150px banner3

×

Warning

JUser: :_load: Unable to load user with ID: 535
THIRUPPAVAI
Sri.U.Ve.Elayavilli Bhuvarahachariyar Swami

Introduction

Sri ANDAL is the quintessence incarnation of Sri BHUMI DEVI the Divine Consort of SRIMAN NARAYANA, who took birth on this earth to liberate suffering human beings from worldly bondage. She sang thirty sweet songs containing the cardinal principles of Sri Vaishnava Dharma during the month of MARGAZHI. 

Read More

smallTenkalai.JPG
 
 
THIRUPPAVAI
Sri.U.Ve.Elayavilli Bhuvarahachariyar Swami
 
Introduction
Sri ANDAL is the quintessence incarnation of Sri BHUMI DEVI the Divine Consort of SRIMAN NARAYANA, who took birth on this earth to liberate suffering human beings from worldly bondage. She sang thirty sweet songs containing the cardinal principles of Sri Vaishnava Dharma during the month of MARGAZHI.
 
Andal3.jpgSinging these songs with understanding of their inner meaning will bring to us peace, prosperity and above all Divine Grace. ANDAL, though a Brahmin girl, assumes the guise of a cowherdess and yearns for everlasting happiness and service of the Lord. It is the age-old practice of Sri Vaishnavas to sing these stanzas every day of the year in the presence of the Lord in the temple as well as in their homes. This practice assumes special significance during MARGAZHI so much so that each day of this month gets its name from a paasuram, like for example the first day is called MARGAZHI-TINGAL.

It may appear in the beginning that Andal is intending to perform a particular religious vow to marry the Lord and thereby obtain His everlasting company, and that she is inviting all her girl friends to join her. It is only towards the end of TIRUPPAVAI that we learn that she did not actually go to any pond or river or perform a religious rite; SHE IS ACTUALLY PRAYING TO BE GRANTED THE SERVICE OF THE LORD FOR ALL ETERNITY. It is the soul's inner craving to redeem itself and to reach His Divine nearness in order to serve him ("Attaani cchevagam" as her father PERIYAZHWAR calls it) which forms the real purport of this poem.

Listen to the Thiruppavai Upanyasam by Sri.U.Ve.Velukkudi Krishnan Swami in the Upanyasam section.

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
ஸ்ரீ:
பேரருளாளன் பெருந்தேவித்தாயார் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
ஆழ்வார் எம்பெருமானார் ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
 
Thenkalai.JPG
 
உபந்யாஸ ஹஸ்த பூஷணம்
ஸ்ரீ காஞ்சீ பிரதிவாதி பயங்கரம் மாஹாவித்வான் அண்ணங்கராசாரியர் ஸ்வாமியின் சொற்பொழிவுகள்
தென்னாசார்ய சம்ப்ரதாய நுட்பங்கள்

Sri. U. Ve. Prathivādi Bhayankaram Annaṅgarāchāryār Swāmy’s Upanyāsams
Theṉṉāchārya Sampradāya Nuṭpaṅgal
 
நமஸகார ஆவ்ருத்தியைப் பற்றி
8. தென்னாசார்ய ஸம்ப்ரதாயஸ்தர்கள் ஒரு தடவை நமஸ்காரம் செய்வதென்றும் பிறர் பலதடவை நஸ்காரம் செய்வதென்றும் காண்கின்றது. பகவானை நமஸ்கரிப்பதென்பது மிகச் சிறந்ததொரு காரியமே. இதனை ஒரு தடவைக்குப் பல தடவையாகச் செய்தால் நல்லதல்லவென்று யாரேனும் நினைக்க முடியுமோ? நமஸ்கரிப்பவனுடைய கரணக்ராமமும் க்ருதார்த்தமாய், நமஸ்கரிக்கப்படுபவனான எம்பெருமானுடைய திருவுள்ளமும் ஸுப்ரஸந்நமாவதற்கு உறுப்பான காரியமன்றோ இது? அப்படியிருக்க, ஒரு தடவைதான் நமஸ்காரம் செய்ய வேணுமென்று ஒரு விரதமாகக் கொண்டிருக்க வேண்டிய அவசியம் என்ன? என்று ஒவ்வொரு விவேகிக்கும் இந்த சங்கை தோன்றும். இங்குத் தென்னாசார்யர்களின் திருவுள்ளம் கேண்மின், நம்மைப் பார்தால் நாம் எத்தனை தடவை நமஸ்கரித்தாலும் போராதது. எம்பெருமானைப் பார்த்தால் ஒரு தடவை நமஸ்கரிப்பதும் மிகையாகும். அப்பெருமான் கீதை முதலியவற்றில் தன்னை அல்ப ஸந்துஷ்டனாகச் சொல்லிக் கொள்ளுகிறான். “பத்ரம் புஷ்பம் பலம் தோயம்” இத்யாதிகள் அவனுடைய அமுத மொழிகளாகக் காண்கின்றன. தேவதாந்தரங்கள் மிகவும் ச்ரமப்பட்டு ஆராதிக்கபட வேண்டியவையென்றும் , எம்பெருமான் ஆராதனைக்கு எளியவன் என்றும் ப்ரஸித்தம். ஆழ்வார்கள் அவனுடைய பெருமையைப் பேசுமிடத்து “தொழுது மாமலர் நீர்சுடர் தூபங்கொண்டு எழுதுமென்னுமிது மிகையாதலின்” என்றும், “தொழக் கருதுவதே துணிவது சூதே’ என்றும் இப்புடைகளிலே அருளிச் செய்கிறார்கள். “பூயிஷ்டாம் தே நம உக்திம் விதேம” என்கிற உபநிஷத் வாக்யத்திற்கு “தே பூயிஷ்டாம் நம உக்திம் விதேம” என்று அந்வயம் காட்டி “நம:” என்று வாயினாற் சொல்லுவதும் எம்பெருமான் திருவுள்ளத்தாலே மிகக் கனத்ததாகும்” என்று நம் பூர்வர்கள் அர்த்தம் செய்தருளுகிறார்கள். பட்டர் “அஞ்ஜலி பரம் வஹதே” என்கிறார். நாம் ஒரு அஞ்ஜலி செய்துவிட்டாலும் அது அத்தலைக்குப் பெரிய பளுவாகத் தோன்றுமென்பதை நன்கு காட்டுகின்றார். ஆகவே ஸ்வாரதனனான எம்பெருமான் முன்னிலையில் நாம் பலகால் விழுந்தெழுந்தால் அவன் திருவுள்ளம் என்னகுமோ? “நம்மையும் தேவதாந்தரங்களைப் போலே நினைத்துவிட்டார்கள் போலும்” என்று அவன் திருவுள்ளம் புண்படலாகுமோ என்னவோவென்று அஞ்சி “ஆராதனைக் கெளியன்” என்கிற அவனுடைய பெருமைக்குக் குறைவு வாராதபடி நடந்துகொள்வோமென்றே நமஸ்காரத்தில் ஆவ்ருத்தி ஸஹிக்கப்படவில்லை.

On Repeated Namaskaaram
8. We see that Theṉṉāchārya sampradāyastars do namaskāram once, while others do several times. Doing namaskāram of Bhagavān is certainly a great act. Can anyone think that it is wrong to do several namaskārams in place of one? Isn't this an act that satisfies the karanakrāmam of the person doing namaskāram, and one that pleases much the heart (tiruvuḷḷam) of Perumāḷ towards whom namaskāram is done? This being so, a learned observer (viveki) might wonder as to what is the need to hold with conviction that namasakāram is done only once? Listen to Theṉṉāchāryars position on this. Looking at us, any amount of namaskāram is insufficient. Looking at Perumāḷ , it is too much to do namaskāram  even once. Perumāḷ speaks of Himself in Gītai, etc. as one who is satisfied by small things. 'Patram puṣpam phalam toyam', etc. are seen as His words of amṛutam. It is well known that the demi-gods (devatāntarams , devatais other than Perumāḷ) are hard to please (ie. hard to do āradanam to), and Perumāḷ  is very easy to please (ie. very easy to do āradanam to). When talking about His greatness, āḻvārs use the expressions: 'toḻudu māmalar nīrsuḍar dūpaṅkonḍu eḻudumeṉṉumidu migaiyādalin' and 'toḻak karuduvade tunivadu sūde'. In doing vyākyānam of the upaniṣad vākyam 'bhūyiṣṭām te nama uktim videma', our pūrvācāryārs show anvayam (ie. how the words should be rearranged to make sense of the vākyam) as 'te 'bhūyiṣṭām nama uktim videma', and explain that even oral utterance of 'namaḥ' weighs very heavy in Perumāḷ's tiruvuḷḷam. Bhaṭṭar says: añjali bharam vahate. He shows clearly that even if we do one añjali (namaskāram ), it will feel like a big load to the other side (ie. to Perumāḷ 's side). Therefore, what might happen to the tiruvuḷḷam of the svatantra (self-dependent) Perumāḷ , if we fall and rise several times in front of him? It is only fearing that His tiruvuḷḷam might be hurt as 'may be they thought me to be like  demi-gods', and so as to act without causing reduction to his greatness as 'ārādanaik keḷiyan', that repeated namaskāram is not tolerated.

 
ஆழ்வார் எம்பெருமானார் ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
 
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}

 

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
ஸ்ரீ:
பேரருளாளன் பெருந்தேவித்தாயார் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
ஆழ்வார் எம்பெருமானார் ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
 
Thenkalai.JPG
 
உபந்யாஸ ஹஸ்த பூஷணம்
ஸ்ரீ காஞ்சீ பிரதிவாதி பயங்கரம் மாஹாவித்வான் அண்ணங்கராசாரியர் ஸ்வாமியின் சொற்பொழிவுகள்
தென்னாசார்ய சம்ப்ரதாய நுட்பங்கள்

Sri. U. Ve. Prathivādi Bhayankaram Annaṅgarāchāryār Swāmy’s Upanyāsams
Theṉṉāchārya Sampradāya Nuṭpaṅgal

In the essay, 'Āḻvārgal Pugaḻnda Kaṇṇaṉ', that we published earlier, a few elders informed that there is no mention of Kaṇṇaṉ having spoken Gītai, and wrote that "may be this confirms the argument that Gītai is of modern making". Here is the rebuttal to them. So far, we have not heard the argument that Gītai is of modern making. It is inappropriate for believers (āstikargal) to go with that argument. Āḻvārs have done praises on Gītai in several places in Divyaprabandam. It is worth reading Maṇavāḷa Māmunigal's vyākyānam of the Āchārya Hrudhya choornikai: bhagavan ñyānavidi paṇivagaiyenṛu ivvaṅgīkārattāle adukku (Gītaikku) utkarṣam. In 'Āḻvārgal Pugaḻnda Kaṇṇaṉ', we have even cited the Tiruvāimoḻi pāsuram: aṛiviṉāl kuṛaivillā agal ñyālattavaraṛiya, neṛiyellām eḍuttuṛaitta niṛai ñyānat torumūrtti. Tirumaḻisaippirān has most explicitly spoken of Gītai in Nānmugan Tiruvandādi as: āyan tuvaraikkoanāi ninṛa māyan anṛoadiya vākku.

A key to Viśiṣtādvaita siddāntam and a key to Theṉṉāchārya siddāntam are important to know. 'Sarīra-ātma bhāvam' is the key to Viśiṣtādvaita siddāntam. It is a great policy that, all upaniṣad vākyams resolve easily to the vedānti who properly learns the fact that 'sarvesvaran has all cetanams (entities that have ñyānam) and acetanams (entities that cannot have ñyānam) as his sarīram'. By the Rahsya Traya Sāra slokam, 'yadyatam yatisārvabhoumagatitam', Vedāntāchāryar declares that in the presence of a vidvān who knows this well, people of other philosophies will definitely get defeated.

முன்னுரை முற்றிற்று
 
One should know that the essence of Theṉṉāchārya siddāntam is this: no matter what, all focus is only on Perumāḷ's greatness. This is the significance of this sampradāyam. In other sampradāyams, one gets to see predominance only to cetanan and his actions. On the contrary, in this sampradāyam, one gets to see total predominance only to Sarvesvaran and His thoughts. One can get well clarified of this through a very popular anuṣṭānam. Listen, here it is.
 
End of Foreword
 
ஆழ்வார் எம்பெருமானார் ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
 
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}

 

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
ஸ்ரீ:
பேரருளாளன் பெருந்தேவித்தாயார் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
ஆழ்வார் எம்பெருமானார் ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
 
Thenkalai.JPG

உபந்யாஸ ஹஸ்த பூஷணம்
ஸ்ரீ காஞ்சீ பிரதிவாதி பயங்கரம் மாஹாவித்வான் அண்ணங்கராசாரியர் ஸ்வாமியின் சொற்பொழிவுகள்
தென்னாசார்ய சம்ப்ரதாய நுட்பங்கள்
 
Sri. U. Ve. Prathivādi Bhayankaram Annaṅgarāchāryār Swāmy’s Upanyāsams
Theṉṉāchārya Sampradāya Nuṭpaṅgal
k
3.  ஸ்ரீமந் நாத முனிகளுக்கும் ஆளவந்தார்க்கும் திவ்ய தேசமெங்கும் திரு நக்ஷத்ரோத்ஸவ பரிபாலனம் நடைபெற்றாலும் திருவவதாரஸ்தலமான காட்டு மன்னார் ஸன்னிதியிலே நடைபெறுவது வெகு விசேஷம். தினப்படி காலை மாலையிரு வேளையிலும் திருவீதிப் புறப்பாடு, பகலில் அலங்காரத் திருமஞ்சனம் ஸேவை சாத்து முறைகள், லோகோத்தாரனமான ததீயாராதனம், இரவு திருவீதிப் புறப்பாட்டின் பிறகு திருவாய்மொழி ஸேவை சாத்துமுறை இத்யாதி வைபவங்கள் விலக்ஷணமாக நடந்தேறுகின்றன. தலத்தின் அழகும் ஸந்நிதியின் ஸந்நிவேசமும் மிகமிக வாய்ப்பானது. நாதமுனிகள் திருநக்ஷத்திரம் ஆனு அனுடம். ஆளவந்தாரின் திருநக்ஷத்திரம் ஆடி உத்தராடம். எழுபத்து நான்கு மதகுகளையுடைய வீராணத்தேரி இத்தலத்தின் அருகிலேயே.
 
3.  Even though the tiru-nakṣatirams of Śriman Nātamunigal and Āḷavandār are celebrated everywhere in divyadesams, the celebrations happening in their place of birth, Kāṭṭu Maṉṉār saṉṉidi, is very special. Daily procession in the streets around the temple (tiruvīdip purappāḍu) in the morning and evening, day-time alaṅgāra sevai and sāttumurai, prasādam for Bhāgavatās (tadīyārādanam), Tiruvāimoḻi sevai and sāttumurai, etc. festivities (vaibhavaṅgal) get conducted with distinction. The beauty of the location and the vicinity (sanniveṣam) of the sannidi are very very opportune. Nātamunigal's tiru-nakṣatiram is āni anuṣam. Āḷavandār's tiru-nakṣatiram is āḍi Uttarāḍam. The Vīrānam lake, with 74 sluices, is nearby.
 
4.  ஸ்ரீமந்நாத முனிகளருளிச் செய்தது ந்யாயதத்வமென்கிற சாஸ்திரம் என்று முன்னோர்களால் குலாவப்படுகின்றது. அது இப்போது கிடைப்பதில்லையாதலால் லுப்தம் என்று நிச்சயிக்கலாயிற்று. ஆகவே ஸ்ரீவைஷ்ணவ ஸம்பிரதாயத்தில் ஆசார்யச்ரேணியில் முதன்மையாக க்ரந்தமருளிச் செய்தவர் ஆளவந்தார் என்றே இப்போது நாம் சொல்ல வேண்டும். இம்மஹாசார்யர்களுடைய க்ரந்தங்களில் ஸித்தித்ரய ஆகமப்ரமாண்யாதிகள் அதிப்ரெளட க்ரந்தங்கள். ஸ்தோத்ரரத்னமும் கீதார்த்த ஸங்க்ரஹமும் அமுதிலுமினியவை. ஸ்தோத்ரரத்னத்திற்கு தனியனிட்டவர்கள் “ஸ்வாதயந்நிஹ ஸர்வேஷாம் த்ர்யந்தார்த்தம் ஸுதுர்க்ரஹம், ஸ்தோத்ரயாமாஸ” என்றது மிகவும் ஆழ்ந்து பேசியது. இதில் த்ரயந்தார்த்த சப்தத்தாலே உபய வேதாந்தமும் ஸங்க்ருஹீதம். ஸம்ஸ்க்ருத வேதாந்தார்த்தம் சிறுபான்மையும், த்ராவிட வேதாந்தார்த்தம் பெரும்பான்மையும் அமையப் பெற்றது ஸ்தோத்ரரத்னம். அதிலிருந்து பல விசேஷார்தங்களை மேலே பலவார்த்தைகளில் விவரிப்போம்.
 
4.  It is held among leaders that Śriman Nātamunigal authored a sāstram called ñyāyatatvam. As it is not found today, it is determined as lost. Therefore, in Śri Vaiṣṇava sampradāyam, we must say that among the group of ācāryārs, Āḷavandār is the first to author a book. Among the books of this great ācāryān, Siddi Trayam, Āagama Prāmāṇyam, etc are the mightiest. Stotra Ratnam and Gītārtasaṅgraham are sweeter than nectar. After dwelling deep in Stotra Ratnam, the authors of its Taniyan said 'svādayanniha sarvaeṣām trayyantārttam sudurgraham, stotrayāmāsa'. In this 'trayyantārtta' sabdam takes in well both vedāntams (ubhaya vedāntam). Stotra Ratnam has in it the meanings of Sanskrit vedāntam to a minor extent and the meaning of drāviḍa vedāntam to a major extent. Ahead, we will elaborate on several special points from it.

 

ஆழ்வார் எம்பெருமானார் ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
 
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
ஸ்ரீ:
பேரருளாளன் பெருந்தேவித்தாயார் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
ஆழ்வார் எம்பெருமானார் ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
 
Thenkalai.JPG

உபந்யாஸ ஹஸ்த பூஷணம்
ஸ்ரீ காஞ்சீ பிரதிவாதி பயங்கரம் மாஹாவித்வான் அண்ணங்கராசாரியர் ஸ்வாமியின் சொற்பொழிவுகள்
தென்னாசார்ய சம்ப்ரதாய நுட்பங்கள்

Sri. U. Ve. Prathivādi Bhayankaram Annaṅgarāchāryār Swāmy’s Upanyāsams
Theṉṉāchārya Sampradāya Nuṭpaṅgal

முன்னுரை
1.  நம்முடைய ஸ்ரீ வைஷ்ணவ தரிசனம் ஆழ்வார்களாலும் ஆசாரியர்களாலும் மேன்மை பெற்று விளங்குகின்றது. ஆழ்வார்களுள் நம்மாழ்வார் ப்ராதாந்யம் பெற்றது போல ஆச்சரியர்களுள் ஸ்ரீமந்நாதமுனிகள் ப்ராதாந்யம் பெற்றவர். பகவத்ராமாநுஜ தர்சனமென்றும் எம்பெருமானார் தர்சனமென்றும் நம்பெருமாள் நியமனத்தாலே வழங்கும்படியான பெருமை பெற்ற ஸ்வாமி எம்பெருமானாருடைய ப்ராதந்யத்தையோ, அவருடைய அபராவதார பூதரான மணவாள மாமுனுகளின் ப்ராதந்யத்தையோ இதனால் அபலபித்ததாக ஆகாது. “நாதோப ஜ்ஞம் ப்ரவ்ருத்தம்…. இதமகிலதம: கர்சனம் தர்சனம் ந:” என்று வேதாந்தவாசிரியர் பணித்தபடி ஸ்ரீமந்நாதமுனிகளையே தலைவராகக் கொண்டது நம் தரிசனம். அவர் திருவவதரித்து மஹாப்ரயாஸங்கள் கொள்ளவில்லை யென்றால் பின்னை ஆளவந்தார் எம்பெருமானார் போல்வாருடைய திருவவதாரமும் அவ்வளவு பயன் பட்டிராதென்றே சொல்ல வேண்டிற்றாகும்.

Foreword
1.  Our Śrivaiṣṇava dharsanam shines with greatness because of Āḻvārs and āchāryārs. Nammāḻvār gets prominence among āḻvārs and, likewise, Śriman Nāthamunigal gets prominence among āchāryārs. This does not amount to denying the prominence of: either Swāmy Emberumānār, who has the greatness that by Namperumāl’s order, the dharṣanam gets addressed as Bhagavad Rāmānujā Dharṣanam and Emperumānār Dharshanam or his later avathāram, Manavāḷa Māmunigal. As Vedhāntāchāryār said ‘nāthopagnyam pravruththam… idhamakhilathamah karṣanam dharṣanam naḥ’, our dharshanam has only Śriman Nāthamunigal as the head. Had he not done thiru-avathāram and taken great efforts, then one has to say that the thiru-avathārams of later āchāryans like Āalavandār and Emperumānār would not have been as productive.

நாதமுனிகள்

2.  நாதமுனிகள் தம் திருச்செவியில் யாத்ருச்சிகமாக விழுந்த “ஆராவமுதே யடியேனுடலம்” என்று தொடங்கும் திருவாய்மொழிப் பதிகமொன்றையே கொண்டு, இங்கனே ஆயிரம் பாசுரம் திருவவதரித்திருப்பதாக முன்னமறிந்து, பிறகு நாலாயிரம் பாசுரம் திருவவதரித்து இருப்பதாகவும் அறிந்து, நேரே ஆழ்வார் திருநகரிக்கு எழுந்தருளி, ஆங்கே தமக்கு ஸதுபாயம் கூறினவரும் ஸ்ரீ மதுரகவி வம்சத்தவருமான ஒரு பெரியார் உபதேசித்தருள, கண்ணிநுண் சிறுத்தாம்பு திவ்ய பிரபந்தத்தைத் திருப்புளியாழ்வார் அடியிலே நியமபூர்வமாகப் பன்னீராயிரமுறை ஜபித்து நம்மாழ்வாரை யோக தசையிலே ஸாஷாத்கரிக்கப்பெற்று “நாதனுக்கு நாலாயிரமுரைத்தான் வாழியே” என வழங்கும் நம்மாழ்வாருடைய வாழி திருநாமத்தின்படி அவர் பக்கலிலே நாலாயிர திவ்யபிரபந்தங்களைப் பெற்று, தேவகான குசலர்களும் தம்முடைய பாகிநேயர்களுமான மேலையகத்தாழ்வார், கீழையகத்தாழ்வார் என்னுமிருவர் மூலமாக அத்திவ்ய பிரபந்தங்களை இந்நிலவுலகில் பரவச் செய்தருளின பெருமை நாதமுனிகளுக்கு அஸாதரணமாகவன்றோ விளைந்தது. இவ்வேற்றத்தை உட்கொண்டன்றோ மணவாள மாமுனிகள் உபதேசரத்தின மாலையில்  “அருள் பெற்ற நாதமுனி” என்றருளிச் செய்தது.

Nātamunigal
2.  Unique greatness grew to Nāthamunigal for: taking just the one Thiruvāimoḻi decade that begins as 'ārāvamude adiyenudalam…' that accidentally fell in his ears, learning first that there are a thousand pāsurams like this that have done thiru-avathāram, then learning also that there are four thousand paasurams like this that have done thiru-avathāram, then going straight to Āḻvār Thirunagari, then following the means, suggested by a descendant of Śri Madhurakavi Āḻvār, of chanting 'kaṇṇiṇun siruttāmbu' divyaprabandham 12,000 times under the sacred tamarind tree (called thiruppuḷi āḻvār), then visualizing Naṃmāḻvār in yogic state, and getting from him the four thousand divyaprabandams as per Naṃmāḻvār's Vāḻi Thirunāmam 'nātanukku nālāyiram uraittān vāḻiye', and then spreading those divyaprabandams in this world through his nephews and devagāna kuchalars, Melaiyagattāḻvār and Keeḻaiyagattāḻvār. Isn't this the greatness that Maṇvāḷa Māmunigal had in mind when he said 'arul petra nātamuni' in Upadesa Rattinamālai.

ஆழ்வார் எம்பெருமானார் ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
ஜீயர் திருவடிகளே சரணம்
 
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}

 
 
 
Happiness, bliss, pleasure or delight is the essence of the self. It is sukharūa. The words, sukha and ānanda are synonymous. The definition of happiness or bliss is given by Śāstrakāras as follows: Happiness is the object of a desire which does not depend upon any other desire.
 
Read More
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti

The cit is anandarupa

Happiness, bliss, pleasure or delight is the essence of the self. It is sukharūa. The words, sukha and ānanda are synonymous. The definition of happiness or bliss is given by Śāstrakāras as follows: Happiness is the object of a desire which does not depend upon any other desire. What is experienced as favorable to oneself is happiness or pleasure, as opposed to pain or misery which is experienced as being unpleasant or unfavorable to oneself. Happiness or favorable experience is desired for its own sake and not as a means for another desired end or for the removal of an unpleasant or unfavorable experience.

इतरेच्छान्धीनेच्छाविषयत्वंसुखस्यलक्षणंअनुकूलतयावेदनियंसुखंअनुकूलत्वं

स्वतःइष्टत्वंनतुइष्टानतरहेतुतयाअनिष्टनिव्रुत्तिरूपतयावाइष्टत्वम्

 
Let me explain this. Take a man who is walking fast in the hot sun. Why does he walk so fast? Is it pleasant for him? No, it is very painful to him. Nevertheless, he desires to walk fast. Why? Because he desires to reach his office in time. Why does he desire to reach his office in time? This desire depends on his desire to please his superior officer. Why should he desire to please his superior? Because he desires to continue in his appointment. The desire to hold the appointment depends on his desire to get his monthly salary. That again depends on his desire to get food-stuffs and other articles of necessity. Why does he desire to eat? Because he desires to satisfy his hunger. Why should he desire to satisfy his hunger? Because he desires to be free from the pain of hunger and to be happy. Why does he desire happiness? He desires happiness not for any other end but for its own sake. The desire to be happy is, therefore, the ultimate desire or motive power which goads him on to action. There is no further question why does he desire to be happy. Happiness, therefore, is the object of a desire which does not depend upon any other desire. In the same way, you call a doctor to get freed from your pain. Freedom from pain is not by itself pleasant or favorable experience. It is only a negative aspect. You want to get rid of pain because it is unfavorable experience. Freedom from pain is, by itself, neither favorably experienced nor unfavorably experienced. It is the state of being in swarūpa in its own nature. Action and other things which are not themselves happiness are not therefore pleasant or favorable experiences. Merely because action, effort or activity is intended for the achievement of happiness, it is not pleasant or favorable; but on the contrary such action is indeed unpleasant or unfavorable . Only because such action is conducive to happiness, it is desired to be undertaken, not otherwise.

The nature and essence of the self or atman is bliss. The self itself will bear testimony to this fact.

 

स्वात्मास्वस्यानुकूलोहीत्यात्मसाक्षिकएवसः॥

In the embodied state, the ātman cannot appear in his true colors. His nature is concealed by his karma called avidyā. In the state of mukti or release, the self will appear in its true colors. When the screen of karma is removed, the self shines forth in its true nature. No new qualities or attributes are acquired in the state of release. Only the temporary bad attributes acquired as a result of karma, disappear in that state. Omniscience, bliss and other qualities will shine forth in the state of release. Śaunaka says: "When an all shining gem of purest ray is covered all over with dust and dirt, we only remove the dust and dirt; but we do not create or produce any luster in the gem”. In the same way, no new knowledge is produced in the atman, except the disappearance of the bad qualities which enwrapped it before. When we dig a well, we do not create any ether; what is already there only manifests itself. In the same way, knowledge, bliss and other qualities only manifest themselves, but are not created; for those qualities are eternal.

यथाक्रियतेज्योत्स्नामलप्रक्षालनान्मणोः।दोषप्रहाणान्नज्ञानमात्मनःक्रियतेतथा॥

यथोदपानकरणात्क्रियतेजलाम्बरम्।सदेवनियतेव्याक्तिमसतःसंभवःकुतः॥

तथाहेयुगुणह्वंसादवबोधादयोगुणाः।प्रकाशन्तेजन्यन्तेनित्याएवात्मनोहिते॥

Vishnupuranam
Even in the embodied state, we can assert, the nature of ātman is happiness. Let us examine our experiences. When we wake up from deep sleep, we say" I slept happily." This is the experience of every one of us. The reason is that in deep sleep we have no experience of objects other than the 'self' i.e. we have no external experience. The self alone is experienced by itself. Therefore, the blissful state referred to by a person awakened from sleep must be the svarūpasukha, or the blissful essence of the ātman itself. The sentence, ‘I slept happily’, cannot mean ‘I slept in such a way that I feel happiness now, in my waking state.' For, our experience is not so. When we say: 'I went slowly', ‘He sang sweetly’, we evidently mean slowness in the very act of going, and sweetness in the very act of singing. We certainly do not mean that there is slowness after the act of going is over, or that there is sweetness after the act of singing is over. Likewise, when we say "I slept happily", we mean that there was happiness in the very act of sleeping.
 
If really, the self cognizes itself in deep sleep and enjoys happiness, how do you explain one's experience such as, "During these four hours of my sleep, I did not know anything at all."? The answer is, in that statement, the cognition of everything is not denied. The knower, the conscious self, is not denied as it persists throughout. What is really denied is the experience of the objective world. Then, how do you explain our experience and consequent expression of it such as 'During these hours I knew not anything, not even myself."? Is the cognition of the self also denied in that statement? Since the self or knower persists in sleep, the svarūpa of the self, i.e., the entity namely the self, is not denied therein. What is really denied is the group of adjuncts or attributes of the self, cognized in the waking state, namely, caste, creed and other things. We have to scrutinize and analyze the concepts comprised in the judgment: "I knew not myself ". By ‘myself’ is meant the collection of adjuncts of the self, namely, caste, creed, etc., cognized in the waking state. By 'I' is meant the self, known to abide and persist throughout even in deep sleep, but vaguely cognized for want of materials the presence of which would make the cognition vivid in the waking state.
 
The self persists even after mukti or release and is cognized as 'I', as it is self-luminous. If the self is not favorable  or pleasant, we should not love it. The love of self is patent and natural for all beings. Since the ātman or self is wonderfully blissful by nature, Lord Kriṣṇa refers to the nature of ātman to Arjuna: "A certain person sees this (soul) full of wonder; in the same manner, another also speaks of it as full of wonder; again, another hears of it as full of wonder”.

आश्चर्यवत्पश्यतिकश्चिदेनंआश्चर्यवद्ददतितथैवचान्यः।

आश्चर्यवच्चैनमन्यःश्रूणोतिश्रुत्वापयेनंवेदनचैवकश्चित्॥B.G. II 29

The Lord extols the individual soul by declaring that persons competent to comprehend its real nature are but few. Since the soul is not perceivable by any of the means by which ordinary objects around us are perceived and since its characteristics are different from those of worldly objects, and are therefore not conceivable like them, it is full of wonder. Among millions of persons, a rare individual of great merit sees this wonderful self. Such a rare person alone tells others about it. And likewise, a rare person hears it, and a person rarer still, rightly understands it. In the first place, the seer of the self as distinct from the body is rare; and, need we say, a person who sees correctly is rarer still? Among the correct seers, he who truly describes it is rare; and a person who can speak about all the mysteries of the self is rarer. Even if we can find such a speaker, a person who will listen to him is very rare; and a person with all the qualities of a true disciple eager to listen to such teaching is rarer still. The nature of self, thus, is bliss and intelligence. Therefore, the theory of the Vaiśeṣikas, that the ātman is jaḍa or a non-luminous substance, stands condemned.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}

The cit or self is ajaḍa or self-luminous

The self illuminates itself without the medium of consciousness. It is said to be svayamprakāsa as opposed to jaḍa. In thick darkness you are not able to see the books and pencils placed on your table. The books and pencils do not shine forth for you; they do not manifest themselves to you.

 

Read More

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti

The cit or self is ajaḍa or self-luminous

The self illuminates itself without the medium of consciousness. It is said to be svayamprakāsa as opposed to jaḍa. In thick darkness you are not able to see the books and pencils placed on your table. The books and pencils do not shine forth for you; they do not manifest themselves to you. If you bring a lamp, its light makes them appear to you. The books and pencils thus depend upon the light for their appearance. They are, therefore, objects depending on other things for our cognizing them. The lamp-light does not require any other light or any other object for our cognizing it. The lamp-light not only makes other objects such as books etc., manifest themselves to us, but, at the same time, it manifests itself to us without any medium. This analogy may, to a certain extent, help us to understand the expression svayaṁprakāsa or self-luminous object.  Only 'to a certain extent', for the analogy is not quite apt and is not on all fours, because, the lamp-light or, for that matter, any visible worldly object is not svayaṁprakāsa. Śāstras say that the self, the Supreme Being and the Divine world, aprākṛtaloka, are the only svayaṁprakāsa objects. Strictly speaking, even a lighted lamp does not possess illuminating quality, for its light does not make objects manifest themselves.

In every instance, it is our consciousness, jñāna that makes objects appear to us. In spite of the presence of the lamp-light, the objects will not appear to us in the absence of jñāna or consciousness. Even the senses do not illumine objects. The senses only cause the origination of consciousness. The function of the brilliant light, such as that of an electric lamp, is only to help the senses which originate consciousness, by removing the obstacle for such origination, namely, darkness. In ordinary parlance, we say that a lamp illumines objects having regard to the help rendered to the organ of sight in the production of consciousness. Merely because the light removes the obstacle for the origination of consciousness, it cannot be said to illumine the object. That, which is really conducive to vyavahāra or talk, does illumine objects, and that is, jñāna or consciousness. Therefore, consciousness alone illumines objects. Mere light does not illumine objects. Therefore, light is not, strictly speaking, luminous; and much less, is it self-luminous. We shall deal with the attribute-consciousness at length later on. The self does not require even this attribute consciousness for its illumination. It illumines itself. Therefore, the self is said to be self-luminous. The upaniṣad says: “The puruṣa or self is self-luminous”.

अत्रायंपुरुषःस्वयंज्योतिः । - Br. Up.

We have already seen that the existence of the self is self-evident even in deep sleep.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}

Cit or Ātman

We first deal with cit or ātman. The word ātman is often used to denote the individual soul. The characteristics of the ātman or jīva are as follows:   It is distinct from the body, sense organs, the mind, prāṇā or breaths and intellect.  It is ajaḍa or self-luminous. It is ānandarūpa or blissful in essence. It is eternal. It is atomic in size. It is ayakta, invisible or imperceptible. It is acintya or inconceivable. It is niravayava or without parts. It is nirvikāra or changeless. It is the abode of jñāna or consciousness; It is in the relation of body to God. i.e. it is controlled, sustained and supported by God and subservient to Him.
Read More
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti

Cit or Ātman

We first deal with cit or ātman. The word ātman is often used to denote the individual soul. The characteristics of the ātman or jīva are as follows:

  1. It is distinct from the body, sense organs, the mind, prāṇā or breaths and intellect.
  2. It is ajaḍa or self-luminous.
  3. It is ānandarūpa or blissful in essence.
  4. It is eternal.
  5. It is atomic in size.
  6. It is ayakta, invisible or imperceptible.
  7. It is acintya or inconceivable.
  8. It is niravayava or without parts.
  9. It is nirvikāra or changeless.
  10. It is the abode of jñāna or consciousness; and
  11. It is in the relation of body to God. i.e. it is controlled, sustained and supported by God and subservient to Him.

What is Ātman or the self?

"Know thyself" is a common saying, and it is the fundamental teaching in philosophy. No one doubts his self. No one questions. 'Am I, or Am I not?' Every one of us in the world referring to self says: 'I',' I'. This has been repeatedly said by thinkers of all ages and of all countries. The existence of the self is certain and indubitable. It is usually said: 'I who played and slept as a child in my parents' lap sixty years ago, have now grand-children on my lap'. Is there any persistent and unchanged particle of matter continuing throughout these years in the physical organism? What identity is there between the infantine body and this adult body? None. But the' I ' has not changed. It is the same. We are always enwrapping the' I' in several sheaths: 'I am happy, I am miserable, I am rich, I am poor, I am young, I am old, I am a god in my dreams. I am a man in my waking state'. These accidents and incidents denote the continuity of the' I '. They are passing and varying. But the 'I' remains the same. Conditions change, but they all surround the ‘I’.
When you are questioned by your friend in the dark, "Who is it?", your first answer is: " It is I". The impress of the 'I' is so strong. The manifestation of the 'I' is so common in all beings. The special naming and description, 'I am Rama',' I am Kṛṣṇa’.  'I am so and so ", follows only afterwards. The , ‘I’ is so real that it expects others to recognize it. What is this 'I' or self? Is it the body or different from it? When the body comes out of the mother's womb, it is small. It then grows into a body, develops as youth, adult and old man, and finally decays and dies. Does the 'I' appear to grow, decay and perish? Or is it uniform and changeless and therefore, different from the body? It is patent that the body is a combination of several parts. If the body were the 'I' and if all parts thereof should possess separate consciousness, then there would appear several conscious beings in one and the same body; and there would be perpetual disputes between one part and another. But we see that there is only one conscious subject and that the parts have absolutely no quarrel among themselves. Moreover, in respect of those parts, the notion of self and the corresponding expressions, namely, "mine" my hand, my leg, etc. would, in that case, be inconsistent as they imply a possessor and a limb possessed by him. If you should grant consciousness only to one of such limbs or parts and say that it is the 'I', in the event of any part being deprived, the other parts should not remember the previous experiences relating to that part, and if the' I ' related to the part deprived, it must cease to exist, and the idea and expression 'I' should terminate in consequence. Moreover, the experience of pleasure or pain all over the body, even in the absence of that particular part, would be inexplicable, for there is no 'I' to experience the pleasure or pain. The irresistible conclusion, therefore, is that the body is not the 'I' or the soul.
 
The external senses cannot be the 'I' or the self, for one agent alone, different from the others, cognizes the objects of these senses. None of these senses can be the 'I'. In common parlance we say, 'I saw' and not the eye saw? The later recognition, namely, I, the person who saw this object some years before, now sees it, should not be experienced. If the sense of sight were the 'I', the person who became blind at a certain period of life should not remember color or colored objects, which had been experienced by him while his vision was full. If the organ of hearing were the 'I', the man who became deaf, should not remember the sounds experienced by him before he became deaf. And, similarly for the other senses, as there is no continuity of existence of the 'I' or self in those cases. Therefore, the sense organs cannot be the 'I'. Nor can ahaṇkāra or the mind be the 'I' the self or the soul. For, the mind is used as an instrument by the agent or kartā for cognition of objects by means of perception, inference, etc. and for recognition or recollection of past experiences. You cannot say that the remembering agent is the mind itself, as there is no instrument for such agent, namely, the mind. Nor, can you say that it is both the agent and the instrument, for it is absurd to say so. If you say that something else is the instrument, what is that something else? If it is any external sense, then a person losing it at a certain time should not remember the past experience relating to it. Therefore, ahaṇkāra or the mind cannot be the 'I'.

The prāṇās or the vital breaths cannot be the 'I', as they are a combination of parts, prāṇā , apāṇa, etc. each functioning in a separate manner. The arguments advanced against the body being the 'I' apply also here. Nor can consciousness, jñāna or buddhi be the 'I'. For, our daily experience is that consciousness is momentary and is the attribute of the 'I'. We say: 'I lost consciousness and regained the same half an hour later.' That the 'I' or self, unlike consciousness, is a permanent and abiding entity will be seen from our experience of recognition, such as : I. the person who saw this ten years ago, do not see the same thing again now.

For the above reasons, the self is different from the body, sense-organs, mind, breaths and consciousness which are cognized as being different from the 'I', as 'mine', my body, my sense-organ, my mind, my breath, my consciousness etc. For, the possessor is different from the object possessed, i.e., 'I’ is different from ‘mine'. Likewise, they are all cognized as parāk, 'this' 'that', unlike the self which is cognized as pratyāk i.e. 'I'. We say this body, this organ etc., as distinguished from 'I' or self. Moreover, the body and other things are cognized sometimes and are not cognized at other times, while the self is cognized at all times. That is to say, in waking state, the body etc., are cognized as if they are identical with the self as when we say 'I have become stout', 'I have become lean'. etc. But they are never cognized in perfectly dreamless sleep called suṣupti. The 'I' or self, on the contrary, is cognized always, even in deep sleep or suṣupti. Waking after sound sleep, we say "I, who cognized all these things before going to sleep, did not know them during sleep, not even my body." The conclusion is, that the 'I' is different from the body. Likewise, the sense-organs of sight, hearing, etc., are not cognized during blindness and deafness. The mind is not cognized during swoon etc.

Similarly, the breaths. And likewise, consciousness which is manifest during cognition of object at one time does not appear at other times. We say: 'My eyes and ears were very powerful before, but now, I have become blind and deaf; my mind was very clear and active before, but now, it is almost a blank.' , I was breathless for some time, and now, I have recovered,' 'I had knowledge before, but now all that has vanished.' From the above experiences of ours, we have to conclude that the body and other things are cognized only sometimes, but are not cognized at other times. But the self, on the other hand, manifests itself at all times. The non-self appears as 'this'. The demonstrative, 'this', is used to denote the objective world and objects around us. 'I' on the other hand, denotes the subject. The cit appears as 'I'. The characteristics of the 'I' and those of 'this' are different. Śankara in the beginning of his Brahmasūtrabhāṣya says: " The 'self' is connoted by asmat, i.e. 'I' and the non-self. by yuṣmat, 'this'. The self is the cognizer and the non-self is the cognized. Both are opposed to each other like light and darkness. Therefore, one cannot be the other. A fortiori, the characteristics of the one cannot be those of the other." What varies not, nor changes, in the midst of things that vary and change is different from them. Thousands of scriptural texts teach us that the self which persists unchanged and as one, through all the diverse changes of the material body and its surroundings, is different from them all.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974. 

What do the āgamās or sastras teach?
 
The teachings of the whole range of āgamās, Śrutis, Smṛtis. Itihāsas, Purāṇās, Brahmasūtras, Pāñcarātra and sayings of Āḻvārs and saints may be summarised to cover three topics, namely,
  1. tattva or truths,
  2. puruṣārtha or the goal to be reached, and
  3. upāya or means to attain the goal.
Read More
{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti

What do the āgamās or sastras teach?
The teachings of the whole range of āgamās, Śrutis, Smṛtis. Itihāsas, Purāṇās, Brahmasūtras, Pāñcarātra and sayings of Āḻvārs and saints may be summarised to cover three topics, namely,
  1. tattva or truths,
  2. puruṣārtha or the goal to be reached, and
  3. upāya or means to attain the goal.
What is, or rather, what ought to be our goal ?
Our goal is liberation from the bondage of material existence. Maitreyi, wife of sage Yajñavalkya, questioned him when he offered wealth to her at parting: “If all this earth with all its gems and wealth were mine without any dispute, can I become immortal?” And Yajñavalkya answered: "No, you could only live as wealthy persons live, and die as they die. Wealth does not bring immortality.” Maitreyi said: "'What shall I do with that which does not make me immortal? Tell me the means by which I become immortal. i.e. free from births and deaths.” Indra, the king of the gods, found no pleasure in heavenly kingdom, and leaving it, studied adhyātma-vidyā ,the science of self, for one hundred and one years at the feet of Prajāpati.
 
Narada, who was well-versed in all the Vedas, Itihāsas, Puraṇās, grammar, astronomy, mental and moral science, medicine, music, political science, and all other conceivable branches of learning, except ātma-vidyā  or science of the self, in great grief for his ignorance in that branch of learning, approached Sanatkumāra and entreated him to initiate him into the mysteries of the self. Every one of us desires to get freedom from the cycle of births, deaths, rebirths and miseries of life and to get unalloyed bliss. The desire in some is very faint instinctively; in others, it is of varying degrees, according as the self-consciousness is developed with the stage and grade of evolution and intelligence. In a few, it is very acute and marked. He in whom this desire is intense and acute, almost to the exclusion of other desires, is called a mumukṣu. A mumukṣu or a person longing for release from the bondage of samsāra or material existence must necessarily know the three truths. All schools of philosophy recognize this necessity and agree in saying that freedom can be attained only by the knowledge of the truths. A person knowing the three truths,
  • the enjoyer (the individual soul),
  • the enjoyed (matter) and
  • the controller of these two, namely God,
ingratiates himself into the good graces of the Supreme being and thereupon gets immortality.

The three truths are:
  1. cit or individual soul called jiva, pratyagātmā, jivātmā, kṣetrajña, cetana and so on:
  2. matter, called prādhānā, avyakta, prakṛti, avidyā, māyā, acetana and so on, and
  3. Iśvara or the universal Soul, called Parabrahman, Paramātmā, Paramapuruṣa, Nārāyaṇa and so on.
By cit is meant the object which is the abode of consciousness, jñāa or caitanya.
By acit is meant the object in which consciousness or jñāa does not and cannot inhere.
By Iśvara is meant the Supreme Being, God who controls these two.
 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}

Pramāṇa or means of knowledge
 
The pramātā, knower or a person desirous of knowledge, has to get knowledge of things to be known, prameya, only through the means of knowledge called pramāṇa. The existence of knowable objects is determined by the means of knowledge, called pramāṇa.

 

Read More

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=mpcn}
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA
written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti

Pramāṇa or means of knowledge

The pramātā, knower or a person desirous of knowledge, has to get knowledge of things to be known, prameya, only through the means of knowledge called pramāṇa. The existence of knowable objects is determined by the means of knowledge, called pramāṇa.

According to Cāruvākas, a school of atheists, the only means of knowledge is pratyakṣa or sensory perception. The Vaiśeṣikas and the Buddhists recognize anumāna or inference also. The Sāṅkhyas recognize, in addition, a third namely āgama. A sect of Naiyāyikas follow the Sāṅkhyas. But another sect, namely followers of Udayana, add  upamāna or anology as the fourth. The Prabhākaras recognize arthāpatti as the fifth pramāṇa. (Devadatta who is stout and healthy does not eat during day. Therefore he eats during nights. This conclusion is arrived at by arthāpatti). The Bhāṭṭas and Māyāvadins add abhāva as the sixth means of knowledge. They say that the particular sense-organ which cognizes the presence of a particular object, also recognizes its absence. The Paurāṇikas recognize two more, namely, sambhava and aitihya, and say that there are eight means of knowledge.

The Vedānta school recognizes only three of the above means of knowledge, namely, pratyakṣa or perception, anumāna or inference and āgama or Śtruti or Smṛuti, etc., and include the other five in one or other of the three means of knowledge. They include upamāna, arthāpatti, and sambhava in inference, abhāva in perception, and aitihya in āgama. By āgamas are meant Śrutis or Vedas, Smṛutis, Itihāsas, Purāṇas, Brahmasūtras, Pāncarātras and the saying of Tamil Āḷvārs and saints.

Of these three means of knowledge, namely, perception, inference and āgama, perception is authoritative only regarding things knowable by the senses; inference is authoritative regarding some unseen objects whose necessary concomitance, or vyāpti with the known object, is ascertained by sensory perception, as in the case of fire and smoke. But, in the case of things beyond the reach of the senses, āgamas or śāstras are the only authority.

The word Śāstra, is derived from the root Śās (anuśiṣṭau) to teach, to inform, to govern, to correct, to advise. Śāstra is that which teaches pravṛitti or action and nivṛutti or inaction. Of all the Śāstras, Śruti or Veda is the foremost authority as it is self-authoritative, and does not depend upon any other thing for its being authoritative, unlike Smŗti, Ithihāsa, Purāņa etc., which depend upon Śrutis for their authority. The Śruti or Veda, unlike other śāstras, is not made by man or by any other being and therefore, it is eternal. That Śruti is eternal, is proclaimed in the Śruti itself. The Vedas are not made by any being as they are eternal. The Vedas are free from any of the four defects – illusion, cheating, inadvertence and disability, to which man-made works are liable. No śāstra is therefore, higher than the Śruti.

Veda Vyāsa says: “No śāstra is superior to Veda”. “This is called Veda because it teaches”. The former part or karma-kānḍa of the Vedas deals with karma or action, which is worship of God and the latter part, or jana-kanda deals with the nature of God. Thus, all the Vedas speak about God. The Lord of the Gita says: “The subject matter of all the Vedas is Myself”. The Vedas cannot be understood by ordinary mortals. Only rishis or seers can understand them. The meaning of the Vedas can be understood only from the upabrahmanās or elucidating supplementary of Vedas, which are called Ithihāsās, Purāṇas and which are the inspired writings of seers called riṣis. Ithihāsas are ancient histories like Rāmāyaṇa and Mahābhārata which relate to events of the long past. Purāṇas deal with the evolution and involution of the cosmos, the several dynasties of kings, manvantaras and so on. The former part of the Vedas is elucidated mostly by Smṛutis and the latter part mostly by Ithihāsās and Purāṇas. The references to God and ātman in the Smṛutis are merely to show that karma is a form of worship of God, and reference to karma in the Ithihāsās and Purāṇas are made merely to show that karma is an aṅga or auxiliary to upāsana.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

This article is extracted from the book THE PHILOSOPHY OF ŚRI RĀMĀNUJĀ - VISIṢTADVAITA written by Sri V.R. Srisaila Chakravarti (Coimbatore) and published by V.S.R. Chakravarti, 24, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar Road, Madras - 18. The book is printed at Bharati Vijayam Press, Triplicane, Madras - 600 005 in the year 1974.

{phocadocumentation view=navigation|type=t}

 

Popular Downloads

coming soon...

Quick Links

coming soon

Vedics Foundation

Vedics USA

42991 Center St,

South Riding, VA 20152-2037


Vedics India

Flat 46/4, Athri apartments,
Opp to Triplicane fund Kalyana mandapam
Singarachari street,
Triplicane
Chennai -5

Follow Vedics

Copyright © Vedics. All rights reserved