On Dhivya Prabhandam

[Guest guest]

sri:

Srimate Srilakshminrisimha Parabrahmane Nama:

Srimate Sri Lakshminrisimha Divyapadukasevaka

Srivan Satakopa Sri NarayanaYatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

 

namo narayana!

 

This is in response to Sri Hari's recent note. I am writing this

emboldened by his encouragement, " Critiques are welcome. " :-)

 

Swami Vedantha Desikan says in Prabhandha Saram,

 

" andhamilaa AraNangaL nAlAki ninRa

adhan karuththai AzhvArgaL Ayndheduththu

senthamizhAl aruL seydha ...... "

 

Here, Swami proclaims to everyone that Divya Prabhandham (DP) is

the quintessence of the four Vedam. Consider the phrase, " Ayndhu

eduththu. " Vedam is a compendium of all sorts of stuff. If we were

to study the Vedam, we need to carefully analyze what is important

and what is not. But, Swami says, Azhavars have done all that for

us. They have separated the grain from the chaff and have offered

the essence of what is important in the Vedam to us in the form of DP.

 

In our Ubhaya-Vedanta sampradaym, DP is NOT a translation of

Vedam, it is NOT a summary of Vedam, it is the very essence

of what is at the core of the Vedam. Our Sampradayam even goes

one step further and praises Andal's 30 verses of ThiruppAvai as

the very seed of all the Vedam,

 

" .... vEdam aniththukkum viththAgum kOthaith thamizh.... "

 

adiyEn has heard from more than one Vidwan of our Sampradayam

that DP can be considered even greater than the four Vedam for many

reasons, such as,

 

i) it is accessible to everyone, not just to DivijAs,

 

ii) it is in Tamil and therefore readily understandable to a much large

section of the population,

 

iii) DP is about only Sriman Narayana, where as the Vedam deals

with lots of topics not all of which are of interest to BhAgavathas, and,

 

iv) unlike the Vedam, DP categorically and unambiguously declares

the supremacy of Sriman Narayana.

 

Do not be tempted to dismiss these as mere exaggerations prompted

by reverence for DP. A clear understanding of our Sampradayam is

possible with a study of just DP under a sadAcharya. However, just

a study of Prastana Thraiyam is not sufficient to fully appreciate our

Sampradayam.

 

Further, poorvas of our sampradayam have relied upon the study

of DP for a clear understanding of the Vedam itself. It is well

known in our sampradayam that Swami Bhashyakarar relied heavily

on DP for writing Sri Bhashyam. Swami Bhattar is said to have

used the esoteric meanings buried in Thirunedundhandgam in his

debate with the advaitee who later became Nanjeeyar. Our

Sampradayam is replete with references citing the importance of

DP for the proper understanding of the Vedam. Thus, DP on its

own is a great pramANa balam for us, not just Sampradaya balam.

 

Indeed, DP is not accepted as pramANam by others. But to

present a clear and correct interpretation of Vedam and break

the athi-vAdam and vidaNdA-vAdam of opponents, our poorvas

have relied on DP. Therefore, DP is very much a pramANa balam

for our sampradayam.

 

Also, within our Sampradayam, it is enough to cite DP for establishing

anything. So, within our Sampradayam. DP is an absolute pramANa

balam. In addition, since DP is essential for the proper understanding

of the Vedam, and to successfully establish our sampradayam as the

parama-vaidika matham, DP is our absolute pramANa balam.

 

When it comes to misinterpretations and exaggerations, they must not

be accepted whether it is a misinterpretation of DP or misinterpretation

of Prastana Thraiyam. There will not be any dispute that a proper study

of Prastana Thraiyam is necessary for neutralizing opponents of sampradayam.

But, that is not sufficient. Without the proper study and understanding

of Bhagavad Vishayam the knowledge will be incomplete and the vedic

arguments offered ineffective.

 

Also, the danger of misinterpretation of DP is very minimum and tends

to be in the nature of anubhavam. However, the danger of gross and

intolerable misinterpretation of Prastana Thraiyam is quite real and

frequent.

The fact of the matter is, it is the Prastana Thraiyam that has been, and

continues to be, grossly, frequently, and offensively misinterpreted, to this

day. From historical facts it is easy to conclude that Prastana Traiyam

is more susceptible for misinterpretation than DP. Therefore, it is more

apt to say, we need to interpret Prastana Thraiyam within the limits of DP,

rather than the other way around. So, let me submit to you,

 

.... the sampradAyam (true purport) as it is in brahma-sUtrams

must be ascertained within the limits of the dhivya prabhandham.

If it crosses the limits of the Dhivya Prabhandham, then such

interpretations will be avaidikam - not vaidikam.

 

It is not my intent to claim superiority for DP over Vedam. That would not

be consistent with our Sampradyam. Similarly, our samprdayam does not

offer exclusive superiority to Vedam, over the DP. Vedam and DP are like

Perumal and Thayar for us.

 

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

Srimad Azhagiya Singar thiruvadi

 

p.s.

[1] I am not implying that all the poorva pakshams adiyEn has stated

are views of Sri. Hari. Obviously, the esteem Sri Hari has for DP is

second to none.

 

[2] BTW, what happened in Karur?

[Guest guest]

> [2] BTW, what happened in Karur?

 

The prakrutham Sankaracharya of Kanchi Matham, Sri Jayendra

Saraswathi Swamigal did not approve of a recent Kumbhabhishekam in

Karur where in the mantrams were recited in Tamizh instead of

Sanskrit. Swamigal held that it is against the agamAs to do so. He

was heavily misquoted by the press.

 

Karunanidhi, the so called Rationalist, condemed Sankarachariar and

said that the god who does not understand tamizh has no place in

tamizh nadu.

 

Unfortunate mud-slinging by both sides, hurt both languages.

 

-Malolan Cadambi

 

 

 

 

Everything you'll ever need on one web page

from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts

http://uk.my.

[Guest guest]

namo narayana

 

Just a clarification. My original note was to emphasize

two points, (i) DP is as much a pramANam as Vedam

*for Sri Vaishnavas*, and (ii) Brahmma Sutra (BhS)

is more susceptible for misinterpretation than DP and

hence any interpretation of BhS that crosses the bounds

of DP is not Vaideekam.

 

None of the erudite contributions made under this topic

contradicts the above.

 

Also, please note, no single text has been accepted

as pramANA by everyone. Even vEdam is not universally

accepted as pramANam. That has never stopped us from

proclaiming Vedam as a foremost authority. Similarly,

non-acceptance of DP's authority by non-Sri Vaishnavas

cannot deter Sri Vaishnavas from treating DP as a foremost

authority equal in prAmANyam to the Vedam.

 

Also, in my understanding, the primary role of pramANam

is guidance to seekers of truth, not weaponry against

opposition.

 

with best regards,

 

-- adiyEn