Divine upanyasam

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha parabrahmaNE nama:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha divya paduka sevaka

srivan satakopa sri narayana yatindra mahadesikaya nama:

 

Dear Bhagavathas:

 

It is scarcely believable that we get to enjoy

Upanyasams in the traditional style that too directly

from Srimad Azhagiya Singar. Jeeyar's sowlabyam

cannot be described in mere words, only to be

experienced. It seems HH enjoys giving the

discourse just as much as we enjoy listening to it.

Reports from back home show that Srimad

Azhagiya Singar is particularly joyful after the

completion of the upanyasam.

 

What is more unbelievable is the amount of

information packed into every word of the

paasuram. With all the humor and wit it is easy to

overlook the comprehensive nature of the coverage

from all the known commentaries including

NanjIyar, NampiLLai, Periyavaachhaan piLLai,

Thampiraan, azhagiya maNavaaLa perumaaL

nayanaar, etc. So much to enjoy from each phrase,

such as, meyymmaiyE, maRRaRiyEn, avan

ponnadi, paavin innisai. Today's (Aug 14, 99)

Upanyasam was a mother load of nectar. Let me

share just a couple of points.

 

paavin inisai paadi thirivanE

-----------------------------

It is well known that for Madurakavi Azhvar,

Nammaazhvar is the Lord to the exclusion of even

perumaaL. But with the last line of the second

paasuram, " paavin inisai paadi thirivanE "

Madurakavi Azhvar abandons even Nammaazhvar,

abandons even Thiruvaaymozhi and settles only for

the musical essence, not the even the purport just

the music, of Thiruvaaymozhi.

 

To establish the validity of the above, Srimad

Azhagiya Singar first proved the superiority of

Thiruvaaymozhi over the Vedas, and then showed

that the refined essence of Thiruvaaymozhi is its

music i.e. paavin innisai.

 

Consider Thiruvaaymozhi 9.4.8 and 9.4.9. In

Pasuram 9.4.8 Nammaazvaar says, in first person,

that he has seen the Lord. In the very next

paasuram (9.4.9) Nammazhvaar explains that the

joy complete satisfaction of seeing the Lord

(kaNNiNai Ara kaLLiththu) is shared by all the

bhagavthas through the Thiruvaaymozhi songs. In

contrast, the Vedas could not see the Lord

adequately and had to retreat from its attempt.

What the Vedas could not do, Nammaazhvar did in

Thiruvaaymozhi, i.e. perform saakshaathkaram of

perumaaL and convey the experience to other

bhagavathas.

 

Jeeyar also quoted Swami Sri Desikan for

establishing the greatness of Divya Prabhandham

compared to the Vedas.

 

Amurdhasvathini #27:

--------------------

kaasiniyin maNi anaiththum kaayaa vaNNan

kadaintheduttha kavuththuvaththin seermaik kovvaa

kaasi muthalaakiya nannakari yellaam

kaarmEni aruLaaLar kachchik kovvaa

maasin manantheLi munivar vaguththa ellaam

maalukantha aasiriyar vaarththaik kovvaa

vaasiyaRinthu ivai uraiththOm vaiyaththuLLeer

vaippaaka ivaikoNdu magizhmineerE.

 

Free translation:

----------------

All the precious stones in this world is no match for

the Kausthubam. Starting from Kasi, the great

cities of this world are no match for AruLaaLar's

city of Kanchi. Similiarly, the Vedas, smrithi, and

puraaNaas, (even the most pure Vishnu purANam),

are no match for Dhivya Prabhandham.

 

mallugandha vaarththai = Azhavaar srI sukthIs

maasil manantheLi

munivar vaguththa vellaam = Vedas, smrithi, purANAs

 

 

Thus the greatness of Thiruvaaymozhi with respect

to the Vedas/smrithi/puraaNaas is evident.

 

Even from Thiruvaaymozhi, Madurakavi took only

its " innisai " nothing more. Srimad Azhagiya singar

explained with the example of a fruit and the

sweetness of the fruit. What MadurakavikaL

wanted was just the sweetness of the fruit, not the

fruit itself as the fruit contains not just sweetness,

but tasteless pulp as well. The fruit is

Thiruvaaymozhi, but its musical sound (paavin

innisai) is the sweetness of the fruit.

 

The relevant portion of the original Nanjeeyar

commentary is given below:

 

" Bhagavath praapthiyai praapyaththil

pradhamaavathi enRu kazhiththu,

idhil saramaavathiyaana AzhvAraiyum

uththEsyaranRu enRu kazhaiththu,

avarOdu sambanthiththa vishaiyaththaiyum

raSAsrayamanRu enRu kazhiththu,

aththOdu sambatthiththa isaiyE enakku

uddhdhEsyamenRkiRAr. "

 

Another angle

-------------

In the above, " kurukoor nambi paavin innisai " was

interpreted as the musical sound of

Thiruvvaymozhi. For this interpretation, " kurukoor

nambi paa " can be interpreted as the songs sung by

kurukoor nambi. It can also be interpreted as the

songs _about_ Kurukoor nambi, i.e. KaNNinuN

siRuththaambu. Then, the " innisai " that the

Azhavar says he will sing and roam about, is his

own composition KaNNinuN siRuththaambu.

Thus, we can see that Madurakavi Azhvaar first

abandoned the Lord in favor of Nammaazhvaar;

then he abandoned Nammaazhvar for

Thiruvaaymozhi, and finally he even abandoned

Thiruvaaymozhi in favor of simply reciting

KaNNinuN siRuththaambu. Such is its greatness.

 

 

Two kinds of naasthikaas

------------------------

With the phrase " devu maRRaRiyEn " the Azhvar

implicitly admits the existence of other deities.

This is similar to Nammaazhvar's own " dheyvam

maRRillai pEsuminE " (4.10.3) These are used to

show perumaaL's lordship over all other entities.

In the course of illustrating the point that

perumaaL is the Lord of everything including all

the other devathaas, Srimad Azhagiya Singar cited

Srimad RTS where Swami Sri Desikan identifies

two kinds of Nasthikas. One type of Nasthikas

includes Sankhyas, Mimamsakas, Bouththaas, etc.,

who agree with the existence of the material world,

but deny the existence of God. (‘vibhoothiyai

isaindhu, vibhoothimAnai illai enbavar). The

second kind of Nasthikas are those who agree with

the existence of God, but deny the material world.

(VibhoothimAnai isaindhu, vibhoothiyai illai

enbavar.) This kind of Nasthikas are ‘Advaitees'.

 

srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

 

-- adiyen ramanuja dasan

 

p.s. Due to adiyEn's obvious limitations if anything

is misstated in the above please make the necessary

corrections.