When I was in India, I put the question to Sri Srivatsarangachariar, the
prime disciple of Uththamoor Veer Raghavachariar as to whether the
Azhwars are Nitya Suris or baddha jivatmas, simply by their being on
earth.

He told me that in the Vadagalai tradition, Swami Desikan made it very
clear that the Azhwars are incarnations of the Shankhu etc and are Nitya
Suris. He also mentioned that in the Tengalai tradition the Azhwars are
considered baddha jivatmas who got moksham at the end of that life. I
guess as far as we are concerned, Sri Bhuvarahacharya Swami has stuck
faithfully to his tradition. Vadagalais do not have to accept this part
of his message, but can take the message of remembering the Azhwars and
their works as an instruction from Sriman Narayana. What I gathered
from my discussions with and various Upanyasams I have heard from Sri
Srivatsarangachariar, is that Nitya Suris and mukta jivatmas can and do
take avatarams to serve Sriman Narayana in the leela vibhuti.

adiyen
jaganath.

Considering Swami Desikan's explicit statements about
the Alvars' toils through samsAra, and most Vadagalais'
wholesale acceptance of Periya Vaaccaan Pillai and
Nambillai as authoritative commentators, I am surprised
to hear that Srivatsankachariar Swami takes this position.
But I am not one to disagree with his erudition, so I
will have to ask him about this in person. It does seem,
however, to devalue the life histories of the Alvars
if they are simply divine incarnations. The stories
of Thirumangai and Thondaradippodi make no sense anymore.

Mani

Regarding Azhwars Nitya suris or baddha jivatmas
------------------------------------------------

Two quotations are submitted here for your careful
consideration from Arayirappadi guruparampara
prabhaavam by Pinbazhagiya PerumaaL Jeeyar from
the chapter "dhivya prabhandha praamaaNya
Samarththanam".

This chapter starts out with a discussion of
dEvathanthra issues and establishes the primacy of
Sriman Narayana over other devthaas such as Brahmma
and Sivan. This follows with a comparison of
the status of Azhvaars and these other devathaas.
The following quote appears in this section where
the Jeeyar argues that the Azhvaars should not be
equated to the other devathaas. Here, "avargaL"
refers to Brahmma, Siva, etc., and "ivargaL" refers
to Azhvaars.

"ini avargaLOdu SamarO ivvaazhvaargaL? ennil:- anRu;
karmaththaiyittu Srushtiththaan enRadhu avarkaLai;
Sva ichchaiyaalE avadharippiththaan enRadhu ivargaLai."

(Free translation: Now, are they alike? No; the
Lord created them (Brahmma, Siva, etc.) according
to their karmas. But the Lord created Azhvaars
out of His own compassion.)


.....

"raajaSa thaamaSamisra Sathvam thalaiyeduththa pOdhu
bhagavath vishaya pravruththi ganaththu irukkaiyaalE
sEshaboothar engiRadhu avargaLai;
mukguNaththiraNdavai agaRRi onRinilonRi ninRu" enRum,
"nilai ninRa thoNdaraana aRanthigazhum manaththavar"
enRum sollugiRa sudhdha sathva nishtaraagaiyaalE
theLivuRRa sindhaiyaraana sEshaboothar engiRadhu ivargaLai."


(Free translation: Brahmma, Siva, etc. are said
to be SEshaboothas of our Lord only when Sathvam
is on the ascendancy and Rajas and Thamas are
feeble for them. However, since the Azhvaras
are said to be free of rajas and thamas, and
characterized by _sudhdha sathvam_, they are
clear minded SEshaboothaas.)


p.s. Jeeyar's use of "Sudhdha sathvam" seems
to be significant here.)



At 11:32 AM 11/12/97 -0800, Mani Varadarajan wrote:
>
> But I am not one to disagree with his erudition, so I
> will have to ask him about this in person.
> It does seem, however, to devalue the life
> histories of the Alvars if they are simply
> divine incarnations. The stories
> of Thirumangai and Thondaradippodi make
> no sense anymore.
>


Azhvaar stories are fascinating one way or the other.
They making sense is not dependent upon whether Azhvaars
were baddhas or nithyasoories. Threatening the Lord
with a sword is fantastic which ever way you look at,
especially in the light of ARAyirappadi proclaiming
that the Lord was only "jyAna SAkshaathkaaram" and not
"prathyaksha SAkshAthkaaram" for the Azhvaars.

Further, Azhvaar's verses are considered divinely
inspired. ARAyirappadi says, "yaanaayth thannai
thaan paadi" (He Himslef sang in His own praise).
Perhaps Azhvaar's life histories must be understood
in this context. Then how does it matter whether
they were (are) baddhaas or nithyasoories? Either
way the life histories can be inspirational for
the rest of us. Garuthmaan and AthisEsha are
just as much of role models for us as the kainkaryaparars
serving the various Sri Vaishnava Mutts and Ashramams
today. Someone being a Nithyasoori does not make
them too lofty for us bhaddhaas. Is not the assurance
that we can serve the Lord in just as much as the
Nithyasoories that make us long for mOksham?


-- adiyEn

Regarding Azhwars Nitya suris or baddha jivatmas
------------------------------------------------

Two quotations are submitted here for your careful
consideration from Arayirappadi guruparampara
prabhaavam by Pinbazhagiya PerumaaL Jeeyar from
the chapter "dhivya prabhandha praamaaNya
Samarththanam".

This chapter starts out with a discussion of
dEvathanthra issues and establishes the primacy of
Sriman Narayana over other devthaas such as Brahmma
and Sivan. This follows with a comparison of
the status of Azhvaars and these other devathaas.
The following quote appears in this section where
the Jeeyar argues that the Azhvaars should not be
equated to the other devathaas. Here, "avargaL"
refers to Brahmma, Siva, etc., and "ivargaL" refers
to Azhvaars.

"ini avargaLOdu SamarO ivvaazhvaargaL? ennil:- anRu;
karmaththaiyittu Srushtiththaan enRadhu avarkaLai;
Sva ichchaiyaalE avadharippiththaan enRadhu ivargaLai."

(Free translation: Now, are they alike? No; the
Lord created them (Brahmma, Siva, etc.) according
to their karmas. But the Lord created Azhvaars
out of His own compassion.)


.....

"raajaSa thaamaSamisra Sathvam thalaiyeduththa pOdhu
bhagavath vishaya pravruththi ganaththu irukkaiyaalE
sEshaboothar engiRadhu avargaLai;
mukguNaththiraNdavai agaRRi onRinilonRi ninRu" enRum,
"nilai ninRa thoNdaraana aRanthigazhum manaththavar"
enRum sollugiRa sudhdha sathva nishtaraagaiyaalE
theLivuRRa sindhaiyaraana sEshaboothar engiRadhu ivargaLai."


(Free translation: Brahmma, Siva, etc. are said
to be SEshaboothas of our Lord only when Sathvam
is on the ascendancy and Rajas and Thamas are
feeble for them. However, since the Azhvaras
are said to be free of rajas and thamas, and
characterized by _sudhdha sathvam_, they are
clear minded SEshaboothaas.)


p.s. Jeeyar's use of "Sudhdha sathvam" seems
to be significant here.)



At 11:32 AM 11/12/97 -0800, Mani Varadarajan wrote:
>
> But I am not one to disagree with his erudition, so I
> will have to ask him about this in person.
> It does seem, however, to devalue the life
> histories of the Alvars if they are simply
> divine incarnations. The stories
> of Thirumangai and Thondaradippodi make
> no sense anymore.
>


Azhvaar stories are fascinating one way or the other.
They making sense is not dependent upon whether Azhvaars
were baddhas or nithyasoories. Threatening the Lord
with a sword is fantastic which ever way you look at,
especially in the light of ARAyirappadi proclaiming
that the Lord was only "jyAna SAkshaathkaaram" and not
"prathyaksha SAkshAthkaaram" for the Azhvaars.

Further, Azhvaar's verses are considered divinely
inspired. ARAyirappadi says, "yaanaayth thannai
thaan paadi" (He Himslef sang in His own praise).
Perhaps Azhvaar's life histories must be understood
in this context. Then how does it matter whether
they were (are) baddhaas or nithyasoories? Either
way the life histories can be inspirational for
the rest of us. Garuthmaan and AthisEsha are
just as much of role models for us as the kainkaryaparars
serving the various Sri Vaishnava Mutts and Ashramams
today. Someone being a Nithyasoori does not make
them too lofty for us bhaddhaas. Is not the assurance
that we can serve the Lord in just as much as the
Nithyasoories that make us long for mOksham?


-- adiyEn

One of our Bhakti list correspondents has rightly
suggested that I carefully read Swami Desika's "Rahasya
Traya Saaram" to understand the acharya's opinion on
the nature of the Alvars. Reading Desika's words
along with Sri Rama Desikachariar's explanatory notes
proved even more insightful and conclusive than I
expected!

[From p.7, "Sree guru parampara saaram", introductory
section of Desika's "Rahasya Traya Saaram"]:

``pUrvotpanneshu bhUteshu teshu teshu kalau prabhuH |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
anupraviSya kurute yat samIhitam acyutaH || ''

[vishnu dharmam 108.50]

engiRapadiyE paraankuca parakaalaadi roopaththaalE
abhinavamaaka oru daSaavataaram paNNi ...


Translation, according to Sri Rama Desika Swami's notes:

According to the sloka --

``In Kali Yuga, the great Lord Achyuta accomplishes
what He desires by entering into creatures already
^^^^^^^
born.'' --
^^^^

the Lord made 10 new descents in the form of
Parankusa [Nammalvar], Parakala [Tirumangai Alvar],
etc. ...


Swami Desika's intention in quoting this particular sloka
while discussing the advent of the Alvars should be apparent
to the discerning reader.

Some have assumed that since Sri Bhuvarahachariar's
statements about the humanity of the Alvars differed from
their received understanding, this must point to a
Thengalai / Vadagalai difference of opinion. This conclusion,
in my opinion, is the easy way out, since it requires little
intellectual effort and research. It is neither interesting
nor accurate to hastily trace differences of modern opinion
and practice to the ancient acharyas. I think it wiser
to use their writings as a basis and come to a common
agreement as to what makes sense, rather than dogmatically
sticking to what one things are "Thengalai" or "Vadagalai."

In any event, the "Vadagalai" viewpoint, if one must
characterize it as such, is identical in this case to what
Sri Bhuvarahachariar initially wrote. It was brought to
my attention that Dr. S.M. Srinivasa Chari's latest work
on the Alvars understands their divinity as being one
of inspiration and divine "Avesa", either by the Lord
or His divine attendants. In his discussion of this
topic, he quotes the same passage of Desika's excerpted
above.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this very issue was discussed
and settled hundreds of years back. I am indebted to
Sri M. Srinivasan of Chicago for mentioning Puttur Swamy's
explanation of Pinpazhagiya PerumaaL Jeeyar's "vaarththamaalai"
no. 188:

[p. 225, Puttur Swamy's edition]

188: "emberumaanaar thaanE nammazhvaaraay vandhaar"
enRu aaLavandhaar aruLicceyvar; "nityasamsaarikaLilE
oruvanai ubhayavibhoothi vilakshaNanaambadi
emberumaan aakkinaan" enRu embaar aruLicceyvar.

Alavandar would graciously say, "The Lord Himself came as
Nammalvar"; Embaar would graciously say, "The Lord took
one of those eternally caught in worldly existence and
made him unique in ubhaya vibhoothi."

Puttur Swamy writes that both these acharyas were expressing
the same belief from different viewpoints. It was believed
that the Lord at Thirukkurungudi manifested Himself as Nammalvar,
and yet it was also believed that the Lord displayed his grace
most abundantly in the personality of the Alvar. The nature
of the vibhUti avatAra is taken to be the same as when
Lord Krishna speaks of his infinite glories in Chapter 10 of
the Gita -- wherever there is anything great, holy, or magnificent,
He is there.

It seems that our acharyas wrote and thought with more
subtlety and touching humanity than we sometimes give them
credit.

daasan Mani

At 06:52 PM 11/18/97 -0800, Mani Varadarajan wrote:
>

[..]

>
>Swami Desika's intention in quoting this particular sloka
>while discussing the advent of the Alvars should be apparent
>to the discerning reader.
>

Unfortunately the above makes Sri Abinava Desika
Veeraghavachariar, popularly known as Sri Utthamoor Swamy,
into a not very discerning reader of Swami Sri Desikan.

Given below is a passage from Sri Uttamoor Swamy's commentary
on Sri Rahasya Thrayasaram known as "Saaravisthram".

Page 24:
-------
"AzhvaargaL baddha jeevarkaLA, soorikaLA enRa vichaaramuNdu.
'AdhibhakthAsthu ananthagaruda dhIthAmiNcha vadhAgbhEdhA:
ithi purANa prasidhdham' enRu sadha dhooshaNiyil alEpaka padha
bhangaththil aruLich cheydhiruppadhaal soorikaLin avathaaramenpadhu
pramaaNikam."

(Free translation: There is a question as to whether the
Azhvaars are baddhas or Nithyasoorees? Based on Swami
Sri Desikan's words in Sadhadhooshani it is evident
that they are Nithyasoori avatharas.)

(Those with Sanskrit knowledge please translate the
sanskrit passage in the above)


>
>Perhaps not surprisingly, this very issue was discussed
>and settled hundreds of years back. I am indebted to
>Sri M. Srinivasan of Chicago for mentioning Puttur Swamy's
>explanation of Pinpazhagiya PerumaaL Jeeyar's "vaarththamaalai"
>no. 188:
>

Pinpazhigiya PerumaaL Jeeyar clearly states in GPP that the
Lord sent Azhvaars down to the earth due to "sva ichchai"
and not due to karma. He also says that the azhvaars
were characterized by sudhdha sathvam, an element unique
to Vaikuntam and Vaikuntavaasees. These are direct
quotes and no interpretation is needed. (Please see
my earlier post on this subject for the exact quotation.)

So, saying that this issue was settled hundreds of
years in one particular way seems rather rash.



>
>It seems that our acharyas wrote and thought with more
>subtlety and touching humanity than we sometimes give them
>credit.


Then Sri Uththammor Swamy is guilty of missing these
subtleties and touching humanity, and failed to give
credit to Swami Sri Desikan and PPJ.
----------------------

Why would the Azhvaar's touching humanity be any less if
they are considered nithyasoori avatharas escapes me.
Then, would Lord Sri Rama be any less divine if He had
not wallowed in grief and self pity.

Finally, please, let us not be so sure of ourselves and
make sweeping statements that may have unintended and
unpleasant implication.


-- adiyEn

I originally did not intend to participate in this discussion, as I have
little knowledge of the subject. But, Sri Ramaswamy's recent comments have
brought back some thoughts I had during the original discussion, which I
would like to share with all of you. What I am about to present is not at
all a traditional view, so please take this for what it is worth. But,
with all due respects to Sri Ramaswamy, Sri Dileepan, and the other erudite
members of this forum, I feel that Mani's statement, "One needs to dig
deeper and more broadly into our Puravacharya's works to see how they viewed
the Alwars" is implying something more than just the superficial implication
for further study. I would suggest that this delving be a more spiritual
one, reaching out more to our emotions than our logic.

The debate - or should I say, paradox - as to the divinity or humanity of
saints and religious leaders is quite a common one among the theistic,
devotion based philosophies. Take for example the Catholic Church in their
adoration of Mary. The Church portrays Mary as the Divinely Ordained Holy
Mother, the one who in her compassion acts as the mediary between Christ and
humanity. But, at the same time, Mary, the human mother of Jesus, is also
known as the one who cries as only a mother could at the suffering and
untimely demise of her son. Interestingly, the Church is able to accept
both, the the sad plight of the human side of Mary and the exalted role of
Mary the "purusakAram." For in a sense, her very role as the Compassionate
Mediator for Her Divine Son results out of her own human experience, as she
can certainly empathize with what it means to go through this samsAram.

Similar views can be found "closer to home," too. In my plethora of
readings in college on the subject, I came across a brief blurb about what I
believe is a popularly held view in the Ramanandi tradition. It stated that
the Lord chose to incarnate as Sri Rama not only out of His Saulabhyam, but
to truly show us how much He can understand and empathize with what it means
to be human. To me, this is a beautiful concept, which makes us enjoy Him
even more! Similar ideas are suggested in our own KurattazhwAn's ati mAnusa
stavam.

I would like to suggest that a similar mood be taken in the appreciation and
adoration of the AzhwArs. Whether or not the AzhwArs were born Divine, or
whether the Lord descended into them later will always be based on how one
looks at it. But, the facts remain from their lives that they knew all too
well about the trials, tribulations, goods and bads of being human, and in
their own Divine outpourings both beseeched and wondered at the Kindness of
He who saved them from all of this. It is only in the recognition of this
undeniably human experience that we can see the the fullness of His Saulabhyam.

Please forgive me for any offenses made in my unqualified ramblings.


dAsan Mohan Raghavan