Why Sri Ramanuja preferred Paancharaatra over Vaikaanasa?

September 21, 2009

In the great life of Sri Ramanuja, we find many moments of decision-making, which we will be unable to explain by contemporary contexts or what went ahead before him. His whole surrounding world would have been talking in one way whereas his voice was always having a take-off moment in-built in it. But the genius of the Master was his voice was always in harmony with

the basic tune. So never his improvements were to be seen as breaking with the past. To put this in simple terms I will illustrate by the example of his choosing Paancharaatra over Vaikaanasa.

Both are agamas of Vishnu worship and both centre around temple complexes as instituting processes of the Divine Space. If it was simply for the sake of worship, then any Agama would have been handy. Especially when the concept of Kainkaryaa was in the process being understood as superior to the Karmic duties of the Varnaasrama dharmaa given any instance of having to choose one over another, preferring

one Agama over another one would have been pointless. But exactly this moment of decision proves abundantly the unique genius of Sri Ramanuja. How? He had been having his vision fixed in future, when the Great Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya would comprehend the growing society of believers as participents of the same religion. He was having the vision about a Religious Community rather than merely

maintaining the inhered status of the Vedic Dharma. Again his method was not cancelling or shedding off what had been inherited from the hoary past. His brilliant method was one of inclusion, by imbibing the essence of Vedic Dharma and extending the focus to accomadate new social formations and passionate personal transformations. 'One who excels in Devotion' began to occupy more enviable status than

mere 'doer of Vedic injunctions'. The best Agama which suited the supreme futuristic vision of the Master was Paancharaatra rather than Vaikaanasa. Hence his preferrence.

September 22, 2009

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha,

Srimath Varavaramunaye Namaha.

With due respect to Sri Mohanarangarajan, I would beg to differ with his views

regarding the agamas. I would like to quote his words on the subject:

>He was having the vision about a Religious Community >rather

than merely maintaining the inhered status of the >Vedic Dharma.

Again his method was not cancelling or >shedding off what had

been inherited from the hoary past. >His brilliant method was one

of inclusion, by imbibing the >essence of Vedic Dharma and extending

the focus to >accomadate new social formations and passionate

personal >transformations. 'One who excels in Devotion' began to

>occupy more enviable status than mere 'doer of Vedic

>injunctions' . The best Agama which suited the supreme >futuristic

vision of the Master was Paancharaatra rather >than Vaikaanasa.

Acharya Ramanuja never considered himself as one who attempted 'new social

formations' or 'personal transformations'. Our Sampradayam is based on the fact

that everything taught to us is not anything new, but faithfully reproduced from

the ancient sages.

In fact, it is the Madhvas who pride themselves on being 'revolutionary' or

'trailblazing'. Sri Ramanuja, on the other hand, always started his works with

obeisances to earlier acharyas, and only claimed to rejuvenate an already

existing tradition. Never did he try to create new ideas.

Hence, I would not say that 'one who excels in devotion' is a new social reform

as compared to the 'old' method of vedic injuctions. For the record, only Purva

Mimamsa advocates mechanical adherence of Vedic Rituals. The Veda is entirely

about Bhakti, with Karma as an ancillory. Even the rituals are merely upAyAs to

cleanse ones' sins, so that the person can progress to Bhakti Yoga. Sri Krishna

explicitly points out in the Gita that the Jnani (Bhakti Yogi) is dearer to Him

than anyone. KatOpanishad clearly states that AtmA (SrIman NArAyaNa) cannot be

attained by mere upAsanA, but chooses whom He likes. Krishna also states that

mere performance of the Vedic rituals without Bhakti is useless in Gita.

Ithihasas and Puranas are abounding in similar examples.

Even Advaita accepts that the Brahma Vidyas enjoin meditation on Saguna Brahman

and hence, require bhakti.

In Acharya Hridayam, Sri Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Nayanar points out that the

Veda is mainly about Bhakti Yoga, which is an UpAyam involving performance of

karmas to attain Kainkaryam, whereas Thiruvaimozhi is a prapanna sastra that

involves kainkaryam as upAyA to attain kainkarya. Therefore, it is clear that

though the Veda prescribes karma and performance of rituals, it is clear that it

should be done with bhakti, as the goal is simply kainkaryam for both Bhakti

Yogis and Prapannas. In any case, even the Veda clearly mentions tha NyAsa

(Prapatti) excels all penances (as pointed out by Nanjeeyar when answering his

sishya Nampillai's questions).

Since Karma varies with Varna and Ashrama, Veda prescribes many different types

of rituals.

Coming to the agamas, Sri Ramanuja may have preferred Pancaratra, but the

reasons were many, but not because it was more 'socially accomodating' than

Vaikhanasa. The following reasons can be cited: 1) It finds approval in the

Mahabharata and Brahma Sutras, 2) It is more detailed as far as philosophical

content is concerned (the Vyuha manifestations, etc.) compared to Vaikhanasa, 3)

The Vaikhanasa also explicitly refers to Pancaratra and recommends it. All these

points are addressed in works of Sri Alavandar and Sri Vedanta Desikan, who

established the authority of the agamas.

This, however, does not mean Sri Vaishnavas reject Vaikhanasa. We accept both

Pancaratra and Vaikhanasa. It is only that all Vaikhanasa followers are not Sri

Vaishnavas.

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

Govind.

September 22, 2009

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

Srimath Varavaramunaye Nama:

Dear Swamin and Bhagavadottamas,

This is an excellent article covering all aspects on the confusions regarding

the subject.

Just one point on devarir's last statement. It somehow has come into belief

through rumours or ignorance that the followers of Vaikhanasa and Pancharatra

agamas are different types of Srivaishnavas which is indeed a subject by itself

that needs a detailed clarification.

To put it short based on the kalakshepam that adiyen has attended to,

Vaikhanasam and Pancharatram are mainly agamas that deal with defining temple

structures, organization of deities and rituals etc and hence they differ in the

ways of performing various rituals that would help install and instill

sannithyam of the lord and retain the same. Both are " equal " and are directly

from the lord sriman narayana only. The only misunderstanding is with respect to

Sri Ramanujar. Vaikhanasas worship Vikhanasa (Lord sriman narayana's amsam) as

their leader or the guide for the agamas i.e. he is the

vaikhanasa-sutra-acharyan. But, this by no means would deny the fact that Sri

Ramanujar is the common sampradaya-acharyan. For ex, we may belong to different

gotras (vadhulam, kountinyam etc), different shakas(yajur, sama),

sutras(apastambam...), which would differentiate our rituals, the reason being,

these different types of rituals accomplish various important portions of the

instructions in vedic scriptures which should not be left unknown. So, various

lineages have been ordained to follow their own instructions and maintain styles

of worship to protect the diverse(by rituals) instructions of Vedic scriptures

working towards a unified goal(liberation and thereby performing uninterrupted

blemishless service to the lord and his devotees). The diverse part will have

various acharyans, but the unified goal has only one acharyan who is also the

jagadacharyan i.e. Sri Ramanujacharya.

So, followers of vaikhanasam, pancharatram, various shakas, the kalais, everyone

despite having a lead for their rituals and practices are unified under one

darshanam names Sri Ramanuja Darshanam and hence " are all Sri Vaishnavas " only.

This clarity, if reaches the appropriate people amongst the confused or ignorant

or mislead srivaishnava community will really " restore " the unity amongst them

and will strengthen the backbone of the same. If one claims he is a follower of

vikhanasa or goudiya but says he has no relevance to Sri Ramanuja, then it shows

that he is not yet a " Sri Vaishnava " due to this very ignorance which needs a

proper spiritual treatment by powerful acharyas bloated with spiritual prowess

and we (shall) sincerely pray the lotus feet of Sri Ramanujacharya for this to

happen soon.

Pardon my mistakes if any.

adiyen,

rAmAnuja dAsan

ramanuja , " Partha " <govi85 wrote:

>

> Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha,

> Srimath Varavaramunaye Namaha.

>

> With due respect to Sri Mohanarangarajan, I would beg to differ with his views

regarding the agamas. I would like to quote his words on the subject:

>

> >He was having the vision about a Religious Community >rather

than merely maintaining the inhered status of the >Vedic Dharma.

Again his method was not cancelling or >shedding off what had

been inherited from the hoary past. >His brilliant method was one

of inclusion, by imbibing the >essence of Vedic Dharma and extending

the focus to >accomadate new social formations and passionate

personal >transformations. 'One who excels in Devotion' began to

>occupy more enviable status than mere 'doer of Vedic

>injunctions' . The best Agama which suited the supreme >futuristic

vision of the Master was Paancharaatra rather >than Vaikaanasa.

>

> Acharya Ramanuja never considered himself as one who attempted 'new social

formations' or 'personal transformations'. Our Sampradayam is based on the fact

that everything taught to us is not anything new, but faithfully reproduced from

the ancient sages.

>

> In fact, it is the Madhvas who pride themselves on being 'revolutionary' or

'trailblazing'. Sri Ramanuja, on the other hand, always started his works with

obeisances to earlier acharyas, and only claimed to rejuvenate an already

existing tradition. Never did he try to create new ideas.

>

> Hence, I would not say that 'one who excels in devotion' is a new social

reform as compared to the 'old' method of vedic injuctions. For the record, only

Purva Mimamsa advocates mechanical adherence of Vedic Rituals. The Veda is

entirely about Bhakti, with Karma as an ancillory. Even the rituals are merely

upAyAs to cleanse ones' sins, so that the person can progress to Bhakti Yoga.

Sri Krishna explicitly points out in the Gita that the Jnani (Bhakti Yogi) is

dearer to Him than anyone. KatOpanishad clearly states that AtmA (SrIman

NArAyaNa) cannot be attained by mere upAsanA, but chooses whom He likes. Krishna

also states that mere performance of the Vedic rituals without Bhakti is useless

in Gita.

>

> Ithihasas and Puranas are abounding in similar examples.

>

> Even Advaita accepts that the Brahma Vidyas enjoin meditation on Saguna

Brahman and hence, require bhakti.

>

> In Acharya Hridayam, Sri Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Nayanar points out that the

Veda is mainly about Bhakti Yoga, which is an UpAyam involving performance of

karmas to attain Kainkaryam, whereas Thiruvaimozhi is a prapanna sastra that

involves kainkaryam as upAyA to attain kainkarya. Therefore, it is clear that

though the Veda prescribes karma and performance of rituals, it is clear that it

should be done with bhakti, as the goal is simply kainkaryam for both Bhakti

Yogis and Prapannas. In any case, even the Veda clearly mentions tha NyAsa

(Prapatti) excels all penances (as pointed out by Nanjeeyar when answering his

sishya Nampillai's questions).

>

> Since Karma varies with Varna and Ashrama, Veda prescribes many different

types of rituals.

>

> Coming to the agamas, Sri Ramanuja may have preferred Pancaratra, but the

reasons were many, but not because it was more 'socially accomodating' than

Vaikhanasa. The following reasons can be cited: 1) It finds approval in the

Mahabharata and Brahma Sutras, 2) It is more detailed as far as philosophical

content is concerned (the Vyuha manifestations, etc.) compared to Vaikhanasa, 3)

The Vaikhanasa also explicitly refers to Pancaratra and recommends it. All these

points are addressed in works of Sri Alavandar and Sri Vedanta Desikan, who

established the authority of the agamas.

>

> This, however, does not mean Sri Vaishnavas reject Vaikhanasa. We accept both

Pancaratra and Vaikhanasa. It is only that all Vaikhanasa followers are not Sri

Vaishnavas.

>

> Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

>

> Govind.

>

September 22, 2009

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.

Srimath Varavaramunaye Namaha.

Dear Sri Narasimhan,

As far as the agamas are concerned, I know little, except for the philosophical

details. So, whether all Vaikhanasa followers are Sri Vaishnavas or not is

something that can be clarified only by scholars. In any case, I believe that

Vishishtadvaita is the only tradition that accepts this agama as well. Dvaita

only accepts Pancharatra, to my knowledge, and Advaita rejects the philosophical

contents of both, while accepting the ritualistic part (temple worship, etc.).

I just wish to add 2 points:

1) Many people view Sri Vaishnavism as 'synthesis of Vedanta and Azhwar

Pasurams' or 'Synthesis of Vedanta with Pancharatra', etc. I would not encourage

such terms. It is as though the Divya Prabandham and Pancharatra are saying

something different to the Vedas, and that our acharyas have 'synthesised' or

'forced' a harmony between them, which is incorrect. There is in fact, no

'synthesis'. The Divya Prabandham is the very Veda itself, and the Pancharatra

presents the philosophy of the Vedanta only.

One only needs to see how well the Divya Prabandham and the Upanishadic vakyas

go together.

2) This statement:

>If one claims he is a follower of vikhanasa or goudiya but says he >has no

relevance to Sri Ramanuja....

A Vaikhanasa, I do not know. But Gaudiyas certainly do not claim to be Sri

Vaishnavas, although they respect Sri Ramanuja (and Madhva, Vallabha, etc.

equally). While they have some similarities with Sri Vaishnavism (concept of

bhagavata seshatvam and archa avataram), they have also borrowed from other

Vedantic traditions, and as such, cannot be called Sri Vaishnavas.

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

Govind.

September 22, 2009

asmad guruByO nama:

Dear Swamin,

Agamas are meant for the temple modelling and define modes and methods of

worship. There could be multiple models and modes despite the fact that the

underlying philosophy is same. Vishishtadvaita is a philosophy. In Brahmasutra

Vyasa accepts Pancharatra and using the Pancharatra modes and methods of

performing rituals, Sri Ramanujacharya was able to establish Vishishtadvaita

better. Pancharatra is more recommended as it accommodates even worshipping of a

personal God at home and relies more on Bhaava shakti rather than the mantra

shakti (like the prabhandas vs vedas). Mantra shakti requires tough practices

and discipline while Bhaava shakti relies more on an inner transformation and

the Bhaava that comes out of this transformation(maha vishwasam), after which

the external qualifications are no more a prerequisite for attaining moksha and

thus disqualifies " no one " from worshipping the lord. Vaikhanasas were strict in

not allowing the 4th varna people into the temple etc as it would bring down the

sannithyam of the temple deities that rely only on mantra shakti. For

Pancharatram, it is more catholic, open and in fact the sannithyam increases

only because of accommodating more people(irrespective of their caste,creed) who

have the " faith " in the lord and this is very much in alignment to the bottom

line of Vishishtadvaita and hence was Sri Ramanujacharya's favorite. This is

probably the crux of the reasons why Swamy preferred Pancharatra over Vaikhanasa

agama.

Vishishtadvaita is the philosophical aspect whereas Srivaishnavam is more

staunch and is a religious aspect. The main connection between Vishishtadvaita

and Srivaishnavam is the Pancharatra agama. Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa agama

focus on worshipping Sriman Narayana as the supreme and the various ways of

worship while Vishishtadvaita explains the beautiful eternal relationship

between this supreme lord and us, the mundane jeevas, and the insentients.

So, Vishishtadvaita and agamas have to be kept separate only, as unity amongst

the agama followers under the umbrella of the philosophy did exist, is very much

possible and also is the need for the hour. All vaikhanasas are Sri Vaishnavas

only beyond any doubt or else Swamy(udayavar) would have eradicated(a simple

task for Him) the same from many important, if not all, divya desams, like

Thirumalai, Sri Villuputhur, Thiruvallikkeni etc.

Advaita does not reject the philosophical contents of pancharatra - in fact

Shankara has accepted Vyasa's allowance of pancharatra as a mode of worship of

the supreme, whilst all the others like pashupatha, shakta are all condemned in

the same bramhasutra.

Regarding Gaudiyas, I am sure they themselves are confused a lot, despite that

their acharya lineage includes Sri Ramanujacharya. Their only problem is not

sticking to the " Sri " part of the Sri Sampradayam (ekayanas) that disqualifies

them to be included as part of Sri Vaishnavas. I just used the name Gaudiya for

giving an example, I am sorry I used a wrong one though.

Your point #1 was hitting the nail on the head. There is absolutely no

difference between the vedas and prabhandas except for the language. While

prabhandas talk the religious, philosophical and spiritual aspects in one single

composition, the vedas talk about the same through the agamas and the meemamsas

(the latter is more confusing and is like sea water from which the regular water

itself has to be separated out, while the former is like the cocounut water that

is even tastier than the regular one).

adiyEn,

rAmAnuja dAsan

ramanuja , " Partha " <govi85 wrote:

>

> Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha.

> Srimath Varavaramunaye Namaha.

>

> Dear Sri Narasimhan,

>

> As far as the agamas are concerned, I know little, except for the

philosophical details. So, whether all Vaikhanasa followers are Sri Vaishnavas

or not is something that can be clarified only by scholars. In any case, I

believe that Vishishtadvaita is the only tradition that accepts this agama as

well. Dvaita only accepts Pancharatra, to my knowledge, and Advaita rejects the

philosophical contents of both, while accepting the ritualistic part (temple

worship, etc.).

>

> I just wish to add 2 points:

>

> 1) Many people view Sri Vaishnavism as 'synthesis of Vedanta and Azhwar

Pasurams' or 'Synthesis of Vedanta with Pancharatra', etc. I would not encourage

such terms. It is as though the Divya Prabandham and Pancharatra are saying

something different to the Vedas, and that our acharyas have 'synthesised' or

'forced' a harmony between them, which is incorrect. There is in fact, no

'synthesis'. The Divya Prabandham is the very Veda itself, and the Pancharatra

presents the philosophy of the Vedanta only.

>

> One only needs to see how well the Divya Prabandham and the Upanishadic vakyas

go together.

>

> 2) This statement:

>

> >If one claims he is a follower of vikhanasa or goudiya but says he >has no

relevance to Sri Ramanuja....

>

> A Vaikhanasa, I do not know. But Gaudiyas certainly do not claim to be Sri

Vaishnavas, although they respect Sri Ramanuja (and Madhva, Vallabha, etc.

equally). While they have some similarities with Sri Vaishnavism (concept of

bhagavata seshatvam and archa avataram), they have also borrowed from other

Vedantic traditions, and as such, cannot be called Sri Vaishnavas.

>

> Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

>

> Govind.

>

September 22, 2009

Dear Sri Narasimhan,

Your points are spot on regarding the agamas.

>Advaita does not reject the philosophical contents of pancharatra - >in fact

Shankara has accepted Vyasa's allowance of pancharatra as a >mode of worship of

the supreme, whilst all the others like >pashupatha,shakta are all condemned in

the same bramhasutra.

That is what I said. Sri Sankara had no quarrels with the Bhagavata Darshanam

and explicitly approves of the method of worship, the rituals, etc. He had no

problems with the one-becoming-many theory as well, such as SrIman NArAyaNa

manifesting himself as archa in temples. However, He does not accept the

Pancaratra in its entirety. He raises questions about what he thinks is

origination of the jiva in the agamas.

Sri Ramanuja has proven that these objections are baseless anyway, but Advaita

does not accept the agamas in their entirety, although they accept the portions

dedicated to modes of worship.

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

Govind.

September 23, 2009

Hare Krishna.

Many thanks to the Sri Vaishnavas on this forum for this post on Vaikhanasa and Pancharatra.

A few points of clarification and query:

1. Being part of the Gaudiya Vaishnava line, kindly allow me to briefly explain our view of Acharyas such as Sri Ramanuja and others.

We are certainly not a confused lot. There is something called acknowledgement of contributions and larger connectedness and there is something called the finality of allegiance. Certainly, our framework acknowledges the contributions and devotional authenticity of Sri Ramanuja and we hold his feet on our heads in laying the foundation in many ways for the revival of Vaishnavism amidst the onslaught of Advaitic dominance. This does not mean that we are ultimately his followers. Our ultimate allegiance would be to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the acharyas in His line. We see a connectedness between all Vaishnava acharyas although differences are present as well. Sri Chaitanya associated with Sri Vaishnavas during his travels to South India and held them in high esteem and we follow the same. No Gaudiya is claiming to be an immediate part of the Ramanuja line or the Madhva line, etc. although in a larger context and framework, we hold the right to

have the freedom to see their connection to Mahaprabhu's mission.

Generally, I do not post such content but when in an open forum I view comments like "confused", etc. I do feel compelled to clarify certain issues. Let's not look at the behaviour of some individuals and decide that an entire line is confused. Such ideas can be entertained upon anyone fron any line for that matter. Liberality may seem confusion to the uninformed eyes.. Also, it's vital not to arrest others within the framework of one's own sampradayic framework and deem them confused. One sampradaya's worldview is bound to be different from another's even in terms of semantics, what to speak of historical connectedness.

2. Regarding Agama shastra and temple worship, has any work been done in the Sri Vaishnava line to very clearly and strongly prove the validity of Archa and Temple worship purely on the basis of Veda and Upanishads? I am more specifically looking for purely Veda and Upanishad-related resources that are elucidated in support of the same, not so much Pancharatric or Vaikhanasa-related support. In other words, when doubters such as the Arya Samajists question the validity of deity worship and temple worship on the pretext of their "absence" in the source texts of Vaidhika tradition, i.e. shruti pramana, what explanations or support have been given by Sri Vaishnava scholars to answer. I'd be appreciative of access to papers or treatises written in this connection.

Thanking all of you in advance and begging all of you for forgiveness if any offenses have been committed,

dasan

jai simman

September 23, 2009

asmad guruByO nama:

Dear Bhagavadottama,

First of all, my apologies if by any means my statement that Gaudiyas are

confused themselves has offended any of those following that sampradaya. But I

would like to clarify my standpoint with a contextual explanation to make sure

my intent was not to deem any vaishnava lineages as confused etc.

The context was regarding

a) Whether one claims himself as Vaishnava or a Sri Vaishnava

i) Gaudias have initiation - but not like any of the types of pancha samaskarams

prescribed by Gargya or Parashara(Vedic system based)

ii) Many of them wear urdva pundram without the Sri and do not have a proper

understanding or clarity on Sri Mahalakshmi. And many of the Vedic pramanas are

neglected with preferences to Puranas whereas shruti(apaurusheyam) is always

considered the highest order of pramana in other sampradayas - which is the

reason why Radha is worshipped and misconceived as Sri Mahalakshmi despite the

Pramana for Sri Mahalakshmi in Sri Sukta.

iii) Worshipping of Krishna as the supreme lord and not accepting Him as an

incarnation of Lord Sriman Narayana again goes against Narayana, Vishnu suktas

and the deiva meemamsa, a precursor to uttara meemamsa which are purely the

vedic scriptures and shastraic injunctions.

b) The acceptance of Sri Ramanuja as a global leader for all Vaishnavas

- No doubt that despite the existence of all types of Vaishnava sampradaya, Sri

Ramanujacharya played the key role in the Bhakti movement which was then adopted

by most other sampradayas who saw Him as a unifier of all the Vaishnava

sampradayas and hence was once proclaimed by everyone unanimously as the

Jagadacharyan, be it followers of shri krishna chaitanya, or swami narayana, or

nimbharka, or bhaskara or madhva or even shankara who all differed in

philosophical aspects but not in the religious aspects in terms of worshipping

lord Sriman Narayana and following the Srivaishnavite tenets. In fact your

statement that " laying the foundation in many ways for the revival of

Vaishnavism amidst the onslaught of Advaitic dominance " itself would require a

detailed debate. Including Shankara no one questioned about the supremacy of

Lord Sriman Narayana. Shankara was a proper Vaishnavite and we have enough

pramanas for that in terms of well documented purvacharya granthas as references

for the same. So, advaita is not against Sri Vaishnavam, to reiterate, advaita

is more of a philosophy that differs from vishistadvaita whilst Sri Vaishnavam

is the unifying roof for everyone from the religion standpoint.

Regarding the above two points ONLY I have seen enough confusions amongst the

Gaudia followers. That is all. It my no means accuses that the " sampradayam "

itself is confused. No doubt the contributions and the connectedness are

appreciated and accommodated. So, kindly take my message only in this context.

No one is to be blamed as it might be due to the historical reasons why such a

wide gap and confusions have been created within sub-sects, brother sects etc

but, the facts still remain the same.

Every sampradayam has come for a purpose as the supreme lord is the cause for

originating the same. It is just the present state of such systems that are

being considered for the study, debate, discussion etc in these forums in order

to bring out clarity and restore the authenticity of such sampradayams in order

to reestablish the unified Srivaishnava sampradaya, a single umbrella, under

which the great bhagavadottamas perform selfless service of the upliftment of

the upcoming generations thus restoring the lost peace and harmony in the

society with the blessings of the ultimate, lord Sriman Narayana.

Kindly pardon for any unintended offence that has been perceived/felt by anyone

of you.

adiyEn,

rAmAnuja dAsan

ramanuja , " Jai Simman R. Rangasamy " <rjsimman wrote:

>

> Hare Krishna.

>

> Many thanks to the Sri Vaishnavas on this forum for this post on Vaikhanasa

and Pancharatra.

>

> A few points of clarification and query:

>

> 1. Being part of the Gaudiya Vaishnava line, kindly allow me to briefly

explain our view of Acharyas such as Sri Ramanuja and others.

>

> We are certainly not a confused lot. There is something called acknowledgement

of contributions and larger connectedness and there is something called the

finality of allegiance. Certainly, our framework acknowledges the contributions

and devotional authenticity of Sri Ramanuja and we hold his feet on our heads in

laying the foundation in many ways for the revival of Vaishnavism amidst the

onslaught of Advaitic dominance. This does not mean that we are ultimately his

followers. Our ultimate allegiance would be to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the

acharyas in His line. We see a connectedness between all Vaishnava acharyas

although differences are present as well. Sri Chaitanya associated with Sri

Vaishnavas during his travels to South India and held them in high esteem and we

follow the same. No Gaudiya is claiming to be an immediate part of the Ramanuja

line or the Madhva line, etc. although in a larger context and framework, we

hold the right to have the

> freedom to see their connection to Mahaprabhu's mission.

>

> Generally, I do not post such content but when in an open forum I view

comments like " confused " , etc. I do feel compelled to clarify certain issues.

Let's not look at the behaviour of some individuals and decide that an entire

line is confused. Such ideas can be entertained upon anyone fron any line for

that matter. Liberality may seem confusion to the uninformed eyes. Also, it's

vital not to arrest others within the framework of one's own sampradayic

framework and deem them confused. One sampradaya's worldview is bound to be

different from another's even in terms of semantics, what to speak of historical

connectedness.

>

> 2. Regarding Agama shastra and temple worship, has any work been done in the

Sri Vaishnava line to very clearly and strongly prove the validity of Archa and

Temple worship purely on the basis of Veda and Upanishads? I am more

specifically looking for purely Veda and Upanishad-related resources that are

elucidated in support of the same, not so much Pancharatric or

Vaikhanasa-related support. In other words, when doubters such as the Arya

Samajists question the validity of deity worship and temple worship on the

pretext of their " absence " in the source texts of Vaidhika tradition, i.e.

shruti pramana, what explanations or support have been given by Sri Vaishnava

scholars to answer. I'd be appreciative of access to papers or treatises written

in this connection.

>

> Thanking all of you in advance and begging all of you for forgiveness if any

offenses have been committed,

>

> dasan

> jai simman

>

September 23, 2009

Pancharaatra AagamaThe

aagamas are authored works. They have divisions called samhitas.

There are number of such aagamas found to be existent based on which

religions have evolved.. All such aagamas are not to be accepted as

authoritative because it has to be analytically studied whether the

aagama supports the Veda or not. In case of an aagama contradicting

the veda, it has to be appropriately synchronized in accordance with

veda or if such aagama if found to deviate from veda, it has to be

rejected. Veda Vyasa who composed the brahma sutra has dealt with

regarding accepting or rejecting all schools of thoughts that were

prevalent. Brahma Sutraâ€™s second chapterâ€™s first and second

pada are important in the context of Pancharaatra Aagama. Here in

these Padas, Veda Vyasa deals with almost all schools of though &

philosophy and rejects all of them except the Pancharaatra aagama

based system. It is to be noted that many philosophers including

Shree Sankara Bhagavat Pada have commented on Brahma sutra and has

accepted pancharaatra alone to be authoritative - of course there is

deviation of thoughts among them but still the truth is accepted.

Pancharaatra

aagama has numerous samhitas of which saatvata, jayaakya and pouskara

samhitas are considered as gems. Shreeaman Narayanan himself authors

Pancharaatra aagama. Maha Bharata says that the author of

Pancharaatra is Shreeman Narayanan himself. Paancharaatra aagama

deals with the tatva (reality), hita (means) and the purushaartha

(goal). It also talks about temple constructions, worshiping of the

Lord in temples, the temple festivals and consecration of aarcha form

of Vishnu. It also talks about yoga, mantra, yantra, dharma and code

of conduct for people. It is in strict agreement with the Veda.

Paancharaatra specifically deals with a class of forms of Vishnu

called the Vyuhaa Roopas. I also talks about the mighty discus

(Sudarsana Chakra) of Shreeman Naaraayana. The eternal abode of the

Lord namely Shree Vaikunta Paramapada is also described by it. In

short Paancharaatra covers every aspect of the Vedic philosophy and

practice which is Visistaadvaita Shree Vaishnavam. Its origin can be

traced to a Vedic branch called Ekaayana Veda.

Vaikaanasa AagamaSage

Vikanasa authors this aagama. Other sages like Atri, Marichi, Brugu

have contributed to this aagama.

Any

authority can be accepted as authority only if it supports Vedas. If

it contradicts Vedas, it has to be appropriately understood such that

there is no contradiction to the Vedic authority or it should be

rejected. One has to necessarily understand that Vedas (Sruti) alone

is the base authority or the only final authority.

In

philosophy, Logic is an important tool. Nyaya, Tarka etc, are such

concepts. Unless and until a concept is

established in philosophy in a rational manner and within the limits

of the premises (domain of philosophy), it cannot be accepted.

Science also does the same way. Science stops with material world â€“

but philosophy extends it to transcendental also.

thanking you,regards, adiyen ramanuja dasan ,narayanabhakthan --- On Wed, 23/9/09, Jai Simman R. Rangasamy <rjsimman wrote:Jai Simman R. Rangasamy <rjsimman[sri ramanuja] Re: Why Sri Ramanuja preferred Paancharaatra over Vaikaanasa?ramanuja Date: Wednesday, 23 September, 2009, 8:27 AM

Hare Krishna.

Many thanks to the Sri Vaishnavas on this forum for this post on Vaikhanasa and Pancharatra.

A few points of clarification and query:

1. Being part of the Gaudiya Vaishnava line, kindly allow me to briefly explain our view of Acharyas such as Sri Ramanuja and others.

We are certainly not a confused lot. There is something called acknowledgement of contributions and larger connectedness and there is something called the finality of allegiance. Certainly, our framework acknowledges the contributions and devotional authenticity of Sri Ramanuja and we hold his feet on our heads in laying the foundation in many ways for the revival of Vaishnavism amidst the onslaught of Advaitic dominance. This does not mean that we are ultimately his followers. Our ultimate allegiance would be to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the acharyas in His line. We see a connectedness between all Vaishnava acharyas although differences are present as well. Sri Chaitanya associated with Sri Vaishnavas during his travels to South India and held them in high esteem and we follow the same. No Gaudiya is claiming to be an immediate part of the Ramanuja line or the Madhva line, etc. although in a larger context and framework, we hold the right to

have the freedom to see their connection to Mahaprabhu's mission.

Generally, I do not post such content but when in an open forum I view comments like "confused", etc. I do feel compelled to clarify certain issues. Let's not look at the behaviour of some individuals and decide that an entire line is confused. Such ideas can be entertained upon anyone fron any line for that matter.. Liberality may seem confusion to the uninformed eyes.. Also, it's vital not to arrest others within the framework of one's own sampradayic framework and deem them confused. One sampradaya's worldview is bound to be different from another's even in terms of semantics, what to speak of historical connectedness.

2. Regarding Agama shastra and temple worship, has any work been done in the Sri Vaishnava line to very clearly and strongly prove the validity of Archa and Temple worship purely on the basis of Veda and Upanishads? I am more specifically looking for purely Veda and Upanishad-related resources that are elucidated in support of the same, not so much Pancharatric or Vaikhanasa-related support. In other words, when doubters such as the Arya Samajists question the validity of deity worship and temple worship on the pretext of their "absence" in the source texts of Vaidhika tradition, i.e. shruti pramana, what explanations or support have been given by Sri Vaishnava scholars to answer. I'd be appreciative of access to papers or treatises written in this connection.

Thanking all of you in advance and begging all of you for forgiveness if any offenses have been committed,

dasan

jai simman

India has a new look. Take a sneak peek.

September 23, 2009

Respected Devotees,

Regards for all who are actively at the topic of Pancharaatra and Vaikaanasa. While I made an entry of this topic I didn't expect so many ardent exercises of mind by various vidwans like Sri Partha, Sri Jaisimma, Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan and others. It is lively and informative about the devout perceptions. Thank you for your time and interest.

To consider Vedas and Prabhandas as in no way different is really the import of treatises like Ubhayavedhantha Aikakantya. In tha ultimate and the deepest connotation they are really one though in two tongues. But as participents of modern world and research methods, should we or shouldn't we reconsider the role of history in the interim between Vedas and Divya Prabhandas?

With regards

Srirangam V Mohanarangan--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Lakshmi Narasimhan <v.lakshminrusimhan wrote:

Lakshmi Narasimhan <v.lakshminrusimhan[sri ramanuja] Re: Why Sri Ramanuja preferred Paancharaatra over Vaikaanasa?ramanuja Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 4:49 PM

asmad guruByO nama:Dear Bhagavadottama,First of all, my apologies if by any means my statement that Gaudiyas are confused themselves has offended any of those following that sampradaya. But I would like to clarify my standpoint with a contextual explanation to make sure my intent was not to deem any vaishnava lineages as confused etc.The context was regarding a) Whether one claims himself as Vaishnava or a Sri Vaishnavai) Gaudias have initiation - but not like any of the types of pancha samaskarams prescribed by Gargya or Parashara(Vedic system based)ii) Many of them wear urdva pundram without the Sri and do not have a proper understanding or clarity on Sri Mahalakshmi. And many of the Vedic pramanas are neglected with preferences to Puranas whereas shruti(apaurusheyam ) is always considered the highest order of pramana in other sampradayas - which is the reason why Radha is worshipped and misconceived as Sri Mahalakshmi

despite the Pramana for Sri Mahalakshmi in Sri Sukta.iii) Worshipping of Krishna as the supreme lord and not accepting Him as an incarnation of Lord Sriman Narayana again goes against Narayana, Vishnu suktas and the deiva meemamsa, a precursor to uttara meemamsa which are purely the vedic scriptures and shastraic injunctions.b) The acceptance of Sri Ramanuja as a global leader for all Vaishnavas- No doubt that despite the existence of all types of Vaishnava sampradaya, Sri Ramanujacharya played the key role in the Bhakti movement which was then adopted by most other sampradayas who saw Him as a unifier of all the Vaishnava sampradayas and hence was once proclaimed by everyone unanimously as the Jagadacharyan, be it followers of shri krishna chaitanya, or swami narayana, or nimbharka, or bhaskara or madhva or even shankara who all differed in philosophical aspects but not in the religious aspects in terms of worshipping lord Sriman

Narayana and following the Srivaishnavite tenets. In fact your statement that "laying the foundation in many ways for the revival of Vaishnavism amidst the onslaught of Advaitic dominance" itself would require a detailed debate. Including Shankara no one questioned about the supremacy of Lord Sriman Narayana. Shankara was a proper Vaishnavite and we have enough pramanas for that in terms of well documented purvacharya granthas as references for the same. So, advaita is not against Sri Vaishnavam, to reiterate, advaita is more of a philosophy that differs from vishistadvaita whilst Sri Vaishnavam is the unifying roof for everyone from the religion standpoint.Regarding the above two points ONLY I have seen enough confusions amongst the Gaudia followers. That is all. It my no means accuses that the "sampradayam" itself is confused. No doubt the contributions and the connectedness are appreciated and accommodated. So, kindly take my message only in

this context. No one is to be blamed as it might be due to the historical reasons why such a wide gap and confusions have been created within sub-sects, brother sects etc but, the facts still remain the same.Every sampradayam has come for a purpose as the supreme lord is the cause for originating the same. It is just the present state of such systems that are being considered for the study, debate, discussion etc in these forums in order to bring out clarity and restore the authenticity of such sampradayams in order to reestablish the unified Srivaishnava sampradaya, a single umbrella, under which the great bhagavadottamas perform selfless service of the upliftment of the upcoming generations thus restoring the lost peace and harmony in the society with the blessings of the ultimate, lord Sriman Narayana.Kindly pardon for any unintended offence that has been perceived/felt by anyone of you.adiyEn,rAmAnuja dAsan--- In

ramanuja@ s.com, "Jai Simman R. Rangasamy" <rjsimman@.. .> wrote:>> Hare Krishna.> > Many thanks to the Sri Vaishnavas on this forum for this post on Vaikhanasa and Pancharatra.> > A few points of clarification and query:> > 1. Being part of the Gaudiya Vaishnava line, kindly allow me to briefly explain our view of Acharyas such as Sri Ramanuja and others.> > We are certainly not a confused lot. There is something called acknowledgement of contributions and larger connectedness and there is something called the finality of allegiance. Certainly, our framework acknowledges the contributions and devotional authenticity of Sri Ramanuja and we hold his feet on our heads in laying the foundation

in many ways for the revival of Vaishnavism amidst the onslaught of Advaitic dominance. This does not mean that we are ultimately his followers. Our ultimate allegiance would be to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and the acharyas in His line. We see a connectedness between all Vaishnava acharyas although differences are present as well. Sri Chaitanya associated with Sri Vaishnavas during his travels to South India and held them in high esteem and we follow the same. No Gaudiya is claiming to be an immediate part of the Ramanuja line or the Madhva line, etc. although in a larger context and framework, we hold the right to have the> freedom to see their connection to Mahaprabhu's mission.> > Generally, I do not post such content but when in an open forum I view comments like "confused", etc. I do feel compelled to clarify certain issues. Let's not look at the behaviour of some individuals and decide that an entire line is confused.

Such ideas can be entertained upon anyone fron any line for that matter. Liberality may seem confusion to the uninformed eyes. Also, it's vital not to arrest others within the framework of one's own sampradayic framework and deem them confused. One sampradaya's worldview is bound to be different from another's even in terms of semantics, what to speak of historical connectedness.> > 2. Regarding Agama shastra and temple worship, has any work been done in the Sri Vaishnava line to very clearly and strongly prove the validity of Archa and Temple worship purely on the basis of Veda and Upanishads? I am more specifically looking for purely Veda and Upanishad-related resources that are elucidated in support of the same, not so much Pancharatric or Vaikhanasa-related support. In other words, when doubters such as the Arya Samajists question the validity of deity worship and temple worship on the pretext of their "absence" in the source

texts of Vaidhika tradition, i.e. shruti pramana, what explanations or support have been given by Sri Vaishnava scholars to answer. I'd be appreciative of access to papers or treatises written in this connection.> > Thanking all of you in advance and begging all of you for forgiveness if any offenses have been committed,> > > dasan> jai simman>

Recent Activity

2

New MembersVisit Your Group

Auto Enthusiast Zone

Discover auto groups

Small Business Group

Share experiences

with owners like you

Mom Power

Kids, family & home

Join the discussion

..

September 25, 2009

Jai Sriman Narayana!

Jai Lakshmi matta!

Jai Sri Ramanujacharya!

You said in the following.... " Being part of the Gaudiya Vaishnava line " . This

is a SRI Sampradayam forum. I am sure there are gaudiya Sampradayam forums out

there for you to be on.

" We are certainly not a confused lot " ....I have heard Gaudiya say ALOT worst

things about other Hindu groups.

" Also, it's vital not to arrest others within the framework of one's own

sampradayic framework and deem them confused. " ...I am amazed that this was even

said. I have heard and met many Gaudiyas have done this very thing. Thinking

that if your not a Hare Krishna/ISKCON/Gaudiya that your wrong and that Gaudiyas

have the right sadhanta and because one is a Sri Sampradayam your not following

the Vedas(very funny idea) and we are ignorant indian hindus...I have heard this

many times.

Please remember that This is a SRI SAMPRADAYAM forum. For discussing matter

related to SRI Sampradayam. Your a part of the Gaudiya sampradayam....this is

ours.