[On Dhivya Prabhandam]

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImathE rAmAnujAya nama:

==========================

Dear SrI VaishNavas,

 

I appreciate the critique note from u.ve. SrI Dileepan partha sArathy

swAmi. I agree with all the points that he was written. My earlier mail's

orientation of idea needs to be clarrified and I want to share that with

you all. I take this opportunity to throw more light on my earlier mail

as follows.

 

SwAmi dESika is known as " dramidOpanishad drashtru sUri-brundOpakArvit " -

" he who had the clear knowledge about the upakAram (help) done by AzwArs

who are the seers of the divya prabandam which his like the VedAntam. "

Also, his commentary " muni vAhana bhOgam " on amalan-Adhi-priAn prabandam

is well known among scholars. I presented this in kAlsakhepam last year

for 8 months to many blessed SrI vaishNavas here. SwAmi dESika's

dramidOpanishad tAtparya ratnAvaLi, dramidOpanishad sAram, prabanda sAram

are well known and they certainly establish divya prabandams as pramANam

even to the extent of comparing its prAmANyam to that of the Sruti. There is

no contradiction here. But the Sruti is the first and foremost

pramANam. Everything else becomes pramANam based on its affiliation to

the Sruti. But the VedArtham cannot be ascertained without itihAsams,

sAtvika purANAms and authentic smrutis. " ithihAsa purANAbhyAm vEdam

samupabruhmayEth | bhibEthyalpa SrutAtdVEdO mAmayam pratarishyati "

is well known. Regarding the divya prabandams, " teLiyAda maRai nilangaL

teLigindrOmE " is said by none other than swAmi dESika himself. There is no

contradiction here also. The greatness and effectiveness of divya prabandam

in terms of sarvAdhikAram, Veda sAram etc are also not

contradicted. In fact it is acknowledged as unparalleled. But the

following things must be noted in the context of the same. The pramANa

balam of the sampradAyam is because of the works of great rishis and

munis like Veda vyAsa bhagavAn, bhagavath bOdAyaNa, bhagavat dankAchArya,

bhagavath dramidAchArya, SrImath vAlmiki bhagavAn, bhagavat parASara, SrI

Suka, manu, yAgnyavalkya and so on. These things ascertain the VEdArtham

in the first place. Needless to say, they also ascertain the sampradAyam.

The divya prabandam is clearly presenting the sampradAyam and hence it is

the sampradAya balam. All acknowledge that the AzwAr's are amSa-avatArams

of various bhagavath nitya sUris and they all are blessed by mayarvara-

mati-nalam. By telling this, the prAmAnyam of the same is not ruled out.

Among us, it is also have balam in terms of pramANam. No contradictions

here also. My note was oriented towards stressing the following important

points.

1. While praising the divya prabanda mAhAthmiyam, the Veda-vEdAnta,

itihAsas, gIta and such smrutis and the brahma sUtra must not be violated.

These pramANams must not be criticized (nahi-nindA nyAyam is

ok) while praising divya prabandam.

2. While praising AzwArs, one must not talk ill about the rishis who

composed mahA bharatam, brahma sUtra etc. even casually.

3. While interpreting the divya prabandams, only he who has the command

on brahma sUtras must interpret it strictly following the Vedanta-

analysis done by the braham sUtras. Otherwise, interpretation on the same

violating the SArIraka sAstram will be not vaidika sampradAyam.

RahasyArtham is fit to be called rahasyArtham if and only if it is within

the limits of the SArIrakam. For example, if the the divya prabandam

lines like " veRidE aruL cehivAr " , " Or EN tAnuminRi

vandiyalumARe " , " ChOmbari ukatti pOlum " etc are interpreted

discretely without the base of the sidhdAntam established by SArIraka SAstram,

then, such interpretation will violate parama-vaidika-matham as

established by bhagavath rAmAnuja. This is the point, which I stressed,

in my earlier mail implicitly. I hope that now this explicit

clarification will suffice.

4. Divya prabandam is not an independent pramANam and this is clear

because the AzwArs themselves have followed their dharma as per Veda

vidhi as applicable to their janmam and they themselves have acknowledged

that the Sruthi-smruties-itihAsa-purANAms are the pramANams.

5. Divya prabadam is bhagavath anubhava parivAham of AzwArs. The

sidhdAntam and sampradAyam of prastAna trayam is confirmed by the divya

prabandam and as far as the sampradAyam is concerned, the divya prabandam

is very clear.

6. Only great AachAryas who are having unshakable full knowledge in

prastAna trayam like SrImath parASara bhaTTAr, tirukkurukai pirAn piLLan,

swAmi SrIman nigamAnta mahA dESika, SrImath sAkshath swAmi, SrImath

uttamUr swAmi can propound the arthams of the divya prabandam.

 

Finally, in our ubhaya vEdAnta sampradAyam, the divya prabandam occupies

a very high position as pramANam for sampradAyam. It is called as drAvida

vEda sAgaram, dramidOpanishat etc. After considering the above points,

there is nothing wrong in telling that the divya prabandam is not only

unparalleled but also unsurpassed. Similarly tiruppAvai is vEda bIjam

(veda vittu) and similarly other divya prabanndams like tiruppallANdu,

periya tirumOzhi etc. By the divya anugraham of SrImath lakshmI nrusimhan

and AachArys, I have written a prabandam in Tamil nErisai vEnpAs in

antAdi todai (like the mudal 3 tiruvantAdi yAppu, nAnmukan tiruvantAdi

yAppu and periya tiruvantAdi yAppu) explaining the greatness of the tiru-

vAi-mozhi prabandam and the greatness of swAmi nammAzwAr. Please write to

me if you want a PDF copy of the same. Not only that, by the divya

anugraham of SrImath lakshmI nrusimhan and AchAryas, I know the anubhavam

of divine scent of the Veda (nigama parimaLam) which is in the tiru-vAi-

mOzhi in 74,000 verbal expressions along with the 6,000 padi

of tirukkurukai pirAn piLLan and the 24,000 padi commentary on the tiru-

vAi-mozhi with the SArIraka SAstrArtha nirNayam. The tiru-vAi-mozhi is

the source of bhagavath anubhavam and sampradAya gnyAnam and I acknowledge

it in letter and spirit.

 

MAta pita yuvatays tanyA vibhUti:

Sarvam yadEva niyamEna madanvayAnAm

Adyasya na: kulapatE: vakulAbhirAmam

SrImath tadangri yugalam praNamAmi mUrdhnA.

 

Thanks and Regards

naidruva mAdabhUshi S. HARI rAmAnuja dAsan (mshari)

[Guest guest]

>Please

> write to

> me if you want a PDF copy of the same. Not only that, by the divya

 

Sri SimhapUri Simhan,

 

Please upload the PDF file for the benefit of all (Naangallar

Aayiram!!!)

 

Regards,

 

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]

At 01:01 PM 10/12/2002 +0800, M.S.HARI Madabhushi Sarangarajan Hari wrote:

>

>I appreciate the critique note from u.ve. SrI Dileepan partha sArathy

>swAmi.

 

 

I enjoyed reading Sri Hari's detailed mail on

this topic. The only point I would like to

contest is the prefix u.ve. used in front of

adiyEn's name. u.ve and my name don't belong

together.

 

-- adiyEn

[Guest guest]

adiyEn will be interested in learning more about any pramANams

from Sri Vedanta Desika sampradayam which establish that all

sruthi must be interpreted within the bounds of divya prabandham.

Sri Rangapriya swami for instance, has said that dramidopanishad

exists in order that the purport of vedam can be accessible to the

masses that aren't literate in, or are otherwise disallowed from

learning samskrit.

 

The divya prabandham can never be used as pramANa for the purpose

of establishing rAmAnuja darSaNam. This is because non-SriVaishnavas

don't accept DP as a premise for debate anyway; moreover, why would

there be mutual debate among SriVaishnavas? Swami Desikan has

categorically stated that he would never indulge in a debate with

rAmAnuja adiyArgaL. Therefore, whatever differences may exist in the

tradition re: divya prabandham and its purport must simply be accepted

as bhagavat sankalpam.

 

Sri Uttamoor swami has stated during his lifetime, that one of the biggest

mistakes SriVaishnavas can make is to not dissipate more of

the samskritic works of our sampradAyam, which establish its status

as parama vaideeka matham. This is because the whole of the orthodox

religion (SriVaishnavam included) relies on the samskrit sruthi/srmiti

to make its case - never the vernacular.

 

Of course, the divya prabandham is as self-evident in its truth to we

SriVaishnavas, as would a child's beauty to its own mother. But in

order to establish that it is not merely a face only it's mother can

love, the child must win equal (if grudging) admiration from the rest

of the world. And it can only do so by passing the scrutiny of every

unforgiving eye, and being held to a dispassionate standard.

 

SriRangapriya daasan,

-Srinath C.

 

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com