Guest guest Posted December 7, 2006 Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan" <nrusimhann wrote: > Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan, You have paraphrased me rightly. I reserve my opinion. I too quoted from mumukshuppadi only where Manavala Mamunigal's thiruvullam is brought out more explicitly in the vyakhyanam. adiyen ramanuja dasan Vishnu > Dear Vishnu, > > You are saying that you are not against sandhyavandanam. But you are > also saying it does not matter to thennacharya sampradayam. Going by > the latter statement, one can conclude that if one belongs to > thennacharya sampradayam, as the sampradayam does not care about > performance of sandhyavandanam, one may as well not do it - big deal. > This is what I don't agree to. One "cannot" say Thennacharya > sampradayam does not care about performing nithya karmas. Why do you > have to put the blame on the sampradayam:). Why can't we make a > crystal clear statement that > "if one is performing service 100% of the time through mind or body, > one need not have to bother about any other thing in the world. > Otherwise, stick to the rules"? This is what is clearly mentioned in > mumukshuppadi: > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp279.html > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp280.html > > adiyEn, > dAsan > > > > 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 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2006 Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 Dear Sri. Lakshmi Narasimhan swAmin, I had a look at those very interesting vyAkhyAyanams. I have not studied any of the pUrvAchAryas commentaries so am not qualified to make any detailed assessment, but will venture to offer my opinion. To clarify: > You are saying that you are not against sandhyavandanam. But you are > also saying it does not matter to thennacharya sampradayam. Going by > the latter statement, one can conclude that if one belongs to > thennacharya sampradayam, as the sampradayam does not care about > performance of sandhyavandanam, one may as well not do it - big deal. By saying "it does not really matter" (in TK sampradAyam) I believe the point was this: the birth of an individual and any associated duties due to that birth are *so insignificant* compared to the other issues (bhagavat/bhAgavata kainkaryam, acting in service of God through service of the world) that any discussion of these duties is utterly peripheral and should not preoccupy us. Notwithstanding the other point, that we are perhaps guilty of navel-gazing a bit if we keep talking about sandhyAvandanam instead of talking about the dharmAs common to all vaishnavas. > "if one is performing service 100% of the time through mind or body, > one need not have to bother about any other thing in the world. > Otherwise, stick to the rules"? This is what is clearly mentioned in > mumukshuppadi: > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp279.html > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp280.html From looking at the texts given, I am not sure how you extrapolated "if one is performing service 100% of the time through mind or body" from the phrase used in the text, "realization of his true nature" or "svarUpajnAnam". Is it not possible that there are shades of grey here: if one has the "svarUpajnAnam" does it necessarily imply that they are performing kainkaryam 100% of the time, 95% of the time, 50% of the time or 1% of the time? Doesn't it only imply something about what you know, not necessarily what percentage of the time you are acting on it/thinking about it? And who is qualified to judge what "percentage" of the time someone is thinking/doing kainkaryam for? The vyAkhyAyanam didn't clearly say to me that "one must follow the rules until one gets svarUpajnAnam". It seemed to say to me that "there are other paths prescribed by the Veda Purushan to bring people to svarUpajnAnam". It is possible these things are subtly different and one needs to make assumptions to get between the two. Please clarify any misunderstandings. And should we not accept even the possibility that, despite being born a "brahmin", your intrinsic guNas actually do not lend themselves to living a dvija lifestyle or performing those rituals, and that actually, you are maybe a "shudra" instead? (Or perhaps vice versa?) I don't think this is that much of a stretch to the imagination - when we look at how many of our relatives have gone into non-dvija occupations! Should this restrict them from being a part of the Vaishnava community? Of course not. But I realise this is a controversial opinion. :-) Please pardon any offences, none intended sarvAparAdhAn kshamasva, namO nArAyaNAya praNAmams, Ranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 7, 2006 Report Share Posted December 7, 2006 Dear Devotees, As Sri Vishnu and Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan have noted, the importance of Sandhya Vandanam is equally important in the Thenkalai sampradayam as it is in the Vadakalai. I feel that the fundamental difference, however, is the recognition that as the Supreme Agent, it is the Lord Who is providing the time, opportunity, condition and knowledge to those whom He feels will benefit by engaging in it. To others, this ritual may not be as spiritually beneficial, so the Lord provides other opportunities to help them realize their eternal connection to Him, which experience is teaching me is the only way of finding some solace and meaning to life. So, the question of just throwing something away is really moot, as it can be always be replaced with something else, with His Grace. So, the question really is should we take personal accountability for our performing sandhya vandanam, and either judge someone or force someone to follow the same. To this, I think even our purvacharyas would emphatically say "no"; we should just adhere to what He has blessed us with and be available to share it with those who are interested. To me, this open-ended, inclusionary attitude is what differentiates the thennacharya sampradayam from other schools of Hindu thought adiyen ----- >From : Vishnu[vsmvishnu (AT) (DOT) co.in] Sent : 12/7/2006 12:32:00 AM To : ramanuja Cc : Subject : RE: [sri ramanuja] Re: on Sandhyavandhanam ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan" <nrusimhann wrote: > Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan, You have paraphrased me rightly. I reserve my opinion. I too quoted from mumukshuppadi only where Manavala Mamunigal's thiruvullam is brought out more explicitly in the vyakhyanam. adiyen ramanuja dasan Vishnu > Dear Vishnu, > > You are saying that you are not against sandhyavandanam. But you are > also saying it does not matter to thennacharya sampradayam. Going by > the latter statement, one can conclude that if one belongs to > thennacharya sampradayam, as the sampradayam does not care about > performance of sandhyavandanam, one may as well not do it - big deal. > This is what I don't agree to. One "cannot" say Thennacharya > sampradayam does not care about performing nithya karmas. Why do you > have to put the blame on the sampradayam:). Why can't we make a > crystal clear statement that > "if one is performing service 100% of the time through mind or body, > one need not have to bother about any other thing in the world. > Otherwise, stick to the rules"? This is what is clearly mentioned in > mumukshuppadi: > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp279.html > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp280.html > > adiyEn, > dAsan > > > > 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 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 Respected devotees For performance of sandyavandanam or for that matter any nithya naimithika karmas there is no difference such as thennaachaarya sampradayam or vadakalai sampradayam.Thr rule is common to not only SriVaishnavas but to all the thraivarnikas ie Brahma ,Kshatriya, Vaishyas who are entitled to upanayanam. There are 2 things to it.Basdically performing Sandyavandanam is a must since it is lors supreme order.(SHRUTHI SMRITHI MAMAIR AAGYAA) sO PERFORMING IT HAS NO FRUIT BIT THE NONPERFORMANCE OF IT WILL BE COUNTED AS A SIN.(aKARANE PRATHYAVAYAM) Secondly it is a basic qualification to perform other Vaideeha karmas.Without performing this Even performance of thiruvaaraadhanam has no meanning. It is only the way of thinking that we have to change.It is not a means to an end or moksha sadanam but we have to do it as bhagavat aagyaa bhagvath kainkaryam.This is what my Swamy preaches every one. Adiyen "madhuriandmohan (AT) toast (DOT) net" <madhuriandmohan (AT) toast (DOT) net> wrote: Dear Devotees, As Sri Vishnu and Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan have noted, the importance of Sandhya Vandanam is equally important in the Thenkalai sampradayam as it is in the Vadakalai. I feel that the fundamental difference, however, is the recognition that as the Supreme Agent, it is the Lord Who is providing the time, opportunity, condition and knowledge to those whom He feels will benefit by engaging in it. To others, this ritual may not be as spiritually beneficial, so the Lord provides other opportunities to help them realize their eternal connection to Him, which experience is teaching me is the only way of finding some solace and meaning to life. So, the question of just throwing something away is really moot, as it can be always be replaced with something else, with His Grace. So, the question really is should we take personal accountability for our performing sandhya vandanam, and either judge someone or force someone to follow the same. To this, I think even our purvacharyas would emphatically say "no"; we should just adhere to what He has blessed us with and be available to share it with those who are interested. To me, this open-ended, inclusionary attitude is what differentiates the thennacharya sampradayam from other schools of Hindu thought adiyen ----- >From : Vishnu[vsmvishnu (AT) (DOT) co.in] Sent : 12/7/2006 12:32:00 AM To : ramanuja Cc : Subject : RE: [sri ramanuja] Re: on Sandhyavandhanam ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan" wrote: > Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan, You have paraphrased me rightly. I reserve my opinion. I too quoted from mumukshuppadi only where Manavala Mamunigal's thiruvullam is brought out more explicitly in the vyakhyanam. adiyen ramanuja dasan Vishnu > Dear Vishnu, > > You are saying that you are not against sandhyavandanam. But you are > also saying it does not matter to thennacharya sampradayam. Going by > the latter statement, one can conclude that if one belongs to > thennacharya sampradayam, as the sampradayam does not care about > performance of sandhyavandanam, one may as well not do it - big deal. > This is what I don't agree to. One "cannot" say Thennacharya > sampradayam does not care about performing nithya karmas. Why do you > have to put the blame on the sampradayam:). Why can't we make a > crystal clear statement that > "if one is performing service 100% of the time through mind or body, > one need not have to bother about any other thing in the world. > Otherwise, stick to the rules"? This is what is clearly mentioned in > mumukshuppadi: > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp279.html > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp280.html > > adiyEn, > dAsan > > > > ramanuja, "Vishnu" 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" 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 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 Dear Smr Radhika, The thennacharya sampradayam is independent of Varnasrama dharmas. To tell others "I perform my varnasrama dharmas, you also perform your varnasrama dharmas" can look oppressive. There is no prathyavAya in bhAgavata dharmas superior to ritualistic dharmas, as gItAchArya says "nEhAbhikrama nASOsti, pratyavAyO na vidyatE.." thiruvArAdhanam is meaningful if u spend your time in His thinking, and not if u have done sandhyAvandanam before or not. The term AgnA kainkaryam or "Lord's order" in terms of doing some ritual is not meanigful in our sampradAyam as He is without any expectations. Lord is "Suchi:" or blemishless out of His pratyupakAra nirapEkshatvam. As Sriman Mohan has written, if perumal wants someone to sit and think of Him thru sandhyavandanam, let it be so. Sometime we try to compete with other schools of thought to project ourselves as more ritual-oriented and more upholding of Vedas. According to the sampradayik people, only bhagavad anubhavam is punyam and bhagavad ananubhavam (lack of it) is papam. Also there is no bhAgavata kainkaryam involved in sandhyavandanam and no bhAgavata apacharam in its non-performance. Above all, as I have been saying, no necsessity of japa in thenkalai sampradayam need not be narrowly limited to ashtakshari. If we insist on sandhyavandanam as mandatory, that goes against its basic tenets hence. So if someone is doing, let it be so. If someone is not doing, fine. Whether Vadahalai or thengalai, most of us are ultra-modern and hardly some 10% are bothered abt such things. All these things were discussed a few years ago. Some people circumvented and entered into endless arguments. If someone wants to explain the necessity of sandhyavandanam, please do so ONLY in the backdrop of non-performance of ashtakshari japam in thenkalai sampradayam. adiyen ramanuja dasan Vishnu ramanuja, Radhika Parthasarathy <rad26hika wrote: > > Respected devotees > For performance of sandyavandanam or for that matter any nithya naimithika karmas there is no difference such as thennaachaarya sampradayam or vadakalai sampradayam.Thr rule is common to not only SriVaishnavas but to all the thraivarnikas ie Brahma ,Kshatriya, Vaishyas who are entitled to upanayanam. > There are 2 things to it.Basdically performing Sandyavandanam is a must since it is lors supreme order.(SHRUTHI SMRITHI MAMAIR AAGYAA) sO PERFORMING IT HAS NO FRUIT BIT THE NONPERFORMANCE OF IT WILL BE COUNTED AS A SIN.(aKARANE PRATHYAVAYAM) > Secondly it is a basic qualification to perform other Vaideeha karmas.Without performing this Even performance of thiruvaaraadhanam has no meanning. > It is only the way of thinking that we have to change.It is not a means to an end or moksha sadanam but we have to do it as bhagavat aagyaa bhagvath kainkaryam.This is what my Swamy preaches every one. > Adiyen > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 9, 2006 Report Share Posted December 9, 2006 Dear Madam, YOu have pointed out a few things.. 1. There are no differences between thenkalai and vadakalai sampradhayam insofar as sandhyavandhanam is concerned. Sandhyavandhanam is sAsthric prescription and applies to varNasramam. In that way, as far as applicability and source is concerned there are no differences. However, the way both the schools of thought approach this, indeed is different. This subtle difference should be construed with AchAryan's teachings rather than from these type of fourms. 2.' Basically performing sandhyavandhanam is a must' . Please refer to 'naR chelvan thangAi' vyAkyAnam and referenes to sAmanya dharmam and vishEsha dharmam. 3. Also kindly refer to mumUkshuppadi - charama slOka vyAkyAham of Sri PiLLai lOkachAryAr read with SrivachaNabhUshaNam and also the oft repeated words karmam kainkaryathil pugum. (These will clearly point out to the fundamental differences) 4.I agree for vaidhEka karmAs sandhyavandhanam is a basic necessity. However, for thiruvArAdhaNam is it so? Again we then come to varNAsramam basics. Should we then place at par ThiruvArAdhanam with a ritual like these ordinary dharmam-s like sandhyavandhanam? That is why AzvAr reiterates that 'sindhiyAdhOdhi -andhiyAl am payan angu en? AzvArs again and again declare and proclaim that for worshipping Him no basic requirements are necessary. 'ThAm vuLarEa-tham vuLLam vuL vuLadhEA' Prescribing qualifications for our faith indeed will dilute our whole philoshphy and is dangerous and will take us into ritualistic paths. 5. We are those who have to follow Thirumanthram meticulosuly and have utter faith and take complete refuge in Him. The 18th and 19th Suthram of AchArya Hrdhayam are crystal clear in this regard. The focus is on the Atman and not the dhEham. ThOAl puraiyEa pOam adhukku pazhudhilA yOgyatahi-vEaNdum and so on. 6. Please also refer to Sri PiLLai lOkAchArya's words -dharmathai sthApikkavandhavan thAnEa sarva dharmathaiyum vida solluvadhu Here i am neither advocating nor rejecting the performance of sandhyavandhanam but just putting the above statements which are self explanatory. rAmOa vigrahvAn dhArmAh: puNNIyam yAm vudaiyOam. dasan vanamamalai padmanabhan - Radhika Parthasarathy ramanuja Saturday, December 09, 2006 12:02 PM RE: [sri ramanuja] Re: on Sandhyavandhanam Respected devotees For performance of sandyavandanam or for that matter any nithya naimithika karmas there is no difference such as thennaachaarya sampradayam or vadakalai sampradayam.Thr rule is common to not only SriVaishnavas but to all the thraivarnikas ie Brahma ,Kshatriya, Vaishyas who are entitled to upanayanam. There are 2 things to it.Basdically performing Sandyavandanam is a must since it is lors supreme order.(SHRUTHI SMRITHI MAMAIR AAGYAA) sO PERFORMING IT HAS NO FRUIT BIT THE NONPERFORMANCE OF IT WILL BE COUNTED AS A SIN.(aKARANE PRATHYAVAYAM) Secondly it is a basic qualification to perform other Vaideeha karmas.Without performing this Even performance of thiruvaaraadhanam has no meanning. It is only the way of thinking that we have to change.It is not a means to an end or moksha sadanam but we have to do it as bhagavat aagyaa bhagvath kainkaryam.This is what my Swamy preaches every one. Adiyen "madhuriandmohan (AT) toast (DOT) net" <madhuriandmohan (AT) toast (DOT) net> wrote: Dear Devotees, As Sri Vishnu and Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan have noted, the importance of Sandhya Vandanam is equally important in the Thenkalai sampradayam as it is in the Vadakalai. I feel that the fundamental difference, however, is the recognition that as the Supreme Agent, it is the Lord Who is providing the time, opportunity, condition and knowledge to those whom He feels will benefit by engaging in it. To others, this ritual may not be as spiritually beneficial, so the Lord provides other opportunities to help them realize their eternal connection to Him, which experience is teaching me is the only way of finding some solace and meaning to life. So, the question of just throwing something away is really moot, as it can be always be replaced with something else, with His Grace. So, the question really is should we take personal accountability for our performing sandhya vandanam, and either judge someone or force someone to follow the same. To this, I think even our purvacharyas would emphatically say "no"; we should just adhere to what He has blessed us with and be available to share it with those who are interested. To me, this open-ended, inclusionary attitude is what differentiates the thennacharya sampradayam from other schools of Hindu thought adiyen ----- From : Vishnu[vsmvishnu (AT) (DOT) co.in] Sent : 12/7/2006 12:32:00 AM To : ramanuja Cc : Subject : RE: [sri ramanuja] Re: on Sandhyavandhanam ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan" wrote: > Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan, You have paraphrased me rightly. I reserve my opinion. I too quoted from mumukshuppadi only where Manavala Mamunigal's thiruvullam is brought out more explicitly in the vyakhyanam. adiyen ramanuja dasan Vishnu > Dear Vishnu, > > You are saying that you are not against sandhyavandanam. But you are > also saying it does not matter to thennacharya sampradayam. Going by > the latter statement, one can conclude that if one belongs to > thennacharya sampradayam, as the sampradayam does not care about > performance of sandhyavandanam, one may as well not do it - big deal. > This is what I don't agree to. One "cannot" say Thennacharya > sampradayam does not care about performing nithya karmas. Why do you > have to put the blame on the sampradayam:). Why can't we make a > crystal clear statement that > "if one is performing service 100% of the time through mind or body, > one need not have to bother about any other thing in the world. > Otherwise, stick to the rules"? This is what is clearly mentioned in > mumukshuppadi: > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp279.html > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp280.html > > adiyEn, > dAsan > > > > ramanuja, "Vishnu" 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" 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 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 10, 2006 Report Share Posted December 10, 2006 Dear Ranjan swAmin, I gave the link for the sUtrAs. The vyAkyAnam it contains is only PBA swAmy's summary(sArArtha deepikai). I would request you to go through mAmunigaL's vyAkyAnam that will help you understand what I had meant. There was no extrapolation - look at the sUtrA "280. sanyAsi munbuLLavaRRai vidumApOlE ivvaLavu piRandhavan ivaRRai vittAl kuRRam vArAdhu." The phrase "ivvaLavu piRandhavan" does not simply mean the one who just "know" the svarUpam. It means the one who has already "realised" the svarUpam - there is a whole lot of difference between knowing and realising. And this means that it is the one who is always already at the service of the lord - either by body or by mind but 100% of the time(ivvaLavu pirandhavan). Let me know if you still feel that I have extrapolated something:) Also, I am confused by your other statements in this as well as the earlier post. In your previous post, you had clubbed too many things in various proportions and have composed the same. I have few thoughts of mine that I would like to share with others over here on your post - this is not to initiate an argument at all, and at the same time, would like to create a common understanding between all of us after clearing some misconceptions that "I have perceived". One of the main reasons why the Vaideeka rituals, etc had to be discussed here in this forum is that whether one accepts or not, as per gItA and smruthi and pUrvAchAryAs, brAhmaNAs have been the point of dissipation of knowledge. If they go wrong, the entire society goes wrong (well it has already). >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! The proportion of brahmins to that of other varnAs is indeed very very less actually. But then, 1. 74 SimhAsanAdipadis were are all brahmins 2. ashtadik gajAs were all brahmins 3. All jeeyars, AchAryAs at present are brahmins too 4. Those who perform sevAkAlam in the ubhaya goshti are brahmins in all "sriVaishnavite" temples. 5. Try naming all the kAlakshepa adhikaris today - you will end up with one in kadalUr side and probably one in south west who would not be a brahmin. Everyone else is a brahmin. So, when people hear Sri vaishnaVas, it is natural that they "assume" it denotes brahmins. It is someone's job to educate them(I strongly feel this group is definitely trying to do that). srivaishnavam today is indeed "brahmin-centric" - but then the important clarification is that by "brahmin-centric" it DOES NOT MEAN IT IS MEANT FOR BRAHMINS. It is these brahmins who have learnt the concepts and are teaching others about the greatness of the religion. So, srivaishnavam mainly "relies" on brahmins for "teaching purpose". If these people go wrong, well the religion will be perceived wrong. This group may seem to have most of the participants as brahmins. What is wrong about that? No one is preaching brahminism or praising brahmins over here. We are here to find someone who will educate the society about all misconceptions on srivaishnavam and then tell about the greatness. A new comer will understand srivaishnavam if we simply tell the greatness of it. But for those who already have misconceptions, we have to clarify their incorrect understanding and then only will we have to attempt to make them understand the greatness of srivaishnavam. Now, this group contains an eclectic set of srivaishnavites(inclusive of brahmins) that comprises of those who have misconceptions too(like me). Instead of they learning from others, if they advice others, these misconceptions spread. So, by brainstorming, and other means we try to resolve these issues within ourselves and then we try to invite the new comers to get to know about this religion. At that point, we would all be in a common understanding and hence will be able to present a seemless information to those who are interested in the religion. I personally think this group is still under the brain storming phase. No one here (neither me nor Vishnu atleast) are praising or looking to discuss only brahminic rituals etc. I have no idea how you concluded so. Going by your statements, we must not be discussing Sri Bhashya itself, as it works on explaing the Veda SutrAs which are specific to dvijAs. Discussions may touch many topics as an attempt to brainstorm and get into a common understanding. One of the topics have been performance of nithya karmAs - how could you simply ignore this topic? I don't see a point in yours about this, as even pUrvAchAryAs have debated on whether nithya karmAs should be done or not, and if not, under what circumstances etc. If they dealt with only the Sri Vaishnavam that you are talking about, would they be discussing these stuffs? Pardon my mistakes if any. adiyEn, dAsan. ramanuja, "rvv21" <ranjan wrote: > > Dear Sri. Lakshmi Narasimhan swAmin, > > I had a look at those very interesting vyAkhyAyanams. I have not > studied any of the pUrvAchAryas commentaries so am not qualified to > make any detailed assessment, but will venture to offer my opinion. > > To clarify: > > > You are saying that you are not against sandhyavandanam. But you are > > also saying it does not matter to thennacharya sampradayam. Going by > > the latter statement, one can conclude that if one belongs to > > thennacharya sampradayam, as the sampradayam does not care about > > performance of sandhyavandanam, one may as well not do it - big deal. > > By saying "it does not really matter" (in TK sampradAyam) I > believe the point was this: the birth of an individual and any > associated duties due to that birth are *so insignificant* compared to > the other issues (bhagavat/bhAgavata kainkaryam, acting in service of > God through service of the world) that any discussion of these duties > is utterly peripheral and should not preoccupy us. Notwithstanding > the other point, that we are perhaps guilty of navel-gazing a bit if > we keep talking about sandhyAvandanam instead of talking about the > dharmAs common to all vaishnavas. > > > "if one is performing service 100% of the time through mind or body, > > one need not have to bother about any other thing in the world. > > Otherwise, stick to the rules"? This is what is clearly mentioned in > > mumukshuppadi: > > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp279.html > > http://www.acharya.org/vyakyanam/mumukshuppadi/mmp280.html > > From looking at the texts given, I am not sure how you > extrapolated "if one is performing service 100% of the time through > mind or body" from the phrase used in the text, "realization of his > true nature" or "svarUpajnAnam". Is it not possible that there are > shades of grey here: if one has the "svarUpajnAnam" does it > necessarily imply that they are performing kainkaryam 100% of the > time, 95% of the time, 50% of the time or 1% of the time? Doesn't it > only imply something about what you know, not necessarily what > percentage of the time you are acting on it/thinking about it? And > who is qualified to judge what "percentage" of the time someone is > thinking/doing kainkaryam for? > > The vyAkhyAyanam didn't clearly say to me that "one must follow > the rules until one gets svarUpajnAnam". It seemed to say to me that > "there are other paths prescribed by the Veda Purushan to bring people > to svarUpajnAnam". It is possible these things are subtly different > and one needs to make assumptions to get between the two. Please > clarify any misunderstandings. > > And should we not accept even the possibility that, despite being > born a "brahmin", your intrinsic guNas actually do not lend themselves > to living a dvija lifestyle or performing those rituals, and that > actually, you are maybe a "shudra" instead? (Or perhaps vice versa?) > I don't think this is that much of a stretch to the imagination - > when we look at how many of our relatives have gone into non-dvija > occupations! Should this restrict them from being a part of the > Vaishnava community? Of course not. But I realise this is a > controversial opinion. :-) > > Please pardon any offences, none intended > sarvAparAdhAn kshamasva, > namO nArAyaNAya > praNAmams, > Ranjan > 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.