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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00055 Nov 2003

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


Sriman,

I thank you very much for educating me on this. 

Adiyen
Mohan Ramanujadasan.



On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 vtca wrote :
>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.
> > ...
>
>
>
>azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[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