You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Feb 2004

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00103 Feb 2004

 
Feb 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear Shri Kasturi Rangan,
Thank you for very informative posts on Sandhya, Gayatri and related issues 
from Brahmanas, Dhramasutras, etc. Needless to say the evidence is 
overwhelmingly in your favour. I would still have preferred for pramanas from 
within Sri Ramanuja sampradayam as done in postings of some of the bhagavathas. 
While there is no intention here to argue that Sri Ramanuja sampradayam is out 
side the pale of Dharma sUtra, is n't it true that the sampradayam promises 
something more than Gayatri to its votaries, and that something should be 
focussed on? Or should we follow Gayatri Upasana, so gloriously praised in 
Brahmanas, as the be-all-and-end-all? 
Just to tempt you to disseminate more information from your Vedic research!
Regards,
Srinivasadasa 

amshuman_k <amshuman_k@xxxx> wrote:
Dear bhAgavatas,

I find myself in total agreement with Shri Venkatesan's post. I am 
proceeding further for a few clarifications. I apologize for not 
reading earlier (or reading closely) the post of Shri rAmachandran, 
the contents of which I do not agree fully either. I apologize at 
this juncture, if the tone of my post is inappropriate.

Having said this, it pains me to see that the sandhyavandana, gAyatrI 
and vedic recitation are regarded by many as empty rituals. The last 
time I checked, our sampradAyam was still a vaidika dharmam/vaidika 
matam. Sure, there are other forms of vaishNavism whose scope is 
restricted only to nAma-sankIrtan, and associated forms of worship. 
(Probably I am unfair to gaudiyas - from my impression they pay more 
attention to bhAgavata purANam, instead of shruti pramANam and this, 
in my humble opinion excludes a possibility of us having a debate 
with them; we may even debate with advaitins, as we agree on the 
pramANas! For the same reason we cannot have debate with christians 
or muslims, as their pramANas are different).

I am also mentioning my anguish of seeing the loss of veda shAkhAs 
right in front of my eyes, at this point. The kAThaka shAkha of 
krishNa-yajur veda is for all practical purposes extinct. I know a 
brAhmaNa affiliated with this shAkha and follows logAkshi sUtra (as 
we follow Apastambha). He refuses to teach his shAkhA to anybody 
except to those belonging to that branch. He may be the last person 
of this branch. I gather that jaiminIya shAkha with about 5 chanters 
in kerala is almost extinct, until Shankara mutt intervened and sent 
a few students to learn from them.

I'll try to discuss issues based on the recent exchanges on this 
topic.

1. Efficacy of gAyatrI:
(a) chAndOgya brAhmaNam says gAyatrI is the entire creation. gAyatrI 
is prthvI, gAyatrI is the sustainer of all creatures. The supreme one 
who is indicated by the gAyatrI is sarva-vyApi (reminds one of 
vishNu), sarva gnyAta and ananta. He who understands gAyatrI attains 
pUrNatvam.

(b) shathapatha brAhmaNam talks about the 4 limbs of gAyatrI and 
whoever knows each limb conquers the three regions, knowledge and all 
living things. The fourth limb is the lusturous supreme and beyond 
everything. The fourth limb rests in satyam, satyam is prANa etc. 
etc. Whoever knows this shines with greatness and glory. It also 
contains a curious 'atharvan type' viniyoga - after reciting this, if 
anyone makes an incantation against an enemy, the enemy will 
certainly meet his doom.

(c) gOpatha brAhmaNam mentions that all creation subsist in gAyatrI. 
It talks gAyatrI as a duo - savitA-sAvitrI. The first limb of gAyatrI 
denotes the unbroken connection of prakrti and the paramatma through 
various intermediate agencies. The second foot denotes the glory of 
the supreme illuminator and the third limb denotes the understanding 
of gAyatrI itself.

(d) jaiminIya upanishad brAhmaNa (JUB) equates praNava with gAyatrI. 
gAyatrI is the supreme wisdom and through its knowledge one attains 
amrtatvam. prajApati attained it through the knowledge of gAyatrI 
(tadEtat amrtam gAyatram; EtEna vai prajApati: amrtatvam agacchat; 
EtEna dEvA:; EtEna rshaya:; - JUB III.7.3.1). This wisdom was handed 
down by supreme brahman to prajApati and is available to posterity 
through paramEshTin, savitA, agni, indra, vishwedEva: down to 
kashyapa. It concludes with 'it is immortal sAman'; all others are 
kAmyAni and do not have enduring spiritual value'.

(NOTE: I have relied on veda pramANa and have not resorted 
to 'scientific evaluation' of gAyatrI meditation).

Conclusion: From the pramANas of veda vAkyas, indeed the parabrahman 
is achieved through gAyatrI ( !!! I'll add a caveat soon ).

2. Empty rituals?:
The vEdas themselves do not consider these as empty. On the contrary -
there are numerous references to esoteric knowledge that has to be 
given only to a worthy student or to a worthy son (aitarEya 
AraNyakam). The significance of the performance of various vedic 
rituals had a theological basis. As I mentioned in a pervious post, 
kuru-pAnchAla region was an active spot where these types of debates 
regularly happened. One can survey the brAhmaNa literature and note 
the various debates. The one I am immediately reminded of is the 
debate between glAva maitrEya and prAchInayogya on the significance 
of agnihotra in shatapatha brAhmaNa, which also reappears in gOpatha 
brAhmaNa. So, far from being empty rituals, they do have strong 
syntax and semantics. We should be ashamed for claiming these as 
empty rituals and at the same time associate ourselves with vedic 
seers. A graceful gesture would be to completely disassociate with 
vedas and engage in full time nAma sankIrtan.

BTW, if I am right, the pre-requisite for pAncharAtra dIksha is that 
one has to have undergone upanayana.

3. Mechanical performance Vs bhAva & knowledge:
Straw man. It is as if somebody recommends mechanical performance of 
nitya karma. Apastambha points out the importance of understanding 
the mantras. There are vedic passages itself that points out the 
necessity of understanding the rituals (aitarEya brAhmaNa, 
shathapatha brAhmaNa in the context of mahAvrata, pravargya etc). I 
don't have the references right now, but can dig them up if necessary.

However, non performance of nitya-karmas are categorically condemened 
in dharma sUtras and smritis. VasishTa & baudhAyana discuss about 
various pApas that arise out of foresaking nityakarmas (chapter 2 in 
both?). 

There are 3 types of pAtakas (paadagam in tamil) - mahApAtaka, 
atipAtaka and upapAtaka. Nonperformance of nityakarmas is the third 
type and the others in that list are cow killing, teaching vedas for 
a person who kills cows, brahmojjha (person who forsakes vedic 
learning), patita-sAvitrika (who lost the eligibility to learn the 
sAvitri mantra). One should not give his daughter to such people or 
perform religious rites for them.

This is a sin and has to be atoned through uddAlaka vratam (and 
chAndrAyanam, if I remember correctly).

The conclusion: Performance of the nitya karmas without the proper 
bhAva may not yield desired result, but non-performance will incur 
pApam!!!!! Our sampradAyam prescribes performance of them as a 
kainkaryam to lord.

(Attn: Sri SrinivasAchari: The question is for a mumukshu - whether 
he is bound by the dharmashAstras and whether he will incur sin for 
non-performance of nityakarmAs. Again, for ordinary souls, this is a 
non-question.).

I disagree with srong terms that rAmAnuja sampradAyam relegates the 
performance of nitya karmas to optional position. rAmAnuja didn't 
create a rAmAnuja-smriti or rAmAnuja dharma-sUtra that supercedes the 
existing kalpa sUtras and declared nityakarmas are unnecessary. 
(People can think of navyashAstra group - a group of people who want 
to 'create' a new dharma shastra for hindus :-))


4. Position of our TK sampradAyam:
Thanks for the quotes from lOkAchArya. I also came across maNavALa 
mAmunigaL's gloss where he says, "the hawk incantation and sorcery 
rites are allowed for the lowest soul, so much so that he gains 
belief in our shAstras. Once he crosses that stage, the 
aforementioned rites are disallowed. Similarly, when a jIva realizes 
his utter dependency on the lord, the performace of 'shAstra 
prescribed rites?!' are disallowed". I hope, we are nowhere near that 
stage. (This in turn mutates into a kalai debate, where our final 
stance is that the mumukshu should continue to do them for lOka 
kalyANam etc. etc.). bhAgavatAs may point out my mistakes.

In summary - I have not brought in 'yoga-prANAyAma-sandhyA' relations 
or 'supposed scientific benefits of doing sandhyA' or lowering BP, 
lowering cholestrol etc. etc. I hope I've stuck to accepted pramANas. 
If I made any mistakes, I apologize.

Regards,
Kasturi Rangan

--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, TCA Venkatesan <vtca@xxxx> wrote:
> Sri:
> Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:
> 
> Dear Sri Kasturi Rangan and others,
> 
> I think my original post was loosely put together
> and was therefore likely unclear.
> 
> I wasn't recommending or suggesting that nitya karmas
> be given up.
> 
> Clearly the incident about Bhattar shows that he was
> doing his nitya karmas.
> 
> And while Pillai Lokacharyar added the nitya karmas
> to the sarva pApa, as far as my knowledge of his
> writings goes, I don't think he has recommended that
> they be given up. Learned bhAgavats may correct me
> on these.
> 
> However, what I was driving at was this:
> 
> 1. What was the pramANam for Sri Ramachandran's
> statement that sandhya vandanam alone cannot be
> given up while all other nitya karmas can be 
> given up. He was even suggesting that worship can
> be given up. It is my understanding that, even those
> who stress that the nitya karmas are to be followed
> without question, state that all nitya karmas be
> performed and not just one.
> 
> I can understand a practical logic that the sandhya 
> is one of the simplest rituals to perform at home 
> needing no special upakaranas, and giving it up means
> you have practically given up everything. Therefore,
> the injunction 'don't give it up'. But from the post 
> it sounded like the sastras themselves give it a 
> special status. That was the clarification I was 
> seeking.
> 
> It also raises the question as what to do if pressed
> for time between sandhya and another service - for eg, 
> thiruvArAdhanam.
> 
> 2. Thennacharyas don't give it the special status
> that Sri Ramachandran was driving at. That was
> the point I wanted to make. 6000padi records
> that Bhattar said "bhagavad kainkarya niratharukku
> sandhyAvandana kaivalya dOsham vArAdhu". Agreed,
> that most of us don't qualify to that state, but
> we need to be aware of this. 6000padi also states
> that to perform nitya karmas while missing bhagavad
> anubhavam is against the nature of the soul.
> 
> 3. The post also suggested that there are many 
> personal benefits that one gets by doing the 
> sandhya. From the Thennacharya perspective, these
> may be incidental but not crux to the matter. The
> nitya karmas are to be done only as kainkaryam to
> the Lord. Not for personal gains.
> 
> Hope this clarifies adiyEn's earlier post.
> 
> adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan
> 
> 
> --- amshuman_k <amshuman_k@xxxx> wrote:
> > Dear Sri Venkatesan,
> > Kindly clarify whether the life incident of bhattar is
> > quoted as an 
> > injunction to TK VaishNavas for the non-performance of
> > sandhya?
> > Regular performance of nityakarmas are typically ordained
> > by dharma 
> > sUtras of one's vedic affiliation (it may appear in grhya
> > sutras in 
> > some cases; smrti digests elaborate the dharma sUtras).
> > 
> > From my limited understanding rAmAnujAchArya never
> > attempted to 
> > tamper the dharma sUtras, veda pramANas and the
> > associated 
> > paraphernalia (and even sanctions sacrifice of goat in
> > the context 
> > of yAgas in his gIta bhAshya).
> > 
> > If I am right, the ashtAdasha bheda nirNaya discusses
> > about 
> > nithyakarmas - "whether an evolved sould will go to hell
> > if he 
> > doesn't perform them": yes -> vadakalai; no -> thenkalai,
> > however 
> > the evolved soul should continue to do them as an example
> > for others.
> > This is a non question for unevolved souls!
> > 
> > Accept my apologies if I've commited any mistakes or was
> > offensive.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Kasturi Rangan 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html




azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
Click Here

---------------------------------
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.

[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