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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00119 Apr 2003

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


Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

Respected Smt Nappinnai,

I know learned scholars would reply to all those that you have 
raised. I have comments only on two of them (as usual, "you" is a 
second person usage)

a. If one goes by EmperumAnAr's SriBhAshya statement on varNAshrama 
Dharma,why not follow the same EmperumAnAr who "did not" make "any" 
reference to AzhvArs and their works in all his samskrt works? So 
should one reject AzhvArs outrightly?[Although AcArya Hrdhayam suthra 
65 declares that emperumAnAr wrote Sri BhAShya with the help 
of dhivya prabandham only]. SriRangam Sri Narasimhachar swami,on Sri 
BhAShya,said that EmperumanAr also has said that women and shUdrAs 
are not allowed to learn. If this be the case,why do we see 
NammAzhvAr and other AzhvArs wearing yagnyOpavItham in all dhivya 
dhEsha sanniDhis? Is this not in direct conflict with Shruthi? 
I am sure if AzhvArs(4th and 5th varNAs) were baddha jIvatmas,they 
would not have worn yagnyOpavItham while they were in this lIla 
vibhUthi. If this yagnyOpavItham was adorned by them after they 
attained mOksha(after gaining sArUpyam),then are there two shruthis 
which are valid,one before attaining mOksha and one after attaining 
mOksha? I have heard that when EmperumAnAr was young,he had put the 
yagnyOpavItham for some of his friends who belonged to the 
unfortunate varNAs. Is this true?

- Going by one's work is one thing. Not going by what one has not 
written is other. These two are completely different. As per our 
tradition we don't learn based on someone's writing. We learn based 
on what is taught to us by our acharyas. So, when we quote an 
acharya's statement, we say "the acharyar says in Shri Bhashyam", we 
don't say "the acharyar wrote in Shri Bhashyam". This might sound 
silly, but has utmost importance. By making the latter statement, we 
exclude what the "writer" has practised in his life. By making the 
former statement, we include what he has told as well has practised. 
And hence justification of both are being done. Emperumanar did 
cherish azhwar's work and did follow the same and via his Shri 
Bhashyam, he justifies the "Eligibility" for mumukshutavam for ANY 
VARNA. I have pointed out earlier in my post that, eligibility for 
mumukshutvam is not denied based on the varna and this has no 
relevance to the varnashrama dharma that talks about the rules for 
the body. A brahmin is a brahmin and has attained the body due to 
punyas. If he does wrong, again it goes into his account(Varnashrama 
dharmam does punish everyone without any bias). What needs to be 
understood is that, just because one brahmanan does something wrong, 
it doesn't mean he should be disrespected. This is the rule. The 
niyamam. Our purvacharyas did not discourage this. If so, then Shri 
Ramanujar should have fought with Yadavaprakasar should have 
disrespected him for his wrong "kudharkkam" interpretations of the 
shruthi vakyas. But, he just questioned him as a disciple, but did 
not pursue. He left him without a trace, the reason being, 
Yadavaprakasar was a brahmanan and a teacher. Later on YP became a 
disciple of Shri Ramanujar.

There are 3 views on the varnashrama dharmas(It is left to the reader 
to find the appropriate views of the sampradayams from their 
acharyan). Those are:
Ramanuja Sampradayam's Premise: For performing prapatti, one does not 
need any eligibility. Anyone can perform prapatti.

a) The premise does not mean that Varnashrama Dharma should be 
discounted. Varnashrama Dharma should be followed and practised. But, 
caste Discrimination is condemned. Dehams are unequal for various 
varnas, but atma ujjeevanam is irrelevant to that. If a person has 
done prapatti, i.e when the atma ujjeevanam has happened, it seems, 
it would be very apparent. If it is not, it is only due to the 
immense ignorance of the perceiver. All the azhwars, irrespective of 
the caste, were considered as Shri Vaishnavas. Why the list was only 
12. Why there were not 50 or 100s of people from all the castes? This 
is the only question that solves the puzzle. The respect is for the 
level of realization. How will one know the level of realization? 
Only acharya purushas can. Not everyone can see this. So, even in 
other castes, only certain people were considered to be the azhwars, 
not everyone of them. This clearly indicates that, the point to 
consider, is only the level of realization and not the body, when we 
talk about Vaishnavism. So just because we feel a brahmanan is making 
a mistake or we feel a shudran is being spiritual, we should not 
disrespect the former or the latter. It all depends on WHAT LEVEL WE 
ARE, to decide the same, that really matters. I am sure, I don't even 
qualify for that task on estimating someone's realization level. So, 
until I reach that level, I will try my best to follow, if not all, 
at least to my best, of the anushtanams that are PRESCRIBED for my 
birth as per varnashrama dharma. This has nothing to do with 
disrespecting others.

b) The premise means that anyone can do prapatti, so there is no need 
for Varnashrama Dharma. If this is the case, Dehams are all equal and 
hence every human being is equal(behind the scene this theory refutes 
the basic karma theory of our sampradayam). According to what I have 
learnt, this is not Shri Ramanuja Sampradayam. This is a major 
misconception. Dehams are definitely unequal and are because of the 
karma. If dehams are equal and a religious shudra is far better than 
a brahmana who drinks, then brahmanas need not wear yagnyopavitham 
and do nithya karmas etc. Please note the point clearly. The "far 
better than" that I have used is based on the premise "dehams are 
equal". But, the same view point would change when we see it from the 
spiritual level - "The religious shudra is far better than the 
brahmana who drinks". This is at the atma level. These two viewpoints 
are different and should not be mixed up. Kindly give me one example 
where any of our purvacharyas have been involved in intercaste 
marriages. Please provide at the least one authentic example!!!

c) Third is the one that you rightly pointed out (as per Mumme): 
Though prapatti is common to all there is a DISTINCTION between 
Brahmin devotee and shUdra devotee;and shudra devotee should be given 
respect only as per varNAshrama Dharma. This one was not swamy 
Desikan's view for sure. This was his view until he was corrected by 
the lord and he realized the greatness of the Azhwars irrespective of 
the caste. This is probably the view of the followers. Or may just be 
the perception of others! Whatever! This view is not as per 
Varnashrama Dharma at all. Brahmana should be give respect 
irrespective of his deeds, due to the deham he has achieved - This is 
being grossly misunderstood as, others should be disrespected, which 
is definitely wrong. I don't think this is what the Vadakalai 
Sampradayam follows. This is how it is wrongly perceived. The 
Vadakalai sampradayam and Thenkalai sampradayam differ only in the 
prapatti doctrine and not in the Varnashrama Dharmam!


Sarva Apradhaan Kshamasva|

All mistakes, if any, are solely due to my ignorance and I request 
the learned scholars to correct my mistakes. I would like to stand 
corrected and gain more knowledge towards realizing the ultimate 
rather than staying uncorrected to maintain my "false self respect".

Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,
Lakshmi Narasimhan




[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