Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: kamba rAmAyanam

From the Bhakti List Archives

Padmanabhan • November 24, 2002 


Dear Sri Malolan Cadambi Swami,
We agree on the point that Shiva is an exalted JivAtma. We also agree on the
point that anya-devta worship is not sanctioned by vaishnavites.
Then, where do we disagree?
The whole thing came up, on justifying kamban's son's naming ambika-pati
with multiple meanings and the consequent discussion on shiva's vigraham at
AhObilam and thiruk-kurun-kudi. The question of disrespect and respect then
came up,
and anya-devtAs as highly respected bhAgvatAs. Here also I agreed in my
first sentence of my message. Then again where do we disagree?
The discussion came up for accepting the name' ambika-pati' being named by
kamban and sree
vaishnavic stand. Do you mean to say that Ambika-pati being named should be
accepted just for sake of justification for kamban's naming and respect to
shiva as an exalted deity?  Do we as sreevaishnavites are wrong in naming
our children only God's thiru-nAmangaL -refer kAsum -kaRaiyudai-periyAzwAr
thirumozhi 4-6?-why this reference has not been accepted/rejected?Am I
disrespecting  dEvtAs when I name children as per this dictum?Hence, since
the question of
respect/disrespect to anya-dEvtAs came up in the context of kamban naming
his son as ambikA-pati vis-a-vis srivaishnavic stand being grossly
misunderstood, that naturally implies that we have to accept kamban's naming
ambikapati as a respect to shiva and accept the action as correct. Further,
the comment was not just restricted to kamban's naming but also was a
general one being that majority of srivaishnavic stand being incorrect.
Hence, my response. My response was subject -specific in relation to
kamban's naming his son and your response,and nothing else.Why should we
accept kamban naming his son in the name of other deities? This is where we
differ.Let us agree to disagree.That covers the first point.
As far as second point is concerned It is a general comment not bearing any
direct
relation to the above issue. However, I had given few quotations which have
to be looked into
1. thirumazhisai AzhwAr's relationship with shiva.He had a quarrell with
shivA and pArvathi and out of anger shiva open his third eye and the fire
was doused by water from AzhwAr's thiruvadi. Does not thirumazhisai Azhwar
know that shivA is a devotee of Lord Sriman NaryaNA?  Does it mean that he
had disrespect towards them? The point here is, we are following our faith
and when we do so, it does not tantamount to disrespect to others.
2. 'kalai aRak kaRRa mAndhaR,kANbarO kEtparO thAm' -thiurmAlai-7
We should not even research in our mind all the faiths which are not ours
including pAsupadam, sAnkyam, vaiseshikam etc.
Here, kOrathAzhwAn's brief concentration in a work called 'ishta-siddhi' of
sAnkhya madham was reprimanded by his father kOrathAzhwAr, has been referred
to.(swAmi periya vAchAn piLLai's vyAkyAnam)
That is, our faith is total concentration on our bhagwadh vishayam without
even deviating an iota-engum pakka nOkkAmal- undivided concentration-is
prescribed for us.
3. Other two quotes namely' maRandhum puran thozhA mAndhar' of nAnmugan
thiuruvandhAdhi 68 and thiru-mozhi 8-10-3 has been referred to my be to
highlight that AzwArs and pOrvAchAryAs have been uncompromising in this
regard.
4. I also mentioned that shiva and other dEvtAs are bhAgwadhas in their
satvA state but are not when they are in other states.

I would also like to repoduce Edu vyAkyanam for thiru-voi-mozhi -4-8-1
pAsuram yERALum iRaiyOnum in this regard:
" yERALum " nAn nAn" enbArkum anailAmbadiAna vudambaik kidEr nAn
iyandhirukkiradhu.kaNda kAbAli kandhar peRRup pOgiradhu kidEr enakku
aridhAgiradhu engirAL"
"iRaiOnum" avan ubhaya vibhOdhikkum kadavanAi sarvEswaranAi
irukkum;kaLLiyai'mahA vriksham' enRavObhAdhi,thAnum Eswaran enRu
abhimAnithirukkum.
You have posed a question that stand on anya-devta is grossly misunderstood
and have also explained that they are respected entities. Can you please
tell me where did the question of disresepect come up? Neither I nor you
mentioned that we should disrespect anybody leave alone other dEvtAs. Then
where do we disagree? There is only a discussion here and not much of a
disagreement. Since, you mentioned that stand on anya-dEvtAs of
srivaishnavites have been misunderstood, you only have to tell what is the
misunderstanding and then we can conclude whether such misunderstanding
indeed exists among majority of srivaishnavites.You have brought an
accusation. The onus of proof is on you. Please clarify what is the
misunderstanding precisely and what is the disrespect. Unless this is clear,
one can go  on discussing.
That covers the second point .
(PERSONAL NOTE: When I write messages to this or other groups or respond, I
do so on reading the messages and their contents irrespective of who has
written that. I have got regards to all the members.Hence, when I respond to
your message, Shri Malolan Cadambi swami,  I emphasise that there is nothing
personal here and I have the highest regards for one and all. I am writing
this because,Sri Lakshi Narasimhan has written that I should restrict my
comments to perosnal mails and not in this forum. I do not think so. If
everybody start doing so, then there will be no discussion. If however, you
feel that I should not respond so, You may write so and I shall stop
henceforth. I request the moderator to give me a list of names to whom I
shall respond and to whom I shall not. I shall act accordingly.)
I reiterate that my comments are message specific and personally I have got
highest regards to you and other bhakthi group memebrs.Thank You.
dhAsan
vAnamAmalai padmanabhan


----- Original Message -----
From: Malolan Cadambi 
To: 
Cc: 
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2002 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: kamba rAmAyanam


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Padmanabhan" 
>
> > If what you say is correct, then all AzhwAr pAsurams will become totally
> > wrong. What shall we say then regarding the following few pAsurams and
the
> > corresponding commentaries( sample only)
>
> You have misunderstood what i wrote. Clearly, anya-devatA aradhana is not
> sanctioned for us Sri Vaishnavas.
>
> > It is indeed sad to note that we started discussing kamban, kamba
> rAmAyaNam
> > and we end up in accepting other deities (overlooking AzhwAr-s
pAsurams),
> > whcih reiterates my view that what is all good for vaishnavic faith
should
> > be accepted and what is not good should be rejected.
>
> Point 1: We never ended up accepting other deities, this was never
mentioned
> in any thread, either implicitly or explicitly.
>
> Point 2: I reiterate this point, since the Sri Vaishnava position on
> anya-devAtas has not been clearly understood by a vast majority of Sri
> Vaishnavas and other non-Sri Vaishnavas as well.
>
> This old post should clarify all points once again:
> http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/may96/0124.html
>
> Please concentrate on the questions that explain the creation of Rudra,
> Indra, Agni and other devatAs from the purusha.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -Regards,
>
> Malolan Cadambi
>
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/