Guest guest Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: Dear Sri Ramachandran, While it is good to see your enthusiasm for performing sandhyavandanam, the following lines are puzzling. > It is therefore, extremely critical and mandatory > for the Sandhya to be performed without fail. It > is quite surprising that Shri Vishnu has > questioned the efficacy of Sandhya and perhaps > thinks of replacing the Sandhya with 'namaa' > chanting. Come what may, the Sandhya is a nitya > karma ordained by the Vedas and no one is excused. > Dilution of Sandhya requirements are therefore out > of question. One may dilute all other rituals, > worship etc. but not the Sandhya. Is it your stand or our pUrvAchAryas stand that other rituals and even worship can be 'diluted' but not the sandhyavandanam. Is there any pramANam for this stance? Of course, the sastras themselves excuse many from performing the sandhya. So, how is that you say that no one is excused? Or do you mean only those that are eligible for it. Certainly our acharyas did not give up their nithya karmas, but only so as to not set the wrong example for those who are at the first steps. However, there are two things here. I don't think they saw it as a mandatory act which is an unforgivable sin when missed, as you are stating ; and they only saw it as a kainkaryam to the Lord and not for their personal benefits. And again, I believe their stress was on all nithya karmas and not just the sandhya alone. Guru Paramapara records that Bhattar refused to stop his fan service to the Lord for the sake of doing sandhyavandanam. Pillai Lokacharyar includes the performance of all nithya karmas as one of the sins that the Lord wipes out in the "sarva pApEbhyO" of the Charama shloka. Kindly clarify. adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes./filing.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2004 Report Share Posted February 13, 2004 Dear Sri Venkatesan, Kindly clarify whether the life incident of bhattar is quoted as an injunction to TK VaishNavas for the non-performance of sandhya? Regular performance of nityakarmas are typically ordained by dharma sUtras of one's vedic affiliation (it may appear in grhya sutras in some cases; smrti digests elaborate the dharma sUtras). >From my limited understanding rAmAnujAchArya never attempted to tamper the dharma sUtras, veda pramANas and the associated paraphernalia (and even sanctions sacrifice of goat in the context of yAgas in his gIta bhAshya). If I am right, the ashtAdasha bheda nirNaya discusses about nithyakarmas - "whether an evolved sould will go to hell if he doesn't perform them": yes -> vadakalai; no -> thenkalai, however the evolved soul should continue to do them as an example for others. This is a non question for unevolved souls! Accept my apologies if I've commited any mistakes or was offensive. Regards, Kasturi Rangan ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > > Dear Sri Ramachandran, > > While it is good to see your enthusiasm for performing > sandhyavandanam, the following lines are puzzling. > > > It is therefore, extremely critical and mandatory > > for the Sandhya to be performed without fail. It > > is quite surprising that Shri Vishnu has > > questioned the efficacy of Sandhya and perhaps > > thinks of replacing the Sandhya with 'namaa' > > chanting. Come what may, the Sandhya is a nitya > > karma ordained by the Vedas and no one is excused. > > Dilution of Sandhya requirements are therefore out > > of question. One may dilute all other rituals, > > worship etc. but not the Sandhya. > > Is it your stand or our pUrvAchAryas stand that > other rituals and even worship can be 'diluted' > but not the sandhyavandanam. Is there any pramANam > for this stance? > > Of course, the sastras themselves excuse many from > performing the sandhya. So, how is that you say that > no one is excused? Or do you mean only those that > are eligible for it. > > Certainly our acharyas did not give up their nithya > karmas, but only so as to not set the wrong example > for those who are at the first steps. However, there > are two things here. I don't think they saw it as a > mandatory act which is an unforgivable sin when > missed, as you are stating ; and they only saw > it as a kainkaryam to the Lord and not for their > personal benefits. And again, I believe their stress > was on all nithya karmas and not just the sandhya > alone. > > Guru Paramapara records that Bhattar refused to > stop his fan service to the Lord for the sake > of doing sandhyavandanam. > > Pillai Lokacharyar includes the performance of all > nithya karmas as one of the sins that the Lord > wipes out in the "sarva pApEbhyO" of the Charama > shloka. > > Kindly clarify. > > adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan > > > > > > > Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes./filing.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2004 Report Share Posted February 16, 2004 Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan, This question appears to me as an unjustified conclusion from Sriman Venkatesan's post. To me it appears more like a caution against forgetting the more imporatant issue of Bhagavadkainkaryam (in Sri Ramanuja Sampradayam) in our enthusiasm for "Sandhyavandanam". Probably this may lead us in to more controversial corridors. What is the significance of "Nityakarmas" for any vedantic tradition in pursuit of "Moksha"? While there is general agreement on necessity of "Nityakarmas" as ordained by Dharmasastras across wide spectrum of vedantic traditions, does any tradition attribute more importance to these as an aid to attainment of "Moksha"? Isn't it necessary that the "Nityakarmas" should be put in their proper perspective, instead of treating them as a "be-all-and-end-all" for mumukhu as Sri Ramachandran seems to imply? Kindly note that these points are raised more with an intention to learn than to question. Forgive me for any misinterpretation. Regards, Srinivasadasa --- amshuman_k <amshuman_k wrote: > Dear Sri Venkatesan, > Kindly clarify whether the life incident of bhattar > is quoted as an > injunction to TK VaishNavas for the non-performance > of sandhya? > Regular performance of nityakarmas are typically > ordained by dharma > sUtras of one's vedic affiliation (it may appear in > grhya sutras in > some cases; smrti digests elaborate the dharma > sUtras). > > From my limited understanding rAmAnujAchArya never > attempted to > tamper the dharma sUtras, veda pramANas and the > associated > paraphernalia (and even sanctions sacrifice of goat > in the context > of yAgas in his gIta bhAshya). > > If I am right, the ashtAdasha bheda nirNaya > discusses about > nithyakarmas - "whether an evolved sould will go to > hell if he > doesn't perform them": yes -> vadakalai; no -> > thenkalai, however > the evolved soul should continue to do them as an > example for others. > This is a non question for unevolved souls! > > Accept my apologies if I've commited any mistakes or > was offensive. > > Regards, > Kasturi Rangan > > ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan > <vtca> wrote: > > Sri: > > Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > > > > Dear Sri Ramachandran, > > > > While it is good to see your enthusiasm for > performing > > sandhyavandanam, the following lines are puzzling. > > > > > It is therefore, extremely critical and > mandatory > > > for the Sandhya to be performed without fail. It > > > > is quite surprising that Shri Vishnu has > > > questioned the efficacy of Sandhya and perhaps > > > thinks of replacing the Sandhya with 'namaa' > > > chanting. Come what may, the Sandhya is a nitya > > > karma ordained by the Vedas and no one is > excused. > > > Dilution of Sandhya requirements are therefore > out > > > of question. One may dilute all other rituals, > > > worship etc. but not the Sandhya. > > > > Is it your stand or our pUrvAchAryas stand that > > other rituals and even worship can be 'diluted' > > but not the sandhyavandanam. Is there any pramANam > > for this stance? > > > > Of course, the sastras themselves excuse many from > > > performing the sandhya. So, how is that you say > that > > no one is excused? Or do you mean only those that > > are eligible for it. > > > > Certainly our acharyas did not give up their > nithya > > karmas, but only so as to not set the wrong > example > > for those who are at the first steps. However, > there > > are two things here. I don't think they saw it as > a > > mandatory act which is an unforgivable sin when > > missed, as you are stating ; and they only saw > > it as a kainkaryam to the Lord and not for their > > personal benefits. And again, I believe their > stress > > was on all nithya karmas and not just the sandhya > > alone. > > > > Guru Paramapara records that Bhattar refused to > > stop his fan service to the Lord for the sake > > of doing sandhyavandanam. > > > > Pillai Lokacharyar includes the performance of all > > nithya karmas as one of the sins that the Lord > > wipes out in the "sarva pApEbhyO" of the Charama > > shloka. > > > > Kindly clarify. > > > > adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Finance: Get your refund fast by filing > online. > > http://taxes./filing.html > > > Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes./filing.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2004 Report Share Posted February 16, 2004 Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan and others, I think my original post was loosely put together and was therefore likely unclear. I wasn't recommending or suggesting that nitya karmas be given up. Clearly the incident about Bhattar shows that he was doing his nitya karmas. And while Pillai Lokacharyar added the nitya karmas to the sarva pApa, as far as my knowledge of his writings goes, I don't think he has recommended that they be given up. Learned bhAgavats may correct me on these. However, what I was driving at was this: 1. What was the pramANam for Sri Ramachandran's statement that sandhya vandanam alone cannot be given up while all other nitya karmas can be given up. He was even suggesting that worship can be given up. It is my understanding that, even those who stress that the nitya karmas are to be followed without question, state that all nitya karmas be performed and not just one. I can understand a practical logic that the sandhya is one of the simplest rituals to perform at home needing no special upakaranas, and giving it up means you have practically given up everything. Therefore, the injunction 'don't give it up'. But from the post it sounded like the sastras themselves give it a special status. That was the clarification I was seeking. It also raises the question as what to do if pressed for time between sandhya and another service - for eg, thiruvArAdhanam. 2. Thennacharyas don't give it the special status that Sri Ramachandran was driving at. That was the point I wanted to make. 6000padi records that Bhattar said "bhagavad kainkarya niratharukku sandhyAvandana kaivalya dOsham vArAdhu". Agreed, that most of us don't qualify to that state, but we need to be aware of this. 6000padi also states that to perform nitya karmas while missing bhagavad anubhavam is against the nature of the soul. 3. The post also suggested that there are many personal benefits that one gets by doing the sandhya. From the Thennacharya perspective, these may be incidental but not crux to the matter. The nitya karmas are to be done only as kainkaryam to the Lord. Not for personal gains. Hope this clarifies adiyEn's earlier post. adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan --- amshuman_k <amshuman_k wrote: > Dear Sri Venkatesan, > Kindly clarify whether the life incident of bhattar is > quoted as an > injunction to TK VaishNavas for the non-performance of > sandhya? > Regular performance of nityakarmas are typically ordained > by dharma > sUtras of one's vedic affiliation (it may appear in grhya > sutras in > some cases; smrti digests elaborate the dharma sUtras). > > From my limited understanding rAmAnujAchArya never > attempted to > tamper the dharma sUtras, veda pramANas and the > associated > paraphernalia (and even sanctions sacrifice of goat in > the context > of yAgas in his gIta bhAshya). > > If I am right, the ashtAdasha bheda nirNaya discusses > about > nithyakarmas - "whether an evolved sould will go to hell > if he > doesn't perform them": yes -> vadakalai; no -> thenkalai, > however > the evolved soul should continue to do them as an example > for others. > This is a non question for unevolved souls! > > Accept my apologies if I've commited any mistakes or was > offensive. > > Regards, > Kasturi Rangan > Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. http://taxes./filing.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 16, 2004 Report Share Posted February 16, 2004 Dear Devotees, This is regarding Sri Kasturi Rangan swAmi's letter to sri TCA Venkatesan. The Life incident of bhattar is quoted not for injuntion but for the fact that nithya-karmangaL should not come in the way of bhagwadh anubhavam or God's kainkaryam. The fact is that for prabhannan-srEvaishNavites,emphasis is more on kainkaryam and nearness to the Lord rather than getting bogged down by rituals. However, as you said -there is no injunction or waiver. 1. For the souls who surrender --sarva-dharmAn paridhajya -- including nithya-karmangaL these have to be relinquished . 2. The sandhyavandhanam which is a duty to a brahmin becomes a kainkaryam -service to the Lord for a srEvaishNavite. Hence, when some other service to the Lord is being done, this service is temporarilty relegated to background.(only relegated -not completely forgotten) 3. That is why it is mentioned that --karmam -kainkaryathil pugum- The duty evolves as service to the Lord. 4. There is no point in just merely doing rituals without thinking of the Lord Almighty . please refer "peyarinaiyEa pundhiyAl sindhiyAdhOdhi vuruvennum, andhiyAl Am payan angu en?"-mudhal thiru vandhAdhi There is no point in just reciting vedhAs or performing rituals unless these are accompanied by thinking of the Lord. Empty chanting or rituals have no value. Thinking of the Lord is the emphasis here. 5. The thiruppAvai vyAkyAnam --kaNaithiLam kaRReRumai kaNRukku irang-- amply confirms this point. How? The cow milks off itself .The duty of milking the cow is not done by a person . Then he should be blamed. Instead he is termed as "naR chelvan" as he is a person who is always with Lord krishNA. Hence, The point reiterated here is that for everything Lord Almighty is the primary one. All other things are secondary which should not come in priority to the Lord or His guNAnubhavam or service to Him. I think that is why thiru-voi-mozh is called bhagwad-vishayam -where only devotion, God's deeds, God's qualities, AzhwArs experience with the Lord all such numerous related activities are glorified. It is not to denounce the rituals. However, rituals cannot substitute or become a forerunnner when it comes to the Lord is concerned. AzhwAr's have praised these rituals in several pAsuram-s but have glorified the Lord and His mercy over and above this. As sri sadagopan swAmi mentioned, each school of thought has its own principles and justifications and this can go on endlessly. Following ones own principles is by and large the ideal situation. rAmAnuja dhAsan vanamamalai padmanabhan - amshuman_k ramanuja Friday, February 13, 2004 1:25 PM [ramanuja] Re: Sandhya/Gayathri related Dear Sri Venkatesan, Kindly clarify whether the life incident of bhattar is quoted as an injunction to TK VaishNavas for the non-performance of sandhya? Regular performance of nityakarmas are typically ordained by dharma sUtras of one's vedic affiliation (it may appear in grhya sutras in some cases; smrti digests elaborate the dharma sUtras). From my limited understanding rAmAnujAchArya never attempted to tamper the dharma sUtras, veda pramANas and the associated paraphernalia (and even sanctions sacrifice of goat in the context of yAgas in his gIta bhAshya). If I am right, the ashtAdasha bheda nirNaya discusses about nithyakarmas - "whether an evolved sould will go to hell if he doesn't perform them": yes -> vadakalai; no -> thenkalai, however the evolved soul should continue to do them as an example for others. This is a non question for unevolved souls! Accept my apologies if I've commited any mistakes or was offensive. Regards, Kasturi Rangan ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > > Dear Sri Ramachandran, > > While it is good to see your enthusiasm for performing > sandhyavandanam, the following lines are puzzling. > > > It is therefore, extremely critical and mandatory > > for the Sandhya to be performed without fail. It > > is quite surprising that Shri Vishnu has > > questioned the efficacy of Sandhya and perhaps > > thinks of replacing the Sandhya with 'namaa' > > chanting. Come what may, the Sandhya is a nitya > > karma ordained by the Vedas and no one is excused. > > Dilution of Sandhya requirements are therefore out > > of question. One may dilute all other rituals, > > worship etc. but not the Sandhya. > > Is it your stand or our pUrvAchAryas stand that > other rituals and even worship can be 'diluted' > but not the sandhyavandanam. Is there any pramANam > for this stance? > > Of course, the sastras themselves excuse many from > performing the sandhya. So, how is that you say that > no one is excused? Or do you mean only those that > are eligible for it. > > Certainly our acharyas did not give up their nithya > karmas, but only so as to not set the wrong example > for those who are at the first steps. However, there > are two things here. I don't think they saw it as a > mandatory act which is an unforgivable sin when > missed, as you are stating ; and they only saw > it as a kainkaryam to the Lord and not for their > personal benefits. And again, I believe their stress > was on all nithya karmas and not just the sandhya > alone. > > Guru Paramapara records that Bhattar refused to > stop his fan service to the Lord for the sake > of doing sandhyavandanam. > > Pillai Lokacharyar includes the performance of all > nithya karmas as one of the sins that the Lord > wipes out in the "sarva pApEbhyO" of the Charama > shloka. > > Kindly clarify. > > adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan > > > > > > > Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes./filing.html azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam Links ramanuja/ b.. ramanuja c.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2004 Report Share Posted February 17, 2004 Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha Respected Devotees Though I am not qualified to write about "Sandya", born woman, why cann't men who are qualified just do it, because all our Purvacharyas did it, both as a kainkaryam and ritual. It is not like everybody is doing some kainkaryam all the time, other than work,and that time cann't be spared. One of the reasons some rituals are still being advocated is to give us a focus and discipline. Adiyen apologises for the errors in the mail. nsp <aazhwar wrote: Dear Devotees, This is regarding Sri Kasturi Rangan swAmi's letter to sri TCA Venkatesan. The Life incident of bhattar is quoted not for injuntion but for the fact that nithya-karmangaL should not come in the way of bhagwadh anubhavam or God's kainkaryam. The fact is that for prabhannan-srEvaishNavites,emphasis is more on kainkaryam and nearness to the Lord rather than getting bogged down by rituals. However, as you said -there is no injunction or waiver. 1. For the souls who surrender --sarva-dharmAn paridhajya -- including nithya-karmangaL these have to be relinquished . 2. The sandhyavandhanam which is a duty to a brahmin becomes a kainkaryam -service to the Lord for a srEvaishNavite. Hence, when some other service to the Lord is being done, this service is temporarilty relegated to background.(only relegated -not completely forgotten) 3. That is why it is mentioned that --karmam -kainkaryathil pugum- The duty evolves as service to the Lord. 4. There is no point in just merely doing rituals without thinking of the Lord Almighty . please refer "peyarinaiyEa pundhiyAl sindhiyAdhOdhi vuruvennum, andhiyAl Am payan angu en?"-mudhal thiru vandhAdhi There is no point in just reciting vedhAs or performing rituals unless these are accompanied by thinking of the Lord. Empty chanting or rituals have no value. Thinking of the Lord is the emphasis here. 5. The thiruppAvai vyAkyAnam --kaNaithiLam kaRReRumai kaNRukku irang-- amply confirms this point. How? The cow milks off itself .The duty of milking the cow is not done by a person . Then he should be blamed. Instead he is termed as "naR chelvan" as he is a person who is always with Lord krishNA. Hence, The point reiterated here is that for everything Lord Almighty is the primary one. All other things are secondary which should not come in priority to the Lord or His guNAnubhavam or service to Him. I think that is why thiru-voi-mozh is called bhagwad-vishayam -where only devotion, God's deeds, God's qualities, AzhwArs experience with the Lord all such numerous related activities are glorified. It is not to denounce the rituals. However, rituals cannot substitute or become a forerunnner when it comes to the Lord is concerned. AzhwAr's have praised these rituals in several pAsuram-s but have glorified the Lord and His mercy over and above this. As sri sadagopan swAmi mentioned, each school of thought has its own principles and justifications and this can go on endlessly. Following ones own principles is by and large the ideal situation. rAmAnuja dhAsan vanamamalai padmanabhan - amshuman_k ramanuja Friday, February 13, 2004 1:25 PM [ramanuja] Re: Sandhya/Gayathri related Dear Sri Venkatesan, Kindly clarify whether the life incident of bhattar is quoted as an injunction to TK VaishNavas for the non-performance of sandhya? Regular performance of nityakarmas are typically ordained by dharma sUtras of one's vedic affiliation (it may appear in grhya sutras in some cases; smrti digests elaborate the dharma sUtras). >From my limited understanding rAmAnujAchArya never attempted to tamper the dharma sUtras, veda pramANas and the associated paraphernalia (and even sanctions sacrifice of goat in the context of yAgas in his gIta bhAshya). If I am right, the ashtAdasha bheda nirNaya discusses about nithyakarmas - "whether an evolved sould will go to hell if he doesn't perform them": yes -> vadakalai; no -> thenkalai, however the evolved soul should continue to do them as an example for others. This is a non question for unevolved souls! Accept my apologies if I've commited any mistakes or was offensive. Regards, Kasturi Rangan ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > > Dear Sri Ramachandran, > > While it is good to see your enthusiasm for performing > sandhyavandanam, the following lines are puzzling. > > > It is therefore, extremely critical and mandatory > > for the Sandhya to be performed without fail. It > > is quite surprising that Shri Vishnu has > > questioned the efficacy of Sandhya and perhaps > > thinks of replacing the Sandhya with 'namaa' > > chanting. Come what may, the Sandhya is a nitya > > karma ordained by the Vedas and no one is excused. > > Dilution of Sandhya requirements are therefore out > > of question. One may dilute all other rituals, > > worship etc. but not the Sandhya. > > Is it your stand or our pUrvAchAryas stand that > other rituals and even worship can be 'diluted' > but not the sandhyavandanam. Is there any pramANam > for this stance? > > Of course, the sastras themselves excuse many from > performing the sandhya. So, how is that you say that > no one is excused? Or do you mean only those that > are eligible for it. > > Certainly our acharyas did not give up their nithya > karmas, but only so as to not set the wrong example > for those who are at the first steps. However, there > are two things here. I don't think they saw it as a > mandatory act which is an unforgivable sin when > missed, as you are stating ; and they only saw > it as a kainkaryam to the Lord and not for their > personal benefits. And again, I believe their stress > was on all nithya karmas and not just the sandhya > alone. > > Guru Paramapara records that Bhattar refused to > stop his fan service to the Lord for the sake > of doing sandhyavandanam. > > Pillai Lokacharyar includes the performance of all > nithya karmas as one of the sins that the Lord > wipes out in the "sarva pApEbhyO" of the Charama > shloka. > > Kindly clarify. > > adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan > > > > > > > Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes./filing.html azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam ramanuja/ b.. ramanuja c.. azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2004 Report Share Posted February 17, 2004 Dear bhAgavatas, I find myself in total agreement with Shri Venkatesan's post. I am proceeding further for a few clarifications. I apologize for not reading earlier (or reading closely) the post of Shri rAmachandran, the contents of which I do not agree fully either. I apologize at this juncture, if the tone of my post is inappropriate. Having said this, it pains me to see that the sandhyavandana, gAyatrI and vedic recitation are regarded by many as empty rituals. The last time I checked, our sampradAyam was still a vaidika dharmam/vaidika matam. Sure, there are other forms of vaishNavism whose scope is restricted only to nAma-sankIrtan, and associated forms of worship. (Probably I am unfair to gaudiyas - from my impression they pay more attention to bhAgavata purANam, instead of shruti pramANam and this, in my humble opinion excludes a possibility of us having a debate with them; we may even debate with advaitins, as we agree on the pramANas! For the same reason we cannot have debate with christians or muslims, as their pramANas are different). I am also mentioning my anguish of seeing the loss of veda shAkhAs right in front of my eyes, at this point. The kAThaka shAkha of krishNa-yajur veda is for all practical purposes extinct. I know a brAhmaNa affiliated with this shAkha and follows logAkshi sUtra (as we follow Apastambha). He refuses to teach his shAkhA to anybody except to those belonging to that branch. He may be the last person of this branch. I gather that jaiminIya shAkha with about 5 chanters in kerala is almost extinct, until Shankara mutt intervened and sent a few students to learn from them. I'll try to discuss issues based on the recent exchanges on this topic. 1. Efficacy of gAyatrI: (a) chAndOgya brAhmaNam says gAyatrI is the entire creation. gAyatrI is prthvI, gAyatrI is the sustainer of all creatures. The supreme one who is indicated by the gAyatrI is sarva-vyApi (reminds one of vishNu), sarva gnyAta and ananta. He who understands gAyatrI attains pUrNatvam. (b) shathapatha brAhmaNam talks about the 4 limbs of gAyatrI and whoever knows each limb conquers the three regions, knowledge and all living things. The fourth limb is the lusturous supreme and beyond everything. The fourth limb rests in satyam, satyam is prANa etc. etc. Whoever knows this shines with greatness and glory. It also contains a curious 'atharvan type' viniyoga - after reciting this, if anyone makes an incantation against an enemy, the enemy will certainly meet his doom. © gOpatha brAhmaNam mentions that all creation subsist in gAyatrI. It talks gAyatrI as a duo - savitA-sAvitrI. The first limb of gAyatrI denotes the unbroken connection of prakrti and the paramatma through various intermediate agencies. The second foot denotes the glory of the supreme illuminator and the third limb denotes the understanding of gAyatrI itself. (d) jaiminIya upanishad brAhmaNa (JUB) equates praNava with gAyatrI. gAyatrI is the supreme wisdom and through its knowledge one attains amrtatvam. prajApati attained it through the knowledge of gAyatrI (tadEtat amrtam gAyatram; EtEna vai prajApati: amrtatvam agacchat; EtEna dEvA:; EtEna rshaya:; - JUB III.7.3.1). This wisdom was handed down by supreme brahman to prajApati and is available to posterity through paramEshTin, savitA, agni, indra, vishwedEva: down to kashyapa. It concludes with 'it is immortal sAman'; all others are kAmyAni and do not have enduring spiritual value'. (NOTE: I have relied on veda pramANa and have not resorted to 'scientific evaluation' of gAyatrI meditation). Conclusion: From the pramANas of veda vAkyas, indeed the parabrahman is achieved through gAyatrI ( !!! I'll add a caveat soon ). 2. Empty rituals?: The vEdas themselves do not consider these as empty. On the contrary - there are numerous references to esoteric knowledge that has to be given only to a worthy student or to a worthy son (aitarEya AraNyakam). The significance of the performance of various vedic rituals had a theological basis. As I mentioned in a pervious post, kuru-pAnchAla region was an active spot where these types of debates regularly happened. One can survey the brAhmaNa literature and note the various debates. The one I am immediately reminded of is the debate between glAva maitrEya and prAchInayogya on the significance of agnihotra in shatapatha brAhmaNa, which also reappears in gOpatha brAhmaNa. So, far from being empty rituals, they do have strong syntax and semantics. We should be ashamed for claiming these as empty rituals and at the same time associate ourselves with vedic seers. A graceful gesture would be to completely disassociate with vedas and engage in full time nAma sankIrtan. BTW, if I am right, the pre-requisite for pAncharAtra dIksha is that one has to have undergone upanayana. 3. Mechanical performance Vs bhAva & knowledge: Straw man. It is as if somebody recommends mechanical performance of nitya karma. Apastambha points out the importance of understanding the mantras. There are vedic passages itself that points out the necessity of understanding the rituals (aitarEya brAhmaNa, shathapatha brAhmaNa in the context of mahAvrata, pravargya etc). I don't have the references right now, but can dig them up if necessary. However, non performance of nitya-karmas are categorically condemened in dharma sUtras and smritis. VasishTa & baudhAyana discuss about various pApas that arise out of foresaking nityakarmas (chapter 2 in both?). There are 3 types of pAtakas (paadagam in tamil) - mahApAtaka, atipAtaka and upapAtaka. Nonperformance of nityakarmas is the third type and the others in that list are cow killing, teaching vedas for a person who kills cows, brahmojjha (person who forsakes vedic learning), patita-sAvitrika (who lost the eligibility to learn the sAvitri mantra). One should not give his daughter to such people or perform religious rites for them. This is a sin and has to be atoned through uddAlaka vratam (and chAndrAyanam, if I remember correctly). The conclusion: Performance of the nitya karmas without the proper bhAva may not yield desired result, but non-performance will incur pApam!!!!! Our sampradAyam prescribes performance of them as a kainkaryam to lord. (Attn: Sri SrinivasAchari: The question is for a mumukshu - whether he is bound by the dharmashAstras and whether he will incur sin for non-performance of nityakarmAs. Again, for ordinary souls, this is a non-question.). I disagree with srong terms that rAmAnuja sampradAyam relegates the performance of nitya karmas to optional position. rAmAnuja didn't create a rAmAnuja-smriti or rAmAnuja dharma-sUtra that supercedes the existing kalpa sUtras and declared nityakarmas are unnecessary. (People can think of navyashAstra group - a group of people who want to 'create' a new dharma shastra for hindus :-)) 4. Position of our TK sampradAyam: Thanks for the quotes from lOkAchArya. I also came across maNavALa mAmunigaL's gloss where he says, "the hawk incantation and sorcery rites are allowed for the lowest soul, so much so that he gains belief in our shAstras. Once he crosses that stage, the aforementioned rites are disallowed. Similarly, when a jIva realizes his utter dependency on the lord, the performace of 'shAstra prescribed rites?!' are disallowed". I hope, we are nowhere near that stage. (This in turn mutates into a kalai debate, where our final stance is that the mumukshu should continue to do them for lOka kalyANam etc. etc.). bhAgavatAs may point out my mistakes. In summary - I have not brought in 'yoga-prANAyAma-sandhyA' relations or 'supposed scientific benefits of doing sandhyA' or lowering BP, lowering cholestrol etc. etc. I hope I've stuck to accepted pramANas. If I made any mistakes, I apologize. Regards, Kasturi Rangan ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > > Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan and others, > > I think my original post was loosely put together > and was therefore likely unclear. > > I wasn't recommending or suggesting that nitya karmas > be given up. > > Clearly the incident about Bhattar shows that he was > doing his nitya karmas. > > And while Pillai Lokacharyar added the nitya karmas > to the sarva pApa, as far as my knowledge of his > writings goes, I don't think he has recommended that > they be given up. Learned bhAgavats may correct me > on these. > > However, what I was driving at was this: > > 1. What was the pramANam for Sri Ramachandran's > statement that sandhya vandanam alone cannot be > given up while all other nitya karmas can be > given up. He was even suggesting that worship can > be given up. It is my understanding that, even those > who stress that the nitya karmas are to be followed > without question, state that all nitya karmas be > performed and not just one. > > I can understand a practical logic that the sandhya > is one of the simplest rituals to perform at home > needing no special upakaranas, and giving it up means > you have practically given up everything. Therefore, > the injunction 'don't give it up'. But from the post > it sounded like the sastras themselves give it a > special status. That was the clarification I was > seeking. > > It also raises the question as what to do if pressed > for time between sandhya and another service - for eg, > thiruvArAdhanam. > > 2. Thennacharyas don't give it the special status > that Sri Ramachandran was driving at. That was > the point I wanted to make. 6000padi records > that Bhattar said "bhagavad kainkarya niratharukku > sandhyAvandana kaivalya dOsham vArAdhu". Agreed, > that most of us don't qualify to that state, but > we need to be aware of this. 6000padi also states > that to perform nitya karmas while missing bhagavad > anubhavam is against the nature of the soul. > > 3. The post also suggested that there are many > personal benefits that one gets by doing the > sandhya. From the Thennacharya perspective, these > may be incidental but not crux to the matter. The > nitya karmas are to be done only as kainkaryam to > the Lord. Not for personal gains. > > Hope this clarifies adiyEn's earlier post. > > adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan > > > --- amshuman_k <amshuman_k> wrote: > > Dear Sri Venkatesan, > > Kindly clarify whether the life incident of bhattar is > > quoted as an > > injunction to TK VaishNavas for the non-performance of > > sandhya? > > Regular performance of nityakarmas are typically ordained > > by dharma > > sUtras of one's vedic affiliation (it may appear in grhya > > sutras in > > some cases; smrti digests elaborate the dharma sUtras). > > > > From my limited understanding rAmAnujAchArya never > > attempted to > > tamper the dharma sUtras, veda pramANas and the > > associated > > paraphernalia (and even sanctions sacrifice of goat in > > the context > > of yAgas in his gIta bhAshya). > > > > If I am right, the ashtAdasha bheda nirNaya discusses > > about > > nithyakarmas - "whether an evolved sould will go to hell > > if he > > doesn't perform them": yes -> vadakalai; no -> thenkalai, > > however > > the evolved soul should continue to do them as an example > > for others. > > This is a non question for unevolved souls! > > > > Accept my apologies if I've commited any mistakes or was > > offensive. > > > > Regards, > > Kasturi Rangan > > > > > > > Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes./filing.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 2004 Report Share Posted February 22, 2004 Dear Shri Kasturi Rangan, Thank you for very informative posts on Sandhya, Gayatri and related issues from Brahmanas, Dhramasutras, etc. Needless to say the evidence is overwhelmingly in your favour. I would still have preferred for pramanas from within Sri Ramanuja sampradayam as done in postings of some of the bhagavathas. While there is no intention here to argue that Sri Ramanuja sampradayam is out side the pale of Dharma sUtra, is n't it true that the sampradayam promises something more than Gayatri to its votaries, and that something should be focussed on? Or should we follow Gayatri Upasana, so gloriously praised in Brahmanas, as the be-all-and-end-all? Just to tempt you to disseminate more information from your Vedic research! Regards, Srinivasadasa amshuman_k <amshuman_k wrote: Dear bhAgavatas, I find myself in total agreement with Shri Venkatesan's post. I am proceeding further for a few clarifications. I apologize for not reading earlier (or reading closely) the post of Shri rAmachandran, the contents of which I do not agree fully either. I apologize at this juncture, if the tone of my post is inappropriate. Having said this, it pains me to see that the sandhyavandana, gAyatrI and vedic recitation are regarded by many as empty rituals. The last time I checked, our sampradAyam was still a vaidika dharmam/vaidika matam. Sure, there are other forms of vaishNavism whose scope is restricted only to nAma-sankIrtan, and associated forms of worship. (Probably I am unfair to gaudiyas - from my impression they pay more attention to bhAgavata purANam, instead of shruti pramANam and this, in my humble opinion excludes a possibility of us having a debate with them; we may even debate with advaitins, as we agree on the pramANas! For the same reason we cannot have debate with christians or muslims, as their pramANas are different). I am also mentioning my anguish of seeing the loss of veda shAkhAs right in front of my eyes, at this point. The kAThaka shAkha of krishNa-yajur veda is for all practical purposes extinct. I know a brAhmaNa affiliated with this shAkha and follows logAkshi sUtra (as we follow Apastambha). He refuses to teach his shAkhA to anybody except to those belonging to that branch. He may be the last person of this branch. I gather that jaiminIya shAkha with about 5 chanters in kerala is almost extinct, until Shankara mutt intervened and sent a few students to learn from them. I'll try to discuss issues based on the recent exchanges on this topic. 1. Efficacy of gAyatrI: (a) chAndOgya brAhmaNam says gAyatrI is the entire creation. gAyatrI is prthvI, gAyatrI is the sustainer of all creatures. The supreme one who is indicated by the gAyatrI is sarva-vyApi (reminds one of vishNu), sarva gnyAta and ananta. He who understands gAyatrI attains pUrNatvam. (b) shathapatha brAhmaNam talks about the 4 limbs of gAyatrI and whoever knows each limb conquers the three regions, knowledge and all living things. The fourth limb is the lusturous supreme and beyond everything. The fourth limb rests in satyam, satyam is prANa etc. etc. Whoever knows this shines with greatness and glory. It also contains a curious 'atharvan type' viniyoga - after reciting this, if anyone makes an incantation against an enemy, the enemy will certainly meet his doom. © gOpatha brAhmaNam mentions that all creation subsist in gAyatrI. It talks gAyatrI as a duo - savitA-sAvitrI. The first limb of gAyatrI denotes the unbroken connection of prakrti and the paramatma through various intermediate agencies. The second foot denotes the glory of the supreme illuminator and the third limb denotes the understanding of gAyatrI itself. (d) jaiminIya upanishad brAhmaNa (JUB) equates praNava with gAyatrI. gAyatrI is the supreme wisdom and through its knowledge one attains amrtatvam. prajApati attained it through the knowledge of gAyatrI (tadEtat amrtam gAyatram; EtEna vai prajApati: amrtatvam agacchat; EtEna dEvA:; EtEna rshaya:; - JUB III.7.3.1). This wisdom was handed down by supreme brahman to prajApati and is available to posterity through paramEshTin, savitA, agni, indra, vishwedEva: down to kashyapa. It concludes with 'it is immortal sAman'; all others are kAmyAni and do not have enduring spiritual value'. (NOTE: I have relied on veda pramANa and have not resorted to 'scientific evaluation' of gAyatrI meditation). Conclusion: From the pramANas of veda vAkyas, indeed the parabrahman is achieved through gAyatrI ( !!! I'll add a caveat soon ). 2. Empty rituals?: The vEdas themselves do not consider these as empty. On the contrary - there are numerous references to esoteric knowledge that has to be given only to a worthy student or to a worthy son (aitarEya AraNyakam). The significance of the performance of various vedic rituals had a theological basis. As I mentioned in a pervious post, kuru-pAnchAla region was an active spot where these types of debates regularly happened. One can survey the brAhmaNa literature and note the various debates. The one I am immediately reminded of is the debate between glAva maitrEya and prAchInayogya on the significance of agnihotra in shatapatha brAhmaNa, which also reappears in gOpatha brAhmaNa. So, far from being empty rituals, they do have strong syntax and semantics. We should be ashamed for claiming these as empty rituals and at the same time associate ourselves with vedic seers. A graceful gesture would be to completely disassociate with vedas and engage in full time nAma sankIrtan. BTW, if I am right, the pre-requisite for pAncharAtra dIksha is that one has to have undergone upanayana. 3. Mechanical performance Vs bhAva & knowledge: Straw man. It is as if somebody recommends mechanical performance of nitya karma. Apastambha points out the importance of understanding the mantras. There are vedic passages itself that points out the necessity of understanding the rituals (aitarEya brAhmaNa, shathapatha brAhmaNa in the context of mahAvrata, pravargya etc). I don't have the references right now, but can dig them up if necessary. However, non performance of nitya-karmas are categorically condemened in dharma sUtras and smritis. VasishTa & baudhAyana discuss about various pApas that arise out of foresaking nityakarmas (chapter 2 in both?). There are 3 types of pAtakas (paadagam in tamil) - mahApAtaka, atipAtaka and upapAtaka. Nonperformance of nityakarmas is the third type and the others in that list are cow killing, teaching vedas for a person who kills cows, brahmojjha (person who forsakes vedic learning), patita-sAvitrika (who lost the eligibility to learn the sAvitri mantra). One should not give his daughter to such people or perform religious rites for them. This is a sin and has to be atoned through uddAlaka vratam (and chAndrAyanam, if I remember correctly). The conclusion: Performance of the nitya karmas without the proper bhAva may not yield desired result, but non-performance will incur pApam!!!!! Our sampradAyam prescribes performance of them as a kainkaryam to lord. (Attn: Sri SrinivasAchari: The question is for a mumukshu - whether he is bound by the dharmashAstras and whether he will incur sin for non-performance of nityakarmAs. Again, for ordinary souls, this is a non-question.). I disagree with srong terms that rAmAnuja sampradAyam relegates the performance of nitya karmas to optional position. rAmAnuja didn't create a rAmAnuja-smriti or rAmAnuja dharma-sUtra that supercedes the existing kalpa sUtras and declared nityakarmas are unnecessary. (People can think of navyashAstra group - a group of people who want to 'create' a new dharma shastra for hindus :-)) 4. Position of our TK sampradAyam: Thanks for the quotes from lOkAchArya. I also came across maNavALa mAmunigaL's gloss where he says, "the hawk incantation and sorcery rites are allowed for the lowest soul, so much so that he gains belief in our shAstras. Once he crosses that stage, the aforementioned rites are disallowed. Similarly, when a jIva realizes his utter dependency on the lord, the performace of 'shAstra prescribed rites?!' are disallowed". I hope, we are nowhere near that stage. (This in turn mutates into a kalai debate, where our final stance is that the mumukshu should continue to do them for lOka kalyANam etc. etc.). bhAgavatAs may point out my mistakes. In summary - I have not brought in 'yoga-prANAyAma-sandhyA' relations or 'supposed scientific benefits of doing sandhyA' or lowering BP, lowering cholestrol etc. etc. I hope I've stuck to accepted pramANas. If I made any mistakes, I apologize. Regards, Kasturi Rangan ramanuja, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote: > Sri: > Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: > > Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan and others, > > I think my original post was loosely put together > and was therefore likely unclear. > > I wasn't recommending or suggesting that nitya karmas > be given up. > > Clearly the incident about Bhattar shows that he was > doing his nitya karmas. > > And while Pillai Lokacharyar added the nitya karmas > to the sarva pApa, as far as my knowledge of his > writings goes, I don't think he has recommended that > they be given up. Learned bhAgavats may correct me > on these. > > However, what I was driving at was this: > > 1. What was the pramANam for Sri Ramachandran's > statement that sandhya vandanam alone cannot be > given up while all other nitya karmas can be > given up. He was even suggesting that worship can > be given up. It is my understanding that, even those > who stress that the nitya karmas are to be followed > without question, state that all nitya karmas be > performed and not just one. > > I can understand a practical logic that the sandhya > is one of the simplest rituals to perform at home > needing no special upakaranas, and giving it up means > you have practically given up everything. Therefore, > the injunction 'don't give it up'. But from the post > it sounded like the sastras themselves give it a > special status. That was the clarification I was > seeking. > > It also raises the question as what to do if pressed > for time between sandhya and another service - for eg, > thiruvArAdhanam. > > 2. Thennacharyas don't give it the special status > that Sri Ramachandran was driving at. That was > the point I wanted to make. 6000padi records > that Bhattar said "bhagavad kainkarya niratharukku > sandhyAvandana kaivalya dOsham vArAdhu". Agreed, > that most of us don't qualify to that state, but > we need to be aware of this. 6000padi also states > that to perform nitya karmas while missing bhagavad > anubhavam is against the nature of the soul. > > 3. The post also suggested that there are many > personal benefits that one gets by doing the > sandhya. From the Thennacharya perspective, these > may be incidental but not crux to the matter. The > nitya karmas are to be done only as kainkaryam to > the Lord. Not for personal gains. > > Hope this clarifies adiyEn's earlier post. > > adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan > > > --- amshuman_k <amshuman_k> wrote: > > Dear Sri Venkatesan, > > Kindly clarify whether the life incident of bhattar is > > quoted as an > > injunction to TK VaishNavas for the non-performance of > > sandhya? > > Regular performance of nityakarmas are typically ordained > > by dharma > > sUtras of one's vedic affiliation (it may appear in grhya > > sutras in > > some cases; smrti digests elaborate the dharma sUtras). > > > > From my limited understanding rAmAnujAchArya never > > attempted to > > tamper the dharma sUtras, veda pramANas and the > > associated > > paraphernalia (and even sanctions sacrifice of goat in > > the context > > of yAgas in his gIta bhAshya). > > > > If I am right, the ashtAdasha bheda nirNaya discusses > > about > > nithyakarmas - "whether an evolved sould will go to hell > > if he > > doesn't perform them": yes -> vadakalai; no -> thenkalai, > > however > > the evolved soul should continue to do them as an example > > for others. > > This is a non question for unevolved souls! > > > > Accept my apologies if I've commited any mistakes or was > > offensive. > > > > Regards, > > Kasturi Rangan > > > > > > > Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. > http://taxes./filing.html azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam Sponsor Click Here ramanuja/ ramanuja Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2004 Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 Dear Sri Srinivasa chari, Accept my praNAms. Seems like you are not convinced about gAyatrI :-). First of all the sAvitrI mantra is not for everybody and you are right in that our sampradAyam promises something more - eligibility of women, shUdras and avarNas (no offence is meant for any category). If I am right, only the twice-born were eligible for seeking brahma- gnyana according to advaitins. I don't have the 'nityam' work by rAmAnuja with me right now but remember seeing brahma yagnyam, vaiswedevam etc. apart from sandhya as daily duties. Let us go from here. #1: pAncharAtra samhitas have a distinct vaishNava type sandyavandanam. There the gAyatrI mantra is not chanted, but vishNu gAyatrI in morning, dvAdashaksharI in afternoon and ashtAksharI in the evening. Our pUrvAchAryas did not throw away the existing 'vedic' sandhya into dustbin, right? Perhaps, throwing it away and replacing with Agamic practices might be a good idea. Subsequent generations may not be squeamish about worshipping 'various vedic deities' apart from nArAyaNa and 'can have the right bhAvam', because worship of nArAyaNa is explicit instead of as a hidden antaryAmi in vedic savita, agni, mitra, varuNa, indra etc. #2: What is the scope of rAmAnuja sampradAyam? Was it vedanta or elucidation of dharma sUtras? It isn't necessary to go over dharma sUtras, shruti etc. once again, as we accept them as pramANas (unlike bauddhas and jainas who reject them). Our issues are with mImAmsakas who relegate gnyAna kAndam as mere artha vAdam and hence unnecessary (though we may agree with them with respect to karma kAndam) and advaitins, who according to us give distorted meaning for upanishads . #3: If a shUdra or avarNa is guaranteed eligibility for brahma gnyAna and moksha, what is the necessity to do any of the vedic practices? At most, by forsaking them, a dvija will be a bhrashtA, but still have eligibility for brahma gnyAnam & moksham, in our sampradAyam, right? Why then sandhya is included in the nityam? Forgive me if I seem to be beating around the bush. My understanding (may be incorrect) is that rAmAnuja need not and would not say 'gAyatrI upAsana' is be all and end all, because that would exclude women, shUdras and avarNas. However, that automatically doesn't imply that those who are eligible should go ahead and foresake it, as he includes performance of them in his nityam. He doesn't need to re-describe the efficacy of them, because it was already done so by vedas, by our rishis and sUtrakAras. We don't have any objection to the works of sUtrakAras. (We go to the extent of allowing animal sacrifice in the context of srauta yagnyas and do not accept the pishTa pashu (flour animal) replacement that madhvas use. Remember, suggestion of pishTa pashu (jain polemic nIlAkshi for e.g., vayu purANam) was there for a long time and rAmAnuja had an option of adopting it). However, nowhere it is said that you can go ahead and ignore all others except sandhyA. The subtle difference as pointed out by Shri Venkatesan is, "even if you ignore all others, do not ignore sandhyA". Regards, Kasturi Rangan ramanuja, srinivasa chary <srinivasadasa> wrote: > Dear Shri Kasturi Rangan, > Thank you for very informative posts on Sandhya, Gayatri and related issues from Brahmanas, Dhramasutras, etc. Needless to say the evidence is overwhelmingly in your favour. I would still have preferred for pramanas from within Sri Ramanuja sampradayam as done in postings of some of the bhagavathas. While there is no intention here to argue that Sri Ramanuja sampradayam is out side the pale of Dharma sUtra, is n't it true that the sampradayam promises something more than Gayatri to its votaries, and that something should be focussed on? Or should we follow Gayatri Upasana, so gloriously praised in Brahmanas, as the be-all-and-end-all? > Just to tempt you to disseminate more information from your Vedic research! > Regards, > Srinivasadasa > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 2004 Report Share Posted February 23, 2004 Dear Sriman Kasturi Rangan, Dasoham. I am more than convinced about Gayatri and Sandhya as a "Nitya karma". Thanks a lot for your painstaking effort at well reasoned discussion. It is extremely educative to uninformed people like me. My point is a little different. For exmaple I do not think that your statement "rAmAnuja need not and would not say 'gAyatrI upAsana' is be all and end all, because that would exclude women, shUdras and avarNas. However, that automatically doesn't imply that those who are eligible should go ahead and foresak" is correctly capturing Ramanuja's views. I am not denying that the "Nitya karma" should be scrupulously followed as it is part of "varnashrama dharma". My point is "Ramanuja need not and would not say 'Gayatri Upasana' is be all and end all", because he does not think so (my understanding) in the context of "parama purushartha" that is "moksha". Not because he has some social agenda!!! I do not think that Sri Ramanuja is prescribing "Bhakti and Prapatti" for non-dvijas and "Nitya karma" as "mokshopaya". Ofcourse, in the process I am not trying to diminish the importance of "Nitya karma". I just want to say that it has got its context. Again, I thought I should not drag issue further, purely because somewhere I seem to be ending on the wrong side of "Nitya karma" discussion, for that is not my wont. But, this discussion seems to have lot of educational value in the topics rarely discussed in Srivaishanva fora. Hence, I dare to keep the issue alive. Adiyen Srinivasadasa P.S. : Some where I read that Sri Sudarshana Suri of "Shrutaprakashika" fame has written a commentary on "Apasthamba Dharma Sutra" (Or is it Gruhya Sutra?). Probably that may throw more light on whole lot of vidika karmas from our sampradayic perspective amshuman_k <amshuman_k wrote: Dear Sri Srinivasa chari, Accept my praNAms. Seems like you are not convinced about gAyatrI :-). First of all the sAvitrI mantra is not for everybody and you are right in that our sampradAyam promises something more - eligibility of women, shUdras and avarNas (no offence is meant for any category). If I am right, only the twice-born were eligible for seeking brahma- gnyana according to advaitins. I don't have the 'nityam' work by rAmAnuja with me right now but remember seeing brahma yagnyam, vaiswedevam etc. apart from sandhya as daily duties. Let us go from here. #1: pAncharAtra samhitas have a distinct vaishNava type sandyavandanam. There the gAyatrI mantra is not chanted, but vishNu gAyatrI in morning, dvAdashaksharI in afternoon and ashtAksharI in the evening. Our pUrvAchAryas did not throw away the existing 'vedic' sandhya into dustbin, right? Perhaps, throwing it away and replacing with Agamic practices might be a good idea. Subsequent generations may not be squeamish about worshipping 'various vedic deities' apart from nArAyaNa and 'can have the right bhAvam', because worship of nArAyaNa is explicit instead of as a hidden antaryAmi in vedic savita, agni, mitra, varuNa, indra etc. #2: What is the scope of rAmAnuja sampradAyam? Was it vedanta or elucidation of dharma sUtras? It isn't necessary to go over dharma sUtras, shruti etc. once again, as we accept them as pramANas (unlike bauddhas and jainas who reject them). Our issues are with mImAmsakas who relegate gnyAna kAndam as mere artha vAdam and hence unnecessary (though we may agree with them with respect to karma kAndam) and advaitins, who according to us give distorted meaning for upanishads . #3: If a shUdra or avarNa is guaranteed eligibility for brahma gnyAna and moksha, what is the necessity to do any of the vedic practices? At most, by forsaking them, a dvija will be a bhrashtA, but still have eligibility for brahma gnyAnam & moksham, in our sampradAyam, right? Why then sandhya is included in the nityam? Forgive me if I seem to be beating around the bush. My understanding (may be incorrect) is that rAmAnuja need not and would not say 'gAyatrI upAsana' is be all and end all, because that would exclude women, shUdras and avarNas. However, that automatically doesn't imply that those who are eligible should go ahead and foresake it, as he includes performance of them in his nityam. He doesn't need to re-describe the efficacy of them, because it was already done so by vedas, by our rishis and sUtrakAras. We don't have any objection to the works of sUtrakAras. (We go to the extent of allowing animal sacrifice in the context of srauta yagnyas and do not accept the pishTa pashu (flour animal) replacement that madhvas use. Remember, suggestion of pishTa pashu (jain polemic nIlAkshi for e.g., vayu purANam) was there for a long time and rAmAnuja had an option of adopting it). However, nowhere it is said that you can go ahead and ignore all others except sandhyA. The subtle difference as pointed out by Shri Venkatesan is, "even if you ignore all others, do not ignore sandhyA". Regards, Kasturi Rangan ramanuja, srinivasa chary <srinivasadasa> wrote: > Dear Shri Kasturi Rangan, > Thank you for very informative posts on Sandhya, Gayatri and related issues from Brahmanas, Dhramasutras, etc. Needless to say the evidence is overwhelmingly in your favour. I would still have preferred for pramanas from within Sri Ramanuja sampradayam as done in postings of some of the bhagavathas. While there is no intention here to argue that Sri Ramanuja sampradayam is out side the pale of Dharma sUtra, is n't it true that the sampradayam promises something more than Gayatri to its votaries, and that something should be focussed on? Or should we follow Gayatri Upasana, so gloriously praised in Brahmanas, as the be-all-and-end-all? > Just to tempt you to disseminate more information from your Vedic research! > Regards, > Srinivasadasa > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam Sponsor Click Here ramanuja/ ramanuja Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 2004 Report Share Posted February 24, 2004 Dear Sri Srinivasachary, The question boils down to "Can gAyatrI upAsanA yield moksha?" I was deliberately avoiding this issue, as it would mutate into other unrelated discussions like bhakti/prapatti, sahEtuka krpA/nirhEtuka krpA etc. etc. I don't think we can afford to say, gAyatrI upAsanA cannot yield mOksha because it directly contradicts chAndOgya brAhmaNam and we have a (probably unnecessary :-)) baggage of affiliation with vaidika dharmam. If we do so, advaitins and mImAmsakas (if they still exist) will have a field day and rip our sampradAya apart charging us with the crime of going against vEdas. Moreover, gAyatrI vidyA is one among many vidyAs mentioned in the upanishads along with others like bhUmA vidyA, dahara vidyA, madhu vidyA(*) etc. There is then a tricky issue of our TK sampradAyam - whether any of these can constitute an upAyam for mOksham, as a jIva is utterly dependent on the lord and any conscious effort on jIva's part is against his nature. The madhu vidyA is of particular interest to me as it is directly traceable to the Rg & Atharva samhitas, hinted in the context of pravargya ritual in shathapatha brAhmaNa apart from being described in madhubrAhmaNa of brhadAraNyaka upanishad. (This in turn confirms my observation - the division of vedas into samhita/brAhmaNam/AraNyakam/upanishad is not entirely true and vedas themselves do not know of karmakAndam/gnyAnakAndam division). The only valid division (at least according to me) is matras & brAhmaNas. This should be a separate thread. Good that you brought up our shrutaprakAshar sudarshana sUri. He has written commentary on Apastamba grhya sUtra called tatparyadarshanam and refutes views of an earlier commentator haradatta. This haradatta has written a commentary on the entire Apastamba kalpa sUtra, including the dharma sUtra. I don't know whether sudarshana sUri commented on dharma sUtra. He is supposed to have written sandhyAvandana bhAshyam, commentary on Apastamba mantra pATham and chAndOgya upanishad and subAla upanishad. Probably, his sandhyAvandana bhAshyam might throw more light on how our early AchAryas viewed nitya karmas. I did not have the bhAgyam of reading it. Regards, Kasturi Rangan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 ramanuja, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k> wrote: > Dear bhAgavatas, > > > Having said this, it pains me to see that the sandhyavandana, >gAyatrI > and vedic recitation are regarded by many as empty rituals. The >last > time I checked, our sampradAyam was still a vaidika dharmam/vaidika > matam. Sure, there are other forms of vaishNavism whose scope is > restricted only to nAma-sankIrtan, and associated forms of worship. > (Probably I am unfair to gaudiyas - from my impression they pay > more > attention to bhAgavata purANam, instead of shruti pramANam and >this, > in my humble opinion excludes a possibility of us having a debate > with them; we may even debate with advaitins, as we agree on the > pramANas! For the same reason we cannot have debate with christians > or muslims, as their pramANas are different). Dear Sriman Kasturi Rangan, Riutals are not empty but stand as metaphors for something. sandhyAvandana by its very meaning is a prayer to be offered during sandhyA (sunrise, sunset, mid-noon?). Initially I was also not liking gaudIyas as they were not heavily ritualsitic and do not chant vEdas to the extent our people chant in temples. Later I realized that I was committing bhAgavata apachAram. They have transcended the barriers of caste and race. However, they require extensive nAma sankIrtan as a means to reach Him. Our TK sampradAyam is much more simpler as it does not require that even. > > I'll try to discuss issues based on the recent exchanges on this > topic. > > 1. Efficacy of gAyatrI: > (a) chAndOgya brAhmaNam says gAyatrI is the entire creation. gAyatrI > is prthvI, gAyatrI is the sustainer of all creatures. The supreme one > who is indicated by the gAyatrI is sarva-vyApi (reminds one of > vishNu), sarva gnyAta and ananta. He who understands gAyatrI attains > pUrNatvam. That is what I was saying in my first mail. Instead of associating with chanting and relegating it to some kind of nAma sankIrtan, one should try to understand the meaning and follow it. For ashtAkksharI mantra, the key for not doing japam (in TK sampradAyam) is there in the meaning itself. When we do not do the japam of the highest mantra itself, there is no harm (and associated pApa) if gAyatrI japam is not done. > > 2. Empty rituals?: > The vEdas themselves do not consider these as empty. On the contrary - > there are numerous references to esoteric knowledge that has to be > given only to a worthy student or to a worthy son (aitarEya > AraNyakam). The significance of the performance of various vedic > rituals had a theological basis. As I mentioned in a pervious post, > kuru-pAnchAla region was an active spot where these types of debates > regularly happened. One can survey the brAhmaNa literature and note > the various debates. The one I am immediately reminded of is the > debate between glAva maitrEya and prAchInayogya on the significance > of agnihotra in shatapatha brAhmaNa, which also reappears in gOpatha > brAhmaNa. So, far from being empty rituals, they do have strong > syntax and semantics. We should be ashamed for claiming these as > empty rituals and at the same time associate ourselves with vedic > seers. A graceful gesture would be to completely disassociate with > vedas and engage in full time nAma sankIrtan. Even nAma sankIrtan is not necessary! Just thinking of Him as our means of liberation (for our own confidence) is enough. > > BTW, if I am right, the pre-requisite for pAncharAtra dIksha is > that > one has to have undergone upanayana. > > > However, non performance of nitya-karmas are categorically > condemened > in dharma sUtras and smritis. VasishTa & baudhAyana discuss about > various pApas that arise out of foresaking nityakarmas (chapter 2 >in > both?). > > There are 3 types of pAtakas (paadagam in tamil) - mahApAtaka, > atipAtaka and upapAtaka. Nonperformance of nityakarmas is the third > type and the others in that list are cow killing, teaching vedas > for > a person who kills cows, brahmojjha (person who forsakes vedic > learning), patita-sAvitrika (who lost the eligibility to learn the > sAvitri mantra). Many more things can be quoted from samskrta texts. Certainly a person having faith in SrImannArAyaNa gets rid of all puNya pApa without doing anything for getting rid of the same. For us nitya karmAs are vAzhvinai (guNa kIrtanam NOT nAma sankIrtan) and adimai. our very nature is destroyed by non-performance of these two but bhagavAn may still be kind toward us. >> > The conclusion: Performance of the nitya karmas without the proper > bhAva may not yield desired result, but non-performance will incur > pApam!!!!! Our sampradAyam prescribes performance of them as a > kainkaryam to lord. I agree with the last statement of the above paragraph. While doing kainkaryam, one should not think - I am doing this kainkaryam and am associated with the results. This applies to not doing as well. Therefore not doing a kainkaryam is not a sin. At the same time, we do many kainkaryams (including rituals) to express our SEshatvam. > > (Attn: Sri SrinivasAchari: The question is for a mumukshu - whether > he is bound by the dharmashAstras and whether he will incur sin for > non-performance of nityakarmAs. Again, for ordinary souls, this is a > non-question.). > > I disagree with srong terms that rAmAnuja sampradAyam relegates the > performance of nitya karmas to optional position. rAmAnuja didn't > create a rAmAnuja-smriti or rAmAnuja dharma-sUtra that supercedes > the > existing kalpa sUtras and declared nityakarmas are unnecessary. > (People can think of navyashAstra group - a group of people who want > to 'create' a new dharma shastra for hindus :-)) We have divya prabandham. So what AchArya rAmAnuja did is to present the ideas contained in the prabandham to people lacking exposure to it. AchAryas like SrI Bhattar, PiLLai lOkAchArya were more explicit, I heard. > > > 4. Position of our TK sampradAyam: > Thanks for the quotes from lOkAchArya. I also came across maNavALa > mAmunigaL's gloss where he says, "the hawk incantation and sorcery > rites are allowed for the lowest soul, so much so that he gains > belief in our shAstras. Once he crosses that stage, the > aforementioned rites are disallowed. Similarly, when a jIva >realizes > his utter dependency on the lord, the performace of 'shAstra > prescribed rites?!' are disallowed". I hope, we are nowhere near > that > stage. I do not know in what context the AchArya said it. But certainly he is not advising us to practice/follow sorcery etc. Being an engineering degree holder, I may believe in sorcery etc. But at least those who studied basic sciences need not. To couner this, one may say we are nothing before nature, God, etc. But we already have Him as the biggest magician, right! > > In summary - I have not brought in 'yoga-prANAyAma-sandhyA' relations > or 'supposed scientific benefits of doing sandhyA' or lowering BP, > lowering cholestrol etc. etc. I hope I've stuck to accepted > pramANas. If u accept divya prabandha as a pramANa (higher than all others), performance or non-performance of any rite does not come into picture. dAsan Vishnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 2004 Report Share Posted February 25, 2004 Dear Vishnu & bhAgavatas, I'll clarify something explicitly, which was always implicit in my previous posts. #1. I never claimed gaudias belong to some 'inferior sampradAyam' than us, because they foresake vedic chanting and vedic rituals. #2. I never claimed that 'somehow being affiliated with vedas/vedic practices/vedic rishis' is quintessential to attain mOksha. It is a matter of definiton - There may be other valid ways to attain mOksha, but the point I was making was, you cannot call yourself a srI vaishNava brAhman and yet foresake vedic practices. Our pUrvAchAryas did not ignore them and some have even performed srauta sacrifices like agnishToma. That bhagavAn is a karuNAmUrti and he will forgive you for your sins is a different issue. (Are you accepting that this is a sin after all :-) ?) Regards, Kasturi Rangan .K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 ramanuja, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k> wrote: > Dear Vishnu & bhAgavatas, > I'll clarify something explicitly, which was always implicit in my > previous posts. > > #1. I never claimed gaudias belong to some 'inferior sampradAyam' > than us, because they foresake vedic chanting and vedic rituals. Dear Kasturi Rangan, > > #2. I never claimed that 'somehow being affiliated with vedas/vedic > practices/vedic rishis' is quintessential to attain mOksha. Nice to know that. > > It is a matter of definiton - There may be other valid ways to attain > mOksha, but the point I was making was, you cannot call yourself a > srI vaishNava brAhman and yet foresake vedic practices. We have neither forsaken fully nor asked anyone to forsake. At the same time, we have no goal to call ourselves SrIvasihNava brAhmaNas by doing certian practices expected you. Hope you have limited the point you were making to emails. In real life, majority of the people have already forsaken the practices you expect due to non-religious reasons. > Our > pUrvAchAryas did not ignore them and some have even performed > srauta > sacrifices like agnishToma. At least I was not referring to so many vEdic practices, ignored or adhered to by our AchAryas. I was focussing only on rituals, taking sandhyAvandanam as an example. Not all vEdic practices are rituals. Also not all rituals are vEdic. > > That bhagavAn is a karuNAmUrti and he will forgive you for your > sins > is a different issue. Agreed it is a different issue. >(Are you accepting that this is a sin after > all :-) ?) Please read my previous mail. rAmAnuja dAsan Vishnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 Hi, > we have no goal to call ourselves SrIvasihNava brAhmaNas > by doing certian practices expected you. Hope you have limited the > point you were making to emails. If that is the case, I don't have anything in reply :-). BTW, any idea why the homepage of the list read "Discussion forum for everyone interested in the way of life as taught by the vEdic rishis and AzhvArs....", as opposed to "... life as taught by AzhvArs..." ?? > In real life, majority of the people > have already forsaken the practices you expect due to non-religious > reasons. That is a topic for a new thread. > > Our > > pUrvAchAryas did not ignore them and some have even performed > > srauta > > sacrifices like agnishToma. > At least I was not referring to so many vEdic practices, ignored or > adhered to by our AchAryas. I was focussing only on rituals, taking > sandhyAvandanam as an example. Not all vEdic practices are rituals. > Also not all rituals are vEdic. I think we are heading towards a word play here. 'vEdic practices' as opposed to 'rituals'? Why is agnishToma a 'vEdic practice' and 'sandhyAvandam' a ritual? Did our pUrvAchAryas say so? Is it really correct to use a christian word and concept 'ritual' to describe aspect of our sampradAya? >>Not all 'rituals' are vEdic -<< True. I'll add one more -- 'not all practices are vEdic'. So, according to you, is thiruvArAdhanam a 'ritual' or 'practice'? If so, what about 'reciting NDP'? Why can't it be called a 'ritual'? How about 'thinking about God'? Regards, Kasturi Rangan .K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.