyanams. > > > > > > >>> 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.<<<<< > > > > > >No one is undermining the vyakhyanams. But when contradictions appear in our understanding, we know that there must be more than what is conveyed by the vyakhyanams, say, some hidden implication. What is that hidden implication is what stalwats like yourself are requested to give. In this context only, do we get to wonder whether nithya sUris are just Garudazhwar, and others closer to Bhagavan's Thirumeni, or the 33 crore devas who reach Him upon creation or the beings in Deva-deham. My mail is a further attempt on how to reconcile the senses aspect, in their being. > > > > > > >>>> 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. <<<<< > > > > > >Soozh visumbhu is brought in to show that there exists a definite reference to iamyavar etc to be residents of Vaikuntham in NDP as in these 10. > > > > > > >>>>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? <<<<<< > > > >Certainly.. the verses 8 & 9 tell what a mukthan attains - shedding the 3 and attaining in whole. That shows the difference between what it means to be a mukthan - no return and no afffiction from senses - come whatever may. But the way it is different for nithya sUris is the cause for this discussion. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>I cannot go against EDu. I cannot undermine EDu. > > > > > > Your disclaimer does not insulate against apachAram on EDu.<<<< > > > > > > > >My conscious knows - that I am only 'nimitthaani bhava'- I am only an instrument in His scheme of things. Glory unto Him!!! > > > > > > > > > >>>>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.<<<<<<<<< > > > > > >I am sorry again, a disclaimer. You have unconsciously or without provocation landed up into that 'impression', which tells the scene. > > > >Our Sampradhayam , ney , even our sanatana dharma does not discourage research. > >The following is the introduction I used to give in the beginning of any research on any Vedantic principle in other forums / group, but have not given it to any vaishnavite forum thinking that Ramanuja followers are aware of them already. > >--In the study of any concept of Vedanta, we encounter three problems. > >n 1) understanding the meaning of the text and its purport > >n 2) the methodology that is applicable and appropriate to the given issue and > >n 3) the level of mental and spiritual growth of the seeker. > > It is because of this we arrive at a variety of inferences which at times lead us away from the original purport. But the remarkable feature of Vedanta is that all methods lead us to the one conclusion, provided we undertake the right methodology. There is an element of choice, even of innovation in the Vedic system and together with the mental system, they help us arriving at answers appropriate to the mental level of the seeker. There is always scope for improvisation, if and when the seeker is not satisfied with the existing level of understanding. It is with this awareness, the issues must be explained.--- > > > >I also add that the system has not discouraged any from doing research with awareness of rules and limitations, but people have. If at all the 3 unexplained issues of sanatana dharma in Dharshanam (which perhaps Ramanuja had felt not necessary to explain in his times) were to be clarified, and if Ramanuja himself were to be re-born to tell them, there is every scope to believe that he will not be accepted as Ramanuja-incarnate nor his revelations accepted. > > > > > 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 for taking the discussion far removed from the points in my mail. If not anything else, I am still stickler of Ramanuja's 6 commandments starting with reading of Brahma sutras and my humble admission is that my mails are an extension of the same. > > > >Regards, > >Jayasree saranathan. > > > > > > Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan Gunaseelan Venkatachary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 Dear Smt.Saranathan and Sri Padmanabhan swamy, Many thanks for your illuminating replies. Let me relate the background of my question. Recently, during a get together at my place arose a discussion between my athimber,who is learned in arulicheyals and a scholar guest well learned in vedanta. The topic was whether the jivatma is fully dependent on the Lord here or he is dependent in Vaikuntham too. The guest was mentioning that, though the Jivatma cannot perform any activity here on His own, in Vaikuntha, he is satya kama, satya sankalpa etc but nevertheless he always serves the Lord in Vaikuntha, because the sole purpose of his going there is to serve Him.Hence he has to perfom activities. My athimber countered that both here and in Vaikuntham, the jivatma is unable to do anything on his own and so he only depends on the Lord to serve the Lord. To support it, he gave the quote TVM 7.1.6, stressing that ViNNulAr refers to Vaikunthavasis who are also tormented by the senses and hence depend on the Lord's mercy. But most of us present were surprised.Everyone had heard that the torment of the aimpulan is only in this world and not in Vaikuntham.Thus arose a heated argument without any conclusion. I wanted to find out what it really means and hence this thread. Ramanuja dasi Vedavalli Ranganathan --- saranathan <jayasree_saranathan wrote: > SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA. > > > > Respected Sri Vanamamalai Padmanabhan swamy, > > > > > > ramanuja, Padmanabhan > <aazhwar@v...> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> 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.<<<<<<<<<< > Please read the first 4 points of my mail. The > implication is that for different terms such as > imayavar, vaanOr, anthamil amarar etc, the term > nithya sUri is used, as for the understanding of my > 'podiyinum podi' arivu. Kindly let me know the > terms used in vyakhyanams. Since the term 'nithya > sUri' is used to denote them all, it is inferred in > the mail that the meaning of nithya sUri or who > nithya Suris are - is not what we think or > understand today. In that context, the probable > deduction is that they are 'luminous ones' and > therefore 'devas'. > > The contention that there is no nexus between > vyakhyanam and the text is yours, and not mine for > the very reason the entire exercise is to know who > ViNNuLaar are and not about philosophical import of > passages. This is also proved by the following from > your mail which I have not said, nor will I say, for > I know, as you also know that these are found in > texts. > > > > >>> The terms -Thirumandhiram, dhvyam and Charama > SlOkam are not mentioned in the texts. <<<<< > > > > > > The discussion is about VinNulaar and whether they > refer to Nithya sUris. Please enlighten me / all of > us who Nithya sUris are and what the term means in > the light of vyakhyanams- preferably by grammatic > equation (which I have attempted in the mail and > this may be wrong) or the 4-fold signification of > deriving the meaning of a word (like denotative, > figurative, purportive and suggestive), if not, the > 3-fold derivative by which Ramanujacharya derived > the meaning of Brahman in the first verse of Brahma > sutras. I am sure that if we do that we will know as > you said what is conveyed in the vyakhyanams. > > > > > > >>> 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.<<<<< > > > > > > No one is undermining the vyakhyanams. But when > contradictions appear in our understanding, we know > that there must be more than what is conveyed by the > vyakhyanams, say, some hidden implication. What is > that hidden implication is what stalwats like > yourself are requested to give. In this context > only, do we get to wonder whether nithya sUris are > just Garudazhwar, and others closer to Bhagavan's > Thirumeni, or the 33 crore devas who reach Him upon > creation or the beings in Deva-deham. My mail is a > further attempt on how to reconcile the senses > aspect, in their being. > > > > > > >>>> 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. <<<<< > > > > > > Soozh visumbhu is brought in to show that there > exists a definite reference to iamyavar etc to be > residents of Vaikuntham in NDP as in these 10. > > > > > > >>>>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? <<<<<< > > > > Certainly.. the verses 8 & 9 tell what a mukthan > attains - shedding the 3 and attaining in whole. > That shows the difference between what it means to > be a mukthan - no return and no afffiction from > senses - come whatever may. But the way it is > different for nithya sUris is the cause for this > discussion. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>I cannot go against EDu. I cannot undermine > EDu. > > > > > > Your disclaimer does not insulate against > apachAram on EDu.<<<< > My conscious knows - that I am only 'nimitthaani > bhava'- I am only an instrument in His scheme of > things. Glory unto Him!!! > > > > > > > > > >>>>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.<<<<<<<<< > > > > > > I am sorry again, a disclaimer. You have > unconsciously or without provocation landed up into > that 'impression', which tells the scene. > > > > Our Sampradhayam , ney , even our sanatana dharma > does not discourage research. > === message truncated === Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 29, 2005 Report Share Posted September 29, 2005 Dear Mrs Saranathan, It is not my intention to hurt anybody's feelings. However, I do not like the words " words from vyAkyanam not containing in the text". Next is the term 'loosely used'. .That is why the contention. Quote from YOur mail "The term nithya soori appears in vyakhyanams only and not in any paasuram in prabhandham" Quote from YOur mail " Even in vyakhyanams, it is found that this term is loosely used,.." These words spring from your mail and not my contention. Therefore, Still I am not convinced regarding this. Anyhow, as I said earlier I do not want to continue this discussion nor am I fit in this regard. I apologise for any ill feelings caused. Thanks and regards dAsan vanamamalai padmanabhan ----- 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.