You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Nov 2003

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00049 Nov 2003

 
Nov 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


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. 
> ...




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list