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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00016 Nov 2003

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


Dear devotees,
Let me end this discussion with my last summary. I apologize if I 
hurt anybody's feelings and sensibilities.

Interpretation of Vedas:
To say that "only my interpretation of the Vedas is correct" and 
those who do not conform to this have "crooked vision" doesn't seem 
like a logical position to me. To re-iterate,

"The vedas declare Vishnu and Vishnu alone as the supreme" is a 
statement, whose validity can be verified. My claim is, we need to go 
beyond the vedas themselves and use purANas, vaishnava tantras and 
the work of our pUrvAchAryas, as exactly shri Parthasarathy did.

Vishnu in Sanga ilakkiyam:
I doubt that the tamils of sangam era were 'Vaishnavites' or 
considered him to be the only supreme. Paripaadal which explicitly 
deals with Vaishnavite themes is dated to be around 5 A.D. Please 
provide references from other sangam works.


Regards,
Kasturi Rangan .K

--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "thirunarayanan parthasarathy 
iyengar" <shyamala45@xxxx> wrote:
> 
> SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA
> APPAN THIRUVADIGALE SARANAM.
> 
> 
> Dear Srivaishnavas, Accept my pranam.
> 
> A prolonged discussion is going on the issue"Supremacy of 
Narayana"
> Our great Ramanuja has discussed this issue in his "Vedartha 
Sangraha" in slokas 101 to 112.
> Whose explanation, other than him do we require on this issue?
> We are the followers of Ramanuja.
> Those who can dispute his arguments can be:
> 
> 1. Those who has no faith in Vedas.
> 2. Those who believe in Vedas; but, interpret vedas according to 
their whims and fancies.
> 3. The present generation who get confused on account of various 
modern versions without any base.
> 
> 
> Sri Ramanuja's explanations are based on "Sabdha?Vedas" as 
pramanas. He follows the way shown by his elders, predecessors, great 
Rishis?Badarayana, Danga, Brhama nandi,Ghuha Deva. Kabhardhi, 
Bharuchi etc.,
> 
> (This is the proper way as advised by Sri Manavala Mamunigal as 
advised in URM.71.
> (MUUNNOR MOZHINTHA MURAI THAPPAME, PINNOR ATHANAI OORNTHU  
THAMATHANAI PESU).
> 
> We can ignore the statements of those under class 1 as they view 
things in a different footing. Let them have their own way.
> 
> " AVARAVAR THAMATHATHU ARIVARI VAKAI AVARAR IRAIYAVAR ENA  
ADI ADAIVARKAL' Thiruvaimozhi.1.1.5. 
> 
> We can ignore the explantions or arguments of the class.2. as they 
are known as "KUTHDRISHTIS' or those do not view things in the 
correct way.
> 
> The third case requires explanations.
> 
> We should thank our stars that we are followers of Ramanuja.
> We can simply believe his statements.
> Because, He was the master on all Vedas, NDP and all sastras..
> He never accepted which is not conforming to sound logic. His life 
started questioning his masters whenever he could not agree with his 
master's views.
> 
> His cousin brother Govidan, later known as Embar, asked him as to 
how he could believe that Sriman Narayana is having Chakra, Conch and 
other Divya ayudhas?
> 
> He replied " Lord revealed himself to me as such and it is up to 
you to believe it or not."
> 
> One Sishya, Trilokya maha devi, who is not a scholar said that she 
would believe whatever Ramanuja said, even if he said that the 
Jeyshta Devi is the ultimate supreme Lord. Such was strong faith of 
these disciples.
> 
> One Yagnja moorthy, later known as Arulala perumal Emperumanar, a 
versatile scholar argued with him and later became the disciple of 
Ramanuja. 
> 
> One Madhavachariar, a great scholar was won over by Bhattar, became 
his disciple and was known Nanjeeyar. 
> 
> Such was the intellectual honesty and integrity of these people.
> 
> 
> 2. The difference of opinion on `Parathva" is of later origin. 
Tamil Sangam literature which belong to a period prior to 500.B.C, 
mentions the worship of many gods including Narayana(Thirumal). But, 
Parathvam or Jagat Karanathvam is attributed to HIM ONLY. There was 
no dispute on this point during that period.
> 3. After 500 B.C, Jainism and Buddhism began to flourish 
and "Sanadhana Dharma " was in shadows.
> 4. No concrete information is available for the periods during 1st 
Century AD to 3rd Century. From 4th Century onwards, Azhvars and 
Nayanmars began to spread Vaishanvam and Saivam respectively. 
> 5. From this period only Saivites began to claim Supremacy to Lord 
Siva. They can have their own way as they do not have faith in Vedas.
> 6. But, Vedhanthins cannot have such a claim. They have always held 
Vishnu or Narayana as the Supreme one.
> 7. Sri.Alavandar in his Stotra Ratna sloka 11 says.
> 
> `SVABHAVIKA ANVATHIKA ATHISAYA EESITHVAM KHAHA;VAIDHIKA NA 
> MRUSHYATHI ? SIVA SADHAMAKA ITHI YETHE ABHI YASYA THE  
MAHIMARANAVA VIPRUSHAHA; 
> In other words, Vaidhikas cannot question your overlordship as 
Siva; Brahma and others form part and drops in your mighty ocean.
> 
> Of course some Vedhantins who saw reason in Ramanuja's arguments 
became his disciples. Those who cannot tolerate the splendor of 
Srivaishnavam, in later periods. became Saiva Advaithins and started 
confusions.
> 
> Pillai Lokachariar has contributed 18 Rahasyas . `THATHVA SEKARAM; 
which deals with this issue also, is one among them.
> 
> Those who can go through these texts can get convinced of the 
Supremacy of Lord Narayana. It is advisable for them to get the 
guidance and advice of learned well-qualified unbiased persons of our 
cult.
> 
> That is best way for ametures.
> 
> Adiyen Ramanuja dasan, T.Parthasarathy.
> 
> 
> 
>    
> \ 
> 
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote :
> >------------------------ >(
> 
> [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