Dear Madam,
It is tempting for me to accept this
explanation in toto.
Let me first give my
thoughts.
1. Yes, the words viNNuLAr , imayavar are
some general terms and the meanings vary according to context. Here is where the
vyAkyanam-s come into play we have to depend
on them.
In EDu,viNNuLAr
is taken as those who are serving Him there -The term nithya-sUri is categorically mentioned. Those who
serve here is also mentioned. The point here is -yes, nithya-sUri-s are
mentioned in the vyAkyAnam as being subjected to the vicissitudes of the five
sensory organs.Going a step further, the episode of Thiruvadi is
cited.
Therefore, we cannot gloss over what is
given in vyAkyAnam-s and say that nithya-sUri-s are not subject to this, as the
vyAkyAnam-s depict this clearly.
2. Now a question may arise, when
Bhagawadh GiTA mentions that it is pure sAtvic nature in the
parama-padham, which is also mentioned in Sri PiLLai lOkAchAryA's
Thathvathrayam, how come, here it is mentioned by AzhwAr that nithya-sUri-s are
subject to this?
3.Apparently there is a seeming
contradiction.
4. On discussion with fellow
srEvaishNavites, various opinions emerged :
The fact that Thriuvadi visited
indhra lOkam back and forth made him susceptible to such egoistic thoughts.
A counter questions comes up . When
the parama-padham is a watertight compartment -thunnittu
pugal ariya vaikuntha nEL vAsal- how can sages and thiruvadi go back and
forth/
Perhaps, this incident did not occur in
vaikuntham at all is one opinion.
There is a place called 'lElA vaikuntham 'which is in this destoryable word -let us
say, is another school of thought'
EmperumAn is spread everywhere. However,
His omni-presence in senrtient and insentient beings does not affect Him.Others
like Thiruvadi when they do migrate from VAikuntham get tainted by mixture of
other two guNAs - is another opinion. Therefore, he got involved in this
incident is one answer.
Conclusion
: Yes, the word viNNuLar is interchangeable and general. We should
refer to vyAkyAnam-s when this generality occurs.
Here in this pAsuram, specifically
nithya-sUri-s are referred in the vyAkyAnam. This cannot be refuted as EDu and
other vyAkyAnam-s definitely quote this.
That the vaikuntham is devoid of rajas and
thams is clear from BG and Thathvathrayam.
The several opinions which I cannot
determine with conclusive proof is also given above.
Therefore, in my humble opinion either
this should not have taken place in vaikuntham at all or this should be taken as
an exception to the rule or there should be a better reconciliation which I am
not able to make.
I shall make consultatons in in this
regard.
Thank YOu
rAmAnuja dAsan
vanamamalai
padmanabhan
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:28
PM
Subject: [ramanuja] ViNNUlAr
SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.
We often come across in prabhandham, words such as ViNNavar, Vanavar
and Amarar used interchangeably. Imayavar and ViNNulAr are other terms used
less often. But we can see a qualifying reference or context-orientedness at
places where these terms are used, enabling us to deduce what the aazhwar
intends to convey. It is like how
the same name brahma is used to denote both the all pervading Brahman and the
four-faced brahma, with some prefix or contextual reference as in the sloka
?gurur brahma, gurur Vishnu:?saakshaath para-brahma..?
We can also see the same trend in Prabhandam verses. The aazhwar makes
some qualifying remarks regarding whether he refers to devas or nithya sooris,
in that particular context. The only verse(s) which I am able to recollect
where all these terms are used to denote them to be in Vaikuntham is in ?Soozh
visumbhu? 10. The vanavar, iamayavar, vinnavar and munivar wait at the
threshold of Vaikuntahm to receive the aazhwar. In other places, contextual
reference makes them different from nithya sooris.
First of all a clear distinction is made about who are qualified to be
amarar or nithya sooris. As per Thiruvoimozhi 10-5-8,9&10, amarar are
those who are not tainted by ?vinaigaL?.
The aazhwar refers to nithya sooris, when he says
?amara-th-thozhuvaarkku amaraa vinaigalE? In contrast, the Vinnavar are those
who are in ViNNulagam and at many places in Prabhandam, Vinnavar are referred
to in the context of or in contrast to MaNnavar, the earthly beings. This ViNNulagam is
part of the 3 world, Mooulagam. This mooulagam is part of created universe
which has a beginning and an end within the total life span of 100 years of
the four-faced Brahma deva. Therefore
the ViNnavar can not be amarar of amaraa vinaigaL who accompany the Lord at
Vaikuntham.
In 10-2-6, a direct contrast is being made between amarar (nithya
sooris) and Vanavar (devas of lokas like Indra loka). By telling ?amararai-th-thirigindrar? we
find the amarar as Liberated
souls like sage Bhrugu whose condition as expressed in 3rd chapter
of Taittriyan Upanishad is similar to ?thiriyum amarar? or ?wandering
Liberated soul?
In the next line aazhwar talks about the ?viNNOr? (paNi seivar ViNNOr),
thereby differentiating them from amarar. ViNNOr have some specific duties to
perform whereas nithya sooris have no such designated duties, making them
liberal literally.
This duty-binding nature is what makes them subject to ups and downs
and be endowed with faculties to carry out the duties. That is how they come
to be aggrieved when asuras trouble them. In Thiruvoimozhi 7-8-6, it is said
?vaanavar tham thuyar theera..? bhagavan came down to earth to humble Bali.
Similar instances can be quoted from Prabhandam to show that Vinnavar or
vanavar or ViNNulAr do undergo
troubles, to wipe out which Bhagavan takes some steps. Thus the ViNNulAr
refers to vaanavar coming within the framework of created worlds.
Another source that can be cited is the Acharya Hrudhayam-description
of Thiruvoimozhi (4th prakaraN). The 7th patthu in which
this verse appears is generally about aazhwar?s ?aakhrOsham? as to why Bhagavan has
given these indriyas that give
trouble to him (jivas) Even ViNNulAr have not escaped the spell of the
indriyas is what is made out in the first 10 of 7th
patthu.
Connecting this to BG, the individual soul upon attaining Brahman ,
gets the ?annadhithvaath, nirgunathvaath? nature (13-31) (or vice versa or
this state happening simulatneous)
making it to have no need to do
work (na karOthi) . The sequence of jiva?s journey in attaining
Brahmanhood from verses 13-21 to 32 in BG is of souls who enjoy Bhagavan. They
are not those who suffer anything on any account, nor are they endowed with
gunas and senses of prakruthi ?born. They have transcended the gunas ? they
are nir-gunaath. This means that
if some entity is described to be suffering from or endowed with
prakruthi-born attribute, then that entity can not be said to have attained
brahmanhood, which in other words mean not having got a place in Vaikuntham.
Therefore it can be conclusively said that ViNNulAr are not nithya sooris.
They are VaanOr or viNNAvar of created universe.
I stand to be corrected.
Pranams.
Jayasree saranathan
azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|