Guest guest Posted October 5, 2005 Report Share Posted October 5, 2005 SrI: I have no arugadai to write on topics like this as I have the least knowledge of Vyaakhyanam and it is for this reason the following can be dismissed. Yet I mustered courage to write this as can be seen from other ways. (1) The context of VinnuLaar in 7-1-6. # The reference to and the comparison between ViNNuLaar and maNNuLaar shows that it is between beings on maNNulagam and beings on Vaanulagam. This comaparison is plausible, and not the one between beings on mannulagam and beings in Vaikuntham as it will be between two incomparables - between those who are still embodied and those who have attained Release. On the other hand, if ViNNuLaars are devas, they too then would be embodied ones like beings on earth and the comparison is possible. # The entire 7th patthu is about aazhwar's lamentation about why the Lord should have given the Indriyas and made the beings suffer. # In Thirmalai 44, (viNNuLAr viyappa vanthu Anaikku anRu aruLai Intha kaNNaRAy), the context again shows that it is about created world. Shiva and Brahma, tapasvis and ViNNulaar have come to see the Lord give salvation to the elephant. If they had been Vaikuntha vaasis, they must have been WAITING AT TEH ENTRANCE of Vaukuntham to receive the elephant! That is how Soozh visumbhu tells. That was what Kuratthaazhwar told Emperumaanaar when he asked him why he sought to leave for vaikuntham before him (Ramanuja). The aazhwar said, those who reach Vaikuntham early would receive those who come later. It is not right for him to enter Vaikuntham received by Ramanujacharya there. He (Aazhwar) must be there before him to receive him. Ramanuja characterised this to be supreme seshatwam. It is in this episode, 3 gems have been unveiled, 1) acahrya sambhandam gives Vaikuntha praaapthi to all those connected to him (in aazhwar's extraction (!) of such a guarantee from the Lord), 2) Vaikuntha vassis receive the entrants with all honours and 3) seshatwam is of highest order for the vaikuntha vaasi.(to be elaborated in the next point on adimai.) # That context matters can be demonstrated by another term also. In Thirumalai 7, aazhwar calls Raman as devan - silaiyinaal Ilangai settra dEvanE dEvan aavaan. Why has aazhwar used this term devan here, which is generally menat for devas or nithya suris (as per interpretations)? Does he mean some deva here? No, can't be, because of specific reference to Raman. But then why should aazhwar refer to Him as devan? Here again the context gives the clues. In that verse and in general the very thrust of Thirumaalai is to establish that Arangan is the supreme Lord. MaaRRumOr daivalellaam daivamaa is the aazhwar's premise on which Thirumaalai has been composed. In particular, he is taking on the Jains, their ways and how the people have been misled by them (pl refer the verse and other verses before and after.). The Jain god is known as Aruga devan. It is to say that their devan is not devan, but RamanE devan. This is the undersatnding by context, historical background and grammar (yE-kaaram is to give stress that Raman alone is the devan, not others such as Aruga devan.) (2) Adimai seivaar yaar? Paramarkku adimai seivaar - everyone both chethanas and achethanas. # In verse 182 of Vedartha sangraha, we find Ramanuja's definition of sesha and seshin. "That whose nature lies solely in being valued through a desire to contribute a special excellence to another entity is sesha. The other is seshin, (that is, that to which the subsidiary contributes special excellence)" Everything other than Him is seshan as per this, as everything exists for his preethi. That is why in mumukshuppadi, it is clarified that though the jiva in the verge of attaining moksham is losing its seshtwam, by God's leela of destroying that, it continues to think that it is still a seshan (verse 92)(The jiva should not be just like a mara-k-kattai then. By refusing to lose seshatwam, bhagavan's enjoyment in 'pidivaadham' in removing it continues as per this verse- this explanation is mine, not in any sookthi. "aananadham avan preethikkE" enbadai edutthaandirukkEn.) If after becoming mukthan, it thinks that it is not seshan, that is virOdhi -kainkarya haani (Verse 38). The adimai seidhal in Vaikuntham is of supreme nature. This is also established by Brahma sutras by implication (4.4.21), that though the released jiva experiences equality with the Brahman, the equality with Him is in enjoyment only. There is no cosmic activity. Only the Lord rules and controls all the worlds. Though the Released soul is capable of creating worlds, he is not doing it, because he is a seshan only. God alone is entitled to do that. Thus the subsidiary nature of the jiva continues. # All sentient and non-sentient beings are all seshas, but their awareness of seshatwam is different for different beings. It is herein the concept of kshethra- kshethrajan relationship comes. In the 4 types of created bodies, we can see the gradation that goes upto vaikuntha vaasis which is explained above. The sthawara, is not aware of their kshethram, nor the kshethrajyan. Though paddy is growm in the kshethra or land, it reaches someone else to be enjoyed as food. The animals do to some extent realise who their kshethrajyan is, like the calf that goes after the mother cow, but not aware of the pita - the kshethrajyan who was responsible for its birth. The men, (we) are aware of the kshethrajyan, the father as generator and mother as pretector in womb. The best among men realise who the real kshethrajyan is, namely the Lord. It is these people, who adore Him by doing adimai to Him. The adimai seidhal begins at this level. But at other levels too, the adimai seidhal happens - by His grace ( at man's level too, by His grace only - even Vaikuntham pugudhalum vidhi vazhi as per 'soozh visumbhu' and it is He who chooses says, upanishads.) Like when He turned a blade of grass into Brahmaastra and a stone into woman. Even a non-sentient thing like stone is a seshan by its being able to contribute to His special excellence, by His own action.Even other wise all sentient and non-sentient things exist only to add special excellence to Him by being the part of his scheme of creation.The difference is whether they are aware of it or not. Coming to the next level, devas, they hold their offices purely by command of Him and for His preethi to keep creation happening and going. From Brahamadevan onwards, all the devas contribute to the special excellence of the Seshin by doing their duties as ordained by Him. The kind of organisational structure conceived by the Lord can never be disturbed. The Lord had intervened to restore it whenever some bhangam has happened to the office of Indra or any other deva. This goes to show that their subsidiary nature continues with heightened awareness level and He alone is the protector to them too. Kuratthaazhwar's seshatwan to His master is of supreme type that he was ready to leave him and his company here on earth, only to enable himself to receive him in Vaikuntham instead of facing a situation when his master will have to receive him. (3) The basic thrust therefore in our sampradhaya is not just glorification of Sriman Narayan, but glorification of Him as seshi to everything other than Him. That is why we say dasan, adiyen for every moocchu. That is why Ramanuja even rejects the concept of defining Seshin as some one to be aimed at. (refer VS 181). Instead he refers to contributing to the master as the nature of sesha, which in Tamil is adimai seidhal. Naichchiam or humility is the basis of this and naichchiyam in karma is giving up doership which ultimately the Lord advises us to do by 'sarva dharmaan parithyajya'.When one gives up the doership one acknowledges one's subsidiariness. That is what the Vaiikunthavaasis do even in / as their nithya kainkaryam to Lord. MaamunigaL says that the swaroopa- anuroopa thought of the mukthan is his virOdhi. Kainkaryam is the only nature there. Whereas 'NIyum vittal' and 'etthinaal idar kadal kidatthi' best describe seshatwam of chethana in bondage. (4) Parama pada # Ramanuja's description of this in VS 208 & 209 once again reiterates that it is abode of Perfectness. His conclusion is " all these three (the highest realm, the pure status of the individual and the Lord) are the supreme ideals to be attained." These 2 verses convey that it is an abode of eternal perfections. These have been veiled by the jiva's karma. But once the karma is crossed, it is purity and perfectness for the jiva. There is just no place for a shred of imperfectness. But acharyas have visualised about mukthan getting virOdhi bhava, only to highlight that one can not think that 'ha, I am great now that i am a mukthan.' The fact is that he still continues to be His seshan. # If it is said that a mukthan gets this virOdhi bhava and is afflicted with 5 senses or torments of some kind which we humans can not visualise, then that means we are undermining God Himself and His guarantee "mokshayiswami" and counsel "maa shu cha:" He is one who never says anything twice. "dwir na abibhashathE". Oru sol - that is His way. When He has committed all this to you, will He go back? It is neat job as far as He is concerned. Entry into paramapadam? yes, once you are perfect. Once entered, don't worry, the very place is Anandham. No going back.. no looking back If He allows you to get tormented, then it means you have not yet reached His abode! Any vyakhyanam to the effect that it is otherwise, is to be seen as repeated stress by our acharyas that we must NEVER NEVER FORGET the swaroopa as a SESHAN for jiva and / or for mukthan (for mukthas). By all means it is andamil pErinbam only, by aazhwar vaakku. Another proof. Once He has pervaded you, "mutthanaar mukundanaar pugundhy nammuL mevinaar", will He reverse it? He won't. This is what aazhwars have assured us. This is what is the conclusionof Vedanta as told in Brahma sutras. (5) This brings the equation Brahma sutra = Aruli cheyal. # Nowhere aazhwar sookthis run contrary to Brahma sutras. Ramanuja used to explain Brahma sutras by prabhandam. "PrabhandangaLai-k-kondu Sri bhashyaththil sutra-artthangaL vorunga viduvaar enbadu prasiddham". MaamugaL's predecessor, Sri Thiruvaimozhi-p-pillai also used to do kaalakshebahm of Brahma sutras by drawing inputs from Aruli cheyal. They used to describe jivathma swaroopam from aazhwar's prabhandam , like Thirukkottiyur nambhi's "adiyEnuLLaan" to describe well the nature of jiva and jiva's relationship with the Lord. Aruli cheyal was considered as "parama upahaaram" by acharyas since "theliyaada marai nilangaL theLigindrOmE" (we are able to understand the unknown / difficult ones by them) when expalining difficult passages of vedanta. # But the heirachy that Ramanuja ascribed to it after Brahma sutras is not to undermine it. It si like brahma sutras are for gyana yogam and aruLi cheyal for Bahkthi yogam. Knowledge in the form of Bhakthi which is the cause for moksham is Ramanuja's conclusion in Vedartha sangraha. Azzwar's sookthis are expression of bhakthi, whereas Brahma sutras are expression of gyana yajna (refer Gita 4th chapter). AruLi cheyal are vedas, and proof for this is vast as given by Purvacharyas. But outside their province, let me give another proof. Vedas are just for mananam and recitation. In VS, Ramanuja explains how the sound and words of vedas are eternal and imperishable, thereby making it possible to retrieve it after every kalpa when they are lost. He has not gone into meanings of Vedas, but rather quoted upanishads only, in Sri bhashyam. It is because they are powerful to invoke any god and get any benefit. (This has been scientifically proved in research in agni hotra whereby it was found that words, not their meanings have caused the desired effects.) Similar effect has been seen in recital of just 10 paasurams of the 4000. Naadhanukku naalaayiram uraittha 'kaNNinum siru-th-thaambu' is a prathyaksha pramana for how and why Aruli cheyal is vedam. It is by continuous recitation (not contemplation of the meaning) that he was able to retrieve all the 4000 verses. The bhakthi rasam of aazhwars demonstrate their gyana yogam. The gyana yogi grows in bhakthi on knowing more and more about Him. Gyanam is the primary attribute (once again this is a vast topic which I am not detailing, but just restricting myself by quoting 'satyam, gyanam anantham' which is analysed to show that knowing is seeing god, knowing is meditation and Knowledge is luminosity which is Brahman Himself -which Ramanuaj has explained in his bhashyam to the first verse in Barhma sutras.) by which Bhakthi grows as 'the continuous flow of oil without any gap'. Once in bhakthi, the gyaanam also thrives as we see Aruli cheyal (gyana chudar yEtrinEn naaranarkku). Thus they go hand in hand. Remember Rajaji's introduction to Sahasra nama by M.S. "it is enough to say that gyaana and bhakthi are one and the same." In this way, the 'mudibu' of Brahma sutras and 'mudibu' of AruLi cheyal are one and the same. Differences or contradictions can not exist between them, but if are perceived so, they have to be answered by refering to the gyana khandam, which is Brahma sutras here. But that we have so far not come across any difference between AruLi cheyal and Brahma sutras is what we can realise if we go through the root and substance of the mails exchanged in this regard. Regards. ____________________ ______________________ Message: 1 Mon, 3 Oct 2005 20:48:57 -0700 (PDT) TCA Venkatesan <vtca Re: viNNuLAr Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: Dear devotees, The following is entirely adiyEn's interpretation and is not based on any acharyas vyakhyanams or position. So kindly forgive my transgression if you choose to read forward. The question arose out of the pasuram Thiruvaymozhi 7.1.6 and then moved on to other areas (of who nithya sUris are and their differences with other devas etc). adiyEn will fall back to the original question. The pasuram in question is: viNNuLAr perumARkadimai seyvAraiyum seRum aimpulan ivai maNNuL ennaip peRRAl en seyyAmaRRu nIyum vittAl? paNNuLAy! kavi thannuLAy! paththiyinuLLAy! paramIsanE vandhen kaNNuLAy! nenjchuLAy! solluLAy! onRu sollAyE Here the original question was on, who is meant by the term 'viNNULAr' and if they are vaikunta vAsi's how is that they are they affected by the five senses? I think instead of looking at the one line alone, one needs to look at the thrust of the whole pasuram. First, can the viNNuLArs be anyone other than vaikunta vAsis? Without going into the vyakhyanam, I think we can say that they are indeed that, based on the next qualification given - 'perumARkku adimai seyvAr'. It is highly doubtful that Azhvar would qualify beings from any other lOka with that adjective. Because, if one allows that for other lOkas then we too could stake claim to that - true kainkarya paras. And we all know how absurd that would be. Let's look at another pasuram: "viNNuLAr viyappa vanthu Anaikku anRu aruLai Intha kaNNaRAy!". Here too, the viNNuLArs are said to be those in parama padam. A different term used: "vAnuLAr aRiyalAgA vAnavA". Here too the vAnuLArs are said to be those in Sri Vaikuntam. Why? Because, the push behind all this is the fact that everyone of Azhvars words - in fact, the thrust of our entire sampradhayam - is the glorification of Lord Sriman Narayana. To say that some devas in other lOkas do not realize the Lord is to say nothing. It is stating the obvious. It is when we say that even those in paramapadam do not understand Him or cannot fathom His acts, that we tend to somewhat realize the grandeur and greatness of the Lord. So, with that viewpoint, let's look at the pasuram in question. If Azhvar mentioned that pull of the senses on some devas in some lOkas, which is an expected feature, then the pasuram loses its full point. This is neither satisfactory from a philosophical sense nor is it satisactory from a poetic sense. However, if we were to say that even paramapada vAsis are potential targets to these five senses, then what chance do we, who are in this world, stand against them - if He does not come to our aid ('nIyum vittAl')? Now, our total incapacity to save ourselves and our total dependency on the Lord is made clear. The question, then, is, are the beings there truly targets to the 'aimpulan' and if so, how does it work with what the Vedas say. One way we can reconcile this is that it is poetic exaggeration. One made to bring the immensity of our dependency on Him. However, if we look at Mumukshuppadi, perhaps we can get a clue. Pillai Lokachariar does point out 'kankaryaththil kaLai'. He says that a 'virOdhi' to even mukthAthmas exists. And when a virOdhi exists, it means that they are swayed by something. Perhaps, they are not the same five senses to which we are subject. Nevertheless, there is something that can possibly move them out of their true nature of service to Him for His pleasure only. Why would such a virOdhi exist? Perhaps it does to distinguish us from Him. He has no virOdhis and has no desires. However, we do have one desire ("kaNNanukkE Amathu kAmam") and we do have a virOdhi to our service. I may be wrong - but I don't think that there is any pramANam for this in the Vedas either. Finally, one thought. In our sampradhayam, one does not look for pramANams for Azhvars words. It is Azhvars words themselves that are pramANam; just like the Vedas. They are indeed the Thamiz Vedham. Due to His infinite and unconditional grace, they have been blessed with unique vision and knowledge ('mayarvu aRa mathi nalam aruLap peRRavarkaL'). There are many stories and characters in Azhvars works which do not find a place in any known purANa or itihAsa. Nevertheless we accept them as divine visions seen by Azhvars; no less than what Valmiki Bhagavan saw. It is in this vein that we have to treat Azhvars words. Once again, adiyEn seeks the forgiveness of the devotees for any and all transgressions made in the above statements. adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan 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.