VAlmIki and VyAsA

[Guest guest]

Can someone please enlighten me about a few basic questions:

 

(1) To the best of my knowledge no one ever observes anything like a

" Valmiki-tirunakshatram " or a " VyAsa-jayanti " anywhere in India...

Obviously these two great seers (the two greatest Vedic seers in

terms of sheer output or contribution to posterity) do not, for some

reason or other, hold the status of " AchAryA " in the true sense of

the title. Why is this so? Is it because they did not found or

promote any " system " or brand of thought and belief, or because they

did not care to groom 'sishyA-s' to carry forward their flag through

the generations, or else, perhaps because they did not have to fight

any polemical battles with rival schools?

 

(2) The " Srimad Ramayana " of Valmiki is recognised as the most

original and most profound document of the " saraNAgathi-sAstra " . So

that would make one regard Valmiki as one of the earliest pioneers of

the doctrine of " saraNagati-tattva " , isn't it? Why then is Valmiki

not to be found amongst the SriVaishnava pantheon of " AchAryA-s " ?

 

(3) Valmiki and VyAsa --- as individuals, were they Dvaitins,

VisishtAdvatins or Advaitins? What would be the reasons for the

choice?

 

Adiyen would be grateful for some information.

Thanks,

Regards,

dAsan,

Sudarshan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!

/

[Guest guest]

Sri. Sudarshan:

 

Valmeeki and VyAsar were Vedic rishis; I don't believe

that the practice of commemorating a guru's janmanakshatra

(the way we do today) existed during the gurukula system

of antiquity. Service to the guru by way of maintaining

his living premises and doing nitya-kainkarya existed as a

routine part of the shishyavritti, and the final expression

of gratitude was in the form of dakshiNa.

 

However it is not correct to say that there doesn't remain

any shishya parampara for these sages - we do have gotrams,

don't we? It seems to me that in the Vedic period, the

guru's own progeny was expected to carry the legacy forward,

in contrast with later AchArya paramparas of more recent

history. We have several examples of this, such as UddAlaka,

nachikEta, ashTavakra etc. which leads me to believe that

the gotra construct evolved from that social setting - where

paternal lineage from a Vedic rishi represented the tradition

of each " school " . I suppose these " schools " weren't rivals

in the same sense as rival philosophies are today - for one,

very few (if any) other religions existed during Vedic times.

 

We must remember that Adikavi Srimad valmeeki was a vEDan,

and so wouldn't have belonged to a vedic gurukulam in the

first place - let alone establish his lineage etc. There

isn't any valmeeki gotram is there? As for vyAsa, he IS

honored by all vedantins in the form of bAdarAyaNa - the

author of the brahmasootra. Even though sootrakArar did

have a shishyaparampara (bodhAyana, dramida, bharuchi etc.)

it didn't lead directly down to AchArya nAthamuni, for

example. It was extinct even by the time of Adi Sankara.

 

As far as valmeeki and vyAsa being poorvAchAryas for our

faith, we must remember that neither of them were true

Srivaishnavas in the sense that we understand today - from

the point of view of paramaikAntitvam to Sriman nArAyaNa,

as well as observing the traditional srivaishnava samskAras

which are enshrined in the teachings of more recent AchAryas

beginning with Sriman nAthamuni. This doesn't constitute

a negative statement about them (much like saying that Sri

rAmanuja was born a vaDamAL) - rather it is a technicality

and it is best that we don't make a big deal out of it.

 

Regarding the possible affiliations of these rishis to

later vedantic interpretations of Advaita and VisistAdvaita,

the answer is no. VyAsa or bAdarAyaNa was not only the

classifier of the chaturvedas, but also the compiler of all

upanishadic thought into the one source text of brahmasootra.

The advaita/dvaita differences arise only later, as a result

of differing interepretations of that source text. I believe

this question was also posed to Sri. SMS Chari as a challenge

by a Western academic - in response to which Dr. Chari is now

in the process of writing a book which describes the " original "

position taken by sootrakArar Sri. bAdarAyaNa himself. But

the fact remains that bAdarAyaNa precedes advaita/visistAdvaita

by at least a couple of thousand years! As for valmeeki, he

preceded even vyAsa in chronology - which certainly eliminates

any possiblity of his affiliation with these philosophies.

 

I request bhaktas to add to this topic with any corrections

if necessary, or additional thoughts and input.

 

aDiyEn,

-Srinath Chakravarty

email: xsrinath

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Srinath,

 

I think what Sri. Hari is trying to say is (please correct me if I am

wrong):

 

1. If one accepts Vis'istAdvaita Vedanta in its entirety, as the " most

rational and perfect " detailed exposition on the nature of reality

described in the vedas (and elaborated on in the vedantic texts), then the

term Origin becomes meaningless. For Vis'istAdvaita only elaborates on the

beginningless truth contained in the vedas. Once again I point out that

the statement that Vedas are beginningless (i.e., without author) is a

premise and not a dogmatic statement! Premise is a key component of every

sound theory. This premise is rational, given Vis'istAdvaita is an unbounded

philosophy (i.e., individual souls, matter and the process of creation and

dissolution are also beginningless.)

 

2. If one approaches the issue from this angle, terms such as evolution of

ideas and origin have no meaning, when used in relation to description of

the nature of reality.

 

3. The Vedic paradigm prescribe to the notion unbounded rationality

(rational statements are not limited to objects of the senses), trying to

analyze issues within the realm of the Vedic paradigm using the bounded

rationality of the west (i.e., logical positivist/empirical paradigm) can

lead to misleading conclusions.

 

Also Sri. Anand Said in an earlier post on Bhakti List: Bhagavad RAmAnuja

didn't start a new system of philosophy. Even in the previous yugAs, great

sages like bOdhAyana, Dramida, Tanka and others were upholding

VisishtAdvaita as the actual vEdAnta. Thus, VisishtAdvaita is not some

" evolved " philosophy.

 

Ramanuja dasan,

Venkat

 

Venkat Nagarajan

(Toronto)

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

Sri. Hari:

 

" M.S.HARI (Madabhushi Sarangarajan Hari) " wrote:

 

> >Regarding the possible affiliations of these rishis to

> >later vedantic interpretations of Advaita and VisistAdvaita,

> >the answer is no.

>

> Advaita is a personal interpretaion. But VisistAdvaita is the

> purport of VedAnta-GIta and Brahma SUtra. This the reason why

> our matham is called as " parama-vaidika-matham " . Its siddhAntham

> and anushtAnam are both " parama-vaidikam " .

 

I wonder if this concept has acceptance among all vedantins; and

whether the non-visistAdvaitins (whose numbers are much larger than

ours) would concede to your statement that " Advaita is a [mere]

personal interpretation " . No matter how strong our beliefs and

convictions may be, they should not translate to a condemnation of

other faiths or a re-writing of history. That would sound more like

the proverbial " maNDuka " in the well.

 

> >But the fact remains that bAdarAyaNa precedes advaita/visistAdvaita

> >by at least a couple of thousand years! As for valmeeki, he

> >preceded even vyAsa in chronology - which certainly eliminates

> >any possiblity of his affiliation with these philosophies.

>

> If it is understood clearly that neither SrIman NAthamuni nor

> Bhagavath Ramanuja founded VisishtAdvaita SrI VaisNava philosophy

> and practice, and it is the eternal philosophy and practice of

> apowrusheya Sruthi, then your reply becomes a personal opinion.

 

The sishyaparamparA of bhagawAn bAdarAyaNa has been used as

a basis by even non-visistAdvaita vedantins such as Adi Sankara. It will

be a tall order to conclusively prove that bAdarAyaNa and his legacy

were 100% visistAdvaitam. If such a thing were patently obvious, there

shouldn't have been any other school of vedAnta besides ours. Unless

of course, we go to the extent of stating that Sankara, Anandateertha etc.

did not know what they were talking about.

 

aDiyEn,

-Srinath C.

[Guest guest]

>The sishyaparamparA of bhagawAn bAdarAyaNa has been used as

>a basis by even non-visistAdvaita vedantins such as Adi Sankara. It will

>be a tall order to conclusively prove that bAdarAyaNa and his legacy

>were 100% visistAdvaitam. If such a thing were patently obvious, there

>shouldn't have been any other school of vedAnta besides ours. Unless

>of course, we go to the extent of stating that Sankara, Anandateertha etc.

>did not know what they were talking about.

 

 

This is exactly what our Acharyas have so painstakingly proved over the

centuries.

 

My 7 year old daughter made the following comment about a remark made by a

10 year old girl. The 10 year old girl made a statement, " Shree and Shelby

are always together. "

 

My daughter complained to me. " Magen made this statement, but that is

simply untrue. We do not eat together, we do not bathe together, and we do

not go to bed together. Nor do we go to the same class. " An adult would

not have had a problem with Magen's statement, as the adult would have seen

that what Magen meant was " Given a chance, Shree and Shelby will come

together to play. "

 

This is the exact difference between Visishtadvaita philosophy and other

philosophies. Our Acharyas have viewed everything in the context of what

was said, and how Sanskrit grammar will allow the interpretation of a

particular word or sentence. In the Geetabhashya for example, every other

translator has translated a verse from the 1st chapter to say, " Our forces

are adequate while those of the opponents are inadequate. " Only

Ramanujacharya has translated this the other way around. This is because,

everyone of the Maharathis on the Kaurava side had at some time in the past

been beaten by one or more of the Pandavas.

 

Bodhayana the direct disciple of Vyasa as well as Dramida have only

propounded the Visishtadvaita philosophy. It is because that this Acharya

Paramparai was lost, that Nammazhwar, Nathamuni etc., incarnated. That is

the only reason why Vyasa is not on our Acharya Paramaparai list.

 

If one studies Sri Bhashya under an Acharya, one will understand why every

other philosophy not agreeing with Visishtadvaitam is wrong. If one studies

SarvArtha Siddhi, one will understand why our philosophy can NEVER GO WRONG.

 

adiyen does not have any reference books handy. Please forgive adiyen for

the free translation of the Geeta verse. Sources for the above are

 

(1) Article by Uththamoor Swamy

(2) Upanyasam by Srivatsankacharyar Swamy,

(3) Talk by Vaikunthavasi, Sri U. Ve Kannan Swamy of Gaithersburg Md.

 

adiyen Ramanuja daasan,

jagan.

>

>aDiyEn,

>-Srinath C.

>

>

>Srimate Sri Laksminrisimha Divya Paduka Sevaka

>Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama:

>

 

_______________________

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.

[Guest guest]

SrI Srinath Chakravarty,

 

You have written:

> I wonder if this concept has acceptance among all vedantins; and

> whether the non-visistAdvaitins (whose numbers are much larger than

> ours) would concede to your statement that " Advaita is a [mere]

> personal interpretation " . No matter how strong our beliefs and

> convictions may be, they should not translate to a condemnation of

> other faiths or a re-writing of history. That would sound more like

> the proverbial " maNDuka " in the well.

 

I wonder how you found " translate to a condemnation " etc., in my words.

Regarding " re-writing of history " , I would suggest you reading authentic

history. I openly state that " Advaita is a personal/individual

interpretation " By stating like this, there is NO room for " condemnation " .

Advaita is " sruthi-nyAyApEtham - meaning, NOT in accordance with Veda and

logic " . Your words like " sound more like the proverbial " maNDuka " in the well "

are not fit to be told before scholars. There is no condemnation meant here. I

wanted to differentiate between the parama-vaidika-matham

and others. As I found your words " acceptance among all vedantins " , I have a

question for you: " Who is Vedantin/Vaidika? " . May I request you to kindly

answer this question?

 

> The sishyaparamparA of bhagawAn bAdarAyaNa has been used as

> a basis by even non-visistAdvaita vedantins such as Adi Sankara. It >

will

> be a tall order to conclusively prove that bAdarAyaNa and his legacy

> were 100% visistAdvaitam. If such a thing were patently obvious, there

> shouldn't have been any other school of vedAnta besides ours. Unless

> of course, we go to the extent of stating that Sankara, Anandateertha >

etc.

> did not know what they were talking about.

 

The above words are again personal opinion. (Again please do not misunderstand

this for " condemnation " ). If a person studies SrI Bhashya, Sata-dhushani,

Tatva-mukta-kalapam then

he will never (even in dreams) have comments like this. I have a question

addressed to you: " Is there atleast a single sUtra in bhagawAn bAdarAyaNa's

Brahma-sUtra in support of SrI Adi Sankara's philosophy? " May I request you to

kindly answer this question. I have asked this question because you have

written " It will be a tall order to conclusively prove that bAdarAyaNa and

his legacy were 100% visistAdvaitam "

 

You have written " If such a thing were patently obvious, there shouldn't have

been any other school of vedAnta besides ours " . This comment is ignored

because it was already clearly mentioned that Visishtadvaita is the only

philosophy of Veda and others are personal interpretations.

 

Please do not mistake these things as vociferous. I suggest that let us be

precise in our comments and see that rationality is applicable. Any one can

say anything, but the question is " which is the philosophy and practice of

Veda? " . The answer to this question is without any doubt, " only Visishtadvatia

Shree Vaishnavam " .

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI Ramanuja Daasan (mshari)

 

 

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN -

SaThakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear devotees,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

Some have well answered many questions that were raised

in this thread. aDiyEn felt like adding few more .....

 

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

1. Are Sage VyAsa and VAlmIki Maharishi " AchAryas " to

SrI VaishNavas ?

 

Yes. They are " AchAryas " to SrI VaishNavas, through

their great works on VEdAnta, but not through the

Panca-SamskAram lineage. In this sense, they are said to be

not in the traditional lineage of SrI VaishNava AchAryas, which

can be termed by Ubhaya-VEdAnta Guru-Parampara.

 

--

 

2. Difference Between Ubhaya-VEdAnta and VEdAnta Parampara

**********************************************************

 

Since SAstras clearly mention that Lord SrIman nArAyaNa atfirst

did the upadEsam of VEdas to Lord Catur-mukha Brahma and then

Lord Brahma propagated it to Sage NArada and others, this is

recognized as the Guru-parampara for all VEdAntins.

 

Guru-Parampara of Advaitins (Ref. advaita-vedanta Homepage) :

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

 

Lord nArAyaNa

Lord Padmabhuva (Catur-mukha brahma)

Sage vasishTha

Sage Sakti

Sage ParASara

Sage VyAsa

Sage Suka

SrI GauDapAda

SrI Govinda bhagavatpAda

SrI Adi SankarAcArya

 

Here the link between Sage Suka and SrI GauDapAda is not clear.

They were separated by hundreds of years. No idea as to whether

the former directly taught the latter through mystic vision. But,

the divine works of the Sages are taken as pramAnas and probably

through that, they become their AchAryas.

 

 

Guru-Parampara of Dwaitins :

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

 

Lord nArAyaNa

Lord Catur-mukha Brahma

Sage NArada

Sage VyAsa

SrI Ananda TIrtha (MadhvAchArya)

 

aDiyEn is not 100% sure of the Dwaitin's lineage between Lord

Brahma and Sage VyAsa. But in one source, its mentioned like

this. Again, Sage VyAsa and MadhvAchArya are separated by hundreds

of years. But Dwaitins claim that during MadhvAchArya's trip to

HimAlayas, he got the instructions/upadEsams directly from

Sage VyAsa.

 

Ubhaya-VEdAnta Guru-Parampara :

 

SrI VaishNavas recognize the vEdAnta Parampara till Sage Suka

as mentioned above and also accept the writings of many other

rishis propounding VEdAnta. Needless to say, Smrutis of various

rishis are accepted by all schools of VEdAnta.

 

Some important rishis propounding ViSishtAdvaita VEdAnta whose

writings were utilized/quoted by Bhagavad RAmAnuja are :

 

a. Sage BOdhAyana : In Tatwateeka, SwAmi DESikan identifies him to

be same as Sage Upavarsha. He wrote an extensive Vritti

ie.gloss on Brahma SUtras.

 

b. Sage TaNka (alias BrahmAnandin, vAkyakAra) : Wrote " vAkyAs " -

very short notes on ChAndOgya Upanishad.

 

c. Sage Dramida : Followed Sage TaNka's vAkyAs and commented

upon ChAndOgya Upanishad, called as " DramidabhAshya " .

 

d. Sages GuhadEva, Kapardin and BhAruci.

 

 

In SampradAya PariSuddhi, SwAmi DESikan says :

 

" ........ yathArthadaSi-kaLAi yathA-drushta-arthavAdi-kaLAna

vyAsa-bOdhAyanAdi-kaLAlE yathAdhikAram -pravartita-mAna

vEdAnta sampradAyattiRku inda yuga-AarambattilE brahmanandi-

Aadi-kaLukkup pinbu NammAzhwAr pravartakar-AanAr " .

 

ie. " ......After VyAsa and BOdhAyana, the propounders of VEdAnta

sampradAyam, who knew the truth <vEdAnta tattvas> and

performed the upadEsam as they realized/knew, in the

beginning of present <kali> yuga, NammAzhwAr became the

propounder of this VEdAnta sampradAyam after BrahmAnandi and

others " .

 

Thus, the Divya-Prabandham of AzhwArs are only in tune with the

VEdAnta sampradAyam of the rishis. SwAmi DESikan clearly points

out that NammAzhwAr has propounded the same VEdAnta as it was

previously propounded by verious rishis. But, the Guruparampara

through upadEsam (direct instruction) for NammAzhwAr does not

connect with a rishi. As we know, this Guruparampara starts from

Divya Dampati and proceeds onto VishwaksEnar, NammAzhwAr,

NAthamuni ...till our current AchAryas. This can be termed as

the " Ubhaya-VEdAnta Guruparampara " in contrast with the general

" VEdAnta Parampara " , since the former has the direct upadEsam

and impact of AzhwAr's Divine works reverred as DrAvida-VEdas

due to their clarity of presentation of VEdAnta in unmistakable

terms. Since only through this Ubhaya-VEdAnta Guruparampara that

SrI VaishNavas get Panca-SamskAram done, which esp. includes

upadEsam of rahasya mantras and learn the Ubhaya-VEdAnta granthas

including that of works by rishis, this Guru-Parampara is the

" direct " AchArya Lineage for SrI VaishNavas.

 

--

 

3. Were Sage VyAsa and VAlmIki Maharishi ParamaikAntins ?

 

aDiyEn has heard in a kAlakshEbam that Sage vyAsar was a

SrI Vaishnava / ParamaikAntin. SrI KarunAkaran SwAmi explained that

Rishis like VyAsa played a different role than that of AzhwArs,

though the fundamental principle is same for both of them.

 

Many rishis catered to the needs of all the people viz. dharmam,

artham, kAmam and mOksham. So, they also spoke about,

say, the glories of some anya dEvatAs , performing worship

to anya dEvatAs for certain benifits etc also, in addition to

the way mumukshu (seeker of moksham) should be. But,

AzhwArs taught us only about the pathway to moksham viz.

uninterrupted kainkaryam to the Divya Dampati and thus the

focus of AzhwArs is different ( ofcourse, if someone recites

Divya Prabandham etc, with the intention of getting more money

PerumAL will grant it ). Philosophically, Sage VyAsa and AzhwArs

say the same thing, but the focus of their writings/teachings

varied according to the role they took. Sage VyAsa is Lord

VishNu's avatAram (ie. that jIvAtma was given extrordinary powers

by PerumAL) intended for achieving certain objectives and

the incarnation of AzhwArs was for achieving certain objectives.

 

 

But, seeing from a different angle, using the nahi nindA nyAyam

(ie. just to glorify someone and _not_ to deride other), AzhwArs

are said to be superior to rishis since AzhwArs sung only about

SrIman nArAyaNa and allied aspects in a very lucid manner. This

statement needs to be properly understood with the background of

all the things written above.

 

It is to be noted that, not all rishis were VEdAntins. There were

also some who upholded different systems of Philosophy like

SAn~khya and VaiSEshika. But, the rishis referred in general are

those who were VEdAntins. Also, there were some difference of

opinions between Rishis regarding the performance of certain

anushThAnams, which is reflected through their Smrutis. Some

AchAryas say that, since the later Rishis relaxed certain

procedures in the anushThAnam, keeping in view of the capability

of the men/women performing it, some differences have arised.

 

--

 

4. Was Sage VyAsa a ViSishtAdvaitin ?

 

Our AchAryas have established this clearly in their works.

The recent monumental works like " ParamArtha BhUshaNam " by

SrI abhinava dESika UttamUr Swami and " GUdArtha-dIpikA " by

Abhinava RanganAtha ParakAla Jeeyar establishes this point very

firmly.

 

In the recent book titled " Philosophy of the VEdAnta SUtra " ,

(MunshirAm Manoharlal Pub) SrI SMS Chari has done an unbiassed

study of Sage VyAsa's Brahma SUtras to determine as

to which of the three commentaries viz.Sankara-BhAshya,

SrI-BhAshya and Madhva-BhAshya, bring out the Philosophy of

VEdAnta as explained in Brahma-SUtra. SrI SMS Chari concludes

that SrI BhAshya is the one which brings out faithfully the

teachings of Sage VyAsa's Brahma SUtras.

--

 

5. If Sage VyAsa was a ViSishtAdvaitin, why didn't he mention

that the Philosophy of Upanishads is " ViSishtAdvaita " ?

 

Sage VyAsa was only establishing " VEdAnta " , which is the

Philosophy of Upanishads in particular and VEdAs in general.

There was no need to specifically coin some name, since

VEdAnta was the general term used. Later, due to some problems

in interpretations, many schools of VEdAnta arose. Even,

Bhagavad RAmAnuja never used the term " ViSishtAdvaita " . He

was only propounding the VEdAnta consciously. But, the best

name that can be coined for this system was arrived later to

be " ViSishtAdvaita " . Ofcourse, SwAmi DESikan's contribution

in this issue (as in all other issues as well) comes into

play. ViSishtAdvaita is not an evolved Philosophy. But

SwAmi DESikan has made original contributions to shape

ViSishtAdvaita in the likes of NyAya PariSuddhi (On

Epistemology ie.On PramAnas) and NyAya SiddhAnjanam ( On

Metaphysics ie. On PramEyas). Epistemology gives the tools

to understand VEdAs and VEdAnta Properly. In NyAya

SiddhAnjanam, various metaphysical categories are thoroughly

classified and SwAmi DESikan explains the way in which

ViSishtAdvaitin accepts those metaphysical entities. Few

centuries back, SrI Tirupputkuzhi swAmi has written an

excellent commentary on NyAya-SiddhAnjanam and has performed

parishkAras in the elegant Navya-NyAya Style. Similarly,

few centuries back, SrI AnantAzhwAn of ThennAchArya sampradAyam

has expressed the various aspects of the philosophy of

ViSishtAdvaita (closely following SrI BhAshyam and various

works of SwAmi DESikan, but for very minute deviations at

some places) in the Navya-NyAya Style filled with ubiquitous

" avacchEdakas " and " avacchinnas " , through his " VAdAvaLi " . This

is the first attempt in its style as how advaitins like

Brahmanandin commented upon MadhusUdhana Saraswati's " Advaita

Siddhi " and SrI JayatIrtha expounded the Philosophy of Dwaita

through NyAya-Sudha (Or some name sounding similar to this),

fully in accordance with the techniques of Navya-NyAya. We

can think about such evolvement in expressing ViSishtAdvaita

with more clarity and comprehensiveness. But, the VEdAnta in

Upanishads remains the same and it is ViSishtAdvaita which

explains it.

 

 

 

Please refer to the following articles in the archives

(Password : badran ) for more details :

 

a. Is ViSishtAdvaita an evolved Philosophy ?

 

http://dileepan.busi.utc.edu//july99/0048.asp

 

 

b. ViSishtAdvaita

 

http://dileepan.busi.utc.edu//july99/0104.asp

-----

 

6. Allright. If they are regarded so high as great Sages and

AchAryas of VEdAnta, why then their " Thirunakshatram " is not

celebrated ? Why then worship to Sage VyAsa is not performed by

SrI VaishNavas during Guru PUrnima ?

 

SrI-VaishNava AchAryAs/SannyAsis do not perform worship to

Sage VyAsA during the VyAsa/Guru PourNami. Advaita

sannyAsis during their chAturmAsya sankalpa perform

VyAsa pUjA and Sage VyAsa is very much recognized as an

AchArya in their Guru-Parampara. Similarly, there are some other

sampradAyams which have vyAsar specifically in their

guruparampara and celebrate VyAsa pUja during that stime.

 

Following is the answer from SrI KarunAkaran SwAmi :

 

SrIvaishnavAs also have great reverence for Sage VyAsa because

of many reasons, though some formal worship may not be

performed. There is nothing wrong, if the thirunakshatrams of

Sage VyAsa and Sage VAlmIki are celebrated. But, first of all,

we don't have proper information on their birth-stars. Also,

even the information on thirunakshatram of " SrI SudarSana SUri "

is not available to us and thus we are not celebrating it. But

for the unparalleled help out of his mercy from his great mahAn

through the illustrious " SrutaprakASika " , we will _not_ be able

to understand SrI BhAshya in its multi-dimension. Its not that

only through celebration of a thirunakshatram that we can

show our reverence and gratitude to an AchArya.

 

Late SrI D.T.TAtAchArya of great fame has already answered

this question to the advaitins who commented that SrI VaishNavas

don't show reverence to Sage VyAsa. SrI DT swAmi has said that

 

1. Its not that celebration of VyAsa Pournami is the only way of

showing one's reverence to Sage VyAsa.

 

2. All the SrI-BhAshya kAlakshEpams invariably include the

taniyan of Sage VyAsa and we do give great respect and

reverence.

 

<< Note: For SrImad RAmAyanam KAlakshEpam/UpanyAsam/PArAyanam

also, taniyan for Sage VAlmIki is recited >>

 

3. Bhagavad RAmAnuja personally made sure that the two sons

of his dear disciple SrI KUratAzhwAn was named after

Sage ParASara and Sage VyAsa as " ParASara Bhatta " and

" VyAsa Bhatta " . We do have high reverence to these AchAryas

and it in a way shows our reverence to those Sages as well.

 

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

KOmAndUr ELayavilli (BAladhanvi) KaralapAkkam ananthapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.