Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re[2]: MURUGAN

From the Bhakti List Archives

Ramesh_Srinivasaraghavan • December 28, 1995 


     


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: MURUGAN
Author:  D2C30T8@CALVRTN4.BELL-ATL.COM at Internet-Mail
Date:    12/27/95 4:39 PM


     Sri Ramesh Srinivasaraghavan writes:
     
     "avaravar ...."
     
     I think it is one of the stanzas in the "mudal patthu" of 
     tiruvaimozhi. I also remember that these ten verses were quite a 
     tongue-twister. I am sure the learned scholars who write in this group 
     will clarify this point better.
     
     I have also heard from learned scholars that worship of other Gods 
     involve such rajasic (and even tamasic) rituals that, it would be 
     shocking to most of us today.....
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     Radhe Krishna ! Salutations to all !
     
     Sri Dileepan writes ...
     
     1. True, that stanza is from Thiruvaaimozhi. It goes:
     
        'avaravar thamathama tharivari vagaivagai,
         avaravar irayavar ena adi adaivargaL, 
         avaravar irayavar kuraivilar irayavar, 
         avaravar vidhivazhi adaya ninranarE'
     
        Simply put, Sri Nammaazhvaar shows his parama kaarunyam (tolerance)
     towards other forms of worship (not resorting to bigotry or passing 
     derogatory comments), while still maintaining the greatness of Sri 
     Vaishnavam. He says that people realize in their own ways and attain 
     their own gods they worship, their gods not being in any way inferior, 
     they attain salvation according to their destinies.
     
     >Thanks for pointing out that pasuram. You have very aptly shown the 
     paramakaaruNyam of aazhwar and his tolerance. 
     
     
     2. If the remark is regarding Lord Muruga's worship, I would like to 
     place before you the actual thatthva behind ...
     
     >My mail was not really regarding worship of Lord Muruga.  
     Maybe, my mail subject was misleading, but I was referring to the 
     Srivaisnava-opinion towards worship of devathantharam, in general.
     When I read the reply to Raymond Crawford's query, I felt that the 
     phrase _DO_NOT_WORSHIP_ were not strong enough. I therefore 
     emphasized that reply, by replacing the above phrase by,
     _SHOULD_NOT_WORSHIP_. Ofcourse, I also went ahead and tried to
     substantiate the above, with my limited knowledge and understanding.
     
     
     [ ...  mythology deleted ...]
     
     
     > I think these Puranas are not considered as PramaaNa by the 
     SriVaisnavaites.
     
     I entirely agree with the fact that Sri Vaishnavaites need not even 
     have to know these myths, let alone subscribe to them or include Lord 
     Murugan in their worship. Divya Dampathis are everything to Sri 
     Vaishnavaas.
     
     >I just want to reiterate that I was not implying that worship of 
     Murugan or some specific diety is Rajasic or Un-Sattvic. I was 
     speaking more generally about the SriVaisnava-opinion towards 
     devataantara worship.
     
     Sarvam Sri KrishnaarpaNamasthu.
     
     Dilipan
     
     
     adiyen Madurakavidasan,
     Ramesh Srinivasaraghavan