--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "amshuman_k" <amshuman_k@xxxx> wrote: > Dear bhAgavatas, > > > 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). Dear Sriman Kasturi Rangan, Riutals are not empty but stand as metaphors for something. sandhyAvandana by its very meaning is a prayer to be offered during sandhyA (sunrise, sunset, mid-noon?). Initially I was also not liking gaudIyas as they were not heavily ritualsitic and do not chant vEdas to the extent our people chant in temples. Later I realized that I was committing bhAgavata apachAram. They have transcended the barriers of caste and race. However, they require extensive nAma sankIrtan as a means to reach Him. Our TK sampradAyam is much more simpler as it does not require that even. > > 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. That is what I was saying in my first mail. Instead of associating with chanting and relegating it to some kind of nAma sankIrtan, one should try to understand the meaning and follow it. For ashtAkksharI mantra, the key for not doing japam (in TK sampradAyam) is there in the meaning itself. When we do not do the japam of the highest mantra itself, there is no harm (and associated pApa) if gAyatrI japam is not done. > > 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. Even nAma sankIrtan is not necessary! Just thinking of Him as our means of liberation (for our own confidence) is enough. > > BTW, if I am right, the pre-requisite for pAncharAtra dIksha is > that > one has to have undergone upanayana. > > > 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). Many more things can be quoted from samskrta texts. Certainly a person having faith in SrImannArAyaNa gets rid of all puNya pApa without doing anything for getting rid of the same. For us nitya karmAs are vAzhvinai (guNa kIrtanam NOT nAma sankIrtan) and adimai. our very nature is destroyed by non-performance of these two but bhagavAn may still be kind toward us. >> > 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. I agree with the last statement of the above paragraph. While doing kainkaryam, one should not think - I am doing this kainkaryam and am associated with the results. This applies to not doing as well. Therefore not doing a kainkaryam is not a sin. At the same time, we do many kainkaryams (including rituals) to express our SEshatvam. > > (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 :-)) We have divya prabandham. So what AchArya rAmAnuja did is to present the ideas contained in the prabandham to people lacking exposure to it. AchAryas like SrI Bhattar, PiLLai lOkAchArya were more explicit, I heard. > > > 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. I do not know in what context the AchArya said it. But certainly he is not advising us to practice/follow sorcery etc. Being an engineering degree holder, I may believe in sorcery etc. But at least those who studied basic sciences need not. To couner this, one may say we are nothing before nature, God, etc. But we already have Him as the biggest magician, right! > > 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 u accept divya prabandha as a pramANa (higher than all others), performance or non-performance of any rite does not come into picture. dAsan Vishnu
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |