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

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

From: Krishna Kalale (
Date: Tue Aug 24 1999 - 16:34:46 PDT

Dear Sri Kristijan Vesel,

thanks for noting that point.  I dont remember who wrote the posting and I 
am sure that person has done an accurate translation of that verse.  As I 
understand,  Narayaneeeyam was written by Narayana Bhattadri, a great 
devotee in Kerala, near Guruvayoor.  My guru, Dr. N.S. Anantharangachar 
once mentioned to me that Narayana Bhattadri - was a "trimurthi atita 
vadi", ie. One who thinks that the Highest Brahman is other than brahma, 
vishnu or maheswara. He is not a visistadvaitin as per definition, though 
personally I love his "narayaneeyam".  In fact, I was driving today 
listening to "Santana Gopalachar's Narayaneeyam" with tears in my eyes 
since it was so bhakti oriented. Even visistadvaitic scholars are all 
praises to Narayana Bhattadri due to the amount of Bhakti he had to Lord 
Guruvayoorappan.  Narayana Bhattadri is excellent and there is no doubt 
about it.  Personally, I have little knowledge about narayaneeyam, other 
than the fact that Lord Guruvayoorappan, one of my favorite krishna forms 
is being prayed to in that sloka.

Incidentally, Lord Narayana in visistadvaita has different types of forms, 
one is amurta or "formless";  Dont jump to the conclusion that this 
formlessness is same as attributeless.  Formlessness is the state of being 
"vibhu" or omnipresent.  How can he have form and still be omnipresent? 
 this question is natural.  Once Dr. Anantha rangachar told me that 
omnipresence is defined differently - "sarva murtha dravya sambadhitvam" 
-meaning He could have form and still be omnipresent.  As per this 
definition, omnipresence is that aspect by which lord is connected to all 
entities with or without form.  To my mind omnipresence still makes Lord 
more formless like space than with form.  I still have to understand what 
Dr. Anantha rangachar means.


what is said here as "attributeless form" is somewhat confusing to me, 
other than taking that to be what was mentioned by Narayana Bhattadri.  I 
am sure He is a bhakta par excellence and hence he could not be meaning 
totally attributeless.

adiyen Krishna Kalale

-----Original Message-----
From:	Kristijan Vesel []
Sent:	Tuesday, August 24, 1999 1:19 PM
Subject:	re:Sri Narayaneeyam-99th dasakam, 10th slokam

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