You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : August 1999

re:Sri Narayaneeyam-99th dasakam, 10th slokam

From: Sadagopan (
Date: Tue Aug 24 1999 - 16:58:20 PDT

Dear Mr. Vesel:

Thanks for your note.

There is nothing wrong with your 
Knowledge of VisishtAdhvaitham . 

This philosophy does not accept NirguNa Brahmam concept . 
This is one of the fundamental difference between advaitham and 
visishtAdvaitham . I understand that.

Sri NarayaNa Bhattadhiri is making here a coontextual
remark about the NirguNa and SaguNa Brahma UpAsanAs
and is saying that as a VisishtAdvaithin , he 
rejects the Attributeless form concept .He hints that 
the advaithins may have a concept called " attributeless form" , 
but as far as he is concerned , the " GuNarasEnaiva chittham
haranthim mUrthim thE samsrayOham " ( I take refuge 
in Your mUrtham that is heart winning and is abundantly
rich with limitless auspicous attributes).There is
no such thing as "nirguNa Brahmam " is what he is implying .
Sri Narayana Bhattadhiri did indeed come from
an Advaitha Family . 

In the 90th dasakam, the author of Sri NaarayaNIyam 
decribes himself as a VishNu Bhakthan and states that 
Adhi SankarA attained Moksham thru worship of 
Sriman NaarAyaNan . The Lord of GuruvAyUr ,
who was listening to that statement nodded His 
head in agreement . He  did not say that Adhi
Sankara became one with NirguNa Brahmam . 
He attained Moksham and not Eikhyam .

Your question about what  this post is doing in
Bhakthi listing is a pompous query as far as I am 
concerned . 

Regarding your offensive and impersonal question , 
whether I am a VisishtAdvaithin or Advaithin , 
I do not need to answer your question in its current form .
It lacks humility.

At 01:18 PM 8/24/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Respected members,
>Namo Narayana.
>This posting is a bit late but I hope it will still be answered by you.
>On bhakti list there was recently a posting on 10th slokam of 99th
>dasakam of Sri Naarayaaniyam. The translation, I believe,  went
>something like :"O lord, your attributeless (!!!) form is not easily
>(or sth like that). 
>You have to forgive me if my knowledge of Vishishtadvaita is a bit weak
>but I thought that in Sri Ramanuja's philosophy Brahman is always full
>of auspicious qualities. Isn't this "attributeless form" just some
>thing propounded by Sri Sankara and rejected by Ramanuja and Swami
>If so what is this posting doing on bhakti list? Is the author a
>This message is by far not meant to offend anyone in any way it's just
>that I feel a bit confused since my  (poor) knowledge of
>vishishtadvaita doesn't favour this "attributeless form".
>Hope this is taken in good spirit...
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Bid and sell for free at