Sandhya/Gayathri related

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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..

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

>

[Guest guest]

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.

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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