Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha
Adiyen completely agree with this. Sorry that I did not explain this
in detail. My point was that, though the first 10 pasurams did not
literally call out the name or the form of the Shriman Narayana whom
we, Vaishnavas, worship, the whole work has to be understood in the
entirty in order to understand that the Narayana and hence the form
is the best or to put literally, the "closest" that represents the
brahmam and hence may be treated no different from the Brahmam
himself. Similarly one must understand the Vedas not by some specific
statements, but in its entirty - and this is exactly what Shri
Ramanujar did in order to explain Vishishtadvaita and so did Swami
Periyazhwar to prove the Vishnu Paratvam to the Pandiya King.
Thanks to Shri Venkatesan swamin for explaining and clarifying the
same.
As usual:) my ignorance and mistakes be pardoned.
Yatheendra Pravanam Vandhe RAMYA Jamataram Munim
Adiyen,
Ramanuja Dasan
--- In ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, TCA Venkatesan <vtca@xxxx> wrote:
> Sri:
> Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:
>
> Dear Sri Lakshmi Narasimhan,
>
> adiyEn's praNAm.
>
> The first ten pasurams of Thiruvaymozhi are made to
> explain the visishtadvaita sampradhayam. Where
> devotees were likely to think that He is formless,
> without qualities etc, Azhvar explains in clear
> terms that He is full of divine qualities ("uyarvaRa
> uyarnalam") and has a divine form ("sudar adi").
> He also clarifies critical vedanta phrases such
> as "tat tvam asi" in the fourth pasuram and so on.
>
> However, one does not have to go far to find out who
> Azhvar was talking about. In the second ten pasurams,
> Azhvar says "vaN pugazh nAraNan".
>
> And for those who wonder who this Narayanan is, Azhvar
> explains that in the third ten pasurams - "malar magaL
> virumbum".
>
> While the last pasurams of Thiruvaymozhi may seem to
> be talking about trimUrti sAmpyAptam, one only has to
> read the "onRum dhEvum" pasurams to clarify Azhvar's
> stand, where Azhvar in very strict terms lets everyone
> know who the para deivam is.
>
> And for those who are still confused, he says "avan
> ivan enRu koozhElmin, avanAgum neeL kadal vaNNanE".
>
> adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan
>
>
> --- Lakshmi Narasimhan <nrusimhan@xxxx> wrote:
> > As Swami
> > Nammazhwar
> > put in his pasurams, "Uyavara uyar nalam udayavan evan
> > avan", he
> > never mentions the name of this brahmam nor the form of
> > this brahmam
> > in his first ten of his magnum opus - Thiruvaimozhi.
> > ...
> > Even in the last pasuram, he says
> > "avaavaracchoozh, ariyai,
> > ayanai, aranai alatri". That is, he recognizes all the
> > three major
> > manifestation, for he sees only the paramatma in all the
> > three, but,
> > he still keeps the "ari" at the first of the sequel, due
> > to his
> > affection.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
|
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |