Dear Smt.Saranathan and Sri Padmanabhan swamy, Many thanks for your illuminating replies. Let me relate the background of my question. Recently, during a get together at my place arose a discussion between my athimber,who is learned in arulicheyals and a scholar guest well learned in vedanta. The topic was whether the jivatma is fully dependent on the Lord here or he is dependent in Vaikuntham too. The guest was mentioning that, though the Jivatma cannot perform any activity here on His own, in Vaikuntha, he is satya kama, satya sankalpa etc but nevertheless he always serves the Lord in Vaikuntha, because the sole purpose of his going there is to serve Him.Hence he has to perfom activities. My athimber countered that both here and in Vaikuntham, the jivatma is unable to do anything on his own and so he only depends on the Lord to serve the Lord. To support it, he gave the quote TVM 7.1.6, stressing that ViNNulAr refers to Vaikunthavasis who are also tormented by the senses and hence depend on the Lord's mercy. But most of us present were surprised.Everyone had heard that the torment of the aimpulan is only in this world and not in Vaikuntham.Thus arose a heated argument without any conclusion. I wanted to find out what it really means and hence this thread. Ramanuja dasi Vedavalli Ranganathan --- saranathan <jayasree_saranathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA. > > > > Respected Sri Vanamamalai Padmanabhan swamy, > > > > > > --- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Padmanabhan > <aazhwar@xxxx> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Dear Mrs. Saranathan, > > > > > > By terming that certain words contain only in > vyAkyAnam and not in the text, we are trying to > undermine both.Both in the sense that, The texts are > better understood from vyAkyAnam-s > > > refer upadhEsa rathinamAlai - ariya aruLich cheyal > poruLai AriyargatkippOdhu-aruLich cheyalAith > thARindhu.It is unfortunate that this argument > springs from the premise that there is no nexus > between the text and the vyAkyAnam. NOthing can be > far from truth.<<<<<<<<<< > > > > > > > > Please read the first 4 points of my mail. The > implication is that for different terms such as > imayavar, vaanOr, anthamil amarar etc, the term > nithya sUri is used, as for the understanding of my > 'podiyinum podi' arivu. Kindly let me know the > terms used in vyakhyanams. Since the term 'nithya > sUri' is used to denote them all, it is inferred in > the mail that the meaning of nithya sUri or who > nithya Suris are - is not what we think or > understand today. In that context, the probable > deduction is that they are 'luminous ones' and > therefore 'devas'. > > The contention that there is no nexus between > vyakhyanam and the text is yours, and not mine for > the very reason the entire exercise is to know who > ViNNuLaar are and not about philosophical import of > passages. This is also proved by the following from > your mail which I have not said, nor will I say, for > I know, as you also know that these are found in > texts. > > > > >>> The terms -Thirumandhiram, dhvyam and Charama > SlOkam are not mentioned in the texts. <<<<< > > > > > > The discussion is about VinNulaar and whether they > refer to Nithya sUris. Please enlighten me / all of > us who Nithya sUris are and what the term means in > the light of vyakhyanams- preferably by grammatic > equation (which I have attempted in the mail and > this may be wrong) or the 4-fold signification of > deriving the meaning of a word (like denotative, > figurative, purportive and suggestive), if not, the > 3-fold derivative by which Ramanujacharya derived > the meaning of Brahman in the first verse of Brahma > sutras. I am sure that if we do that we will know as > you said what is conveyed in the vyakhyanams. > > > > > > >>> Any researfch should be to open the eyes in > tandem with vyAkyAnam but not at the cost of > vyAkyAnam-s<<<<<< > > > > > >>>> As I said earlier, The vyAkyAnam for this > particular pAsuram categorically mention > nithya-Suri=-s and also gives a precedence. If one > does not like it, that is different matter > altogether. Undermining vyAkyAnam-s for the sake of > education will NOT SERVE THE PURPOSE.<<<<< > > > > > > No one is undermining the vyakhyanams. But when > contradictions appear in our understanding, we know > that there must be more than what is conveyed by the > vyakhyanams, say, some hidden implication. What is > that hidden implication is what stalwats like > yourself are requested to give. In this context > only, do we get to wonder whether nithya sUris are > just Garudazhwar, and others closer to Bhagavan's > Thirumeni, or the 33 crore devas who reach Him upon > creation or the beings in Deva-deham. My mail is a > further attempt on how to reconcile the senses > aspect, in their being. > > > > > > >>>> Yes, dhEvAs take rebirth. brahmA's has got a > life longevity after that his post is gone. > -nAnmugan nAL migai.ref. Periya ThiruMozhi. There is > no argument regarding this.In this particular > pAsuram, it is categorically mentioned > nithya-sUri-s. Therefore, there is no point is > referring to Suzh-visumbu vyAkyAnam which is in an > entirely a different context. <<<<< > > > > > > Soozh visumbhu is brought in to show that there > exists a definite reference to iamyavar etc to be > residents of Vaikuntham in NDP as in these 10. > > > > > > >>>>Yes, vEdu is Moksham. Yes it is also vidu min > muRRavum -nETTal vihAram - refer nannUl sUthram.It > has go thus grammatical connection as well as > content connection. How does it matter in this > context? <<<<<< > > > > Certainly.. the verses 8 & 9 tell what a mukthan > attains - shedding the 3 and attaining in whole. > That shows the difference between what it means to > be a mukthan - no return and no afffiction from > senses - come whatever may. But the way it is > different for nithya sUris is the cause for this > discussion. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>I cannot go against EDu. I cannot undermine > EDu. > > > > > > Your disclaimer does not insulate against > apachAram on EDu.<<<< > > > > > > > > My conscious knows - that I am only 'nimitthaani > bhava'- I am only an instrument in His scheme of > things. Glory unto Him!!! > > > > > > > > > >>>>Conclusion: This will throw an impresssion > that our sampradhayam is a water tigtht one does not > encourage any research. Absolutely not. > > If it had been so, so many vyAkyAnam-s for a single > prabhandham could never have emerged.<<<<<<<<< > > > > > > I am sorry again, a disclaimer. You have > unconsciously or without provocation landed up into > that 'impression', which tells the scene. > > > > Our Sampradhayam , ney , even our sanatana dharma > does not discourage research. > === message truncated === __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/.itolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ramanuja/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: ramanuja-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |