Simple, yet so difficult

[Guest guest]

Dear Dileepan:

 

A well written and relevant article. The only way we can stem the tide is

to first understand why people do what they do (eventhough they may not be

frank enough to accept the reasons behind their doing) and then show them

what Sri Vaishnavaism can offer them instead. One answer may be that it is

not possible.

 

Having a good education, good health, good standard of living, peace and

happiness in personal and work-life, children's future etc., are

predominantly in people's mind and I would say for most obtaining mokshA is

the least of concerns. Most people turn to religion - only if they are hurt

in the material realm. They go to whomsoever that can provide succour.

Hence Sai Baba and similar gurus have such a sway on the mass mind as it is

apparent. Sri VaishnavAs are no exception.

 

Now going back to the positive aspects - this is Adiyen's observation. As

far as Pujas and rituals are concerned people predominantly prefer to go to

anya dEvatAs. The general belief is EmperumAn is slow in granting relief

from a painful suffering in the material realm. Where it is a question of

expressing Bhakti, it is generally towards Rama or Krishna. Our Lord enjoys

unquestionable supremacy in Bhajans.

 

According to strict orthodox achAryAs even Sudarsana Homam was not done by

Sri VaishnavAs (kAmyArtham). However, the modern day Sri Vaishnavism

recognizes the need for kAmya karmAs and even our achAryas are showing some

leniency in allowing this tendency to prevail. Therefore, it looks to me

that more adaptation along similar lines will be required if Sri Vaishnavism

has to bring in its fold more and more of the 'so-called' lost Sri

VaishnavAs.

 

With these thoughts, I would let other honorable members of the group, to

kindly continue the discussion on this very important topic.

 

Dasan

 

Vijayaraghavan

Buffalo, NY

 

> " Parthasarati Dileepan " <Dileepan

><Dileepan

> " Malolan_Net (AT) Egroups (DOT) Com "

>Simple, yet so difficult

>Fri, 22 Oct 1999 11:51:12 -0400

>

>Sri:

>Sri Lakshmi nrisimha parabrahmaNE nama:

>Sri Lakshmi nrisimha divya paduka sevaka

> srivan satakopa sri narayana yatindra mahadesikaya nama:

>

>Dear Bhagavathas:

>

>As prapannaas (or wannabe prapannas), freedom from association of

>anyadevatA

>is extremely important. It is a simple concept, yet, it seems, there is

>much opposition to it. There are many challenges to this idea of absolute

>fidelity.

>

>Why, is it not Sriman Narayana who is the inner soul of all including the

>anya devatA? Then what is wrong in a prayer to an anya devatA since we

>know

>that the prayer ultimately reaches Sriman Narayana?

>

>Some others say, only prapanna's must refrain from anya devatA contact.

>Prior to prapatti there is no harm, as long as the prayer is not for

>material benefit.

>

>Yet others quote Azhvaar's verses and allege equality among gods.

>

>In this season of just ended Golu and the culminating pUjAs, it is probably

>instructive to remind ourselves of what our AchAryAs say about this matter.

>As NammAzhAr says, " sonnAl virOdham ithu " , what adiyEn is about to say may

>cause animosity. Yet, " Agilum solluvEn kENmin " , adiyEn shall say, please

>listen.

>

>In ThiruvAymozhi 3.9.1, Swami NammaazhvAr says,

>

> " sonnAl virOdhamithu Agilum solluvEn kENminO,

>ennaavil inkavi yAnoruvarkkum kodukkilEn,

>thennA thenAvenRu vaNdu mural thiruvEngadatthu,

>ennAnai ennappan emperumaan uLanaagavE. "

>

>

>(What I am about to say may cause animosity,

>yet I shall say it, please listen, the sweet songs

>from my tongue are not for anyone but my lord,

>my master, my supreme, who dwells in the hills

>of Thiruvengadam filled with the chirping noise

>from the swirling bees.)

>

>What adiyEn is about to say is verified by Srimad Azhagiya Singar at one

>time or another. Therefore, even at the risk of provoking the ire of

>some,

>adiyEn is presenting this as a kainkaryam for my master, my lord, my

>supreme, Srimad Azhagiya Singar's Thiruvadi.

>

>AzhvAr verses equate all the gods

>-

>This argument is designed to confuse sincere bhakthaas. They quote from

>muthalAzhvaars and Nammaazhvar to make their point. But the argument has

>no

>merit. There are countless verses extolling the unique supremacy of Sriman

>Narayana (dah!). There are just a few that, on the surface, seem to lend

>support to the argument that Siva, Brahmma, and Vishnu are equal. But, a

>review of these few verses quickly reveals that the inner soul of the anya

>devatAs is meant in these instances. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

>Perumal is the supreme and he indwells all. For more details, please refer

>to past posts on this subject from the archive.

>

>Pray to the in-dweller

>---------------------

>The next objection is, if Sriman Narayana indwells all, what is wrong in

>offering prayer to anya devathas with the thought that you are actually

>praying to the inner soul, Sriman Narayana? This is a specious argument.

>If this is taken as valid, one can pray to a stool, or Bill Clinton, or

>even

>Adolf Hitler.

>

>A further objection is raised, after all we pray to Brahmma, Sivan, Indran,

>Agni, etc. during the course of nithya karma. Therefore, what is the

>problem if we pray to other devathas, especially if we do it in the spirit

>of directing the prayer to Sriman Narayana who is the inner soul?

>

>Swami Sri Desikan has clearly rejected this view. Refer to Chillarai

>Rahasyam, sAraSngrajam #1. True, we do offer our obeisance to anya devatAs

>during the performance of nithya karmas. But it is because we cannot

>forsake these karmas. Swami Sri Desikan says, only during the performance

>of the karmaas that must not be given up could we offer our prayer to these

>devatAs. Even during these times, we must offer the prayer only to the

>inner soul of these devatAs, which is Sriman Narayana. In other words, we

>must not offer our prayers to anya devatAs, even with the thought that it

>is

>offered to Sriman Narayana who pervades them as their inner soul, except

>during the performance of nithya karma. Even during nithya karma, and only

>during the performance of nithya karmas, when such prayer cannot be

>avoided,

>it must be done with the thought that the prayer is for Sriman Narayana who

>is the inner soul of these devatAnthrAs.

>

>Here, Swami Sri Desikan warns that if one prays to any other devatAs,

>paramaikAnthIs, ii.e. AcAryAs in our case, will abandon him. This is

>pointed out by Thirumangai AzhvAr in Periya Thirumozhi 8.10.3.

>

>maRRumOr dheyvam uLathenRu iruppaarOdu

>uRRilEn, uRRathum unnadiyaarkku adimai,

>maRRellam pEsilum nin thiruvettezhuththum

>kaRRu, naan kaNNapuraththuRai ammaanE!

>

>(O! Lord of KaNNapuram, I have learnt the esoteric

>meaning of ThiruvashtAksharam, I will refrain from

>the contact of those who even think that there exists

>another god; but I will eagerly be a servant of

>bhaktAs who pray exclusively to you.)

>

>(Aside: ThiruvashtAksharam talks about our servitude to Sriman Narayana,

>How

>come Azhvar says servitude to BhAgavatAs is what he understands as the

>meaning of it? Well, for this and much more esoteric meanings of this

>verse, please refer to Sri Uttamoor Swami commentary, Prabhandha rakshai.)

>

>What Azhvaar says here is what Swami Sri Desikan is warning us against.

>Like the Azhvar who will reject the association of those who even think

>that

>anya devatas exist, our AchAryAs will reject any of us who maintains

>contact

>with anya devathas.

>

>No harm if done for non-material benefit

>--------

>There are some who propose that praying to anya devathAs is fine if it is

>not for any material benefit. This is nonsence. If you are a prapanna or

>a

>would be prapannas, what non-material benefit are you after that only these

>anya devatAs can give? What is the purpose? Some may say why not ask for

>bhakti towards Sriman Narayana? But can they give you that? More

>importantly, why must we go to them for bhakti that Sriman Narayana is

>ready

>and waiting to give us. If your husband is ready and eager to shower you

>with his love, would you go to the next door neighbor and ask him to make

>you love your husband? It is well known that all Perumal is looking for is

>an excuse to confer us with all his grace. We do not need any other

>devatAs

>to support or enhance our bhakti. All we have to do is to approach a

>sadAcArya and act according to the AcAryAs will. No need for contact with

>anya devatAs for non-material benefit.

>

>It is okay for non-prapannas

>----------------------------

>Another funny argument is that only prapannas are required to refrain from

>anya devatAs. It is alright for non-prapannas to pray to them, especially

>if it is not for material benefit. The material benefit part is already

>answered above. The answer to the first part lies in the obvious answer to

>the following questions. Is a girl required to be faithful to her husband

>only after marriage? Is it alright for a girl to do anything she very well

>pleases before marriage?

>

>Golu, saraswati pUja, etc.

>--------------------------

>VaithikAs do not observe any of these. However, if it is a family

>practice,

>especially in families with little girls, it is not forbidden to set up a

>golu. But make sure it is free from any anya devatA dolls. If you offer

>any fruits or other items for the golu, distribute them to others, do not

>consume them.

>

>As for as Sarasvathi pUjA is concerned, some say it is okay to do

>LakshmihyagrIva pUja on that day. A pertinent question is, do you do

>LakshmihayagrIva pooja pUja on LakshmihayagrIva jayanthi? If not, then it

>follows that you are actually doing Sarasvathi pUja to LakshmihayagrIva

>vigraham. This is the worst of all possible cases. If you have the

>practice of performing LaskhmIhayagrIva pUja on His jayanti, then if you

>want to do this pUja on Sarasvathi pUja day also, then it is probably okay.

>Please check with your AcharyA to be sure.

>

>The concept of absolute fidelity is very simple, yet it is a contentious

>issue even (especially) among Sri Vaishnavas. Even smArthAs and others may

>understand our exclusive worship of Sriman Narayana. But, with the

>onslaught of Satya Saibhabha, Chinmayananda, and scores of other bhagavAns,

>it is Sri Vaishnavas who criticize us as narrow minded et al. Let me

>conclude this post with the following beautiful verse from Kaliyan's Periya

>Thirumozhi 11.6.6. Please try to read the Tamil verse. It is simply

>great.

>Please note, Srimad Azhagiya Singar cited this verse during Thathva, Hitha,

>Pururshartha series.

>

>pEyirukku neduveLLam peruvisumbin meethOdip perukukAlam,

>thAyirukkum vaNNamE ummaiththan vayiRRiruththi uyyakkoNdAn,

>pOyirukka maRRingOr puthuttheyvam koNdAdum thoNdeer, peRRa

>thAyirukka maNai ven^n^eer AttuthirO mAttAtha thakavaRReerE!

>

>(Like a mother our Lord protects all of you during the deluge of praLayam.

>yet, like pampering a peace of wood while your mother is neglected,

>why do you seek all the new gods and loose the grace of Lord.)

>

>Alas! the beauty of the above verse is lost in adiyEn's poor translation

>

>srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

>

>-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

> (dileepan)

>[[ PARTHA~1.VCF : 3852 in winmail.dat ]]

>

>

>------

>Srimate Sri Laksminrisimha Divya Paduka Sevaka

>Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama:

>

><< winmail.dat >>

 

 

S. Vijayaraghavan

Buffalo/NY

 

____

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha parabrahmaNE nama:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha divya paduka sevaka

srivan satakopa sri narayana yatindra mahadesikaya nama:

 

Dear Bhagavathas:

 

As prapannaas (or wannabe prapannas), freedom from association of anyadevatA

is extremely important. It is a simple concept, yet, it seems, there is

much opposition to it. There are many challenges to this idea of absolute

fidelity.

 

Why, is it not Sriman Narayana who is the inner soul of all including the

anya devatA? Then what is wrong in a prayer to an anya devatA since we know

that the prayer ultimately reaches Sriman Narayana?

 

Some others say, only prapanna's must refrain from anya devatA contact.

Prior to prapatti there is no harm, as long as the prayer is not for

material benefit.

 

Yet others quote Azhvaar's verses and allege equality among gods.

 

In this season of just ended Golu and the culminating pUjAs, it is probably

instructive to remind ourselves of what our AchAryAs say about this matter.

As NammAzhAr says, " sonnAl virOdham ithu " , what adiyEn is about to say may

cause animosity. Yet, " Agilum solluvEn kENmin " , adiyEn shall say, please

listen.

 

In ThiruvAymozhi 3.9.1, Swami NammaazhvAr says,

 

" sonnAl virOdhamithu Agilum solluvEn kENminO,

ennaavil inkavi yAnoruvarkkum kodukkilEn,

thennA thenAvenRu vaNdu mural thiruvEngadatthu,

ennAnai ennappan emperumaan uLanaagavE. "

 

 

(What I am about to say may cause animosity,

yet I shall say it, please listen, the sweet songs

from my tongue are not for anyone but my lord,

my master, my supreme, who dwells in the hills

of Thiruvengadam filled with the chirping noise

from the swirling bees.)

 

What adiyEn is about to say is verified by Srimad Azhagiya Singar at one

time or another. Therefore, even at the risk of provoking the ire of some,

adiyEn is presenting this as a kainkaryam for my master, my lord, my

supreme, Srimad Azhagiya Singar's Thiruvadi.

 

AzhvAr verses equate all the gods

-

This argument is designed to confuse sincere bhakthaas. They quote from

muthalAzhvaars and Nammaazhvar to make their point. But the argument has no

merit. There are countless verses extolling the unique supremacy of Sriman

Narayana (dah!). There are just a few that, on the surface, seem to lend

support to the argument that Siva, Brahmma, and Vishnu are equal. But, a

review of these few verses quickly reveals that the inner soul of the anya

devatAs is meant in these instances. Therefore, there is no contradiction.

Perumal is the supreme and he indwells all. For more details, please refer

to past posts on this subject from the archive.

 

Pray to the in-dweller

---------------------

The next objection is, if Sriman Narayana indwells all, what is wrong in

offering prayer to anya devathas with the thought that you are actually

praying to the inner soul, Sriman Narayana? This is a specious argument.

If this is taken as valid, one can pray to a stool, or Bill Clinton, or even

Adolf Hitler.

 

A further objection is raised, after all we pray to Brahmma, Sivan, Indran,

Agni, etc. during the course of nithya karma. Therefore, what is the

problem if we pray to other devathas, especially if we do it in the spirit

of directing the prayer to Sriman Narayana who is the inner soul?

 

Swami Sri Desikan has clearly rejected this view. Refer to Chillarai

Rahasyam, sAraSngrajam #1. True, we do offer our obeisance to anya devatAs

during the performance of nithya karmas. But it is because we cannot

forsake these karmas. Swami Sri Desikan says, only during the performance

of the karmaas that must not be given up could we offer our prayer to these

devatAs. Even during these times, we must offer the prayer only to the

inner soul of these devatAs, which is Sriman Narayana. In other words, we

must not offer our prayers to anya devatAs, even with the thought that it is

offered to Sriman Narayana who pervades them as their inner soul, except

during the performance of nithya karma. Even during nithya karma, and only

during the performance of nithya karmas, when such prayer cannot be avoided,

it must be done with the thought that the prayer is for Sriman Narayana who

is the inner soul of these devatAnthrAs.

 

Here, Swami Sri Desikan warns that if one prays to any other devatAs,

paramaikAnthIs, ii.e. AcAryAs in our case, will abandon him. This is

pointed out by Thirumangai AzhvAr in Periya Thirumozhi 8.10.3.

 

maRRumOr dheyvam uLathenRu iruppaarOdu

uRRilEn, uRRathum unnadiyaarkku adimai,

maRRellam pEsilum nin thiruvettezhuththum

kaRRu, naan kaNNapuraththuRai ammaanE!

 

(O! Lord of KaNNapuram, I have learnt the esoteric

meaning of ThiruvashtAksharam, I will refrain from

the contact of those who even think that there exists

another god; but I will eagerly be a servant of

bhaktAs who pray exclusively to you.)

 

(Aside: ThiruvashtAksharam talks about our servitude to Sriman Narayana, How

come Azhvar says servitude to BhAgavatAs is what he understands as the

meaning of it? Well, for this and much more esoteric meanings of this

verse, please refer to Sri Uttamoor Swami commentary, Prabhandha rakshai.)

 

What Azhvaar says here is what Swami Sri Desikan is warning us against.

Like the Azhvar who will reject the association of those who even think that

anya devatas exist, our AchAryAs will reject any of us who maintains contact

with anya devathas.

 

No harm if done for non-material benefit

--------

There are some who propose that praying to anya devathAs is fine if it is

not for any material benefit. This is nonsence. If you are a prapanna or a

would be prapannas, what non-material benefit are you after that only these

anya devatAs can give? What is the purpose? Some may say why not ask for

bhakti towards Sriman Narayana? But can they give you that? More

importantly, why must we go to them for bhakti that Sriman Narayana is ready

and waiting to give us. If your husband is ready and eager to shower you

with his love, would you go to the next door neighbor and ask him to make

you love your husband? It is well known that all Perumal is looking for is

an excuse to confer us with all his grace. We do not need any other devatAs

to support or enhance our bhakti. All we have to do is to approach a

sadAcArya and act according to the AcAryAs will. No need for contact with

anya devatAs for non-material benefit.

 

It is okay for non-prapannas

----------------------------

Another funny argument is that only prapannas are required to refrain from

anya devatAs. It is alright for non-prapannas to pray to them, especially

if it is not for material benefit. The material benefit part is already

answered above. The answer to the first part lies in the obvious answer to

the following questions. Is a girl required to be faithful to her husband

only after marriage? Is it alright for a girl to do anything she very well

pleases before marriage?

 

Golu, saraswati pUja, etc.

--------------------------

VaithikAs do not observe any of these. However, if it is a family practice,

especially in families with little girls, it is not forbidden to set up a

golu. But make sure it is free from any anya devatA dolls. If you offer

any fruits or other items for the golu, distribute them to others, do not

consume them.

 

As for as Sarasvathi pUjA is concerned, some say it is okay to do

LakshmihyagrIva pUja on that day. A pertinent question is, do you do

LakshmihayagrIva pooja pUja on LakshmihayagrIva jayanthi? If not, then it

follows that you are actually doing Sarasvathi pUja to LakshmihayagrIva

vigraham. This is the worst of all possible cases. If you have the

practice of performing LaskhmIhayagrIva pUja on His jayanti, then if you

want to do this pUja on Sarasvathi pUja day also, then it is probably okay.

Please check with your AcharyA to be sure.

 

The concept of absolute fidelity is very simple, yet it is a contentious

issue even (especially) among Sri Vaishnavas. Even smArthAs and others may

understand our exclusive worship of Sriman Narayana. But, with the

onslaught of Satya Saibhabha, Chinmayananda, and scores of other bhagavAns,

it is Sri Vaishnavas who criticize us as narrow minded et al. Let me

conclude this post with the following beautiful verse from Kaliyan's Periya

Thirumozhi 11.6.6. Please try to read the Tamil verse. It is simply great.

Please note, Srimad Azhagiya Singar cited this verse during Thathva, Hitha,

Pururshartha series.

 

pEyirukku neduveLLam peruvisumbin meethOdip perukukAlam,

thAyirukkum vaNNamE ummaiththan vayiRRiruththi uyyakkoNdAn,

pOyirukka maRRingOr puthuttheyvam koNdAdum thoNdeer, peRRa

thAyirukka maNai ven^n^eer AttuthirO mAttAtha thakavaRReerE!

 

(Like a mother our Lord protects all of you during the deluge of praLayam.

yet, like pampering a peace of wood while your mother is neglected,

why do you seek all the new gods and loose the grace of Lord.)

 

Alas! the beauty of the above verse is lost in adiyEn's poor translation

 

srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

 

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

(dileepan)

[[ PARTHA~1.VCF : 3852 in winmail.dat ]]

[Guest guest]

Shree Rama

Sri. Dileepan, i believe that i had this conversation with you over

private and personal emails quite a while ago. I understand were are coming

from in your statement about anya-devatas and Sriman Narayana. I believe

that i am a Shri-Vaishnava because i hold these fundamental tenants: First,

Lakshmi and Narayana together are the Para-Tatva, Lakshmi is the female

personfication of Brahman, Narayana is the male personifaction of Brahman.

Together they are one and are Brahman. Second, Brahman is the abode of

infinite number of kalyana gunas at infinite levels. He is everything. The

universe i see before me, the souls i see before, the universes that i don't

see and the souls that i don't see are all Him. He is verily me but i am

not him. Even the individuality that i possess is him. He is father,

mother, best friend, master, son, daughter, wife, husband, everything. The

relationship that a soul can have with him can range from mother and child

to best friends. Now, i guess you are wondering why make all these obvious

statements. Well, to me if Sri Lakshmi and Narayana, possess those infinite

kalyana gunas at infinite levels and we as souls can have any relationship

to them, then why would anya-devata worship in anyway be counted against

you. Anya-devata worship or any worship of any god even Narayana with the

mentality of doership and ahamkara will keep one in samsara, regardless. A

man can have Sriman Narayana as his ishtha devata, and pray to him everyday

but he prays for a good life, money, happiness and so on, than that prayer

has attached with it karma. It is the act in relation with the mentality of

the act that can free or attached one with karma. The understanding that

Sriman Narayana is supreme and the Para-Brahman is essential to salvation.

Shri Paraatma Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita says:

Chapter 7 Verse 19

" Bahunam janmanam ante

jnanavan mam prapadyate

vasudevah sarvam iti

sa mahaatma sudurlabhah "

Meaning:

At the conclusion of many births the man of wisdom resorts to Me, holding

that Vasudeva is everything. This high souled man is very hard to find. "

 

This is a translation of M. R. Sampatkumaran of the Gita Bhasya of

Ramanuja. It should be noted that in Ramanuja's commentary he never said

that praying to anya devatas was wrong what he did say was that they lead to

finite and limited results.

Now if one wants moksha he will with out a doubt see Sriman Narayana in all

things, in all the universe, in the souls and in the anya devatas. He will

see the antaryami of all. A person who truly understands the Gita, Vedanta

and the scriptures will only see Sriman Narayana in all things. So even if

they prayed to a anyadevata all they will see is Sriman Narayana. I

personally don't know anyone that has reached this stage but i to the best

of my abilty try to achieve this. My view is that all Sri Hari cares about

is bhakthi and love, all other matters do not matter to him, he has the law

of karma to take care of all the other matters. Once a true bhakta takes a

step towards the Lord, the Lord takes a million steps to the bhakta. Sriman

Narayana is universal to all souls, he is nothing like the Christian ideal

of God, in which God is demanding of one track dedication or belief in him

alone. Narayana is beyond such human emotions and qualities. I personally

believe that one must believe in the tenants of Visistaadvaita Vedanta and

must accept the Para-tatvam of Sriman Narayana and Mahalakshmi and that is

the path to moksha and prappatti. Let me just say that i don't personally

pray to any anyadevatas but i don't think if it is done with the correct

understanding and idea that it is wrong, per se. But again this is just my

view, and i know it is going to upset others.

Shree Rama

and thanks for listening to my 2 cents

-Mukunda

 

>

> > According to strict orthodox achAryAs even Sudarsana Homam was

> > not done by Sri VaishnavAs (kAmyArtham). However, the modern

> > day Sri Vaishnavism recognizes the need for kAmya karmAs and

> > even our achAryas are showing some leniency in allowing this

> > tendency to prevail.

>

> Dear Sri Vijaraghavan,

>

> The above is somewhat confusing and may be misunderstood.

> Just to clarify, and adiyen is sure you will not disagree,

> no authentic Sri Vaishnava AcAryA's leniency includes anya

> devatA worship. The extent to which Srimad Azhagiya Singar

> goes is, if you can't help but ask for material benefit from

> Perumal, ask it for the purpose of more kankaryam for

> Perumal (adiyEn is sure this includes AcArya kainkaryam

> as well). This the extent of leniency. It does not

> extend to worship of any devatA. In fact from what

> adiyEn has observed there will never be a time when

> Srimad Azhagiya Singar will be as linent as to allow

> anya devatA worship.

>

> > Therefore, it looks to me that more

> > adaptation along similar lines will be required if Sri

> > Vaishnavism has to bring in its fold more and more of the

> > 'so-called' lost Sri VaishnavAs.

>

> adiyEn is not sure what sort of adaptation you have

> in mind. If it involves any dilution of the cardinal

> principle of absolute fidelity towards Perumal, then

> adiyEn cannot disagree more. With respect to the life

> of even one Brahmma what we experience here is an

> infinitesimal fraction. It is not right to dilute

> the cardinal principle of Sri vaishnavam for the sake

> of aberrations we see in this infinitesimal time

> slice.

>

> Harboring some hope for those who are unable to give

> up anya devatA is fine, but in the process we must

> not become like them. If we did, our prapatti will

> become meaningless.

>

> srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

>

> -- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

>

> ------

> Srimate Sri Laksminrisimha Divya Paduka Sevaka

> Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama:

[Guest guest]

Dear bAgawathAs,

 

>He is everything. The universe i see before me, the souls i see before,

>the universes that i don't see and the souls that i don't see are all Him.

>He is verily me but i am not him. Even the individuality that i possess is

>him. He is father, mother, best friend, master, son, daughter, wife,

>husband, everything. The relationship that a soul can have with him can

>range from mother and child

>to best friends. Now, i guess you are wondering why make all these obvious

>statements.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Some of these looks advaitic to me, instead of obvious.

 

>A man can have Sriman Narayana as his ishtha devata, and pray to him

>everyday but he prays for a good life, money, happiness and so on, than

>that prayer

>has attached with it karma.

 

One can do so if all of these " desires " are requested only to

Sriman nArAyanA.

 

>It is the act in relation with the mentality of

>the act that can free or attached one with karma.

 

Freeing us from the chain of karma is upto perumAL

when we do saranagathi.

There are many references to this statement one can

bring around. But a popular verse comes to mind

from amirhta swathini of Swami desikan.

" nin aruLAm gathiyinRi maRRa onRu illai,

nedum kAlam pizhai seytha nilai kazhinthEn. "

 

 

>This is a translation of M. R. Sampatkumaran of the Gita Bhasya of

>Ramanuja. It should be noted that in Ramanuja's commentary he never said

>that praying to anya devatas was wrong what he did say was that they lead

>to finite and limited results.

 

It is said in general that Simply because something is not

explicitely said it doesnot mean that We probably should

conclude the other way as correct. Besides in Sri mAlolan

net we hold our poorvAchAryALs vyAkyAnam as our guidance.

If one is contradicting our poorvAchAryA's vyAkyAnam they

must not do it in these forums.

 

>Now if one wants moksha he will with out a doubt see Sriman Narayana in all

>things, in all the universe, in the souls and in the anya devatas.

 

I am afraid this may be incorrect. ie.,

I am not sure a " simple desire " to mOksha

alone can make one see all the

indwelling.

 

>He will see the antaryami of all. A person who truly understands the Gita,

>Vedanta and the scriptures will only see Sriman Narayana in all things. So

>even if they prayed to a anyadevata all they will see is Sriman Narayana.

 

When perumAL is available as perumAL not only in one temple but

in 108 temples and as well through so many Srivaishnava AchAryAs,

why must one go and see anya dEvathA ? Isn't it self defeating ?

What is the justification that when perumAL is there one must

goto see anyadEvathA and search perumAL through them.

As Sri Dileepan rightly said, in our SiddhAntham

we are all patthini's (those who are

prapannas ie those who had baranyAsam) or fiancee to perumAL

(ie those who desire mOksham are the one'e who are gonna be

prapanna one day or the other). In either case one cannot have

an affiar with another person than the " pathi " or fiance or the

" would be pathi " . One also cannot say that they are seeing the

love of " the pathi " or " the pathi intended " through an

other person. It accounts to adultery. In other

words, " worshipping " is " the love one should offer only

to their pathi or pathi would be " . No one can justify in our sampradhAyam

that one will go around with everyone

and offer their love to everyone even when they KNOW for sure that

they are gonna a marry " HIM " (ie even when we know that

HE is the paramAthmA with whom we all are gonna endup with)

and that one will however be a true patthini only

after the marriage ie prapatthi. What logic is this ? Where

is this accepted ? These arguments are not merely mine but from

our own Sriviahsnava AchAryA's and these are intended for

those who are still confused over annyadEvathA ArAdhanam.

 

Besides all these annya dEvathAs, are as similar to

every other jivAthmA. In what way they can be equated

to the paramAthmA Sriman nArAyanA ? Why must a fellow

jivAthmA worship another jivAtma who happened to be

an annya dEvatha in this yugam due to their karma

(except when the jivAthma becomes a prapanna and be

a bAgawathA) ? When one is talking of release from

karmAs, it is important to know

that one will only accquire karma from the annya dEvathAs

and are not getting rid of karma by associating with them.

The annyadEvathAs are karmic in nature and a parama ekAnthin

will not associate with them in anyway.

 

If one may believe in saranagathi then they must also

believe in our AchAryAs thiru uLLam that we are all

offered as brides to perumAL. If we donot believe in

Saranagathi and our AchAryAs and if we are not wanting

to learn from our AchAryAs, then they must first ask if

they are wanting to follow Srivaishnavam in the first place ?

 

Finally i want to narrate a very small incident that is

important for every Sriviashnava to remember, from our

" perum pugazhOn " Sri KooratthAzhwAr. Once a person

asked him as to why he is avoiding annya dEvathAs and

he wanted the answer in simple words. Our poorva AchAryA

said, " en munnOrgaL seyyavillai, AthalAl nAnum seyyavillai " .

ie My poorvAchAryAs didnot worship and so I who is their

thiruvadi also donot worship the annya dEvathAs " . This

is the kind of belief we wish everyone in this forum

must have towards their AchAryA.

 

adiyEn

Srimadh Azhagiya Singar thiruvadikaLE saraNam

Sampath Rengarjan

 

____

[Guest guest]

Respected friends:

 

I'd like to add another (perhaps, uncommon) objection that people might

raise when advised against propitiating anyadevatAs. When I once

suggested to my mother that she not keep a small vigraham of rAghavendra

swAmi in her PerumAL-uLLu, she brushed me off immediately and asked me

which " authority " would not permit such a vigraham in the PerumAL room.

Annoyed, I said something like " Srimad AnDavan Swami, for instance... "

to which she replied: " Why don't YOU first reach the level of

AnDavan Swami, and I will then listen to you... " !!!

 

In other words, it is likely that anyone attempting to preach the gospel

of single-minded dedication to EmberumAn and to our sampradAyam will be

asked to become an AchArya first before getting up to speak.

 

-Srinath Chakravarty

email: xsrinath

[Guest guest]

>

> Vijayaraghavan Srinivasan [vijayaraghavan_s]

> Friday, October 22, 1999 1:08 PM

>

> Re: Simple, yet so difficult

>

> According to strict orthodox achAryAs even Sudarsana Homam was

> not done by Sri VaishnavAs (kAmyArtham). However, the modern

> day Sri Vaishnavism recognizes the need for kAmya karmAs and

> even our achAryas are showing some leniency in allowing this

> tendency to prevail.

 

Dear Sri Vijaraghavan,

 

The above is somewhat confusing and may be misunderstood.

Just to clarify, and adiyen is sure you will not disagree,

no authentic Sri Vaishnava AcAryA's leniency includes anya

devatA worship. The extent to which Srimad Azhagiya Singar

goes is, if you can't help but ask for material benefit from

Perumal, ask it for the purpose of more kankaryam for

Perumal (adiyEn is sure this includes AcArya kainkaryam

as well). This the extent of leniency. It does not

extend to worship of any devatA. In fact from what

adiyEn has observed there will never be a time when

Srimad Azhagiya Singar will be as linent as to allow

anya devatA worship.

 

 

> Therefore, it looks to me that more

> adaptation along similar lines will be required if Sri

> Vaishnavism has to bring in its fold more and more of the

> 'so-called' lost Sri VaishnavAs.

 

adiyEn is not sure what sort of adaptation you have

in mind. If it involves any dilution of the cardinal

principle of absolute fidelity towards Perumal, then

adiyEn cannot disagree more. With respect to the life

of even one Brahmma what we experience here is an

infinitesimal fraction. It is not right to dilute

the cardinal principle of Sri vaishnavam for the sake

of aberrations we see in this infinitesimal time

slice.

 

Harboring some hope for those who are unable to give

up anya devatA is fine, but in the process we must

not become like them. If we did, our prapatti will

become meaningless.

 

srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

 

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

[Guest guest]

Shree Rama

Bhagavathas, i am very sorry about my previous post since it offended

others. I did not mean to contradict our poorvaacharyas, i just kind of stated

my view. Regardless of my view i still follow the precepts of what my acharyas

have set for us. As far as i know those statements are not Advaitic but someone

can correct me. My understanding of that is that since the universes and souls

are his body and they are a part of him, He is them. Just when i refer to

myself not only am i speaking about the " I " but i am also speaking about my body

which is made up of millions of cells. In that sense is Brahman the universe

and souls for they have Him as their essence and is permeated by him. Brahman

under goes no change whatsoever and imperfections whatsoever, they are only

limited to his body (universes and souls), he remains the same in essence.

As to show that my statements are not the advaita of shankaraacharya i will

just give a few statements to show this. The universe at creation takes on a

new condition as the manifest world but remains the same in substance; therefore

the world is non-different from its cause,Brahman in that sense. The soul is

not created and qualifies Brahman and is a part or amsa of Him. Just as

qualities are not different from the substance, so are the souls not different

from the Brahman. Again when i refer to a object and its attribute i don't

differentiate from them like when i say a rose, i am not differentiating it from

its color whatever it maybe.

Correct my statements or understanding if it is wrong.

Again i am sorry if i upset anyone. Correct my mistakes if they are wrong. As

being a young man i am eager to learn and correct my mistakes and

mis-understandings.

-Mukunda

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha parabrahmaNE nama:

Sri Lakshmi nrisimha divya paduka sevaka

srivan satakopa sri narayana yatindra mahadesikaya nama:

 

If adiyEn may say so myself, what a prophetic subject title!!!

 

From a general perspective there is nothing wrong in prayer. A prayer to

anyone ultimately reaches only Perumal. But the question is not whether

prayer to anya devatA is good or bad. The question is whether Prapannas and

aspiring prapannas may pray to anya devatA. In other words, is it

appropriate for Sri vaishnavas to offer prayer to anya devatAs?

 

Here we have to make some assumptions. This is not a forum where all and

sundry are admitted. Each and every member is required to sign a pledge

that he/she is interested in learning and FOLLOWING Sri Desika Sampradayam.

This defines our audience.

 

As aspiring followers of Sri Desika Sampradayam we ought to try to find out

what its basic tenets are. It is dangerous to simply come to conclusions on

our own. The most fundamental of these is total and unconditional surrender

to the divine couple. This must be assumed to be the goal of each and every

member of this divine net if the pledges are to be believed, and we have no

reason to disbelieve. Now, read adiyEn's article from this perspective. It

is addressed to a group wholly made up of people committed to the goal of

total surrender.

 

 

> Well, to me if Sri Lakshmi and Narayana, possess

> those infinite kalyana gunas at infinite levels

> and we as souls can have any relationship

> to them, then why would anya-devata worship in

> anyway be counted against you.

 

You have misunderstood. It does not count against you. It is said if you

worship Sivan free of any dvESham towards Vishnu, for seven births or so,

you will become a Vishnu BhaktA and so on. So, it is not counted against

you. Some of the paramaikAntins we see today probably were Siva BhaktAs in

some previous births. The pertinent question here is, as a follower of Sri

Desika Sampradayam, what is the need for worshiping anya devatA? The short

answer is none.

 

 

> Anya-devata worship or any worship of any god even

> Narayana with the mentality of doership and ahamkara

> will keep one in samsara, regardless.

 

In fact bhakti and ahankara are oxymoron. BTW, ananya proyOjana bhakti

makes sense only towards Sriman Narayana.

 

 

> Now if one wants moksha he will with out a doubt see Sriman

> Narayana in all things, in all the universe, in the souls

> and in the anya devatas.

 

If one wants mOksham we have to surrender to Perumal and Piratti. What

keeps us from mOksham is our karma. The only way to free ourselves from

this is through the grace of Sriman Narayana. That will occur only through

Bhakti yoga or prapatti.

 

Seeing Sriman Narayana in everything does not mean we have to go about

offering prayer to everything around us like, say, a wash? If one can offer

prayer to everything just because Perumal is in everything, then this will

be equal in validity to offering prayer to a saLagrama perumaaL.

 

Seeing Perumal in everything is because He is the upAdhAna kAranam (material

cause) for the universe. This does not mean that offering prayer to

anything is valid.

 

No doubt the inner soul of anya devatA is Sriman Narayana. But that cannot

be the reason for worshiping them. Otherwise, even worshiping the next door

neighbor will be valid. We know that is absurd.

 

As a prapanna our minds must be fixated on Sriman Narayana and our AcArya

paramaparai. Nothing else should matter.

 

Here it is instuctive to cite Srimad Azhagiya Singar's upanyasam on Azhi

mazhai kaNNA verse from ThiruppAvai. " How a prapanna must deal with anya

devatA is not a proper question " , dismisses Srimad Azhagiya Singar. HH

continues, " The correct question is, how anya devatAs will behave towards

prapannAs. " HH says, ANdAL explains this in this verse in which the girls

of ThiruvAyarpAdi orders VaruNan to go to the middle of the ocean, enter it,

gather water, bring it to their land, and shower it down with thunder and

lightenning. These girls explain to VaruNan how he should do his job and

VaruNan patiently listens to the girls much like a servant would listen to a

rich man's little girl explaing a how to do a task he has done many times

over.

 

 

> Sriman Narayana is universal to all souls, he is

> nothing like the Christian ideal of God, in which

> God is demanding of one track dedication or belief in him

> alone.

 

You are absolutely right, Sriman Narayana is not a vengeful god who will

throw you into eternal hell if you don't surrender to him in this one birth.

As you say, if you take one step He will take million steps. Narayana does

not require you to do anything.

 

But you have to understand, we are not talking about Sriman Narayana. We

are talking about us. As true prapanna one should, must, will have nothing

but one-track dedication to Him alone and no one else.

 

 

> Narayana is beyond such human emotions and qualities. I

> personally believe that one must believe in the tenants of

> Visistaadvaita Vedanta and must accept the Para-tatvam of

> Sriman Narayana and Mahalakshmi and that is

> the path to moksha and prappatti.

 

 

Accepting them as para-tattvam is not enough. After clearly and without

doubt understanding para-tattvam, one must perform Hitam (upAyam, i.e

prapatti). After that we enjoy the fruit, PurushArtam, i.e. bhagavat and

bhAgavata kainkaryam. Thus we have in VisistAvaitam, Tattva, Hita,

PurushArtham. Tattvam is understood, Hitham is performed, and PurushArttam

is enjoyed. If you wish adiyEn can send you the two cassette set on

Tattva-Hita-PurushAttam by Srimad Azhagiya Singar. It is an excellent

resource and it will free you of many misunderstandings about Visitadvaitam

and Sri Vaishnavam. There is a nominal charge for cost recovery.

 

 

> Let me just say that i don't personally pray to any

> anyadevatas but i don't think if it is done with the

> correct understanding and idea that it is wrong, per se.

 

If you have correct understanding then there will be no anya-devatA worship.

Only incorrect understanding of one's svaroopam results in anya devatA

contact. In other words, anya devatA worship is an indication of incorrect

understanding.

 

srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

 

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

[Guest guest]

Sri Vijayaraghavan writes:

>A well written and relevant article. The only way we can stem the tide is

>to first understand why people do what they do (eventhough they may not be

>frank enough to accept the reasons behind their doing) and then show them

>what Sri Vaishnavaism can offer them instead. One answer may be that it is

>not possible.

>

>Having a good education, good health, good standard of living, peace and

>happiness in personal and work-life, children's future etc., are

>predominantly in people's mind and I would say for most obtaining mokshA is

>the least of concerns. Most people turn to religion - only if they are hurt

>in the material realm. They go to whomsoever that can provide succour.

>Hence Sai Baba and similar gurus have such a sway on the mass mind as it is

>apparent. Sri VaishnavAs are no exception.

>

>Now going back to the positive aspects - this is Adiyen's observation. As

>far as Pujas and rituals are concerned people predominantly prefer to go to

>anya dEvatAs. The general belief is EmperumAn is slow in granting relief

>from a painful suffering in the material realm. Where it is a question of

>expressing Bhakti, it is generally towards Rama or Krishna. Our Lord enjoys

>unquestionable supremacy in Bhajans.

 

A few comments on this. It would seem to me that since the worship of

anya-devatas, if to bring about positive effects (e.g. curing illness,

bringing

wealth, averting personal calamities, etc.), then these effects are in the

material world (clearly, none of us in this mailing group, would believe that

anya-devatas can bestow in the spiritual world, i.e. moksha). If indeed

these

effects are to be observed in the material world, then I submit that its

effects can be judged by techniques available to us in this realm (e.g.

statistics, logic, science etc.).

 

Of course, the worship of these anya-devatas is anything but science.

To the contrary, it is man (and woman's) sincere hope that the these

demi-Gods,

supposedly satiated by the cracking of 100 coconuts, could

suspend the Laws of Physics, nay, alter the Laws of Physics, for the briefest

of time, in order to bring forth the reversal and mitigation of ill-tidings to

all and sundry.

 

I ask, if the Laws of Physics, the very Leela of Sriman Narayana Himself,

could be bent so easily at the whimsical fancies of a myriad of demi-Gods

both large and

small, is not His place in the Universe diminished? Why must Satya Sai

Baba cure us only of cancer? Why not improve (even guarantee!) our chances

of winning a lottery?

Where does the power of these anya-devatas end?

 

 

Further, it seems most peculiar that our India, among the more impoverished

nations of the world, is the home of Satya Sai Baba, Kalki Bhagawan,

Kooshbhoo,

etc. America, the land of milk and honey (to where we have all come of our

own free will), is a land that spurns our Vedas, denigrates our Gods

(e.g. the recent Southern Baptist Church manifesto), eats cows, etc. is a

land of

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. It must be remembered that coconuts have to be

imported to the US!

 

Therefore, I submit that these demi-Gods can have little but any effect on

the course of rivers and lives of humans. This Yugam is a unique Yugam.

Sriman Narayana does suspend His Laws of the Nature, but only sparingly.

To use a line from an old English song, He never " promises us a rose garden. "

Samsara is tough, and it is meant to be. If it were all that easy, why

would one want to leave it! What He does promise is moksham and an

escape from samsara. It is this here where science and logic ceases is

vise grip, and where Sruti, Prabandham and Sampradayam come to our rescue.

 

Nevertheless, it is clear that many Sri Vaishnavas propitiate anya-devatas.

The travails of life is sometimes unbearable and mental weakness grips the

best of us. It is therefore appropriate that we be reminded regularly the

futility of finding quick solutions to our life's difficulties (and save

the coconuts for thengai chutney :-)).

 

Sumanth

 

----

Sumanth Kaushik

skaushik

 

MIT Lincoln Laboratories

S3-211

244 Wood St. 15 Winslow Road

Lexington, MA 02173 Belmont, MA 02478

Off: 617-981-0812 Ph: 617-489-6095

FAX: 617-981-5069

[Guest guest]

Srimadh Azhagiya Singar thiruvadikaLE saraNam

 

Dear Sri MukundA,

 

I am trying to reply very normally. This is an informal medium and

the simple words that are written in the following are not meant to

hurt anyone but to help you learn.

 

>Shree Rama

> Bhagavathas, i am very sorry about my previous post since it

>offended others. I did not mean to contradict our poorvaacharyas,

 

 

> " i just kind of stated my view " .

 

Please note that you must thoroughly read or learn about Sri

VishishtAdhvaidham and Swami dEsika sampradAyam in particular prior to

writing your own views. In Sri mAlolan pAduka sevaka net you must know

that one's own opinions that contradict poorvAchAryA's must be avoided. It

appears from your writing that there is much confusion about the very

understanding of core and fundamental of Sri VishishtAdhviadham. First

before venturing into sensitive debates such as this, you must thoroughly

learn three subjects.

 

1. thathvva (*) hitha purushArttham

2. thathva thrayam [as a part of thatthvam (*)]

3. dharma bootha nyAnam

 

The first one can be learnt more effectively if you can get those

tapes on " thathva hidha purushArttham " from Srimahd Azhagiya Singar's

upanyAsam from Sri Ahobila muth of North America and hear

it AGAIN and AGAIN several times untill EACH and EVERY word is

understood by you.

 

Next is thathva thrayam in detail since there seems to be a lot

of confusion found from your writings in this aspect. You must learn

that our fundamentals are coming from a foundation that

has three thatthuvams (*) namely

 

chEthanan

achEthanan

Eswaran

 

You must know the differences and characters of these three to the

maximum extent possible. You must also learn the relationship

between these. Then you must learn about dharma boodha nyAnam.

After learning these one can contribute or talk or debate the core

cardinals of Srivaihsnavam namely avoiding annya dEvatha ArAdhanam.

You can browse the malolan and bhakthi net archives and saranagathi

journal archives to learn about these for a jump start. Next you

must listen to kAlakshEbams of AchAryAs to learn it thoroughly.

 

>Regardless of my view i still follow the precepts of what my acharyas

>have set for us.

 

If you are following what AchAryA's have SET for us, then how come

your writings donot reflect on any understanding of our AchAryA's

fundamental teachings? First of all, if you are not doing " annya

dEvatha arAdhanam " yourself, why do you suggest to others the

other way ? In tamil one can ask " thanakku oru nyAyam maRRavaRkku

Or nyAyamA ? maRRavar ekkEdu kettu pOgattum enRa ?

 

>As to show that my statements are not the advaita of

>shankaraacharya i will just give a few statements to show this. The

>universe at creation takes on a new condition as the manifest world but

>remains the same in substance; therefore the world is non-different from

>its cause,Brahman in that sense.

 

This is where you must learn thathva thrayam and also the sareera

sAreera bhAvam.

 

>The soul is not created and qualifies Brahman and is a part or amsa of

>Him. Just as qualities are not different from the substance, so are

>the souls not different from the Brahman.

 

You are saying that Eswaran and ahcEthanan and chEthanan are all

same. These types of writing certainly shows the confused state in

one's mind about SrivishishtAdhvaidam. Some of these relationship

you are quoting are the eternal relationship between the

" mithunam " perumAL and thAyAr and not the relationhsip between

chEthanan and Eswaran. One thing I want you to learn is " A jivAtmA's

relationship to Eswaran is such that it is always subservient to

the Eswaran and its purpose is to serve the Lord. " Please figure

out more from your own reading from archives and listening to

upanyAsams. We hope all the readers read some of these fundamentals

prior to entering in a debate. While honest and ignorant questions

are allowed, let it not become like " vidiya vidiya kathai kEttu

seethaikku rAman sitthappA enrArAm " . We also wish to *reiterate* that

bAgawathAs must present their views with utmost respect to

our current (modern day AchAryAs?) and as well as poorva AchAryAs

and there will not be any *liniency* in dealing with those

presentations that will violate this and show disrespect even in

an indirect way.

 

Srimadh Azhagiya Singar thiruvadikaLE saraNam

Sampath Rengarajan

 

____

[Guest guest]

>

> Jayanthi Raghavan [shree1]

> Friday, October 22, 1999 7:01 PM

> Re: Simple, yet so difficult

>

>

> My understanding of that is that since the universes

> and souls are his body and they are a part of him,

> He is them.

 

 

This is not right. Do not try to visualize body/soul relationship strictly

from the point of view of our material body and the indwelling soul. This

is not the way Swami Emperumanar has defined body/soul relationship.

 

For body/soul relationship to exist between two entities the there must be

dhArakan/dhAryam (supportor/supported), niyAmagan/niyAmyam

(commander/commanded), and seshi/seshan (lord/servant) relationship between

two entities. Then, between these two entities, the entity which is

dhArakan, niyAmagan, and seshi is the soul, and the entity which is dhAryam,

niyAmayam, and seshan is the body.

 

These three characteristics are eternally true between Sriman Narayana on

the one hand and all the cetanas and acetanas on the other, with Sriman

Narayana being dhArakan, niyAmagan, and seshi, and the cetnas and acetanas

being dhAryam, niyAmayam, and seshan. This is why Sriman narayana is the

inner soul for all entities.

 

It is important to understand that a body/soul relationship does not mean

there always exists an undifferentiated identity between the body and soul.

They remain distinct, albeit in an inseparable fashion. In other words, the

body and soul, even though are inseparably united, they do not become one

and the same. They remain distinct always.

 

Therefore it is not right to say, " He is them " . He is not them. He is

their dhArakan, niyAmagan, and seshi.

 

This is an extremely important topic that must be properly understood under

a qualified master.

 

 

> The universe at creation takes on a new condition as

> the manifest world but remains the same in substance;

> therefore the world is non-different from its cause,

> Brahman in that sense.

 

[..]

 

> Just as qualities are not different from the substance,

> so are the souls not different from the Brahman.

 

 

Our siddhAntam does not say there is no difference between substance and its

quality. If it did, then that would amount to saying there is no difference

between Iswaran and jIvas. Only advaitees say that.

 

In Tattvathraiya cintana adhikaram, 5th Chapter of Srimad

Rahasyathraiyasaram, Swami Sri Desikan explains in great length the

difference between cetanam, acetanam, and Iswaran. A careful study of this

difficult chapter is required for properly understanding these concepts.

 

 

> Again when i refer to a object and its attribute i don't

> differentiate from them like when i say a rose, i am not

> differentiating it from its color whatever it maybe.

 

" aprudhak siddhi " or inseparable association between two entities does not

make the two entities non-different. Sun and its luminosity are two

different entities inseparably associated. Rose and its fragrance are two

different entities inseparably associated. One entity cannot be removed

from the second entity. Due to their inseparable nature we sometimes refer

to both entities with a single name. But using a single name for the two

entities will not make them one single entity without any difference. The

inseparable nature and the use of a single name, do not mean they are

advaitic in essence.

 

Our poorvAcAryas have explained constructs such as body/soul relationship so

that sabdha pramana can be properly understood. There is no basis in

pramanas or sampradayam to say that there is no difference between an object

and its quality. We may refer to both entities with a single name, but we

must never forget that the two entities are different.

 

srimad azhagiya singar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

 

-- adiyEn ramanuja dasan

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN-

SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Mukundan and other devotees,

namO nArAyaNA.

 

Thanks to SrI Dileepan for an excellent posting

stressing on the very important aspect of

SrI Vaishnavam.

 

adiyEn is very happy to see that SrI Mukundan has

given his views, in the spirit of knowing the actual

tenets of our sampradAyam, though initially it

seemed slightly different.

 

adiyEn knows about SrI Mukundan's excellent

dedication to follow our sampradAyam. Though he is

young and is at US, he is well devouted to our Lord

SrIman nArAyana.

 

SrI Mukundan concluded his second mail this way :

>Correct my statements or understanding if it is wrong.

>Again i am sorry if i upset anyone. Correct my mistakes

> if they are wrong. As being a young man i am eager to

> learn and correct my mistakes and mis-understandings.

 

Its very heartening to see such straightforwardness

in knowing our siddhAntam. adiyEn also appreciates

his humility in openly stating this position of his.

--------------

SrI Dileepan and SrI RengarAjan have already clarified

many issues in their inimitable styles. adiyEn would

like to add more to it, with some possible repetitions.

 

SrI Mukundan in his first mail wrote :

 

> I believe that i am a Shri-Vaishnava because i hold

> these fundamental tenants: First, Lakshmi and Narayana

> together are the Para-Tatva, Lakshmi is the female

> personfication of Brahman, Narayana is the male

> personifaction of Brahman. Together they are one and

> are Brahman.

 

Its perfectly right that, SrI ie. Lakshmi and nArAyaNA

together constitute " God " . God is not the " brahmachAri "

nArAyaNan ; but nArAyaNan who is with pirAtti viz.

Lakshmi. But, nArAyaNa and Lakshmi are two different

persons alltogether ie. they are not the same Brahman

viewed in two different ways. Thus, nArAyaNA is one

paramAtmA pervading everywhere and Lakshmi is another

paramAtmA pervading everywhere.

 

Both Lakshmi and nArAyaNA are vibhu ie. all pervading

and are both the " upAyam " (means) and the " upEyam " (goal).

Both belong to the category of " Iswara " and are not

" jIvAtmAs " . But, they have a mutual agreement, by their

own will (which is anAdi) that, Lakshmi will be

subservient to nArAyaNA ie. Lakshmi will be an

inseparable attribute to nArAyaNA. Thus there is a

difference in the sarIra-sarIri bhAvam between nArAyaNA

(sarIri) and Lakshmi (sarIra), and the sarIra-sarIri

bhAvam between nArAyaNA and cit/acit, since in the

latter, the relationship is unconditional (ie.natural;

nirupAdika sEshatvam) while in the former, the

relationship is because of the desire ie.sankalpam of

the Divya Dampati (ie. it is not " uncondional " or

" natural " ; It is because of a specific reason).

 

But, finally there is only one person viz. nArAyaNA who

is cit-acit viSishtA (ie. Who has cit and acit has His

inseparable attributes), though all the cit and acit

are subservient to the Divya Dampati.

 

They by their mutual agreement decided to share the

masculine and feminine qualities amongst them ( for

instance, PerumAL has the quality to punish those who

commit sins, by giving the appropriate karmic reactions;

But, pirAtti performs purushakAratvam ie. acts as a

mediatrix to save the jIvAtmAs etc).

 

It is not some mental imagination Or mere Symbolism

(which the modern speculators especially are so fond

off in various issues) that we worship PerumAL as a male

and pirAtti as a female. Also, it has to be very much

borne in mind that, the archa vigrahAs of the divya

dampati, is no different from how they are at SrI

VaikuNTam (ie. It is they who take the archA avatAram

out of their abundant grace and not that human beings

are doing some idols for mere symbolism to concentrate

on some object etc ; All such foolish speculations

contradicting sAstrAs have been refuted well based on

pramAnAs by our AchAryAs). The archA thirumEni

(divine body) is verily suddha sattvam.

 

For more than two years, SrImad Azhagiyasingar's

most nectarian " aruL mozhigaL " (Divine Words/Sayings)

in SrI Nrusimha PriyA deals with the tattvavm of " SrI " .

The clarity with which Azhagiyasingar explains this

very difficult topic, with excellent analogies is

beyond words. If bhagavad sankalpam approves, adiyEn

in the future (may be after two months or so ) will

summarize important points made by Azhagiyasingar in

each of the article on Lakshmi with appropriate pramAnAs

as quoted and explained by Azhagiyasingar.

 

A sample to taste the beauty of Azhagiyasingar's clarity

of explanation (appeared in September 1999 issue):

 

Azhagiyasingar says that, just because pirAtti is not

naturally a sEsha to PerumAL, it doesn't mean that

pirAtti is only " imitating " (ie. simply puts a drama)

as if she is a sEsha. In that case, it will mean that

sEshatvam is not actually there with pirAtti. Actually,

she verily has the sEshatvam towards PerumAL. For

instance, if a boy and a girl marry each other because

of their mutual likeness towards each other, the

girl attains the " patneetvam " ( mainly, serving her

husband). This patneetvam is because of the mutual

liking of both the girl and the boy. But, the girl

after the marriage doesn't merely " act " as if she

has patneetvam (ie.doesn't put merely a " show businness "

as if she has patneetvam; ie. no " nadippu " in tamil).

Similarly, pirAtti also doesn't merely act as a sEsha to

PerumAL. The sEshatvam for pirAtti towards PerumAL is

certainly there, but because of their mutual liking.

 

SrI Mukunda wrote :

> Second, Brahman is the abode of infinite number of

> kalyana gunas at infinite levels. He is everything.

> The universe i see before me, the souls i see before,

> the universes that i don't see and the souls that i

> don't see are all Him. He is verily me but i am not

> him. Even the individuality that i possess is him.

 

Statements like " Everything is Brahman " ,

" You are that Brahman " , " I am the Brahman " etc are

fully valid. But what does it mean actually

has to be understood. All such abhEda-srutIs, which on

superficial readinng advocate oneness of Brahman and

the world of cit and acit, has to be understood

properly. These does not advocate " svaroopa aikya "

(oneness in their essential nature) ie. these

statements doesn't advocate absolute oneness of Brahman

and jIvAtma, Brahman and matter (ie. essentially, they

are distinct entities and have their own self identity;

For instance Brahman is all pervading, master of all

etc, jIvAtmA is aNu, subservient to Brahman etc; But in

svaroopa, both are jnAnamayA). The " oneness " spoken off

is only due to the sarIra-sarIri bhAvam, leading to

cit (sentient entities) and acit (non-sentient entities)

becoming inseparable attributes of Brahman.

 

For instance, " tat tvam asi " ( You are that <Brahman>;

tat = that <Brahman>, tvam = You , asi = same ),

actually means ( based on the context in which it

appears), " Brahman, which is the cause of universe(tat)

is same the Brahman who is your antaryAmi (tvam) " .

 

So, the word " You " (tvam) refers to Brhaman possesing

the jIvAtma as its inseparable attribute and not the

jIvAtma exclusively (as evident from context and other

pramAnAs - bhEda and ghataka Srutis).

 

These type of sentences are known as " SamAnAdhikaraNa

vAkyAs/sentences " . The import of such statements (as

seen above) in general is that, though two words involved

in that statement refer to different characteristics,

the substance denoted by these characteristics is only

one, characterized by the attributes.

 

For example, in " tat tvam asi " , tat and tvam refer to

the same substance " Brahman " , characterized by different

attributes ( Brahman the source of Universe, possesing

cit and acit in their sookshma ie. subtle state as

attributes is meant by tat; " tvam " refers to Brahman,

the antaryAmi of the jIvAtma <characterized as SvEtakEtu,

the boy to whom the instruction is given by his father

in the ChandOgya Upanishad, while discussing Sad Vidya>

ie. " tvam " refers to Brahman having the jIvAtma as its

attribute, Or in general, Brahman with sthUla cit and

acit as its attribute>. This will be more easy to

understand if the whole context of the Sad vidya

is known. These abhEda SrUti vAkyAs have relational

import imbedded in it, which can be captured only if

one recognizes the sarIra-sarIri bhAvam from ghataka

Srutis (as recognized by our AchAryAs and firmly

established by Bhagavad rAmAnuja and SwAmi dESIkan).

 

Please go through the postings " ViSishtAdvaita " and

" niguNa Vs saguNa Srutis " of the July 1999 archives,

which must have been included in the archives by

now.

 

Also, it has to be borne in mind that any word

designating the inseparable attribute of a substance,

denotes even the substance. For instance, we say

" Mukunda is an excellent devotee " . Here, the word

" Mukunda " does not refer to the material body,

though the term " Mukunda " is usually used to refer

the material body (eg: Mukunda is in his twenties ;

Mukunda is well built ; Mukunda is handsome etc). In

this sentence, Mukunda refers to the jIvAtma possesing

a particular material body as its inseparable attribute.

Thus the same term " Mukunda " is used to denote both the

sarIra (body) and the sarIri (soul). Bhagavad rAmAnuja

explains that, those who are vEdAntins understand that

any word designating cit and acit normally, will

designate Brahman, since cit and acit are sarIra of

brahman (Or cit and acit are inseparable attributes of

Brahman).

 

In summary, the individuality possesed by us,the

jIvAtmAs, are not " verily Him " . We, the attributes of

Brahman, are distinct from it by the very svaroopa

(essential nature) ie. the attributes and the substance

are not the same. The statement that " everything is

Brahman " doesn't deny the existance of any tattva

(reality), other than the Brahman and this statement

also does not say that cit and acit though present as

real entities, are Brahman directly (may be with

different attributes) etc. It only means that there

is only one substance called Brahman which has cit and

acit as its inseparable attributes.

 

 

SrI Mukundan wrote :

> He is father, mother, best friend,

> master, son, daughter, wife, husband, everything. The

> relationship that a soul can have with him can range

> from mother and child to best friends.

 

To be more specific, the relationship between jIvAtma

and ParamAtma is the " sarIra-sarIri bhAvam " . All other

relationships are derived from this. The way we

reciprocate with PerumAL may be like that of a friend,

lover etc. But these doesn't constitute an essential

eternal relationship between the jIvAtma and the

paramAtma, with respect to their svaroopAs. Please go

through the articles on " sarIra-sarIri bhAvam " and

" nAyikA bhAvam " in the archives.

 

SrI Mukundan wrote :

> I personally believe that one must believe in the tenants

> of Visistaadvaita Vedanta and must accept the Para-tatvam

> of Sriman Narayana and Mahalakshmi and that is the path

> to moksha and prappatti.

 

adiyEn is in good agreement with your wonderful

statements. But its also to be borne in mind as indicated

earlier by SrI Dileepan that the knowledge of the

para-tattvam will lead one by the blessings of the Divya

Dampati to adopt either the upAya bhakti Or prapatti. Both

these paths needs the mumukshu (aspirant for moksham) to

leave out " anya dEvata " worship.

 

For instance, ananyagatitvam is a pre-requisite for

prapatti ie. one needs to gets rid of anya-dEvata worship

(for whatsoever reasons) to be qualified for adopting the

upAya of prapatti. Thus, anya-dEvata worship (for

whatever reasons) is certainly a moksha virOdhi ie. that

which hinders one in obtaining moksham. This is the

reason as to why, such a great emphasis is laid on this

very important issue. Even if one doesn't observe

yEkAdasi properly Or doesn't perform SandhyAvandanam

properly etc, this will not be a direct moksha virOdhi

for him/her, since the moksham granted by the Divya

Dampati is for the SaraNAghati/Prapatti that is

performed with the five angAs and three angIs. So, the

relative importance of asking one to leave anya-dEvata

worship is to be understood very well and one shouldn't

keep thinking that this issue is over-spoken/too much

stress is employed on this issue etc. Thanks to SrI

Dileepan and SrI RengarAjan for writing on this issue.

 

adiyEn will write about the " anya dEvata " issue later.

 

 

SrI Mukundan finished his first mail as :

>Let me just say that i don't personally pray to any

> anyadevatas but i don't think if it is done with the

> correct understanding and idea that it is wrong, per se.

> But again this is just my view, and i know it is going

> to upset others.

 

Dear SrI mukunda, it would have been much better if you

could have said that whatever you stated in the mail are

your own views, _subject to correction by others, for

proper understanding of the sampradAyam_ , instead of

openly declaring that you are writing " your own views " ,

with the full knowledge that it will hurt others (SrI

Vaishnavas in this Malolan Net). adiyEn very much

understands your good heart, though may not have stated

properly in your mail.

 

SrI Mukundan starts his second mail as :

> Bhagavathas, i am very sorry about my previous post

> since it offended others. I did not mean to contradict

> our poorvaacharyas, i just kind of stated my view.

> Regardless of my view i still follow the precepts of

> what my acharyas have set for us.

 

adiyEn deeply appreciates your very good concern about

not offending other devotees.

 

Though the following _does not_ pertain to the issue

in hand, adiyEn would like to say something about the

offence towards devotees/PerumAL and the reaction of

devotees.

 

As you yourself know, devotees become extremly

intolerable if someone (even with the knowledge that it

will contradict sAstrAs, different from sampradAyam etc)

openly advocates something contradictory to sAstrAs/

sampradAyam/AchAryA's words, right in front of such

serious devotees following the sampradAyam. This is

because, devotees have excessive love towards PerumAL

and AchArya. Infact, that should be the actual reaction.

But this doesn't mean that the devotees form any

hatredness towards such persons and things of that sort

ie. still they want such persons to understand the sAstrAs

properly, etc.

 

When a devotee encounters a person performing

bhagavad/bhAgavatha apachAram, the person should be

rectified immedietly, if the devotee has that capacity.

One svApadEsam for " iLam singam " (young lion) in the

first pAsuram of nAcchiyAr's thiruppAvai is that,

AchAryAs are like young lion, who atonce pounce on those

who because of their ego, pride, need for some fame

amongst certain section of the society- attained by

patting their back (ie. speading those messages though

contradictory to sampradAyam, but will be palatable to

other group of persons in the society) etc, spread

messages contradictory to sAstrAs/ sampradAyam ( may

be even with the knowledge that it contradicts the

sAstrAs/sampradAyam) Or perform bhagavad/bhAgavatha

apachArams etc. AchAryas pounce atonce to rectify the

ego, pride etc (Or whatever the reasons may be) in such

persons, and this too is an act of compassion (to make

others too understand the actual realities quite

clearly). Ofcourse, the nature of " pouncing " involves

various issues and would be done by the AchAryas quite

appropriately to the situation concerned (The doctor

knows about the treatment to be given to the patient

with a particular disease).

 

But, if the devotee due to certain reasons is incapable

of rectifying the other person performing bhagavad /

bhAgavatha apachAram, he/she should walk out of that

place. When Lord SrI KrishNa was derided in various

ways by SisupAlan, all the rishis rushed out of that

court with great speed. This is because, they will

certainly loose much of their " tapObalam " (power

accrued due to their penance), that has accrued over

hundreds of years, if they hear those words filled

with bhagavad apachAram.

 

If none of the above two alternatives is possible,

some even feel emotionally that they should die on

that spot, since, in that case, they will not

continue to hear such offences against SrIman

nArAyaNA.

 

Again, it has be understood that great devotees

have perfection in various " aatma guNAs " and their

actions are not to be misunderstood.

 

KoorattAzhwAn was prepared to rectify the SaivAs and

the chola king through the debate on sAstrAs. But, they

were adament and didn't accept the stand of sAtrAs and

as a result AzhwAn lost his two eyes. AzhwAn was happy

that his eyes didn't see those sinners, filled with

only hatredness towards PerumAL. Even Peria NambigaL

died soon because of the loss of his eyes etc. PerumAL

punished that chola King (who died of throat cancer,

if adiyEn's memory is right) for having done such a

great bhAgavatha apachAram. But, KooratAzhwAn in his

stuti towards PerumAL, pleads the Lord to pardon

nAloorAn who was instrumental in these happenings.

nAloorAn was the one who persuaded the king to

do such henious acts, though he was formerly

attending the discourses of AzhwAn (AchArya drOham

apart from other henious sins).

 

Sorry for the side-tracking .......

--------------------

 

SrI Mukundan wrote :

>As far as i know those statements are not Advaitic but

>someone can correct me. My understanding of that ....

 

..........

 

>As to show that my statements are not the advaita of

> shankaraacharya i will just give a few statements to

> show this. The universe at creation takes .....

 

.....

 

>Just as qualities are not different from the substance,

> so are the souls not different from the Brahman. Again

> when i refer to a object and its attribute i don't

> differentiate from them like when i say a rose, i am

> not differentiating it from its color whatever it maybe.

 

The substance is verily different from the attribute

and the " pratyaksha " (direct perception) pramAnam amply

gives the answer. But, your statements does not imply

" kEvala advaita " of Sankara, since your statements

(as adiyEn understands) accept the presence of cit

and acit as real entities, though they are Brahman.

If these statements convey that, all the cit and

acit are finally unreal, then it will boil down to

kEvala advaita. But, your statements refer to some

sort of advaita ie. oneness between Brahman and

jIvAtma/matter.

 

VallabhAchArya who systematized " Suddha advaita " (Pure

advaita) accepts cit and acit as real entities,

and he says that they are verily Brahman, though with

different attributes. Chaitanya SampradAya (CS) which

upholds " acintya bEdhA-abEdha " says that Brahman

(ie.Supreme Lord = KrishNa) is related to the cit and

acit as " bEdhA-abEdhA " ie. the relationship spoken

off is that of simultaneous oneness and difference.

cit and acit are " Saktis " (energies) of KrishNa, the

Saktimat (possesor of Saktis). For CS, the substance

and the attribute are simultaneously one and different

(not completely different as in our siddhAnta). Some

of your statements can be interpretted to mean the

position of CS.

 

adiyEn has only given very brief statements about

their philosophies, appropriate with the question you

have raised as to whether your statements refer to

kEvala advaita of Sankara or not.

 

adiyEn will soon discuss the cardinal tenets of other

schools of thought (mainly other Vaishnava sampradAyAs)

to clearly understand the distinction between them and

us and how their stand has many criticisms/drawbacks,

due to their non comprehension of the sarIra-sarIri

bhAvam between the world of cit and acit, and Brahman.

 

AzhwAr,yemperumAnAr,dESIkan,Azhagiyasingar thiruvadigaLE SaraNam

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

ananthapadmanAbha dAsan

krishNArpaNam

[Guest guest]

Sri Sumanth Kaushik wrote:

> Of course, the worship of these anya-devatas is anything but science.

> To the contrary, it is man (and woman's) sincere hope that the these

> demi-Gods, supposedly satiated by the cracking of 100 coconuts, could

> suspend the Laws of Physics, nay, alter the Laws of Physics, for the

> briefest of time, in order to bring forth the reversal and mitigation

> of ill-tidings to all and sundry.

 

> I ask, if the Laws of Physics, the very Leela of Sriman Narayana

> Himself, could be bent so easily at the whimsical fancies of a myriad

> of demi-Gods both large and small, is not His place in the Universe

> diminished? ... Where does the power of these anya-devatas end?

 

The will of Sriman Narayana is never subject to anyone or anything

else. But one should not question the power of the so-called

anya-devatas, or their ability to bestow tremendous good upon

people if so propitiated. True, it is said " moksham icchet

janArdanAt " , but anya-devatas, including Parama Siva, can give

countless things to their devotees, short of true liberation.

 

This is stated at the outset of Tiruvaymoli itself:

 

avar avar thama thamadhu, aRivaRi vagai vagai

avar avar iRaiyavar, ena adi adaivargaL

avar avar iRaiyavar kuRaivu ilar; iRaiyavar

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

avar avar vidhivazhi adaiya ninRanarE.

 

Each person offers worship according to paths they know,

And each one shall attain his god's feet.

The various gods of these people do not lack power

(to give their appropriate gifts), for

The Lord himself stands within them and

actually gives the appropriate gifts.

 

 

The ability of the other gods to give gifts is bestowed

upon them by the Lord himself, at the time of creation,

as it is said in the Sruti " yathA pUrvam akalpayan... "

So to question, scientifically or otherwise, the ability

of Siva, Parvati, Indra, etc., to bestow appropriate

favors on their worshippers, is tantamount to questioning

the power of Lord Sriman Narayana himself.

 

To say that anya-devatas are powerless to give wealth and

health would also render most of our Puranas and Itihasas

invalid, as Ravana and others secured blessings from

Caturmukha Brahma, Indra, etc. through intense tapas.

 

And, the fact is that it is *precisely* because people

have seen a cause-effect relationship (even if anecdotally)

between sacrificing a bull to Mariyamman or whomever and

being healed of smallpox that they continue to worship

in this manner.

 

The way to lead Sri Vaishnavas and others out of anya-devata

worship, in my humble opinion, is not to incessantly condemn

it, but to show through anushThAnam and example the grace

and glory of a true Vaishnava life. I think the example of

Prahlada and his boyhood friends is very telling in this

respect. His friends, though by birth asuras who were

indoctrinated into Hiranyakashipu worship, were attracted

and converted by the very charisma and example of Prahlada

and consequently became exponents of Hari-nAma-sankIrtanam.

 

We as practicing Sri Vaishnavas have to follow Prahlada in

this regard. We have to practice and develop our Atma-guNas

to such an extent that our very Vaishnavism is admired.

People are attracted to anya-devatA worship these days often

because there is a " fellow-feeling " among those other devotees.

They are welcoming; they calmly advise, instead of condeming.

If we are open, accepting, kind and gracious in the Ramanuja

way, people are bound to join us on the path to Sriman Narayana.

 

daasan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

At 05:44 PM 10/25/99 -0700, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>The ability of the other gods to give gifts is bestowed

>upon them by the Lord himself, at the time of creation,

>as it is said in the Sruti " yathA pUrvam akalpayan... "

>So to question, scientifically or otherwise, the ability

>of Siva, Parvati, Indra, etc., to bestow appropriate

>favors on their worshippers, is tantamount to questioning

>the power of Lord Sriman Narayana himself.

>

>To say that anya-devatas are powerless to give wealth and

>health would also render most of our Puranas and Itihasas

>invalid, as Ravana and others secured blessings from

>Caturmukha Brahma, Indra, etc. through intense tapas.

>

>And, the fact is that it is *precisely* because people

>have seen a cause-effect relationship (even if anecdotally)

>between sacrificing a bull to Mariyamman or whomever and

>being healed of smallpox that they continue to worship

>in this manner.

 

I never questioned the intrinsic power of anya-devatas

to bestow material rewards. I merely questioned if there is

any reason to believe that they ARE bestowing rewards. My

experience suggests that in **this Yugam**, for whatever

reason (for hardly I am qualified to second-guess the will

of the demi-Gods), they appear to be sitting by the sidelines

(or in the heavens or wherever else they may be).

 

Anecdotes, are sadly not science, and mostly, they are wrong.

It should be appreciated that it requires energy that can be

obtained only from nuclear fission to transmute mercury to gold.

Imagine what is required to make wristwatches from thin air,

or cause milk to disappear into stone! Suspending the laws of

physics is no small matter (and there is no reason to believe

that the laws in this Yugam are same very laws that were in

force in earlier Yugams as chronicled in the Ithihasas and Puranas).

 

 

I want to stress that I am not pushing science as the answer to

life's woes. If I were to believe this, I would not be on this

mailing list agreeing to the tenets that form the basis of this

list. Science is NOT the tattva, neither is it the hita and

certainly not the purusartha. I am also not belittling the

anya-devatas, as to to do so would be, in many cases,

bhAgavad-apacharam. I do however question if the worship of

anya-devatas as practiced today is having any effect whatsoever.

 

Offering milk to Malolan is NOT for the purpose of acquiring

wealth from Malolan, but rather, for His pleasure. Whether

Malolan enjoys this milk is not to be known from observation,

but to be felt with our heart. Offering coconuts to Murugan

is not for His pleasure alone, but for the purpose of securing

material gain. Were it not for the purpose of securing

material gain, of what purpose does it serve a Sri Vaishnava to

propitiate Murugan? Therefore, whether or not Murugan is satiated

by our offer is evidenced by whether the material gain is or is not

observed. I submit that there is no reason to believe that

Murugan is listening. Therefore, this can only mean: (1) We are

not appeasing Murugan properly, (2) Murugan is not being appeased

by our offerings or (3) Murugan is incapable of responding to our

request or (4) all of the above.

 

I will not comment on which of these is true, for the answer simply

is that I do not know.

 

>

>The way to lead Sri Vaishnavas and others out of anya-devata

>worship, in my humble opinion, is not to incessantly condemn

>it, but to show through anushThAnam and example the grace

>and glory of a true Vaishnava life. I think the example of

>Prahlada and his boyhood friends is very telling in this

>respect. His friends, though by birth asuras who were

>indoctrinated into Hiranyakashipu worship, were attracted

>and converted by the very charisma and example of Prahlada

>and consequently became exponents of Hari-nAma-sankIrtanam.

>

 

First, I am not " condemning " anyone. People are free to

believe in whomsover they want, and in whatever they want.

I submit, however, as Sri Vaishnavas (and this list, as I am

aware, is exclusively patronized by those who consider themselves

Sri Vaishnavas) that the worhship of anya-devatas are

counterproductive. Based on what I see in this world,

nothing suggests to me that these anya-devatas are listening.

Spending one's effort, time and even money for pursuits that

appear to be doomed from the start is something that is worthy

of being brought to attention.

 

Within our community, there is a place for polemics. Our

Acharyas have taken considerable effort to provide a logical

basis for maintaining our traditions. It is not merely by

anusThanams that they have left a lasting legacy. There is

nothing wrong in bringing to attention the various viewpoints

of our acharyas on this subject. This is not condemnation,

but rather, education. Of course, the method and language

by which this is communicated maybe a matter of taste and

style, but the basic premise that this subject is worthy for

all Sri Vaishnavas to have an authentic viewpoint cannot be

dismissed lightly.

 

Finally, I would like to state, not as a trailing disclaimer,

but as a genuine apology to those who may have been offended by

the tone of my earlier posting. I did not anticipate that my

posting may affect the sensibilities of many learned bhAgvatas.

I hope that this subject does not become a divisive matter that

pits one bhAgvatal against another.

 

Sumanth

 

 

 

----

Sumanth Kaushik

skaushik

 

MIT Lincoln Laboratories

S3-211

244 Wood St. 15 Winslow Road

Lexington, MA 02173 Belmont, MA 02478

Off: 617-981-0812 Ph: 617-489-6095

FAX: 617-981-5069