Re: Digest bhakti.v004.n001
From the Bhakti List Archives
• June 2, 1999
SrI: SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN- SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha Dear SrI Sudarsan, namO nArAyaNA Sri Sudarsan Parthasarathy wrote: > > 1.In Aditya Hridayam, which is an integral part of Srimad >Raamayanam(Yuddha Kaandam), there is a verse "Yesha Brahmascha, >Vishnuscha, Sivas skanda Prajapathihi....". I have to revisit >the translation from the Bhakthi list(since I remember only the >jist, and the article is treasured at my workplace). But the >hymn casually address Sri.Vishnu with Brahma, Siva and Skanda >with no unique clarity on Parthvam to Sriman Naarayan. That >too when we consider Suryan itself as Sriman Naarayanan("Suryae/ >Sathyam Jyothishi Jyohomi..."). A broader explanation on such >Ithihaasic verses will be nice to hear. Vishnu as a dEvata amongst all the dEvAs is an "avatAram" of SrIman nArAyaNA. This has been discussed and established very well by BAshyakArar (ie. bhagavad rAmAnuja) in vEdArtha Sangraha. This is the remarkable "Sowlabhyam" shown by our Parama Purushan SrIman nArAyaNA in identifying Himself as one amongst the dEvas. Our PerumAL, not only has parathvam, but also has intense Sowlabhyam and Sowseelyam. It is the same Supreme Lord SrIman nArAyaNA, who was tied into a mortar by YasOdhai. Why, even for that matter that same SrIman nArAyaNA is giving various sEvais in His archA avatArams and it looks as if His thirumEni is a stone devoid of suddha sattvam ; and is identifying Himself in the midst of even all of us !! Is this not a greater wonder than what you have asked ?? Understanding only about the parathvam of SrIman nArAyaNA is incomplete knowledge. We have to understand about His daya , Sowlabhyam etc kalyANa guNAs also. Thus, addressing Vishnu alongwith other dEvatAs is not to be understood as an insult and is not refuting the parathvam of PerumAL. The mood is to enjoy the Sowlabhyam aspect of PerumAL as one amogst the dEvAs. There are various other texts which declare the parathvam of SrIman nArAyaNA. When one talks about such avatArams, parathvam will usually be not shown explicitly by PerumAL all the time. There are also some stories completely misunderstood by some ; Instead of understanding the intense sowlabhyam and sowseelyam displayed by PerumAL, some mistakes it for the lower/equal status of Vishnu in comparison with other dEvatAs. Anyway, when one understands sAstrAs as a whole, as beautifully presented by our pUrvAchAryAs, these things will become easy to understand. Also, a jIvAtma is given the post of sUrya. SUryanArAyaNA is the one who resides alongwith the jIvAtma SUrya ( SandhyAvandanam mantrams/slokams describe SUryanArAyaNA; also, a Brahma Vidya on the meditation of this form of PerumAL is also there). > 2.In Devipatnam(Navabhaashanam), Sri.Rama prayed to the Navagrahas >and apparently Siva Lingaas at Rameswaram(since our Dhanuskodi > Perumaal is now in Pammal). These worship are not in the Mental >plane (like previously discussed Dhyaana Mantraas, where we have > Dhyaanam of Sriman Naarayanan, and not Indra, Rudra, Sudarsan or >Mani), but in the Physical plane, which we are specifically > encouraged as Sri Vaishnavites, not to practice. In fact there >are many other instances found not only in Srimad Raamayanam, but also > in Mahaa Bharatham. Any explanation on this topic is awaited eagerly. > Already, devotees like Sri K.Narayanan, Sri Mohan Raghavan have well explained this. SrImad vAlmIki rAmAyanam doesn't say anything like that. Its pretty obvious that, all these are later concoctions (sources unknown). Even if PerumAL resorted to anya dEvatAs, it is only to shown His sowlabhyam etc kalyANa guNAs. For instance, Lord Rama performed SaraNAgathi to Samudra rAjA !! One should not take the "utmost asAram" here and conclude that samudra rAjA is superior to PerumAL. adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan ananthapadmanAbha dAsan krishNArpaNam
- Next message: Krishna Susarla: "Buddha (was Re: On the worship of Vedic Gods and anya-devatas)"
- Previous message: Anand Karalapakkam: "Re: On the Nature of philosophy"
- Maybe in reply to: Mohan R Sagar: "Re: Digest bhakti.v004.n001"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]