[Villi Bharatam?]

[Guest guest]

Dear SrI VaishNAvas,

 

Sadagopan <sgopan wrote:

> Kamba RaamAyaNam has the sanctity of being

> approved by the Lord Himself

 

I have few doubts regarding the above statement. When we

read the ancient commentaries of our AachAryas on divya prabandam,

we do not find quotes from kamba-rAmAyaNam. Only in recent

times, this is being referenced. Also, it was not recited like

divya prabandams in divya-khEtrams (in ancient times).

 

It is heard that SrI nrusimhan approved the presence of

nrusimhAvatAra-vaibhavam in kamba-rAmAnyaNam. Is his approval extened

to the entire work? Is there any pramANam for this?

 

The kamba rAmanyaNam has nara-stuti. It has devitated from

SrImath vAlmiki rAmAyaNam in various places. I think it is

just a beautiful literature not comparable with SrImath

vAlimIkI rAmAyaNam which is a pramANam.

 

SrI kambar's other works clearly shows that he had dEvatAntara

sambandam (worship of demi-Gods). Apart from SaThakOpar antAdi and

kamba-rAmAyaNam, kambar has composed other works also which has stuti for

dEvatAntarams, nara-stuti etc. Even in his kamba-rAmAyaNam, there is

nara-stuti.

 

I do not agree with kamba-rAmAyaNam being treated like the divine

nAlAyira divya prabandam.

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI rAmAnuja dAsan (mshari)

[Guest guest]

Dear BhakthAs:

 

Sri Hari SarangarAjan's observatons are well taken.

I respect his devotion and anushtAnam and desire

to help us all .He is doing yeoman kaimakryam there.

My prayers are for his continual growth in

service to SrI VaishNava SampradhAyam. Let me share

some of my thoughts on his response. At the outset ,

I wish to point out that I wanted to copy

Bhakthi List and NOT MalOlan net . It was

unintentional.

 

Kampa RaamAyaNam has not been described by me

as a PaarAyaNa grantham like SrI Vaalmiki RaamAyanam .

The sanctity of approval by Lord Narasimhan

confers auspiciousness.That is all that was meant.

Kampan's devotopn to SaThakOpar and the inclusion of

taniyans for specific dhivya prabhandhams brings him

to a place of recognition among VaishNavAs. I will not

rush to condemn anyone because he or she had one time

studied or praised other Gods .In that case , we will

have problems with Thirumazhisai. He was saved by

PEy AazhwAr. Nara Sthuthi is another matter.

At the end of the day, I will look for acceptance of

SrIman NaarAyaNa as the Supreme Being and not worry

about the travails and mistakes made during one's life time

due to poorva Janma karmAs (PrArabhdhams) UNTIL

one gets sadAchArya Kataaksham AND then leads

post-prapanna life. I have also not equated Kampa RaamayaNam

to NaalAyira Dhivya Prabhandham in my note .

 

V.Sadagopan

 

>

>Dear SrI VaishNAvas,

>

>Sadagopan <sgopan wrote:

>> Kamba RaamAyaNam has the sanctity of being

>> approved by the Lord Himself

>

>I have few doubts regarding the above statement. When we

>read the ancient commentaries of our AachAryas on divya prabandam,

>we do not find quotes from kamba-rAmAyaNam. Only in recent

>times, this is being referenced. Also, it was not recited like

>divya prabandams in divya-khEtrams (in ancient times).

>

>It is heard that SrI nrusimhan approved the presence of

>nrusimhAvatAra-vaibhavam in kamba-rAmAnyaNam. Is his approval extened

>to the entire work? Is there any pramANam for this?

>

>The kamba rAmanyaNam has nara-stuti. It has devitated from

>SrImath vAlmiki rAmAyaNam in various places. I think it is

>just a beautiful literature not comparable with SrImath

>vAlimIkI rAmAyaNam which is a pramANam.

>

>SrI kambar's other works clearly shows that he had dEvatAntara

>sambandam (worship of demi-Gods). Apart from SaThakOpar antAdi and

>kamba-rAmAyaNam, kambar has composed other works also which has stuti for

>dEvatAntarams, nara-stuti etc. Even in his kamba-rAmAyaNam, there is

>nara-stuti.

>

>I do not agree with kamba-rAmAyaNam being treated like the divine

>nAlAyira divya prabandam.

>

>Thanks & Regards

>M.S.HARI rAmAnuja dAsan (mshari)

>

>