AchArya paramparA and other

[Guest guest]

Dear members:

 

I am interested in learning about pUrvAcharyas that comprise the succession

from bAdarAyaNa down to yAmunAchArya. I am not aware of a record of those

early AchAryas dating back to the Vedic era. What I do understand is that

the guru-paramparA begins with PerumAL and the Vedic rishi vyAsar is his

immediate disciple. Next, I think (correction?) that the AchArya budhAyana

belonged to the Upanishadic period. From then on, there is mention about the

disciples of budhayana such as Tanka, Dramida in texts like yatIndramatadIpika.

Recently a bhakti list posting outlined the post-yAmunAchArya to rAmAnujar

succession (Uyakkondar, nAthamuni, ThirukkoshtiyUr Nambi, etc.) extremely well.

I would like to fill the gaps in my knowledge by asking you all the question

"Are the successions from vyAsar to budhAyana, and from budhAyana down to

yAmunAchArya well known? How may I learn about those pUrvAchAryas?"

 

I also have another thought regarding the nature of ubhaya vedAnta. As we

all know, it entails approaching PerumAL through both Veda and the Prabandham.

I am wondering as to why only the school of rAmAnujar encompasses this unique

tradition. For instance, the Saiva tradition (in addition to its monastic

school of advaita) also has nayanamArs, just as we have AzhwArs. Also, the

majority of madhwAchArya's (dvaita school) followers are either kannada or

marAThi speaking, and they too have saints whose compositions were in the

respective local languages. So then, "Why is it just SriVaishnavas who

recognize a concept such as ubhaya vedanta?" I realize that it has largely

to do with rAmAnujar's promise to nAthamuni, but my question still remains...

 

Will appreciate any input on these two questions.

Best regards,

Truly

-SrInAth chakravarty

email: xsrinath

[Guest guest]

Srinath wrote:

> I am interested in learning about pUrvAcharyas that comprise the succession

> from bAdarAyaNa down to yAmunAchArya. I am not aware of a record of those

> early AchAryas dating back to the Vedic era.

 

We do not know the names of the Vedic teachers before Nathamuni in

the tradition. In fact, a very similar question is asked

in the 'vArttAmAlai'. Why is it that essentially no acharyas

are remembered between Nammalvar and Nathamuni? The answer

is that just as we remember only the first few rishis for

a gotra (brahminical lineage), we remember only the most

significant acharyas in the intervening period.

 

The same is true here. Recall that Ubhaya Vedanta as a

specific tradition exists only after Sri Nathamuni's time,

after he recovered the Divya Prabandham from near-oblivion.

Previous scholars such as Bodhayana, Tanka, Dramida, Bharuci,

etc., who are cited by Yamuna and Ramanuja, are known only

through their works; we do not know the acharya parampara

between these ancient seers and Sri Nathamuni. Even Yamuna

did not have access to Bodhayana's work; the only known manuscript

of this commentary on the Brahma Sutras was in Kashmir.

Knowledge of a acharya-sishya tradition leading back to

Bodhayana either never existed or was forgotten.

 

It is also important to note that the acharya paramparA of

the Sri Vaishnava / Visishtadvaita tradition primarily records

the succession of teachers who gave mantra upadeSam and taught

the inner meaning of the rahasyas to their disciples. Even

the vAkya guruparamparA, a single sloka in praise of acharyas

from Ramanuja up to the Lord, connects the sishya only to his

primary acharya. So for Nathamuni, his primary acharya is

Nammalvar himself, from whom he received the rahasyArtha-s

and the Divya Prabandham -- this is the single greatest

'upadesa' Nathamuni received. For Ramanuja, the primary acharya

is Periya Nambi and through him Yamunacharya, even though

Ramanuja had five acharyas who taught him various different

aspects of the tradition.

> What I do understand is that

> the guru-paramparA begins with PerumAL and the Vedic rishi vyAsar is his

> immediate disciple.

 

No, the guru-paramparA begins with PerumaaL and Thaayaar,

goes through Vishvaksena who gave upadesam to Nammalvar,

who in turn gave upadesam to Nathamuni while the latter

was engaged in yoga. Vyasa does not come in our acharya

paramparA.

> Next, I think (correction?) that the AchArya budhAyana

> belonged to the Upanishadic period.

 

Bodhayana is considered by tradition to be a sishya of

Badarayana, the author of the Brahma Sutras. Badarayana

is identified with Veda Vyasa.

> From then on, there is mention about the

> disciples of budhayana such as Tanka, Dramida in texts like

yatIndramatadIpika.

 

Tanka, Dramida, etc., are later day Vedantins who espoused

the Visishtadvaita interpretataion of the Upanishads. Based

on stylistic and traditional evidence, these scholars are

dated to a period significantly before Sankaracharya.

> I also have another thought regarding the nature of ubhaya vedAnta. As we

> all know, it entails approaching PerumAL through both Veda and the Prabandham.

> I am wondering as to why only the school of rAmAnujar encompasses this unique

> tradition.

 

To be very frank, this is because only the Divya Prabandham is

special. Only the Divya Prabandham among all the varied vernacular

devotional literatures echoes the philosophical conclusions of the

Upanishads in such unmistakable terms.

> For instance, the Saiva tradition (in addition to its monastic

> school of advaita) also has nayanamArs, just as we have AzhwArs.

> Also, the

> majority of madhwAchArya's (dvaita school) followers are either kannada or

> marAThi speaking, and they too have saints whose compositions were in the

> respective local languages.

 

First, some corrections. The school of Advaita is *not* a Saiva

tradition. It is a smArta tradition that worships many deities,

ultimately leading to a nameless, formless, attributeless absolute.

Second, the Saiva tradition has many branches; I presume you are

speaking of the Tamil Saiva Siddhanta tradition here. The Saiva

Siddhanta tradition does not pay much attention to the Vedas.

They are primarily concerned with interpreting and understanding

the Tamil poems of the Saiva saints. There is no tradition of

extensive commentary on the Tamil Saiva canon, nor is there

a tradition of exposing similarities between the Vedas and the

Tamil poems. Perhaps this is because no significant group of

brahmins associated themselves with this movement. Whatever the case,

the development of the Tamil Vaishnava and Saiva traditions is

markedly different, and their approach to the Vedas reflects

this difference.

 

The Dvaita school of Ananda Tirtha (Madhvacharya) has its own

vernacular songs. The songs, mostly in Kannada, were propagated

by saints known as the Haridasas, who communicated and preached

bhakti by composing simple songs and singing them in the streets

to the common people. (This tradition is somewhat loosely associated

with the smArta bhAgavata tradition). It is important to note

two things: first, the Haridasas composed the songs much after

Ananda Tirtha had set down the tenets of the school in Sanskrit,

unlike the Alvars, who preceded Yamuna and Ramanuja. Second,

the songs of the Haridasas contain much more popular bhakti

than philosophy. The songs of Purandara Dasa, for example,

contain a great deal of wisdom and sentiment; but they simply

do not constitute a basis for a system of philosophy, unlike the

Tiruvaymoli.

 

Recall that Ramanuja gained many insights into the meaning of

the Upanishads by studying the Tiruvaymoli (see Acharya Hrdayam).

Nothing even close is claimed by anyone of the songs of the Haridasas.

 

Furthermore, it is not true that the Haridasa songs strictly

espouse Dvaita philosophy. As I said before, most of it is

popular bhakti that is acceptable to any sect. Some of them

may have had association with other Vaishnava traditions.

Kanaka Dasa in one of his songs, says that Ramanuja is his

refuge!

 

I request others who are knowledgable in these other traditions

to add to what I have written.

 

rAmAnuja dAsan

Mani

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN-

SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear Sri Srinath,

namO nArAyaNA.

>

> > I also have another thought regarding the nature of ubhaya vedAnta. As we

> > all know, it entails approaching PerumAL through both Veda and the

Prabandham.

> > I am wondering as to why only the school of rAmAnujar encompasses this

unique

> > tradition.

>

> To be very frank, this is because only the Divya Prabandham is

> special. Only the Divya Prabandham among all the varied vernacular

> devotional literatures echoes the philosophical conclusions of the

> Upanishads in such unmistakable terms.

 

SrI Mani has already explained it well. adiyEn just wants to

add that the book by Sri SMS Chari named "Philosophy and Theistic

Mysticism of AzhwArs" gives good insights to these issues.

 

Whatever AzhwArs sung are perfectly based on the truths imparted

by Upanishads. Especially, TiruvAimozhi gives the very essence of

Upanishads, which made bAshyakArar's (rAmAnujar) job easier in

understanding Upanishads properly. Infact, NammAzhwAr is the

vEdAnta/vaidhIka matha sthApakar for kali yugA, who initiated

SrIman nAthamunigaL. rAmAnujar was successful in giving the

correct interpretations to the Brahma sUtrAs/Upanishads because

of the blessings of nammAzhwAr / guru-paramparA.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

krishNArpaNam

[Guest guest]

At 01:18 PM 5/3/99 -0500, you wrote:

>Dear Sri Chakravarthy :

 

I will provide another input on your two

questions to provide the infrastructure

for additional discussions .

>"Are the successions from vyAsar to budhAyana, and from budhAyana down to

> yAmunAchArya well known? How may I learn about those pUrvAchAryas?"

 

Two good sources of Information for you on AchArya paramparai

are : (1) Sri Nadadur Madhavan 's excellent flow chart .

(2) Sri Ahobila matam releases on AchArya paramparai &

anubhandham .The earlier portions deal with AchAryAs

prior to Ahobila Matam Jeeyars & the rest deal with

Ahobila Matam AchAryArs . Ahobila matam home pages

have info on how to acquire them.

 

VyAsA inspite of being a maha Rishi is not considered a paramaikAnthi

(Single Minded devotion to Sriman naarAyaNA ) and hence he is not

included in the paramparai of Sri VaishNavite AchAryAs . There are

references in the literature to him being referred to as

Vyasa Roopaya VishNave et al . Yet , in the guru paramparaa

tradition , he is not included as an AchAryA , but as a revered

Maharishi , who gave us many granthams including the VedAntha

SoothrAs .This is acording to the view of one of the greatest

living Sri VasihNavite AchAryA .

 

Here are my comments on your second question on

the celebration of Tamil with out appearing to put down

the other great South Indian languages is that it (Tamil )

is very ancient .I love Sundara Telegu and wonderful KannadA .

I may be" clobbered " for stating this . In fairness ,

None of the others have the hoary tradition of recorded

literature or grammar . Sage AgasthyA wrote the grammar for

Tamil .Sangha kaala Tamizh is well documented .

It was used by Jain monks and Buddhistic monks even

in times before the AzhwArs .

 

That is why Tamil is held in higher esteem for the Ubhaya

VedAntham tradition . When the AzhwArs chose to

express the Vedic truths in this language , it

reached even higher status .

 

One of the AzhwArs is ANDAL , the spouse of the Lord

incarnating at SrivillipputthUr , who prayed thru

ThiruppAvai in an entirely different vein than

MaaNickka vachakar's ThiruvembhAvai . The young girls

assembled for Paavai vratham in the case of ThiruvempAvai

sought as their goal and boon the realization of Siva BhakthAs

as their husbands . ANDAL went for the Lord Himself

and prayed for eternal Kaimkaryam to Him .I must confess

based on my comparitive reading of the divya prabhandhams and

ThEvAram ( the exalted outpourings of the revered naayanmArs) ,

there is nothing approaching NammAzhwAr's Thiruvaaimozhi

in Bhagavadh anubhavam and exposition of VedAnthic doctrines

in a consistent manner .This is not to minimize the greatness

of Siva BhakthAs .

 

V.Sadagopan

[Guest guest]

Sri Sadagopan wrote:

> VyAsA inspite of being a maha Rishi is not considered a paramaikAnthi

> (Single Minded devotion to Sriman naarAyaNA ) and hence he is not

> included in the paramparai of Sri VaishNavite AchAryAs .

 

Dear Sri Sadagopan,

 

I am astonished that an acharya would say this. I have

never heard such a statement. Would you care to elaborate

on how Bhagavan Vyasa is not a paramaikAnti? I cannot

believe that this was the opinion of Ramanuja, who

wrote that Vyasa's 'vacas sudhA' are what gives new life

to those burning in samsAra.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Sri:

 

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dearest all,

 

The discussion on AchArya Parampara, Badarayana/ VyAsar,

BhOdhAyanar, Divya Prabhandham... its greatness much much

higher than Naayanmaars' works (as beautifully, and assertively

written By Sri Sadagopan, who had studied both extensively)

..... Sri Anand's response, and Sri Srinath's further questions...

(all these from the west.... I feel ashamed of knowing nothing and I

feel great to and proud to be a part of this group.....)

They all gave me a feeling of sitting among Nithyasooris and listening

to their discussions. What a depth of analysis and discussions!

 

"icchuvai thavira yaan pOi indira lOkam ALum

acchuvai peRinum vEndEn, ArangamaanagaruLaanE...."

 

Narayana Narayana

 

Narayana dAsan Madhavakkannan

>

> Mani Varadarajan [sMTP:mani]

> Tuesday, May 04, 1999 3:34 AM

> bhakti

> Re: AchArya paramparA and other

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Mani Varadarajan :

 

Sage VyaasA as his very name implies is

a "compiler " of the four VedAs . His contributions

thru writing of the one lakh slOkams of

MahA BhAratham , "the fifth vedam "

and the 18 purANams have earned him the status as

a great maharishi worthy of adoration by every

sampradhAyins . His VedAntha SoothrAs are a class

by themselves and have provided the basis for more than

14 BhAshyams . AchAryA RaamAnujA accomplished the great task of

elucididating the Brahma SoothrAs of Sage VyAsA

in the theistic style and that is a divine contribution

arising from AchArya RaamAnujA equipping himself

for moe than half of his life to perform this Kaimkaryam

for the benefit of humanity .The architectonics of Sri Bhaashyam

strictly follows the Structure of Maharishi VyAsA .

Both Sage VyAsA and AchArya RaamAnujA brought out

the Sruthi-Sirasi VideephtE axiom of Brahman

( the eternal reality that is specifically

and exclusively revealed by Upanishads ).

 

It is in this context , we worship Sage VyAsA

during VyAsa PourNami /Guru Pournami

as Loka Guru ( LokAchAryan ).

 

When it comes to the strict intrepretation of

Sri VaishNava Guru ParamparA , we do not

include Maharishi BodharAyaNA (Sage VyAsA )

in our AchArya paramparai . Ours as is well

accepted starts with Sriamn NaarAyaNA and continues

with periya pirAtti , VishvaksEnar , NammAzhwAr ,

naatha Muni , AalavandhAr , Periya nampi to AchArya RaamAnujar .

That was the thinking behind the observation

that Sage VyAsaa is not found anywhere in the Sri VaishNavite

guru paramparA , while his status as a MahAthmA

is not questioned ever .His writing the 18 purANams

dealing with anya devathAs was another reason.

Even ParAsara Muni , who blessed us with

VishNu purANam or Sage NaaradhA , who gave us

Bhakthi Soothrams and initated PrahlAdhaazhwAn

are not included in this AchArya Paramparai

of Sri VaishNavam . That is all I had in mind .

No irreverance to Sage VyAsaa was implied .

 

V.Sadagopan

 

At 05:17 PM 5/3/99 -0700, you wrote:

>Sri Sadagopan wrote:

>> VyAsA inspite of being a maha Rishi is not considered a paramaikAnthi

>> (Single Minded devotion to Sriman naarAyaNA ) and hence he is not

>> included in the paramparai of Sri VaishNavite AchAryAs .

>

>Dear Sri Sadagopan,

>

>I am astonished that an acharya would say this. I have

>never heard such a statement. Would you care to elaborate

>on how Bhagavan Vyasa is not a paramaikAnti? I cannot

>believe that this was the opinion of Ramanuja, who

>wrote that Vyasa's 'vacas sudhA' are what gives new life

>to those burning in samsAra.

>

>Mani

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaktas,

Can it also be added that Vedas exist throughout eternity and after a

dissolution of the Universe and during the birth of a new Brahma, the four

vedas are re-manifested through Brahma and consequently a Veda-Vyaasa is

born to codify and put down the Vedas in language form for people to read

and understand?

Sage Vyaasa is also a Aavatara of Sri Narayana (one of the many types of

avataras).

Since Sage Vyaasa is a avatara of Sriman, and since Sriman Narayana is the

prime source of our Parampara, it might also be concluded that there is no

reason for including Vyaasa again in the Guru Parampara.

Please correct me if I might be wrong.

 

Adiyen- Ramanujadasan,

Jagan Mohan.

 

 

bhakti-errors [bhakti-errors]On

Behalf Of Sadagopan

Wednesday, May 05, 1999 4:57 PM

bhakti

Re: AchArya paramparA and other

 

 

Dear Sri Mani Varadarajan :

 

Sage VyaasA as his very name implies is

a "compiler " of the four VedAs . His contributions

thru writing of the one lakh slOkams of

MahA BhAratham , "the fifth vedam "

and the 18 purANams have earned him the status as

a great maharishi worthy of adoration by every

sampradhAyins . His VedAntha SoothrAs are a class

by themselves and have provided the basis for more than

14 BhAshyams .

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN-

SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear devotees,

namO nArAyaNA.

 

Sri Sadagopan wrote :

> It is in this context , we worship Sage VyAsA

>during VyAsa PourNami /Guru Pournami

>as Loka Guru ( LokAchAryan ).

 

Sage vyAsar though not in our guruparamparA as such,

he is very much an AchAryA for SriVaishnavAs through

his works like Brahma sootram, purANAs etc. SrI Mani

has already explained the difference between the stream

of AchAryAs recognized in our gurumparA ( like

nammAzhwAr, nAthamunigaL ...) and the AchAryAs

like vyAsar, bOdhAyanar, tanka etc who also only propagated

vEdAntA ie. VisishtAdvaitA.

 

As far as adiyEn knows, SriVaishnava AchAryAs/SannyAsIs

does not perform worship to Sage vyAsA during the

vyAsa/Guru PourNami. If adiyEn's memory is right, advaita

sannyAsins during their chAturmAsya sankalpa perform

vyAsa pUjA since vyAsar is recognized as an AchAryA

of their guruparamparA. Similarly, there are some other

sampradAyams which have vyAsar specifically in their

guruparamparA and thus celebrate vyAsa pUjA. Anyway,

SrIvaishnavAs also have great reverence for vyAsar because

of many reasons (this has been explained well by

Sri SadagOpan) , though some formal worship may not be

performed.

 

adiyEn has heard in a kAlakshEbam that Sage vyAsar is a

SrIVaishnavA / ParamaikAntin. That AchAryA explained that

Rishis like vyAsar played a different role than that of AzhwArs,

though the fundamental principle is same for both of them.

Many rishis catered to the needs of all the people viz. dharmam,

artham, kAmam and mOksham. So, they also spoke about,

say, the glories of some anya dEvatAs , performing worship

to anya dEvatAs for certain benifits etc also, in addition to

the way mumukshu (seeker of moksham) should be. But,

AzhwArs taught us only about the pathway to moksham viz.

uninterrupted kainkaryam to the Divya Dampati and thus the

focus of AzhwArs is different ( ofcourse, if someone recites divya

prabandham etc, with the intention of getting more money

PerumAL will grant it ) . Philosophically, vyAsar and AzhwArs

say the same thing , but, the focus of their writings/teachings

varied according to the role they took. vyAsar is vishnu's

avatAram (ie. that jIvAtmA was given extrordinary powers

by PerumAL) intended for achieving certain things and

the incarnation of AzhwArs was for achieving certain things.

 

But, seeing from a different angle, using the nahi nindA nyAyam

(ie. just to glorify someone and _not_ to deride other), AzhwArs

are said to be superior to rishis since AzhwArs sung only about

SrIman nArAyaNA. This statement needs to be properly

understood with the background of all the things written above.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

krishNArpaNam