Guest guest Report post Posted September 18, 2000 Can someone please enlighten me about a few basic questions: (1) To the best of my knowledge no one ever observes anything like a " Valmiki-tirunakshatram " or a " VyAsa-jayanti " anywhere in India... Obviously these two great seers (the two greatest Vedic seers in terms of sheer output or contribution to posterity) do not, for some reason or other, hold the status of " AchAryA " in the true sense of the title. Why is this so? Is it because they did not found or promote any " system " or brand of thought and belief, or because they did not care to groom 'sishyA-s' to carry forward their flag through the generations, or else, perhaps because they did not have to fight any polemical battles with rival schools? (2) The " Srimad Ramayana " of Valmiki is recognised as the most original and most profound document of the " saraNAgathi-sAstra " . So that would make one regard Valmiki as one of the earliest pioneers of the doctrine of " saraNagati-tattva " , isn't it? Why then is Valmiki not to be found amongst the SriVaishnava pantheon of " AchAryA-s " ? (3) Valmiki and VyAsa --- as individuals, were they Dvaitins, VisishtAdvatins or Advaitins? What would be the reasons for the choice? Adiyen would be grateful for some information. Thanks, Regards, dAsan, Sudarshan Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! / Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 18, 2000 Sri. Sudarshan: Valmeeki and VyAsar were Vedic rishis; I don't believe that the practice of commemorating a guru's janmanakshatra (the way we do today) existed during the gurukula system of antiquity. Service to the guru by way of maintaining his living premises and doing nitya-kainkarya existed as a routine part of the shishyavritti, and the final expression of gratitude was in the form of dakshiNa. However it is not correct to say that there doesn't remain any shishya parampara for these sages - we do have gotrams, don't we? It seems to me that in the Vedic period, the guru's own progeny was expected to carry the legacy forward, in contrast with later AchArya paramparas of more recent history. We have several examples of this, such as UddAlaka, nachikEta, ashTavakra etc. which leads me to believe that the gotra construct evolved from that social setting - where paternal lineage from a Vedic rishi represented the tradition of each " school " . I suppose these " schools " weren't rivals in the same sense as rival philosophies are today - for one, very few (if any) other religions existed during Vedic times. We must remember that Adikavi Srimad valmeeki was a vEDan, and so wouldn't have belonged to a vedic gurukulam in the first place - let alone establish his lineage etc. There isn't any valmeeki gotram is there? As for vyAsa, he IS honored by all vedantins in the form of bAdarAyaNa - the author of the brahmasootra. Even though sootrakArar did have a shishyaparampara (bodhAyana, dramida, bharuchi etc.) it didn't lead directly down to AchArya nAthamuni, for example. It was extinct even by the time of Adi Sankara. As far as valmeeki and vyAsa being poorvAchAryas for our faith, we must remember that neither of them were true Srivaishnavas in the sense that we understand today - from the point of view of paramaikAntitvam to Sriman nArAyaNa, as well as observing the traditional srivaishnava samskAras which are enshrined in the teachings of more recent AchAryas beginning with Sriman nAthamuni. This doesn't constitute a negative statement about them (much like saying that Sri rAmanuja was born a vaDamAL) - rather it is a technicality and it is best that we don't make a big deal out of it. Regarding the possible affiliations of these rishis to later vedantic interpretations of Advaita and VisistAdvaita, the answer is no. VyAsa or bAdarAyaNa was not only the classifier of the chaturvedas, but also the compiler of all upanishadic thought into the one source text of brahmasootra. The advaita/dvaita differences arise only later, as a result of differing interepretations of that source text. I believe this question was also posed to Sri. SMS Chari as a challenge by a Western academic - in response to which Dr. Chari is now in the process of writing a book which describes the " original " position taken by sootrakArar Sri. bAdarAyaNa himself. But the fact remains that bAdarAyaNa precedes advaita/visistAdvaita by at least a couple of thousand years! As for valmeeki, he preceded even vyAsa in chronology - which certainly eliminates any possiblity of his affiliation with these philosophies. I request bhaktas to add to this topic with any corrections if necessary, or additional thoughts and input. aDiyEn, -Srinath Chakravarty email: xsrinath Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 19, 2000 Dear Sri. Srinath, I think what Sri. Hari is trying to say is (please correct me if I am wrong): 1. If one accepts Vis'istAdvaita Vedanta in its entirety, as the " most rational and perfect " detailed exposition on the nature of reality described in the vedas (and elaborated on in the vedantic texts), then the term Origin becomes meaningless. For Vis'istAdvaita only elaborates on the beginningless truth contained in the vedas. Once again I point out that the statement that Vedas are beginningless (i.e., without author) is a premise and not a dogmatic statement! Premise is a key component of every sound theory. This premise is rational, given Vis'istAdvaita is an unbounded philosophy (i.e., individual souls, matter and the process of creation and dissolution are also beginningless.) 2. If one approaches the issue from this angle, terms such as evolution of ideas and origin have no meaning, when used in relation to description of the nature of reality. 3. The Vedic paradigm prescribe to the notion unbounded rationality (rational statements are not limited to objects of the senses), trying to analyze issues within the realm of the Vedic paradigm using the bounded rationality of the west (i.e., logical positivist/empirical paradigm) can lead to misleading conclusions. Also Sri. Anand Said in an earlier post on Bhakti List: Bhagavad RAmAnuja didn't start a new system of philosophy. Even in the previous yugAs, great sages like bOdhAyana, Dramida, Tanka and others were upholding VisishtAdvaita as the actual vEdAnta. Thus, VisishtAdvaita is not some " evolved " philosophy. Ramanuja dasan, Venkat Venkat Nagarajan (Toronto) _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 19, 2000 Sri. Hari: " M.S.HARI (Madabhushi Sarangarajan Hari) " wrote: > >Regarding the possible affiliations of these rishis to > >later vedantic interpretations of Advaita and VisistAdvaita, > >the answer is no. > > Advaita is a personal interpretaion. But VisistAdvaita is the > purport of VedAnta-GIta and Brahma SUtra. This the reason why > our matham is called as " parama-vaidika-matham " . Its siddhAntham > and anushtAnam are both " parama-vaidikam " . I wonder if this concept has acceptance among all vedantins; and whether the non-visistAdvaitins (whose numbers are much larger than ours) would concede to your statement that " Advaita is a [mere] personal interpretation " . No matter how strong our beliefs and convictions may be, they should not translate to a condemnation of other faiths or a re-writing of history. That would sound more like the proverbial " maNDuka " in the well. > >But the fact remains that bAdarAyaNa precedes advaita/visistAdvaita > >by at least a couple of thousand years! As for valmeeki, he > >preceded even vyAsa in chronology - which certainly eliminates > >any possiblity of his affiliation with these philosophies. > > If it is understood clearly that neither SrIman NAthamuni nor > Bhagavath Ramanuja founded VisishtAdvaita SrI VaisNava philosophy > and practice, and it is the eternal philosophy and practice of > apowrusheya Sruthi, then your reply becomes a personal opinion. The sishyaparamparA of bhagawAn bAdarAyaNa has been used as a basis by even non-visistAdvaita vedantins such as Adi Sankara. It will be a tall order to conclusively prove that bAdarAyaNa and his legacy were 100% visistAdvaitam. If such a thing were patently obvious, there shouldn't have been any other school of vedAnta besides ours. Unless of course, we go to the extent of stating that Sankara, Anandateertha etc. did not know what they were talking about. aDiyEn, -Srinath C. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 19, 2000 >The sishyaparamparA of bhagawAn bAdarAyaNa has been used as >a basis by even non-visistAdvaita vedantins such as Adi Sankara. It will >be a tall order to conclusively prove that bAdarAyaNa and his legacy >were 100% visistAdvaitam. If such a thing were patently obvious, there >shouldn't have been any other school of vedAnta besides ours. Unless >of course, we go to the extent of stating that Sankara, Anandateertha etc. >did not know what they were talking about. This is exactly what our Acharyas have so painstakingly proved over the centuries. My 7 year old daughter made the following comment about a remark made by a 10 year old girl. The 10 year old girl made a statement, " Shree and Shelby are always together. " My daughter complained to me. " Magen made this statement, but that is simply untrue. We do not eat together, we do not bathe together, and we do not go to bed together. Nor do we go to the same class. " An adult would not have had a problem with Magen's statement, as the adult would have seen that what Magen meant was " Given a chance, Shree and Shelby will come together to play. " This is the exact difference between Visishtadvaita philosophy and other philosophies. Our Acharyas have viewed everything in the context of what was said, and how Sanskrit grammar will allow the interpretation of a particular word or sentence. In the Geetabhashya for example, every other translator has translated a verse from the 1st chapter to say, " Our forces are adequate while those of the opponents are inadequate. " Only Ramanujacharya has translated this the other way around. This is because, everyone of the Maharathis on the Kaurava side had at some time in the past been beaten by one or more of the Pandavas. Bodhayana the direct disciple of Vyasa as well as Dramida have only propounded the Visishtadvaita philosophy. It is because that this Acharya Paramparai was lost, that Nammazhwar, Nathamuni etc., incarnated. That is the only reason why Vyasa is not on our Acharya Paramaparai list. If one studies Sri Bhashya under an Acharya, one will understand why every other philosophy not agreeing with Visishtadvaitam is wrong. If one studies SarvArtha Siddhi, one will understand why our philosophy can NEVER GO WRONG. adiyen does not have any reference books handy. Please forgive adiyen for the free translation of the Geeta verse. Sources for the above are (1) Article by Uththamoor Swamy (2) Upanyasam by Srivatsankacharyar Swamy, (3) Talk by Vaikunthavasi, Sri U. Ve Kannan Swamy of Gaithersburg Md. adiyen Ramanuja daasan, jagan. > >aDiyEn, >-Srinath C. > > >Srimate Sri Laksminrisimha Divya Paduka Sevaka >Srivan Satakopa Sri Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya Nama: > _______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 20, 2000 SrI Srinath Chakravarty, You have written: > I wonder if this concept has acceptance among all vedantins; and > whether the non-visistAdvaitins (whose numbers are much larger than > ours) would concede to your statement that " Advaita is a [mere] > personal interpretation " . No matter how strong our beliefs and > convictions may be, they should not translate to a condemnation of > other faiths or a re-writing of history. That would sound more like > the proverbial " maNDuka " in the well. I wonder how you found " translate to a condemnation " etc., in my words. Regarding " re-writing of history " , I would suggest you reading authentic history. I openly state that " Advaita is a personal/individual interpretation " By stating like this, there is NO room for " condemnation " . Advaita is " sruthi-nyAyApEtham - meaning, NOT in accordance with Veda and logic " . Your words like " sound more like the proverbial " maNDuka " in the well " are not fit to be told before scholars. There is no condemnation meant here. I wanted to differentiate between the parama-vaidika-matham and others. As I found your words " acceptance among all vedantins " , I have a question for you: " Who is Vedantin/Vaidika? " . May I request you to kindly answer this question? > The sishyaparamparA of bhagawAn bAdarAyaNa has been used as > a basis by even non-visistAdvaita vedantins such as Adi Sankara. It > will > be a tall order to conclusively prove that bAdarAyaNa and his legacy > were 100% visistAdvaitam. If such a thing were patently obvious, there > shouldn't have been any other school of vedAnta besides ours. Unless > of course, we go to the extent of stating that Sankara, Anandateertha > etc. > did not know what they were talking about. The above words are again personal opinion. (Again please do not misunderstand this for " condemnation " ). If a person studies SrI Bhashya, Sata-dhushani, Tatva-mukta-kalapam then he will never (even in dreams) have comments like this. I have a question addressed to you: " Is there atleast a single sUtra in bhagawAn bAdarAyaNa's Brahma-sUtra in support of SrI Adi Sankara's philosophy? " May I request you to kindly answer this question. I have asked this question because you have written " It will be a tall order to conclusively prove that bAdarAyaNa and his legacy were 100% visistAdvaitam " You have written " If such a thing were patently obvious, there shouldn't have been any other school of vedAnta besides ours " . This comment is ignored because it was already clearly mentioned that Visishtadvaita is the only philosophy of Veda and others are personal interpretations. Please do not mistake these things as vociferous. I suggest that let us be precise in our comments and see that rationality is applicable. Any one can say anything, but the question is " which is the philosophy and practice of Veda? " . The answer to this question is without any doubt, " only Visishtadvatia Shree Vaishnavam " . Thanks & Regards M.S.HARI Ramanuja Daasan (mshari) __________________ Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted September 25, 2000 SrI: SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN - SaThakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha Dear devotees, namO nArAyaNa. Some have well answered many questions that were raised in this thread. aDiyEn felt like adding few more ..... ------------------------------- 1. Are Sage VyAsa and VAlmIki Maharishi " AchAryas " to SrI VaishNavas ? Yes. They are " AchAryas " to SrI VaishNavas, through their great works on VEdAnta, but not through the Panca-SamskAram lineage. In this sense, they are said to be not in the traditional lineage of SrI VaishNava AchAryas, which can be termed by Ubhaya-VEdAnta Guru-Parampara. -- 2. Difference Between Ubhaya-VEdAnta and VEdAnta Parampara ********************************************************** Since SAstras clearly mention that Lord SrIman nArAyaNa atfirst did the upadEsam of VEdas to Lord Catur-mukha Brahma and then Lord Brahma propagated it to Sage NArada and others, this is recognized as the Guru-parampara for all VEdAntins. Guru-Parampara of Advaitins (Ref. advaita-vedanta Homepage) : ------------------------------ Lord nArAyaNa Lord Padmabhuva (Catur-mukha brahma) Sage vasishTha Sage Sakti Sage ParASara Sage VyAsa Sage Suka SrI GauDapAda SrI Govinda bhagavatpAda SrI Adi SankarAcArya Here the link between Sage Suka and SrI GauDapAda is not clear. They were separated by hundreds of years. No idea as to whether the former directly taught the latter through mystic vision. But, the divine works of the Sages are taken as pramAnas and probably through that, they become their AchAryas. Guru-Parampara of Dwaitins : ------------------------------- Lord nArAyaNa Lord Catur-mukha Brahma Sage NArada Sage VyAsa SrI Ananda TIrtha (MadhvAchArya) aDiyEn is not 100% sure of the Dwaitin's lineage between Lord Brahma and Sage VyAsa. But in one source, its mentioned like this. Again, Sage VyAsa and MadhvAchArya are separated by hundreds of years. But Dwaitins claim that during MadhvAchArya's trip to HimAlayas, he got the instructions/upadEsams directly from Sage VyAsa. Ubhaya-VEdAnta Guru-Parampara : SrI VaishNavas recognize the vEdAnta Parampara till Sage Suka as mentioned above and also accept the writings of many other rishis propounding VEdAnta. Needless to say, Smrutis of various rishis are accepted by all schools of VEdAnta. Some important rishis propounding ViSishtAdvaita VEdAnta whose writings were utilized/quoted by Bhagavad RAmAnuja are : a. Sage BOdhAyana : In Tatwateeka, SwAmi DESikan identifies him to be same as Sage Upavarsha. He wrote an extensive Vritti ie.gloss on Brahma SUtras. b. Sage TaNka (alias BrahmAnandin, vAkyakAra) : Wrote " vAkyAs " - very short notes on ChAndOgya Upanishad. c. Sage Dramida : Followed Sage TaNka's vAkyAs and commented upon ChAndOgya Upanishad, called as " DramidabhAshya " . d. Sages GuhadEva, Kapardin and BhAruci. In SampradAya PariSuddhi, SwAmi DESikan says : " ........ yathArthadaSi-kaLAi yathA-drushta-arthavAdi-kaLAna vyAsa-bOdhAyanAdi-kaLAlE yathAdhikAram -pravartita-mAna vEdAnta sampradAyattiRku inda yuga-AarambattilE brahmanandi- Aadi-kaLukkup pinbu NammAzhwAr pravartakar-AanAr " . ie. " ......After VyAsa and BOdhAyana, the propounders of VEdAnta sampradAyam, who knew the truth <vEdAnta tattvas> and performed the upadEsam as they realized/knew, in the beginning of present <kali> yuga, NammAzhwAr became the propounder of this VEdAnta sampradAyam after BrahmAnandi and others " . Thus, the Divya-Prabandham of AzhwArs are only in tune with the VEdAnta sampradAyam of the rishis. SwAmi DESikan clearly points out that NammAzhwAr has propounded the same VEdAnta as it was previously propounded by verious rishis. But, the Guruparampara through upadEsam (direct instruction) for NammAzhwAr does not connect with a rishi. As we know, this Guruparampara starts from Divya Dampati and proceeds onto VishwaksEnar, NammAzhwAr, NAthamuni ...till our current AchAryas. This can be termed as the " Ubhaya-VEdAnta Guruparampara " in contrast with the general " VEdAnta Parampara " , since the former has the direct upadEsam and impact of AzhwAr's Divine works reverred as DrAvida-VEdas due to their clarity of presentation of VEdAnta in unmistakable terms. Since only through this Ubhaya-VEdAnta Guruparampara that SrI VaishNavas get Panca-SamskAram done, which esp. includes upadEsam of rahasya mantras and learn the Ubhaya-VEdAnta granthas including that of works by rishis, this Guru-Parampara is the " direct " AchArya Lineage for SrI VaishNavas. -- 3. Were Sage VyAsa and VAlmIki Maharishi ParamaikAntins ? aDiyEn has heard in a kAlakshEbam that Sage vyAsar was a SrI Vaishnava / ParamaikAntin. SrI KarunAkaran SwAmi explained that Rishis like VyAsa played a different role than that of AzhwArs, though the fundamental principle is same for both of them. Many rishis catered to the needs of all the people viz. dharmam, artham, kAmam and mOksham. So, they also spoke about, say, the glories of some anya dEvatAs , performing worship to anya dEvatAs for certain benifits etc also, in addition to the way mumukshu (seeker of moksham) should be. But, AzhwArs taught us only about the pathway to moksham viz. uninterrupted kainkaryam to the Divya Dampati and thus the focus of AzhwArs is different ( ofcourse, if someone recites Divya Prabandham etc, with the intention of getting more money PerumAL will grant it ). Philosophically, Sage VyAsa and AzhwArs say the same thing, but the focus of their writings/teachings varied according to the role they took. Sage VyAsa is Lord VishNu's avatAram (ie. that jIvAtma was given extrordinary powers by PerumAL) intended for achieving certain objectives and the incarnation of AzhwArs was for achieving certain objectives. But, seeing from a different angle, using the nahi nindA nyAyam (ie. just to glorify someone and _not_ to deride other), AzhwArs are said to be superior to rishis since AzhwArs sung only about SrIman nArAyaNa and allied aspects in a very lucid manner. This statement needs to be properly understood with the background of all the things written above. It is to be noted that, not all rishis were VEdAntins. There were also some who upholded different systems of Philosophy like SAn~khya and VaiSEshika. But, the rishis referred in general are those who were VEdAntins. Also, there were some difference of opinions between Rishis regarding the performance of certain anushThAnams, which is reflected through their Smrutis. Some AchAryas say that, since the later Rishis relaxed certain procedures in the anushThAnam, keeping in view of the capability of the men/women performing it, some differences have arised. -- 4. Was Sage VyAsa a ViSishtAdvaitin ? Our AchAryas have established this clearly in their works. The recent monumental works like " ParamArtha BhUshaNam " by SrI abhinava dESika UttamUr Swami and " GUdArtha-dIpikA " by Abhinava RanganAtha ParakAla Jeeyar establishes this point very firmly. In the recent book titled " Philosophy of the VEdAnta SUtra " , (MunshirAm Manoharlal Pub) SrI SMS Chari has done an unbiassed study of Sage VyAsa's Brahma SUtras to determine as to which of the three commentaries viz.Sankara-BhAshya, SrI-BhAshya and Madhva-BhAshya, bring out the Philosophy of VEdAnta as explained in Brahma-SUtra. SrI SMS Chari concludes that SrI BhAshya is the one which brings out faithfully the teachings of Sage VyAsa's Brahma SUtras. -- 5. If Sage VyAsa was a ViSishtAdvaitin, why didn't he mention that the Philosophy of Upanishads is " ViSishtAdvaita " ? Sage VyAsa was only establishing " VEdAnta " , which is the Philosophy of Upanishads in particular and VEdAs in general. There was no need to specifically coin some name, since VEdAnta was the general term used. Later, due to some problems in interpretations, many schools of VEdAnta arose. Even, Bhagavad RAmAnuja never used the term " ViSishtAdvaita " . He was only propounding the VEdAnta consciously. But, the best name that can be coined for this system was arrived later to be " ViSishtAdvaita " . Ofcourse, SwAmi DESikan's contribution in this issue (as in all other issues as well) comes into play. ViSishtAdvaita is not an evolved Philosophy. But SwAmi DESikan has made original contributions to shape ViSishtAdvaita in the likes of NyAya PariSuddhi (On Epistemology ie.On PramAnas) and NyAya SiddhAnjanam ( On Metaphysics ie. On PramEyas). Epistemology gives the tools to understand VEdAs and VEdAnta Properly. In NyAya SiddhAnjanam, various metaphysical categories are thoroughly classified and SwAmi DESikan explains the way in which ViSishtAdvaitin accepts those metaphysical entities. Few centuries back, SrI Tirupputkuzhi swAmi has written an excellent commentary on NyAya-SiddhAnjanam and has performed parishkAras in the elegant Navya-NyAya Style. Similarly, few centuries back, SrI AnantAzhwAn of ThennAchArya sampradAyam has expressed the various aspects of the philosophy of ViSishtAdvaita (closely following SrI BhAshyam and various works of SwAmi DESikan, but for very minute deviations at some places) in the Navya-NyAya Style filled with ubiquitous " avacchEdakas " and " avacchinnas " , through his " VAdAvaLi " . This is the first attempt in its style as how advaitins like Brahmanandin commented upon MadhusUdhana Saraswati's " Advaita Siddhi " and SrI JayatIrtha expounded the Philosophy of Dwaita through NyAya-Sudha (Or some name sounding similar to this), fully in accordance with the techniques of Navya-NyAya. We can think about such evolvement in expressing ViSishtAdvaita with more clarity and comprehensiveness. But, the VEdAnta in Upanishads remains the same and it is ViSishtAdvaita which explains it. Please refer to the following articles in the archives (Password : badran ) for more details : a. Is ViSishtAdvaita an evolved Philosophy ? http://dileepan.busi.utc.edu//july99/0048.asp b. ViSishtAdvaita http://dileepan.busi.utc.edu//july99/0104.asp ----- 6. Allright. If they are regarded so high as great Sages and AchAryas of VEdAnta, why then their " Thirunakshatram " is not celebrated ? Why then worship to Sage VyAsa is not performed by SrI VaishNavas during Guru PUrnima ? SrI-VaishNava AchAryAs/SannyAsis do not perform worship to Sage VyAsA during the VyAsa/Guru PourNami. Advaita sannyAsis during their chAturmAsya sankalpa perform VyAsa pUjA and Sage VyAsa is very much recognized as an AchArya in their Guru-Parampara. Similarly, there are some other sampradAyams which have vyAsar specifically in their guruparampara and celebrate VyAsa pUja during that stime. Following is the answer from SrI KarunAkaran SwAmi : SrIvaishnavAs also have great reverence for Sage VyAsa because of many reasons, though some formal worship may not be performed. There is nothing wrong, if the thirunakshatrams of Sage VyAsa and Sage VAlmIki are celebrated. But, first of all, we don't have proper information on their birth-stars. Also, even the information on thirunakshatram of " SrI SudarSana SUri " is not available to us and thus we are not celebrating it. But for the unparalleled help out of his mercy from his great mahAn through the illustrious " SrutaprakASika " , we will _not_ be able to understand SrI BhAshya in its multi-dimension. Its not that only through celebration of a thirunakshatram that we can show our reverence and gratitude to an AchArya. Late SrI D.T.TAtAchArya of great fame has already answered this question to the advaitins who commented that SrI VaishNavas don't show reverence to Sage VyAsa. SrI DT swAmi has said that 1. Its not that celebration of VyAsa Pournami is the only way of showing one's reverence to Sage VyAsa. 2. All the SrI-BhAshya kAlakshEpams invariably include the taniyan of Sage VyAsa and we do give great respect and reverence. << Note: For SrImad RAmAyanam KAlakshEpam/UpanyAsam/PArAyanam also, taniyan for Sage VAlmIki is recited >> 3. Bhagavad RAmAnuja personally made sure that the two sons of his dear disciple SrI KUratAzhwAn was named after Sage ParASara and Sage VyAsa as " ParASara Bhatta " and " VyAsa Bhatta " . We do have high reverence to these AchAryas and it in a way shows our reverence to those Sages as well. aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan KOmAndUr ELayavilli (BAladhanvi) KaralapAkkam ananthapadmanAbhan. krishNArpaNam. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
