Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: Dear Sri Mohan, Sri Mohan Sagar is right. Sri Venkatesa Itihasamala which is believed to be authored by Sri Anandazhvan, one of the 74 disciples of Swami Ramanuja, shows in great detail all the arguments put forward by Saivites that Sri Venkatesa is either Skanda or Siva and the brilliant manner in which Ramanuja refuted their claims and showed with extensive evidence that Lord Srinivasa is none other than Sriman Narayana. These claims are therefore not new. And, they are kept being made in spite of the fact that such claims have been soundly defeated. I believe that Arunagiri Nathar or some other person has even written poems stating that it is Skanda who is on the seven hills. There are even attempts made to substantiate these based on popular sayings such as "kunRu niRkum idamellAm kumaran niRkum idam"!! Let's take a brief look at some of these arguments and what Sri Ramanujar had to say about them. One argument is that the water is called Svami Pushkarini and that the Swami is from Kumara Swami, another name for Skanda. They also pointed to the Varaha purana which states that Skanda came to the hills to do penance. Ramanuja rejected these claims showing from many evidences including the Varaha purana and many other puranas, that the kshetram itself is a Vishnu kshetram and that Skanda came there to meditate on Sriman Narayana. Also, the name Swami Pushkarini came because the waters are considered to be the Swami of all puNya thIrtthams. Finally, while Skanda might be called Kumara Swami, the word Swami by itself is not used for him in any puraNas. It is reserved only for Sriman Narayana. Besides many others have meditated on Tirumala hills and therefore the kshetram cannot be said to be dedicated to any one of them. Also, the Lord of the Seven Hills has four shoulders. This is not a characetristic associated with Skanda. Azhvars have all praised Lord Srinivasa as Sriman Narayana. Azhvars are detached from this world's normal matters. There is no need for them to go to a temple for Skanda and claim that it is Sriman Narayana. And their description of the Lord cannot be attributed to Varaha Perumal on the mountain. They fit only Lord Srinivasa. The lack of conch and discus on the archa mEni of the Lord: He gave His weapons to His devotee King Thondaman to help him in battle - that is the reason why He is present without the conch and the discus. The saivites then claimed that it must be Siva because of the use of bilva leaves to worship Him, which is usually done in Siva temples. However, Ramanuja established that usage of bilva leaves is not exclusive to Siva. It is said that Sri Mahalakshmi likes bilva tree (Sri suktam)and therefore Narayana likes its leaves just as much as He likes thulasi leaves. There are many works that say that Sriman Narayana should be worshipped with bilva leaves and other flowers. Next the saivites made the same claim based on the fact that He has long hair and wears a snake around His neck. However, Ramanuja once again was able to quote from many works to show that these too are normal characteristics of Narayana. Also, he showed that during Lord Srinivasa's wedding, snake ornaments were given to Him to wear around His neck. They then used Peyazhvar's pasuram where he says that the Lord enjoys both forms in Thirumala and used that to claim that He was HariHara. However, Ramanuja showed that the poem was meant to show that Sriman Narayana enjoys both forms and not that He is HariHara. In spite of all such convincing arguments, the Saivites kept complaining and so history records it that in the presence of the king, the conch and discus were placed in front of the Lord as well as the ayudhams of Siva. The sannidhi was then sealed and when it was reopened the next morning, the Lord stood smiling wearing the conch and the discus. If people choose to still argue, then what can we say? Azhvar Emberumanar Jeeyar Thiruvadigale Sharanam adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Mohan Sagar" <m_raghavan@xxxx> wrote: > Dear Sri Mohan, > > A work called Sri Venkateswara itihAsa mAla provides great detail into the > arguments that Bhagavad Sri Ramanuja presented in order to prove, without a > doubt, that Srinivasa at Thirumalai is the archAvathAra of Sriman Narayana, > and that His thirumEni is in accordance with Agama sAstra. > ...
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |