Guest guest Report post Posted April 23, 1997 Dileepan wrote: > "periyadhu vayiRRil siRiyadhu piRandhaal adhu eththai thinRu engE niRkum?" > (If great begets little, what will it eat, where will it rest?) > To this the boy replied, > "adhu aththaith thinRu angE niRkum." > (It will eat that and it will rest there) This may be a variant, but I have always read the question and reply as: Madhurakavi Alvar: "seththaththin vayiRRil siRayadhu piRandhaal eththai thinRu engE kidakkum?" "If some small thing is born in something dead, what will it eat, and where will it lie?" Nammalvar: "aththai thinRu angE kidakkum." "It will eat that itself and lie there itself." There is a not so subtle difference in these two variants. In the version as I have written it, Madhurakavi is asking how something (the jiva) which is born in something inert (the body) can survive at all. Or alternatively, Madhurakavi, seeing the small thirumEni (sacred body) of Nammalvar sitting in the hole in the tamarind tree, meditating, jokingly wondered if the Alvar was born in the tree itself and how he had subsisted all along. I think this version has a lot more meaning to it. One understanding of Nammalvar's answer is that he subsists on God alone and rests in God alone, since everything to him was God. There is also another understanding of the question and answer -- but it is evading my memory right now. Perhaps tomorrow. Mani Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 24, 1997 At 04:11 PM 4/23/97 -0700, Mani Varadarajan wrote: > >This may be a variant, but I have always read the question >and reply as: > >Madhurakavi Alvar: "seththaththin vayiRRil siRayadhu piRandhaal > eththai thinRu engE kidakkum?" > I was writing from my memory and I made a mistake. The version I posted should have been the same as above. I regret the error. -- Dileepan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 1997 see my comments at the end of this email: At 04:11 PM 4/23/97 -0700, Mani Varadarajan wrote: >Dileepan wrote: >> "periyadhu vayiRRil siRiyadhu piRandhaal adhu eththai thinRu engE niRkum?" >> (If great begets little, what will it eat, where will it rest?) > >> To this the boy replied, > >> "adhu aththaith thinRu angE niRkum." >> (It will eat that and it will rest there) > >This may be a variant, but I have always read the question >and reply as: > >Madhurakavi Alvar: "seththaththin vayiRRil siRayadhu piRandhaal > eththai thinRu engE kidakkum?" > >"If some small thing is born in something dead, what will it >eat, and where will it lie?" > >Nammalvar: "aththai thinRu angE kidakkum." > >"It will eat that itself and lie there itself." > >There is a not so subtle difference in these two variants. >In the version as I have written it, Madhurakavi is asking >how something (the jiva) which is born in something inert >(the body) can survive at all. Or alternatively, Madhurakavi, >seeing the small thirumEni (sacred body) of Nammalvar sitting >in the hole in the tamarind tree, meditating, jokingly >wondered if the Alvar was born in the tree itself and how >he had subsisted all along. > >I think this version has a lot more meaning to it. > >One understanding of Nammalvar's answer is that he subsists >on God alone and rests in God alone, since everything to him >was God. > >There is also another understanding of the question and >answer -- but it is evading my memory right now. Perhaps >tomorrow. > >Mani > > > In one book: I read this version: there are two separate meanings for the same Q&A. 1. if a cit (jiva) is born in acit (matter or body) what will it eat or experience and how will it end up? - ans : it will experience acit and lie within acit (matter). There is a second answer to this: 2. Atte thinru - in this 'A' means brahman or God. This jiva can experience God and reach God. What it means is that usually bound souls like us are enamoured by the little thrills that arise from experiences with matter and endlessly move about in pursuit of these cheap thrills and forget anything other than that (forget God). This will result in our never ending birth-death-birth cycle. Due to experiences of the past lives, we begin our new lives with the same taste for cheap thrills so we eternally end up in this mruthyu samsara. This is nothing but "Dhooma marga" of the vedanta. Dhooma marga - or smoky path (daksinayana) - is the one which souls bound to get rebirth go after death - ie. smoke, night, moon......etc. described in the 8th chapter of Gita and in Rahasyatraya sara. Those souls come back to earth via - clouds, rain, plant and animals (when they eat them) - and as projeny to animals (or human beings). On the other hand, if one yearns for God (atthe), one can experience God and go through arciradi gati - path of light (uttarayana) (through deities - agni, jyoti, ahah (day) sukla ....and reach the lotus feet of Lord Srimannarayana. In essence nammalwar spoke regarding two paths in one short answer. In fact these two paths comprises of anything we do here : all our activities, scientific thought, education, entertainment and whatever we do ..... all of these come predominantly under dhooma marga; and, if we strive towards spiritual progress we may reach arciradi marga. These two paths are sort of all encompassing. this is what makes Madhurakavi alwar very impressed, since, he knows that this Guru, Nammalwar, knows these two paths, - note the verse of Gita, sukla krishne gati hyete, jagatah sasvate mate ekaya yatyanavrittim, anyayaavartate punah path of light and darkness are eternal paths which are well established in this universe. One takes a jiva through endless cycles of birth and death. The other takes one to a state from where there is no return to this samsara. naithe srthe partha jaanan yogi muhyati kascana tasmat sarvesu kaaleshu yogi bhavarjuna no yogi knowing these two paths will be deluded to get into this path of darkness. so become a yogi with the right knowledge... Since, nammalwar had the key to the right path in life, what else does one need. Nammalwar was speaking by experience as opposed to book knowledge. madhurakavi alwar had lots of book knowledge since he was a vedic scholar, he did not need another lecture on vedanta, but a person who has seen it all. Krishna > Krishna Kalale 619-658-5612 (phone) 619-658-2115 (fax) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 25, 1997 >see my comments at the end of this email: > >At 04:11 PM 4/23/97 -0700, Mani Varadarajan wrote: >>Dileepan wrote: >>> "periyadhu vayiRRil siRiyadhu piRandhaal adhu eththai thinRu engE niRkum?" >>> (If great begets little, what will it eat, where will it rest?) >> >>> To this the boy replied, >> >>> "adhu aththaith thinRu angE niRkum." >>> (It will eat that and it will rest there) >> >>This may be a variant, but I have always read the question >>and reply as: >> >>Madhurakavi Alvar: "seththaththin vayiRRil siRayadhu piRandhaal >> eththai thinRu engE kidakkum?" >> >>"If some small thing is born in something dead, what will it >>eat, and where will it lie?" >> >>Nammalvar: "aththai thinRu angE kidakkum." >> >>"It will eat that itself and lie there itself." >> >>There is a not so subtle difference in these two variants. >>In the version as I have written it, Madhurakavi is asking >>how something (the jiva) which is born in something inert >>(the body) can survive at all. Or alternatively, Madhurakavi, >>seeing the small thirumEni (sacred body) of Nammalvar sitting >>in the hole in the tamarind tree, meditating, jokingly >>wondered if the Alvar was born in the tree itself and how >>he had subsisted all along. >> >>I think this version has a lot more meaning to it. >> >>One understanding of Nammalvar's answer is that he subsists >>on God alone and rests in God alone, since everything to him >>was God. >> >>There is also another understanding of the question and >>answer -- but it is evading my memory right now. Perhaps >>tomorrow. >> >>Mani >> My response (Krishna Kalale) > >In one book: I read this version: > >there are two separate meanings for the same Q&A. 1. if a cit (jiva) is born in acit (matter or body) what will it eat or experience and how will it end up? - ans : it will experience acit and lie within acit (matter). There is a second answer to this: 2. Atte thinru - in this 'A' means brahman or God. This jiva can experience God and reach God. > >What it means is that usually bound souls like us are enamoured by the little thrills that arise from experiences with matter and endlessly move about in pursuit of these cheap thrills and forget anything other than that (forget God). This will result in our never ending birth-death-birth cycle. Due to experiences of the past lives, we begin our new lives with the same taste for cheap thrills so we eternally end up in this mruthyu samsara. This is nothing but "Dhooma marga" of the vedanta. Dhooma marga - or smoky path (daksinayana) - is the one which souls bound to get rebirth go after death - ie. smoke, night, moon......etc. described in the 8th chapter of Gita and in Rahasyatraya sara. Those souls come back to earth via - clouds, rain, plant and animals (when they eat them) - and as projeny to animals (or human beings). > >On the other hand, if one yearns for God (atthe), one can experience God and go through arciradi gati - path of light (uttarayana) (through deities - agni, jyoti, ahah (day) sukla ....and reach the lotus feet of Lord Srimannarayana. > >In essence nammalwar spoke regarding two paths in one short answer. In fact these two paths comprises of anything we do here : all our activities, scientific thought, education, entertainment and whatever we do ..... all of these come predominantly under dhooma marga; and, if we strive towards spiritual progress we may reach arciradi marga. These two paths are sort of all encompassing. this is what makes Madhurakavi alwar very impressed, since, he knows that this Guru, Nammalwar, knows these two paths, - note the verse of Gita, > >sukla krishne gati hyete, jagatah sasvate mate >ekaya yatyanavrittim, anyayaavartate punah > >path of light and darkness are eternal paths which are well established in this universe. One takes a jiva through endless cycles of birth and death. The other takes one to a state from where there is no return to this samsara. > >naithe srthe partha jaanan yogi muhyati kascana >tasmat sarvesu kaaleshu yogi bhavarjuna > >no yogi knowing these two paths will be deluded to get into this path of darkness. so become a yogi with the right knowledge... > >Since, nammalwar had the key to the right path in life, what else does one need. Nammalwar was speaking by experience as opposed to book knowledge. madhurakavi alwar had lots of book knowledge since he was a vedic scholar, he did not need another lecture on vedanta, but a person who has seen it all. There is another meaning. It seems that Madurakavi was perplexed at how Nammalwar's body was being sustained without food and water in the tamarind tree. He asked how will jeevatma in a body continue its existence and survive. Nammalwar answers him that " it sustains by itself ( since it is ensouled by God)". In yoga dasa, eventhough food and water are not provided to the body, God protects this body and the jivatma in it. how does this make sense (scientifically). Actually, when I researched into yoga on this issue, it seems that the metabolic rate is reduced to such a small extent that instead of 18 breaths a minute, a yogi probably breaths once in a few minutes. Hence his life gets extended and he needs very little food and water. some animals during hibernation may use similar techniques to survive. I really dont know how they do it. But I have a picture of a 180 year old man from India who was a yoga master who has written about this: " this is a kayakalpa technique, and one can live for about 500 years when one masters this technique, I have seen a person in himalayas who was 500 years old". Incidentally, at 180 this yogi looks very well built, hale and healthy. whatever may be the yogic details on this, the third meaning I have given here is also attributed to this Q&A between madurakavi and Nammalwar. I have to admit that the source of this Q&A is not in the pasurams. This is from some divya suri charitam or some work. Probably many folks can come up with different meanings. Krishna Krishna Kalale 619-658-5612 (phone) 619-658-2115 (fax) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 1997 srimathE lakshmi-nrsumha parabrahmaNE namaha sri vedanta guravE namaha Dear "bhAgavatOttamA-s", - Madhurakavi Alvar: "seththaththin vayiRRil siRayadhu piRandhaal eththai thinRu engE kidakkum?" Nammalvar: "aththai thinRu angE kidakkum." It's really interesting to read the views of Sri.Dileepan, Sri.Mani and Sri.Kalale on the above. Sri.Triplicane in his post has suggested the subject be discussed further on the list. So there's no harm, I think, in offering a sample of my own little views on the same thread. The encounter between the two AzhwArs is unique.Far more than being a "kELvi-pathil" (question-answer) session, it was one of those rarest of rare moments where one mystic soul shared true revelation with another. The "question" and the "answer" which arose between the two AzhwArs in that moment of mystical revelation now serve us as a sort of "sUtrA" or aphorism. Aphorisms are really hard nuts to crack. They are pithy; they are pregnant with all sorts of suggestive meanings; and they speak of truths which are ordinarily not amenable to logical discourse. In other words, "sUtrA-s" are statements of "revelation". Strictly speaking, one can't "understand" them; one has to learn to "experience" them ! The "grammar of mystical experience", alas, can't be taught at any university. It's possible to learn it only at the feet of an "AchAryan" or "guru". "AchAryA-s" of the past have said that this rare and mystical encounter between NammAlwAr and Madhurakavi, and the famous "question & answer (Q/A)" that arose out of it, is indeed a difficult one to "understand" in terms of non-mystical, lay language or logic. If we keep the above qualifications in mind, then we can safely proceed to examine the AzhwArs "Q/A" in any humble way possible for us. Sri.Kalale explained very clearly that this Q/A hints at the relationship between the principles ("tattva") of existence viz. "acit" (or "prakrti", in a wider sense) and "cit"(jIva). I propose to examine the same matter in just a little more detail than Sri.Kalale himself so kindly did. I'm doing this just to squeeze out more insights into the subject and to elicit, if possible, more views of other learned "bhAgavatOttamA-s" on the list. ------ Now if the Q/A were to be re-phrased in a few random but intelligible ways, by juggling the words and phrases around here and there a bit, it will enable us to sense the flavour of many VisishtAdvaita ideas on "acit", "cit" or "Iswara". Let's do it, shall we ? Here's a sample : A : "tan-UL pirandu-kidakka siriyadai vaitu~kOndu, settathu etthai tinru, engaE kidakkum ? OR B : "siriyadu, settattin vayItril pirandAl, etthai tinru engaE kidakkum ? OR C : "settattin vayItril pirandAlUm, siriyadu etthai tinru engae kidakkum ? For all the above 3 re-phrased questions the famous answer of Nammalwar,"aththai thinRu angE kidakkum" is a brilliantly fitting reply !! Let's take up A first : ---------------------- Here the question is: "When matter (acit) or the objective world of phenomenality, is infused with Intelligence (cit) or cognitive life-force, does it have its essential nature or reality changed ?" Nammalwar's answer to that is a resounding "NO" ("aththai thinRu angE kidakkum"). The objective world ("prakrti") --- what we call "tan-UL pirandu-kidakka siriyadai vaitu-kOnd~irukkUm settathu" --- is a world composed of cause-effect phenomena, sense-perception and of time-space constraints.Through the inexorable operation of natural and physical laws within its domain, Creation "perpetuates" or sustains itself ; in other words "aththai thinRu angE kidakkin~rathu". (There is a famous law of physics that postulates the "Indestructiblity of Matter", isn't it?Matter is considered "indestructible" because it somehow "perpetuates" itself in one form or the other. When it is destroyed in one form, it manifests elsewhere in another form! e.g Solid into liquid into gas into sub-atomic particles and so on ....!). But "self-perpetuation" ("puNaRapi-jananam puNaRapi maRaNam") is mere manifestation of "forms". It should not be taken to mean "self-eternalization" ("anantham")! And what is "self-perpetuated" does not necessarily qualify to be called "self-Caused" ("svayam-Bhu")! Thus, in spite of being "self-sustaining" or "self-perpetuating", the essential nature of "acit" or "prakriti",of matter or Creation, or of what Madhurakavi calls "settathu", is that it is ever changing and transient; it is limited by time/space; and it is endlessly subject to cause-effect. Let's take a look at B : ------------------------ Here the question is about the nature of "cit", the "jivA" or the individual soul. It is being asked what happens to the soul when it coheres with "acit" or matter. What happens when the Intelligent adheres to the Insentient ? In other words, does the cognitive soul partake of the nature of phenomenal matter ? Is "jIvA" of the same nature as matter ? Here Nammalwar's emphatic answer, "aththai thinRu angE kidakkum", must be taken to have been given with a slight qualification. The answer is YES ("aththai thinRu angE kidakkum!"), the soul does partake of the nature and condition of mere insentient matter ! But only under certain circumstances ? What circumstances ? When the soul associates itself integrally with the world of objective phenomenality! When "siriyadu" (jIvA) remains ignorant of its own true nature and out of such ignorance ("agnyAnam/a-vivEkam") identifies itself with "prakriti" ("acit"), then it is said to be "settattin vayItril piranda-dAgum" ! Under such circumstance, "jIvA", too, partakes of the same pathetic condition and nature of "acit" --- it becomes ever transmigrant (enslaved and ever subordinate to the dictates of the three "gUNa-s", "rajas, tamO and sAttva"); it becomes prone to the vicissitudes of cause-effect ("karmA") and remains ever bound by time-space constraints ("kAla klEsha sankOcham"). Let's finally look at C : ------------------------- Now, in C we have, on our hands, a very tricky way of re-phrasing Madhurakavi's poser. Let's study it a little closely : C : "settattin vayItril pirandAlUm, siriyadu etthai tinru engae kidakkum ? At first glance, it will seem that there is no difference between B and C except that the order or sequence of the words has been changed. In B, the subject "siriyadu" is referred to first (in the"pUrva-bhAgam" of the question) followed then (in the "Uttara-bhAgam") by a reference to its condition of "settattin vayItril pirandAl". In C the order is reversed. The condition of "settattin vayItril pirandAlUm" is referred to in the first part ("pUrva-bhAgam") of the question and is followed (in the "Uttara-bhAgam") by a latterly reference to the subject itself i.e "siriyadu". The other difference between B and C is: the word "pirandAl" in the former turns into "pirandAlUm" in the latter ! The question now is : OK, so what's the big deal? What do these differences signify ? Let's try and answer it. First, by changing "pirandAl" in B to "pirandalUm" in C, we change, too, the subject of inquiry from "cit" to "Iswara". What is being talked about in C is not the "cit" or the individual soul but "Iswara", the Transcendent Soul. Secondly, by re-arranging the order of words in B to the way it actually appears in C, the subject "siriyadu" appears to be deliberately "hidden" in the "Uttara-bhAgam" (the latter part) of the question -- as if it had been secreted towards the end of a line to escape one's attention as one reads it, as it were! Why "secreted" ? Why phrase the question in such a way ? Because in the re-phrased question of Madhura-kavi, in C, what is really being inquired about is "bhagavath-avatAra-rahasya" --- or the "secret" or "mystery" of the Descent of God into the world of Man and of Creation !! Now, many are the ways ("mArga-s") listed in the scriptures to realize Iswara. Swami Desikan in his RTS lists the following important ones: "avatAra-rahasya-chintana", "purushOttama-vidya", "divyanama-sankIrtanam" and "punya-kshEtra-vAsa". The foremost "mArga", therefore, is "avatAra-rahasya-chintana" -- contemplation of the secret of the Descent of God into the world of "prakriti". Now, it is said that those "bhAgavathA-s" who choose this "mArgA" are often known to constantly ask themselves, like Madhura-kavi, and especially along the same lines as in C, the question "settattin vayItril pirandAlUm, siriyadu etthai tinru engae kidakkum ?" In other words the "bhAgavatOttamA-s" who are lost in "avatara-rahasya-chintana" keep asking themselves, much like Madhura-kaviAlwar, questions such as "What happens to God (Iswara) who descends ("avatAra") into the world of Man (cit) and of Creation (acit)? What happens to Iswara's nature ? Does it also partake of the mundane nature of "prakriti" and "jIvA" ? How does "Iswara" sustain Itself in the world of "prakrti" ? Such questions are answered by the scriptures categorically. They state that in the periods of Descent or "avatAra", Iswara or the Transcendent Soul does NOT partake of the nature of "prakriti". It does NOT get tainted with cause-effect ("karma") syndromes; it does NOT get mired in sense-perceptions or impressions ("tri-gUNA-s"); it is never subject to the constraints of time-space continuum ("kAla-klEsham" or "sankOcham") ! Thus, although Lord Krishna may have been said to have been "born" out of the womb of a mere mortal like Devaki, He being Iswara has no causal connections with such a womb whatsoever ! Iswara is NEVER said to be "settattin vayItril pirandA-dAgUm" !! Now, we face a big contradiction here. If what the scriptures have said above of "avatAra-rashasya" is true, then, why would Nammalvar respond with an emphatic "aththai thinRu angE kidakkum" ? How do we explain then that the "siriyadu" referred to in C really represents "Iswara"? The way out of the contradiction lies in Nammalwar's another famous "pAsuram" from the "tiruvAymOzhi"! Sung in praise of Lord TiruvEngada-mUdaiyAn, that "prapatti pasURam" of his begins grandly with the pregnant words : "ulagamUnda peru vAyA ....ulappil kirtiyammAnE ...etc." The opening lines themselves speak of Iswara as the One who "gorged into His mouth all the Worlds of Creation and with everything else in it!" The reference in the above "pasUram", in a poetic sense, may be said to allude to Lord Krishna's "leela" in the Srimad Bhagavatham where Yasoda, His foster mother, admonishes the divine-child for stuffing mud into its mouth. The mother demands the child to open its mouth and spit out the muck. The child opens its mouth wide for Yasodha to peer into. And Behold ! She sees the entire COSMOS trapped inside like a piece of dental tartar ! That is the idea which, in C, is meant to be conveyed as we also ask, "settattin vayItril pirandAlUm, siriyadu ...etthai tinru engae kidakkum ?" and Nammalvar answers us by saying, "aththai thinRu angE kidakkum" !! Thus, during "avatAra-kAlam", Iswara or "siriyadu" descends into the world of temporality ("settattin vayItril pirappu-dal"). Thereafter, it is in the nature of Iswara to "feed" ("aththai thinRu") on those "jIvA-s" who have truly realized the "margA" of "avatara-rahasya-chintana". And it is such realized souls like NammalwAr himself who testify to this by singing "ulagamUnda peru vAyA....."! And yet ("pirandAlUm"!), however, Iswara does NOT partake of the nature of either mundane or cosmic Creation ! Iswara, instead, resides in the same PURE, EVER UNCHANGING,EVER UNCAUSED/EVER UN-EFFECTED STATE IT ETERNALLY REMAINS IN and EVER BEYOND THE LIMITS OF TIME OR SPACE i.e. "angE kidakkum" ! ------------- This is how, dear "bhAgavatOttamA-s", I have been taught to "understand" and enjoy that great mystical encounter between Madhura-kaviyAr and NammAzhwAr ! srimathe srivan satagopa sri narayana yathindra mahadesikaya namaha sudarshan Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 1997 [i sent this on Friday, but it somehow did not get posted.] Dear Bhaktas, Thanks to Dileepan's timely post, we have been discussing Madhurakavi Alvar's cryptic first question to Nammalvar. Madhurakavi, having been drawn away by a light in the night sky from his piligramage in North India to Thiru KurugUr (present Alvar Thirunagari, Thirunelveli district), ended up at the temple of Adi Natha PerumaaL, not very far from his own birthplace of ThirukOLUr. As he made his way around the temple, he spotted a strange sight -- a young boy, hardly more than 16 years of age, sitting as if in deep contemplation in the hollow of an immense tamarind tree. Struck with amusement and wonder at the statuesque image in front of him, with eyes closed and apparently oblivious to the world around him, Madhurakavi decided to test if the boy was even alive, let alone capable of speaking or hearing. So he took a large stone and dropped it on the ground near the tree so as to produce a loud thud. Awakened from his contemplation, the boy opened his eyes and cast his calm glance on Madhurakavi, but still did not say a word. Madhurakavi wondered if the boy was indeed incapable of speech, so to induce him to speak, posed him this question: seththathtin vayiRRil siRiyadhu piRandhaal, eththai thinRu, engE kidakkum? If a small something were born in the womb of what is dead, what would it eat, and where would it rest? Hearing this riddle, the young boy, who was none other than our saint Nammalvar, immediately replied in as cryptic a fashion aththai thinRu, angE kidakkum! It eats that itself, and it rests there itself! In my last post, I mentioned that there are two ways to to understand this answer. Madhurakavi perhaps intended a double meaning by his question -- seeing a small boy sitting quietly in the hollow of an immense tamarind tree, he may have jokingly wondered aloud how this young boy could subsist for so long and sleep there itself. His real question, however, is a very philosophical one: when the immaterial individual self, as subtle a thing as can exist, is born in this dead clothing called a body, how does it thrive and where does it rest? To those who are familiar with Nammalvar's intense attachment to the Lord, an obvious way to understand the saint's answer is that God alone is his sustenance, God alone his rest, so he eats only That and rests only There. But it appears that Nammalvar's answer is far more philosophical than this facial interpretation. "It eats that itself" means that the individual self enjoys the body and experiences pleasures and pains derived from its association with the body. "It rests there" means that this self, caught in the cycle of pleasure and pain through association with the body, is bound within it, incapable of escaping therefrom. We are forever indebted to Madhurakavi Alvar; but for his strange, irreverent question to a strange boy, we perhaps would not have received the four divine poems of Nammalvar which form the heart of the Divya Prabandham. Even if our saint had awakened to consciousness and sung his poems aloud, without a disciple like Madhurakavi no one would have transcribed them for posterity It is fitting that we remember the great yet indirect and nearly accidental contribution of this unique Alvar. anban thannai adaindha vargak ellaam anban then kurugoor nagar nambikku anbanaay madhurakavi sonna sol nambuvaar padi vaikundham kaaN minE To those who seek refuge, Madhurakavi, as a friend, has this to say: Seek refuge in the lord of KurugUr, For believe me, Vaikuntha is here! -- kaNNi nuN siruththaambu 10 [the Short Knotted String, Madhurakavi's sole composition, in praise of "KurugUr Nambi", Nammalvar] Mani P.S. A trip to Alvar Thirunagari is highly recommended. The tamarind tree in which Nammalvar sat is still there, right next to the temple. For a tamarind tree, it is immense, and large parts of it are petrified, but it still bears fruit and we are free to take these as prasaadam. Sometime after the Alvar's passing, perhaps in the time of Nathamuni or later, a shrine to Nammalvar was built next to the Adi Natha PerumaaL temple such that the tamarind tree rises above it. I am not one to be generally carried away by "touchy-feely" types of things, but I can truly attest to the serenity of atmosphere when sitting near that tree. Undoubtedly it is because Nammalvar is very near and dear to my heart, and because the temple was not crowded (and indeed almost never is). But realizing that I was walking on the very same spot where Madhurakavi Alvar and Nammalvar had exchanged their first words was incredibly thrilling. At that moment, Nammalvar ("kurugUr sadagOpan") and Madhurakavi were no longer remote, ancient personalities who lived in the 7th or 8th century -- they were real figures whose presence I experienced in my own way on that day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 1997 Dear Friends: Can any one forward Sri.Kalale's comments on the two AzwArs Q/A? By mistake I deleted without reading the comments. Thanks Sri VaiSHnava Dasan Ramagopal Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
