[sri ramanuja] on Sandhyavandhanam

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varvara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Ranjan,

 

Perfect wordings! This is what I have been trying to say, but now I

feel my writing skills are no where near to convey what I mean. You

have made my day with this message of yours.

 

This is precisely what I meant in my postings.

 

AzhwAr emperumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

ramanuja, "rvv21" <ranjan wrote:

>

> Dear members, praNAmams

>

> One point I would like to add to Sri Vishnu's comment, is that

by

> overly discussing the following of Vaideeka rituals we are

implicitly

> concerning ourselves only with dwijas, i.e. for most intents and

> purposes, brahmins. If we think about the 'idealised' situation, we

> should be having roughly equal proportions of all varNas in any

> functioning society. Or at least, in terms of sheer man/woman-

power,

> we should be ending up with far more Kshatriyas/Vaishyas/Shudras

than

> brahmins. But who forms the largest contingent in most of these

> -groups for example, and who are the most "visible"

> ShriVaishnavas in our community? I am probably right in thinking

that

> most of us are brahmins. Historically, something has obviously gone

> wrong here!

>

> So I think it is very easy for us to keep on talking about

things

> that only concern our small group, like why dwijas should do

> sandhyaavandanam. But I think if we had got the societal balance

> right historically, really we should be only mentioning it in

passing

> - we should be saying something more along the lines of:

>

> "prappannans should strive to engage in meditation on God's

qualities

> at all times, serve all beings as service to God [to quote from HH

> Chinna Jeeyar Swami],... oh and incidentally, that small subset of

> prappanans initiated in Vedic duties should be performing their

nitya

> naimittika karmas as part of that service".

>

> Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should ignore it. I

> completely agree that those who have had upanayanam (whether they

are

> brahmin, Indian, non-Indian, whatever - and there are increasing

cases

> of the latter) should be performing sandhyaavandanam - after all, we

> all did agree to have our upanayanam so on our own head be it! But,

> what I am saying is, there is a disproportionate proportion of time

> dedicated to discussing the rituals which only pertain to a

miniscule

> percentage of the world's population. When there is so much in our

> sampradaayam that is for all people, I think it is our

responsibility

> to concentrate on that. Otherwise people will think of us as just

> another "brahmin-centric" tradition (to be honest, already most of

the

> people I know think "Iyengars" anyway when they hear Srivaishnava)

and

> people won't appreciate the all-encompassing nature of our

tradition.

>

> I have a huge respect for the Tengalai tradition as I have

always

> heard it to be one which truly reaches out to all; my own family is

> from the Vadagalai tradition and sadly, there are indeed some who

are

> very devoted to rituals for ritual's sake, varNAshrama taboos etc.

> (even though many probably wouldn't know the first difference

between

> Swami Desikan and ManavaaLa maamunigaL!). My plea to those of you

who

> are guardians of the Tengalai tradition is as follows: please do not

> lose the valuable lessons you can teach the rest of us by descending

> into discussion of internal issues. People who have had upanayanam

> should do their sandhyaavandanam, period. But no big deal, they

> should take their own responsibility and get on with it, while we

try

> and concentrate on upliftment of society at large. The aim of the

> game is to bring the knowledge of shriiman naaraayaNa to all peoples

> through service, and any discussion of whether or not a miniscule

> percentage of the population are doing their duties is an issue for

> them and shouldn't take center stage in any truly egalitarian

> shrivaishNavam-based society. At least this is my opinion, anyway.

>

> Please forgive any offences, none intended

> sarvAparAdhAn kShamasva

> namO nArAyaNAya

> with praNAmams,

> Ranjan

>

>

> ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu@> wrote:

> >

> > One clarification is, I am NEVER saying we should not do

> > sandhyavandanam. What I am saying is it does not really matter in

> > thennacharya sampradayam. I have seen even highly ritualistic

> > scholars not being much serious abt it.

> >

> > A few inconsistencies do exist in our rituals against the

philosophy

> > and I am not qualified and learned enough to elaborate more.

There

> > is no thought policing kind of thing in our sampradayam and its

> > beauty lies in the variety of the practices of its followers.

> >

> > adiyen

> > Vishnu

> >

> >

> >

> > ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Dear Sriman Madhavakkannan,

> > >

> > > There are ritualistic and non-ritualistic people in both

schools

> > of

> > > thought and their opinions vary.

> > >

> > > Why does Manavala Mamunigal say, "japahOmAdi gaLAlE

arthakAmarkku,

> > > arhtatthAlE prapannarkku"? Does the Acharya's thiruvuLLam apply

> > only

> > > to ashtAksharI japam? Is it not an anomaly in our sampradAyam

if

> > we

> > > perform sandhyAvandanam but dont do ashtAksharI japam?

> > >

> > > From the commentary you quoted of Appillai, it nowhere

appeared

> > > that the Acharya prescribes thrikAla sandhyAvandanam.

> > >

> > > adiyen ramanuja dasan

> > > Vishnu

> > >

> >

>