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