Re: Bhakti and sharanaakathi before Ramanuja
From the Bhakti List Archives
• July 9, 2002
Sri rAmAnujaasya caranau Saranam prapadyE.
/vaNakkam to Sri Malolan Cadambi, Sri Lakshmi Srinivas, Smt. Jayasree Saranathan and other /bhaktAs.
It seems to be reasonable to conclude that the /tamiz word used for /bhakti is /patti without the letter "k" (kakaram) but the kakaram undergoes a mutation as /takaram. The word /bhakti becomes /patti in /tamiZ.
Shri /malolan cadambi has given extensive citations from the /upanishads to show that /bhakti and /SaraNagati traditions are rooted in the /vEdAs and the /gItA.
Shri Lakshmi Srinivas quoted a pAcuram from /kulacEkarap perumAZ(/perumAL tirumoZi: /divya pirapantam 687) and showed further that the words /patti and /pattar have been used by /AzvArs and /nAyanmArs. Smt. Jayasree quoted from /tiruc/canta viruttam (/pAcuram 79) and provided more evidence to show that /patti is the proper word in /tamiZ for /bhakti.
That is the point which I wanted to make, but about which I was not clear in my postings. Please excuse me.
Dr. Lokanathan and others are working hard to show that /tamiZ is a language that was in use prior to the use of /samskrut and that all ideas and traditions of import are adaptations of /tamiZ traditions. Dr. LokanAthan was a Poet Laureate of London /caiva CittAnta Society. He might still be. The incentives for his writings seem to come from London. He lives in Malaysia.
While I wish Dr. Lokanathan success in his endeavors, I want to be cautious. Please recall that these postings were the result of a posting, drawing the attention of the /bhakti list to the fact that Dr. Lokanathan was pursuing a line of thought that Shri rAmAnujA (and others by implication) was simply too enthusiastic, having become cognizant of the bhakti tradition of the great /tamiZ aTiyArs, which included the /mUvar /sampantar, /nAvukkaracu, /sundarar) and /mANikka/vAcakar. He holds that Sri rAmAnujA read into the
vEdas the /bhakti tradition which was in his (Sri rAmAnujA's) mind, due to his (the /AcAryA's) familiarity with the /tamiZ traditions, but, which in reality was absent from the /vEdAs.
His evidence for this holding is simply that there is no reference to /bhakti or SaraNagati in the vEdAs. In other words, the burden of proof does not rest with him, who makes the claim but on others who would deny the claim. This argumentis in itself is very strange. But when it comes from London one cannot expect more. It is by decree, call it academic decree if
you would. London is an expert in /kadait tEG/kAyai eTuttu vaZip piLLaiyAruku uTaippatil. Take the coconut [for free] from the shop and break it before the wayside /vinAyakA [and claim credit [puNyam!] for it.] London is an expert in this kind of giving and /puNyam tETutal.
One way to argue is to look for the origin of the word /bhakti. That was my line of argument. We have two words /bhakti and /patti, no doubt both meaning the same. We have now agreed that /bhakti is a /samskrut word and /patti is a tamiZ word. All the four postings only showed that.
Let us establish which one of these words could have come first. Now if one is reasonable, one would say that he or she can see how the word/patti is derived from the word/bhakti. The system of derivation is familar to most of us.
But to be fair one must also ask, if the word /bhakti is derivable from the word /patti, and if so what is the system that would establish that. Now I do not have the burden to pove that. So what I did was to throw the burden onto Dr. Lokanathan's casefile. His works have not shown anything of the
kind I seek.
Since Dr. Lokanathan cannot directly establish a system, he has been encouraged to invent a third system that would supercede both /tamiZ and /samskrutam. Let us call this system the netherworlds system for a moment or underworld system, if you would, using a translation of /netherworlds. The argument would be to rise from the underworld to the surface of /tamiZ and
then onto the outer world of /samskruth. /tamiZ is the intermediate link from the underworld to the outer world of /samskruth. All traditions based on /samskrut are borrowed from /tamiz and in fact from the netherworlds. /tamiZ also is not independent, but totally dependent upon the netherworlds.
Dr. Lokanathan has been encouraged to invent these underworlds. He calls it Sumerian. There are only four and one half experts on this newly invented system. Dr. Lokanathan is considered the greatest expert; sometimes he is the only one. We did not know all these, because it was lying hidden under the waters in the netherworlds.
It is this kind of exercises that led to the original statement of Dr. Lokanathan on the bhakti traditions.
The citation that was posted did not give any argument; it only made an affirmation which would be called in court language an allegation. Dr. Lokanathan placed the burden of proof of his allegation on us. I think the four postings including mine show that to some extent we have refuted his claim and the burden now rests on him to meet the standard of proof. I request him to show how the word /bhakti is derivable from the word /patti
and also to show that the system that makes the derivation posible is a reasonable deduction. He may use induction, but it cannot be all induction. In such a derivation, we also need to include the set of all words related to /bhakti such as:
/bhagavAn, /shObhA, /vibhA, /AbhA, /bhAgya, /bhAnu, /bhAskara,
/bhArat, /bharat, /bhajan, etc. That is, an isolated pair of words such as (bhakti, patti) defines itself is not an argument. One cannot say that /patti is derived from /bhakti and so /bhkati is the other word of the pair. In /samskrut we have the root word /bhA. It is not difficult to expand the list. In /tamiZ I run into trouble to match each one of the words in the list using /pa. I hope Dr. Lokanathan does not run into the same trouble as I do.
Smt. Jayasree Saranathan has pointed out that /bhakti is a profound original concept. So is its /tamiZ equivalent /patti. Profound ideas do not hang loosely. There must be treatises on it. Dr. LokanAthan cites the /tamiz works as basis to support his argument. Shri Malolan Cadambi has given many references on /SaraNAgati from the vEdAs.
The /gIta is also a work cited by Shri Cadambi. Chapter 12 of the /gIta is captioned /bhakti/yOgA. The first line of the first poem starts:
/evam satata-yuktA yE bhaktAs-tvAm pary/upAcatE |
/yE cApy/azaram/avyaktam tEshAm kE yOga/vittamAH ||
This /slOka is a question posed by the student /arjuNa to his /guru kRushNa:
On the one hand we have the /bhaktAs who worship you (as /saguNa) unconditionally with thoughts fixed on you in the manner we have seen in the previous [five] chapters and on the other hand, we have the /nirgunA worshippers who worship you as the Imperishable and the Inscrutable. Of these two worshippers, who is the One who possesses /yOgA as wealth? Who is the richer of the two in possesing the wealth of God?
The word /Evam means "thus' So /bhakti has been already defined in the previous chapters. It is accepted by reasonable people that Chapters 7 through 12 and the last verses (65-69) of Chapter 18 deal with /bhakti in the /gItA. At any rate, the last verse of the previous Chapter 11 also deals with /bhakta.
/gItA: 11: 55: /pANdavA, one who is engaged in My service, considers Me as the Most Exalted, who is devoted (/bhakti) to Me, who has shunned ownership to his actions, who is free from enmity towards all beings, such a person reaches Me indeed.
Because /bhakti is worship of /saguNa/brahmam, /treatment of /bhakti starts with /saguNa/brahmam in Chapter 7. Thus, krushNa starts with scratch and defines a basis of /bhakti as worship of God as /saguNa. This is Chapter 7.
These ideas are increasingly expanded and specialized as we move from Ch. 7 to Ch. 11. The corner stone of /caiva/cittAntA /bhakti tradition is that it is enough to worship the /aTiyArs of God. It is even better. God is beyond
everything that can be possibly be conceived, yet He is everywhere. So worship Him in each and everything rather than looking beyond. But singleness of mind is the secret of /bhakti. These are established as the highest secret of the /bhakti tradition: /rAja/vidyA rAja/guhya yOgA (Ch.9)
In chapter 12 the question of /arjuNA is: Which manner of worship is better? Worshipping an abstract God (/nir/guNA) or worshipping a form with attributes (saguNA)? /krushNa has just finished describing what /bhakti (saguNA worship) is in five chapters! And he has dealt with /karmayOga in
Chapters 2 to 6. The question of /arjuNa prepares us for /JnAna/yOgA.
A song of /tiru/nAvukkaracu sets the stage. The /gIta deals with the same
ideas in Chs. 7-11, but much more extensively. Chapter 12 relates these as a summary and removes some nagging doubts by introducing the principles of /nir/guNa. /JAna/yOgA continues from Chapter 12 through the end of Ch/ 18. In the last few verses, /jnAnA is reduced to /bhakti!
How does this redction take place? /jnAna is summarized as /SaraNa/gati in 18:62, 65, 66! 18:61 gives an operating principle of /jnAnA as /mAya. And perceiving the role of /mAya one establishes the theoretical basis for
/karma/yOgA not established until Ch. 18. /karma/yOgA is given as a /mantrA in Chapters 2 through 6. Now the verses 18: 61 ties /karma/yOga and /jnAna/yOga as one bundle and verses 18:62, 65, and 66 tie them all in one bundle and calls it /SaraNam. /SaraNa/gati is therefore not just /bhakti in
action, but also includes the knowledege that we are only executors of actions and not the owners or doers of the process that produces the results. It icludes assuming a readiness to act in obedience to God and punch in the input, but also disassociating oneself with the process of output. /saraNa/gati is self-surrender in a very broad sense.
The /acAryAs use /SaraNagati often because it is a larger system and includes all of the /gItA from Chapters 2 through 18.
I do not know a treatise like the /gIta on /bhakti in /tamiZ. Only one /aTiyAr I know comes close. That is /thAyumAnavar. /tAyumAnavar belongs to 17th century. I do not know enough of /namm/AzvAr. I do not know at all of others.
But the folowing song of /tirunAvakkaracu does give a good insight into the /bakti tradition of the /tamiZ in the same spirit as the /gItA. Its rhymes and rhythms touch oue hearts
//ariyAnai antaNar/tam cintaiyAnai
The Worthy One, The One Who resides in the minds of
cool /brahmins
/aru/maRaikaL akattAnai aNuvai yArkkum
the One Who is the Soul of the vEdAs, The Microcosm,
[see next line]
//teriyAta tattuvanait tEnaip pAlait
[continued from the previous line:] That Which is not
known to anyone, The One Who is Honey-Sweet, The
One, Who is nourishing like Milk
/ikaZ/oLiyait tEvarkaL tam kOnai maRRai
The One Who spreads [propagates] like light, The One Who
presides over the Court of the dEvAs, and again
//kariyAnai/nAnmukanaik kanalaik kARRaik
The One Who is the Black vishNu, The four-faced brahmA,
the Fire, the Wind
/kanaikaTalaik kula/varaiyaik kalantu ninRa
The One Who is the Oceans with their non-stop
sounds of the waves, The One Who is the Mountain
Ranges, The One Who ressides in all these as an integral part
// periyAnaip pErumpaRRap puliy/UrAnaip
The Great One, Who resides in the temple at /perumpaRRap
puliyUr
/pEcAta nAL/ellam piRavA nALE.
Any day when one does not speak [sing] about this God is as good as a day yet unborn.
The /bhakti principle that God is in everything is brought out vividly in many examples both subtle and gross, micro and macro, etc. God is beyond all these is also stated explictly. Yet One must praise Him as a particular God. Here it is God of /perupaRRa puliyUr. And the principle of /mAyA is brought
forth in the expression: /kalantu ninRa. All these are part of one system gigantic in its conception yet the micro is as important as the macro. And then the principle of /bhakti in action: by how wasted a day is when One does not sing God's
Glory.
Please, try this rhyme: You will love it:
/kariyAnaik kalantu ninRa
/periyAnaip
/pEcAta nAL/ellam piravA nALE!
Even if one considers himself or herself as a Shri vaishNava, the rhymed version does not say who the God is. It may as well be Shri vishNu who
resided as /krushNA. By removing part of two lines, it is applicable to any God. /civA is /perumpaRa puliyUrAn and also /devar/kOn just as Shri /vishNu is /amarar adhi/pati.
/vantanam.
/naH svI/kurvaka asmAt krupAm: Wherefore, cause us to have Your
Grace.
Visu
[ According to Bhagavad Ramanuja, Arjuna's questions in the 12th
chapter do not seek to distinguish between meditation upon
a saguNa (attributed) God and a nirguNa (qualityless) God.
Such a distinction is wholly without foundation, as Bhagavad
Ramanuja has established time and time again. The discussion,
as we saw in a thread a month or so ago, concerns who will
achieve success sooner, the worshipper of God (who is always
endowed with attributes), and the worshipper of the Imperishable,
namely, one who meditates upon the pure nature of the individual
self.
I have to say that your reading of the Gita markedly departs
from not only the view of Bhagavad Ramanuja but also Sri Sankara.
I strongly urge a study of these acharyas' commentaries, which
are unbelievably profound in their depth of analysis, before coming to
conclusions about the meanings of particular verses.
On another note, Nammalvar's Tiruvaymoli is considered one of
the finest treatises on bhakti, in Tamil or otherwise. -- 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/
- Next message: Varadarajan Sourirajan: "Thirumaalai-25"
- Previous message: elayavalli: "Udayavar Thittam"
- Maybe in reply to: Malolan R Cadambi: "Bhakti and sharanaakathi before Ramanuja"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]