You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : April 2000

Re: Sri BhAshyakArar and Sri VP etc

From: Anand Karalapakkam (
Date: Sun Apr 16 2000 - 09:58:04 PDT

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha
SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN SatakOpa -
SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha

 Dear SrI Bharat,
 namO nArAyaNa.

"A.Bharat" wrote:

> Dear BhAgavatOttamas
> The criticisms of Srimans Anand Karalapkkam and
> Harikrishna re aDiyEn's notes on the above subject
> are perfectly valid wherever they refer to what
> aDiyEn actually wrote.

  Really sorry SrI Bharat, if you felt that adiyEn had 
  "criticised" your posting. adiyEn just wrote in a 
  friendly way to share certain view points towards 
  this discussion.

> RahasyatrayasAram.By quoting further instances where
> the deep knowledge of DP enlivened Sri EmberumAnAr's
> commentaries,he has merely strengthened aDiYEn's
> thin argument re Sri BhAshyakArar's inspiration from,
> and love for, the Divine verses of the AzhwArs.

  As you said, adiyEn wanted to assert and further 
  strengthen this point of yours. 

> The only point on which aDiyEn has a totally respectful
>  but firm difference of opinion is -re the basic difference between
> the approaches of SriVP and SriBH  with re to PirAtti.
> Sri VP is totally wholehearted and unrestricted in its
> statement that He is Sriyahpati and she is His constant
> consort,anapAyinI,as in "ahalakillEn iraiyum" and goes on to
> present a Stuti which repeats this statement in a hundred
> ways so that there should be no doubt on that point.
> Kindly see the identical chapter in Sri BH for a striking
> contrast in approach.

  Well, there are instances in SrI BhAgavatham (SB) also wherein
  Lord is addressed as "SrIyahpati". Infact, even in the 
  gOpikA geetham, it appears around three times or so. But, as
  SrI Bharat points out, the "SrI" tattva (ie. about pirAtti) is
  well brought out in SrI VP, than in SB. 

  Sage ParASara's SrI ViSNu purANam (SVP) concentrates a lot
  on explaining the tattvas. Many passages in upanishad and 
  vEdas are being commented here making it an upabrahmana of 
  a greater value than other purANas. Thats why it had direct
  appeal for being quoted in the Brahma sUtras, wherever the 
  sUtrakAra (Sage VyAsa alias BAdarAyana) refers to Smrutis
  to substantiate the siddhAnta he is making.
  The passage from Upanishad/vEdas taken for discussion in 
  an adhikaraNa of Brahma sUtras is identified by the 
  commentators of Brahma sUtras and when the sUtra itself 
  says that the point established above is supported by 
  Smruti, invariably SrI VP has dealt with the commentry
  to that passage of Upanishad/vEdas taken for discussion
  in that adhikaraNa. So, SrI VP became extremly important
  for understanding the siddhAnta made in Brahma sUtras.
  Sage ParASara wrote SrI VP to clarify many issues in vEdAnta.
  His son Sage VyAsa wrote Brahma sUtras to make a very 
  systematic and organized presentation of VEdAnta, clarifying
  the import of the Upanishads in many difficult issues. 
  Needless to say, Sage VyAsa had studied SrI VP under his 
  father and knows the clarity in which his father has handled
  many important passages of Upanishads. So, while presenting
  the siddhAnta in his Brahma sUtras, Sage VyAsa augments his
  arguments with the help of esp. SrI VP as a Smruti text. In
  other words, whenever Sage Vyasa asks one to refer to 
  "Smrutis" as a support to the siddhAnta made, we see 
  explicitly SrI VP commenting the very issue in hand.
  Thats why, SrI VP holds a very high place with regard to
  the explanation of tattvas and was used by the commentators 
  of Brahma sUtras. 

  Sage Vyasa's approach to SB, which is most likely to be 
  written after the Brahma SUtras, is not to get into deep
  issues in VEdAnta for establishing the specific standpoints.
  The job was already done through Brahma sutrAs and SrI VP.
  Its high time to immerse oneself more in BrAhmAnubhava, 
  enjoying the Swaroopa, rUpa, guNa and vibhUtIs of the Brahman 
  that has been well established already. SB's focus was on these
  lines and thats why we see many shallow treatment in 
  explaining tattvas, in comparison with SrI VP. 

  A vidvAn here at chennai, who is an authority in SB and is
  well versed in SrI BhAshya etc re-iterated the point reg.
  the superior explanation of tattva in SrI VP. For a sample,
  he just made a comment on the way "Jagat Srushti" / 
  "Jagat kAranatvam of Brahman" is explained in SrI VP and 
  SB. He told that while SrI VP gets into very good details,
  SB is more on the surface level. He added that, similar is 
  the case with many such issues in VEdAnta dealtwith in these
  purANas. But, he by himself is a great admirer of SB and
  said that one will get into a different plane of bhagavad
  anubhava while reading SB and thats not the case with SrI

  The bottomline is that SB is glorified as a great purANa
  for its excellence in presenting the rasAnubhavas, drenching
  one in great bhagavad anubhavam and SrI VP is hailed as a 
  great purANa ("Gem of the purANas" - as per the words of 
  SrI YAmunAchArya) for its excellent treatment on the 
  adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Get paid for the stuff you know!
Get answers for the stuff you donít. And get $10 to spend on the site!

           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:
Visit for more information