From: ramanbil@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: darshanaiyer@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [SriRangaSri] Reg. Ayyappa, Durga, Sathyanarayana etc Pujas
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:12:11 +0000
Dear friend
You wrote:
"Likewise, be it Shiva or Ganapathi or Subrahmanya, if you consider them as Bhaktas, then deserve vandanam as much as Hanuman or the Alwars deserve"
Reply:
There is a BIG difference.
According to SrivaishNava Siddhantam, right from the four faced Brahma to the humblest blade of grass on earth, all are subject to their Karma and are governed by the TriguNas, namely Sattvam, Rajas and Tamas. They (Brahma, Rudra, Indra and others) hold their positions as reward for their past puNya karma and as ordained by Sriman Narayana.
They are not capable of granting mOKsham sought by Prapannas. The only one with Suddha Sattvam (without an admixture of the other two) is Sriman Narayana. WHO ALONE can grant mOksham.
It is also true that there can no greater VishNu Bhakta than Shiva.
But, When?
ONLY on occasions when there occurs a preponderance of Sattva (and other guNas are at low key) in his psyche like when he composed his "Mantra Raja pada Stotra" in Ahirbudhnya Samhita in which he himself admits "like all others, I am also your Daasabhootan"
There were umpteen occasions when this "Daasabhootan" was overwhelmed by Rajas and Tamas and acted differently.
For example,
1. When out of unprovoked anger, he clipped one of the 5 heads of Brahma and acquired "Brahmahathi dOsham" and came to be known as "Kapaali" because the skull stuck to his palm and refused to drop off until Sriman Narayana came to his rescue and relieved him of the curse. Siva himself admits this to Paarvati saying - âI was so scared that I would have to live with trauma forever but because of your bhaghyam, I got that relief!â
2. When he fought with Krishna along with Ganapathi, Subramanya and his entire retinue in the Banasura episode, in which he was worsted.
3. When he similarly took the side of POundareeka VaasudEva with his entire host and gave a bitter fight with Lord Krishna and got defeated.
There are very many instances in which he gave boons to Asuras and every time Sriman Narayana had to undo the damage without detracting from the boons granted by him. (example, Basmaasura, HiraNyakasipu, Ravana and many more)
Because of his mood swings, his hostility to Bhagavaan and his indiscriminate granting of boons to worthless souls, Prapannas do not consider him worthy of worship. Also, as mentioned earlier, he has himself acknowledged to Tirumazhisai Azhwar that he was NOT CAPABLE of granting mOKsham (pENinum varam tara miDukkillaatta tEvar).
Ganapathi and Subrahmanya never showed themselves up as VishNu Bhaktas at any time.
But, Hanuman and Azhwars stand on a different footing. They were unalloyed Bhaktas throughout.
Thus, there is no comparison between them and the Siva family.
Vedasruti says "Narayana created Rudra"â "Narayanath Rudro Ajayata"
- How can the creator and the created be the same?
Siva worships Narayana according to his own statement in his Mantrarajapada stotra.
- How can the worshipper and the worshipped be the same?
Vedas say that all deities obtained their respective positions from Vishnu by praying to him and according to their karma.
- How can the employer master and the employee servant be the same?
We see even in our own times that a person who is in a really high position has no need to go about to trumpet himself an equal to anybody else; Only the one who is far inferior down in the line would try to boost his morale by claiming parity with the superior, ignoring his own incapacity and equating himself with the superior on such common grounds like saying that both are just men and the blood of both is of the same red color or some such flimsy grounds.
Thus, devotees of Vishnu had no need to go about proving the superiority of their God (and the opposite of other deities) even though there were ample evidence for both in the Vedas and the various scriptures. And, as the saying goes, âGood wine needs no bushâ
So, now you will understand that unlike what you say -
"Hariyum Haranum CANNOT BE onnu, Idai Ariyaadavan Vaayila TAAN mANNu"
Now, you will understand that the reason behind the stand taken by Prapannas is NOT biased but the bias, if any, is on your side.
Sincerely
Anbil Ramaswamy
=====================================================================
> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 05:53:58 +0100
> From: darshanaiyer@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [SriRangaSri] Reg. Ayyappa, Durga, Sathyanarayana etc Pujas
> To: Ramanbil@xxxxxxxxxxx; srirangasri@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Dear sir,
>
> I have been a member of this group since long and this
> is not the first time I am looking at the biased
> nature of the group as well as its moderator(s). That
> least bothers me. I very well knew that you would not
> publish my mail on the group and would have trashed
> it. But yet I wrote in the faint and feeble hope that
> some good sense might prevail. Now I have realized
> that only if replies appeal to "your sense", then it
> is accepted as sensible, otherwise, it is dismissed as
> "Vithandaavaadam".
>
>
> You say that "ksudra devatas" may be His Sareeram and
> His children like all of us and some of them may even
> be His Bhaktas and we are sure, therefore, that they
> deserve neither "nindanam" or "vandanam". Why is it
> that you say that the Lord's Bhaktas do not deserve
> vandanam? Do you not offer vandanams to the Alwars or
> Hanuman? You may consider them as Acharyas, but
> foremost they are bhaktas and then only Acharyas.
> Likewise, be it Shiva or Ganapathi or Subrahmanya, if
> you consider them as Bhaktas, then deserve vandanam as
> much as Hanuman or the Alwars deserve. So if Sriman
> Narayana appears with Shanka-Chakra-Gada-Padmam only
> then will you offer your vandanams and if the same
> Sriman Narayana appears in the guise of Shiva, you
> will not offer worship.
>
> "Ksudra Devatas" - what a brilliant terminology.
> Elsewhere I read the comments of a so called
> "Vaishnava" or "Bhagavatha" calling Shri
> Chandrashekharendra Saraswathi as a "liar". I wonder
> if such behaviour and mindset constitutes a
> Bhagavatha or a Vaishnava.
>
>
> All these days I have restrained from saying this, but
> now I am forced to say this:-
>
> "Hariyum Haranum onnu, ARIYADAVAN VAYILA MANNU"
>
> regards,
> Sudarshan Aiyer
>
>
>
> --- Ram Anbil <Ramanbil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Dear Bhagavatas
> > I am overwhelmed by the response to the query
> > seeking PramaaNams for the observance of Pujas like
> > Ayyappa, Durga and Satyanarayana. So many
> > Bhaagavatas have raised these doubts time and again
> > in spite of my explaining to them. That is why the
> > message was posted to elicit authentic authority, if
> > possible with ACTUAL QUOTES from Vedas, Upanishads,
> > Itihaasas and âSaatvicâ PuraaNas or from the
> > writings of Acharyas of Bhagavad Ramanuja- Swami
> > Desika Satsampradaayam (from Sriman Nathamunigal to
> > our present day Achaaryas).
> >
> > Kindly read the original message again. Let me
> > hasten to assure you that, personally, I have no
> > doubts and
> > I have complete conviction in the saving grace of
> > Sriman Narayana who alone can grant mOksha â (as
> > already indicated in the original message).
> >
> > Other "devatas" may be His Sareeram and His children
> > like all of us and some of them may even be His
> > Bhaktas and we are sure, therefore, that they
> > deserve neither "nindanam" or "vandanam".
> >
> > The intention of the original posting is to help us
> > âPrapannas, offer clarification on similar questions
> > from others who may have GENUINE doubts in this
> > regard and our replies should be supported by proper
> > authority from our holy scriptures. Otherwise, we
> > will be dismissed as projecting our personal
> > opinions.
> >
> > Personal opinions, conjectures and speculations and
> > hair splitting arguments in justification of or
> > against the observances are NOT (Repeat NOT)
> > expected as answers to this query. Only PramaaNams
> > (if possible, with actual quotes) may be posted, if
> > only to help us explain better to genuine doubts
> > raised by others â (not by way of
> > âVithandaavaadamâ)
> > Dasoham
> > Anbil Ramaswamy
>
>
>
> Messenger blocked? Want to chat? Go to http://in.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php
>