Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: kamba rAmAyanam

From the Bhakti List Archives

jayasartn • November 12, 2002 


SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.


- In bhakti-list@y..., TCA Venkatesan  wrote:
> Sri:
> Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:
> 
> Dear BhAgavatas,
> 
> A quick look at the vyakhyanam by Sri Periyavaccan
> Pillai for Thiruppallandu shows that there is no
> mention of Selva Nambi being the acharya of Periyazhvar.
> I would venture to guess

> In the Thirupallandu, Periyazhvar does mention about
> Selva Nambi, but only in the context of mentioning his
> high bhaagavata nature - that is, he is mentioned for 
> the sake of comparison only (selvanaip pOla - like Selva 
> Nambi).

 Lert me add some more to this.According to texts like 6000 padi Guru 
parambhara prabhaavam (by Sri Pinbazhagaaram PerumaL jeer), selva 
Nambi was a Purohith in the court of the Pandya King Sri Vallbha 
Devan. It was selva nambhi who arranged for a debate at the behest of 
the king to ascertain the 'para tattwam'. The sanmAnam (gold) was 
tied in a pole to be gifted to the one who substantiates beyond 
doubt. 

The story goes that Perialwar was directed by the Lord in his dream 
to go to the court and decalre the para-tattwam. As the alwar had not 
known much about it (not well versed in scriptures etc), he hesitated 
initially but was compelled by the Lord (in dream) to go. Selva 
nambhi received him and requested him to declare the para-tattwam. 
Beyond this there is not much talk about Selva nambj.

But the context in which the Alwar makes a mention of Selva nambhi 
gives more clues.

'Selvanai-p-pola, thirumaalE, naanum unakku pazhavadiyEn.'

The inference :-

# In those days, selva nambi must have  been a well-known devotee of 
Thiru maal, well- appreciated for his bhagavatha gunaas.

# If he had been alwar's acharyan, the terms used by the alwar would 
have become different. He would not have compared himself with him as 
no one puts oneself on same plane with the acharyan. Instead the 
alwar would have told, 'acharyan aruLAl (krupa) naanum unakku 
pazhavadiyen.'

# why should the alwar bring in Selvan's name? When some one nurtures 
a secret sense of disquiet about someone else being more than equal 
to him (no apacharam meant), he will / might talk like this. The 'um' 
in 'naanum'is used when one feels that he is no inferior to the other 
with reference to the particular contextual idea. This shows that the 
alwar must have rated himself a step lower than selvan -something 
that goes to prove the contention that he was not well read before 
the debate- i.e., before he was ordained by God in his dream.

 The knowledge flow was sudden as his was comapared with Valmiki and 
Dhruvan in having suddenly experienced the upsurge thanks to the 
NirhEtiha krupa of the Lord.Only if this explanation is accepted, it 
goes logical that he was at pains (once again no apacharam meant - 
only to show the point in  a  way we understand) to declare that he 
is not a sudden devotee of the Lord, but one whose bhakti- flow is as 
old as that of selvan's or whose bhakti sambhandam is anaadhi.

Pardon me for the mistakes.

Jayasree sarnathan

[ I urge members to avoid entering into expositions or declarations
  of the Lord's grace being 'nirhetuka' or 'sahetuka', as these kinds
  of discussions are rather out of place on this list. Please once 
  again base your comments principally on the works of Sri Ramanuja
  and the Alvars, and the acharyas' expositions directly thereon.
  Thanks -- Moderator ]






--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/