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

Re: Digest bhakti.v003.n381

From: Sudarsan Parthasarathy (nihitha_at_singnet.com.sg)
Date: Fri May 21 1999 - 09:03:03 PDT

> Sri Raamajayam

Personally Adiyen is of the same view expressed by Mani.  Vedic meaning appeals more
than Puranaas.  This is quite true if someone reads the meanings of Rig Veda, where
every Deva is considered of a Saatvic Nature and only in the Puranaas they are
considered to be of Tri Gunaas(Sathva, Rajas, Tamas).   Thus there are several
verses dedicated to Agni and Indra for humans to enlighten themselves with Para
Jnanam to achieve Prapatthi in Sriman Naarayanan.

Also for quite a few years, I have personally tried to understand why Sri
Vaishnavites do not go to non-Sri Vaishnavite temples.  I heard several arguments
ranging from "Sriman Narayanan is Parathvam", so no need to worship Anya Devathaas
who are not subservient to lord.  In other cases some had use Puraanic examples of
where Anya Devathaas had resorted to jealous acts against Sriman Narayana and they
are thus not worthy of our worship.   On careful analysis of our Nithya karmas(like
Santhya Vandhanam, Yajnas, Homam etc, where we still invoke prayers to Anya
Devathaas), we specifically worship the other Devas/Devathaas and not the Antharyami
Sriman Naarayanan in them, "like Rudra Daivatyam Vrushabavahanaam" in Maadhyanika
Sandhya.  Of course Parathvam is Sriman Naarayanan, and all the Parabhakthi,
Paragnana, Prapatthi, we seek comes from this merciful Parabrahmam of Sriman
Naarayanan, even if we seek it from other Gods/Demi-Gods(words from the Geetha).  So
I was even more confused why we do not worship a Shiva Linga, or Ganesha in their
idol form.

One answer I think is, that it is the form of worship, which is the precondition for
a Sri Vaishnavite to worship, and whereever the idol is adorned with ash or skull,
the God is not worshipped.  That is the main reason, even Narasimha is not seen as
Moolavar as "Hiranya Vakshasthali", but as Ugraha Naarasimhan, at the most.  Is this
assumption right?  I expect some enlightenment mainly by Pramaanas/ Sri Vaishnavite
Poorvacharyas views on this topic.

Adiyen,

Sudarsan

> In short, if you think that taking the Puranas literally in every
> aspect is satisfying and convincing, go ahead. I am not going to
> challenge you. In the same vein, I reserve the right to reconcile
> conflicts my own way, and I believe I am being fully faithful to
> Vedantic principles. My words are addressed to people who are trying
> to make a similar reconciliation.
>
> rAmAnuja dAsan,
> Mani
>