Why Sri Ramanuja preferred Paancharaatra over Vaikaanasa? (Re:Archa Avatara)

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaktas,

 

This is about pramanas for archa avatara.

 

>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.

 

Sri Pillai Lokacharya, in his rahasya granthas, has described the significance

of archai. Sri Vedanta Desikan and Swami Nampillai have also commented on archa

avatara. So, I will be drawing from these sources. I shall first explain how

archa avatara is conceived of, and then provide pramanas.

 

Sri Vaishnavism accepts that the Svarupa of SrIman NArAyaNa is different from

His rupa. This is a very important point that is often missed by other schools.

For instance, Madhvas have criticised Sri Vaishnavas and attempted to 'refute'

the theory of archa avatara. For the Madhvas, the deity is just an 'idol' but

not Brahman's body itself, 'it' is a representation in which SrIman NArAyaNa

dwells, so that they can offer worship. This is because Madhvas consider the

body and Soul of the Lord to be one and the same, and as such they cannot accept

that the Lord assumes archa forms.

 

This idea of identity between Bhagavan and His body is criticised and refuted by

later acharyas of our tradition like Parakala Yati, Srinivasacharya, etc.

 

The Sri Vaishnava tradition, recognises a difference between the Svarupa of the

Lord and His body. The Vishnu Purana states that the body is made of different

tattvas, and is made of Jnana and Ananda, a substance called 'Suddha Sattvam'.

This same 'Suddha Sattvam' is also what Vaikunta is made of. Sri Ramanuja's

Vaikunta Gadyam, Nammazhwar's 'Suzh Visumbu' pasurams and the Kaushitaki

Upanishad state that Sri Vaikuntam is a place with palaces, rivers, trees,

mandapas, etc. This stuff is acit, but it is not made of prakrti. It is all made

of the same 'Suddha Sattvam'.

 

Important point - Lord has two bodies. One is the Universe and Jivas, which are

His body in the sense that He supports it, and other - His own unique body which

is meant for showing off His kalyana gunas.

 

So, archa avatara now - The Lord's svarupa indwells inside the thirumeni

consecrated in temples. Hence, there is no difference betwene the thirumeni of

His vaibhava avatara (Rama, Krishna) and the thirumeni in divya desams like

Thiruvallikeni (my native place).

 

Pramanas:

 

I will simply post most of the pramanas that have already been posted on the

net, taken from sri sookthis of our acharyas.

 

The oft cited source is this, from the Mahanarayana Upanishad:

 

ambhasya pArE , bhuvanasya MadhyE , nAgasya prushtE mahato mahiyAn ,

jyOtheemshasamanupravishta: , PrajApathisccharathi garbhE antha :

 

This talks about Para, Vyuha, Vaibhava, Archai and Antaryami. The

'jyOtheemshasamanupravishta' refers to the Archa Avatara (He enters into the

luminous bodies). Ambhasya pArE - Thiruparkadal (Ksheerabdi), Bhuvanasya MadhyE

- Moving on the Earth, ie, Vaibhava like Rama, Krishna, etc., nAgasya prushtE

mahato mahiyAn - Greater than the Greatest, Seated on Adi Sesha (paramapadam),

PrajApathisccharathi garbhE antha: - Antaryami.

 

While other meanings are given, the general meaning of archa is derived from

azhwar pasurams which support this interpretation. The Lord enters into these

bodies, ie, archa thirumeni and makes them luminous (due to them being

jnAnAnanda-mayam). This meaning also fits the context better.

 

Bhagavad Gita 4.11:

 

yE yathA maam Prapadyante taamstathaiva bhajAmyaham I

mama varthmAnuvarthanthE manushyA: Paartha sarvasa.

 

This sloka says that He favors His devotees in whatever manner they think of

Him. Sri Nampillai and Sri Vedanta Desikan have indicated that this is an

explicit reference to the archa avatara.

 

Azhwar Pasuram conveys this beautifully:

 

tamar uhnadadu yevvuravam avvuravam thAnE( In whatever from the bhakthas desire

, the Lord assumes a body in that form for receiving their worship).

 

Satapatha Brahmana points out the same thing (Sri Desikan quotes it, I believe):

 

tham yathA yathOpaasathE tadhEva Bhavathi.

 

He takes the form desired by those worshipping Him in whatever way they wish to

see Him.

 

Many people mistake both azhwar's pasuram and the sloka. They think Krishna is

saying, 'Worship me as Durga, Siva, and I will reciprocate in that manner'. This

is wrong. The idea is that He manifests Himself in whatever form His devotees

desire. 'devotees' means true jnanis, who know Sri Hari is Supreme, and who have

surrendered to Him. Not anya devata worshippers. Example: King Sumati wanted to

see Venkateswara as Parthasarathy, so He appeared as Venkatakrishnan and today

is giving darshan in Thiruvallikeni. This is an incident that illustrates how

Bhagavan takes the forms that pleases His devotees (a combination of Tirupati

Balaji and Geethacharyan, complete with a moustache, very unique and

beautiful!).

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

 

Govind.

[Guest guest]

Dear Swami Partha,

Your exposition is good and the approach is inclusive. Really that is a point to consider the Vedic and Upanishadic citations on Archa. Thank you.

 

with regards

Srirangam V Mohanarangan--- On Wed, 9/23/09, Partha <govi85 wrote:

Partha <govi85[sri ramanuja] Re: Why Sri Ramanuja preferred Paancharaatra over Vaikaanasa? (Re:Archa Avatara)ramanuja Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2009, 6:22 PM

Dear Bhaktas,This is about pramanas for archa avatara.>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.Sri Pillai Lokacharya, in his rahasya granthas, has

described the significance of archai. Sri Vedanta Desikan and Swami Nampillai have also commented on archa avatara. So, I will be drawing from these sources. I shall first explain how archa avatara is conceived of, and then provide pramanas.Sri Vaishnavism accepts that the Svarupa of SrIman NArAyaNa is different from His rupa. This is a very important point that is often missed by other schools. For instance, Madhvas have criticised Sri Vaishnavas and attempted to 'refute' the theory of archa avatara. For the Madhvas, the deity is just an 'idol' but not Brahman's body itself, 'it' is a representation in which SrIman NArAyaNa dwells, so that they can offer worship. This is because Madhvas consider the body and Soul of the Lord to be one and the same, and as such they cannot accept that the Lord assumes archa forms.This idea of identity between Bhagavan and His body is criticised and refuted by later acharyas of our tradition like Parakala

Yati, Srinivasacharya, etc. The Sri Vaishnava tradition, recognises a difference between the Svarupa of the Lord and His body. The Vishnu Purana states that the body is made of different tattvas, and is made of Jnana and Ananda, a substance called 'Suddha Sattvam'. This same 'Suddha Sattvam' is also what Vaikunta is made of. Sri Ramanuja's Vaikunta Gadyam, Nammazhwar's 'Suzh Visumbu' pasurams and the Kaushitaki Upanishad state that Sri Vaikuntam is a place with palaces, rivers, trees, mandapas, etc. This stuff is acit, but it is not made of prakrti. It is all made of the same 'Suddha Sattvam'.

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

1

New MembersVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

 

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

 

 

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

..