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]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |