You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : November 1997

Part 3 - Re: Azhwars Nitya suris or baddha jivatmas

From: Sampath Rengarajan (
Date: Wed Nov 19 1997 - 05:46:55 PST

Many thanks to some tamil scholars Such as Sri Sadagopan and Sri Anbil
of the net who replied to me for my posts.

My  respects  to  all  the  learned  members  of  this  forum.  My
praNamams  to the  thirup  pAdhak  kamalangaL  of all  the  devout
srivaishnavaLS of this forum.

	I recently discussed at length last night with the leanred tamil
scholar vainava sudar Sri Rama Rajan who
is respected by members of kamban sangam and many tamil scholars including
Sri Puththur swamigaL. He has written munnurai for Sri puththur swamigaL's
work. He is currenlty in Annarbor with his son and adiyEn has the bAgyam of
clearing some doubts through him. He has published a book known as kambanum
azwarkaLum. He has close links to PP Andavan as well. As per his learned
commentaries on sadagopar anthAthi's pasuram by Sri Kambar quoted earlier by me
he confirmed the vyAkyAnam that azwars are considered the avathArams
of the Lord by Sri Kambar. Sri Anbil may discuss with Sri Poundrika puram
ANDAVN during his visit and settle this once for all for those of us who
believe in our achAryAs vAkku and kAlakshEbams than our reading and
understanding from books. As I said earlier i consider these analysis
and questions simply araise out of my annYAnam mainly. So please forgive me
for my anyANams.

I was blessed by Sri Anbil swamigaL
with whom i discussed these lines from 6000 padi.  He wanted me to
study these with a critical insight in line with our poorvacharyas
vyAkkyAnam and guided me little bit in it.
 I did study these lines as advised by him and want to
attempt a slightly  indepth analysis and go some more mileage with
the same words of 6000 padi that was quoted earlier.  This attempt
is  merely my  intensive  search to  understand  this  topic  very
thoroughly  and i donot mean to offend anyone or challenge  anyone
by doing  so.  If my  presentation  hurts  anyone's  sentiments  I
sincerely apologise to them before hand.

Coming to 6000 padi,

"ini avargaLOdu SamarO ivvaazhvaargaL? ennil:- anRu;
karmaththaiyittu Srushtiththaan enRadhu avarkaLai;
Sva ichchaiyaalE avadharippiththaan enRadhu ivargaLai."
	"dhivya prabhandha praamaaNya Samarththanam"
	- 6000 padi gurupArampariyam
	- pin pazhagiya jeer

When  the  it  is  said  that  "srustitthaR"  for  annya  dEvathAs
avatharipiththAr  is referred  for azwar.  The words  "srusti" and
"avathArikai"  have a some marked  difference.  "srusti" though it
is also the act of the Lord it can mean here as
only a creation due to certain  pattern and karma while avathAram is
a direct  act of the Lord  due to HIS own free  will.  In the word
"swa icchai",  "ichchai"  means viruppam or willingness or HIS own
desire.  Together  "swa  ichchai"  or  "swayEchchai"  means  one'e
independant  and free will ie the Lord made them  incarnate due to
HIS own desire or free will  independant of any other.  It is very
important  to derive the correct  meaning for  swayEchchai  in the
context of  variuous  arguments  presented.  ie., these very words
negate  the  argument  that  Lord's  independant  and free will to
incarnate  azwars are not reactionary or dependanat on an analysis
on the intended  accomplishment of HIS earlier avathArams and that
such have not yielded the intended  fruit for baddhas etc..  It is
very clear from this  statement  from pin pazhagiya  jeer that the
theory of Lord  entering the bodies of a baddhda  jiva at the time
of birth is never  addressed  by these  lines.  ie., the Lord made
these azwars  "incarnate"  due to HIS own desire.  The reason that
the Lord understood  after Sri Rama and SriKrishna  avathAram that
only a baddha  jivAtmA  must  tell  them the  path and not a super
human avathAram,  maynot be easily derived from the very same statement of
jeer's   words  such  as   "iavarkaL (as different from avarkaL)",
  "avatharippiththAr"   and "swayEchchai". It is said that these were settled
100 years back by achAryAs and that the little concept on dasavatharam is
relatively new. I am not sure if Sri Kamban's sadagopar anthAthi is relatively
new. While it is generally believed that  Sri NammAzwar is the avathAram
of the Lord, other azwars are considered by many as HIS avayams or amsams.
can we consider the avayams of the Lord and Lord in whole as different from
each other ?

The word  avathAram  is used  mainly for Lord and HIS  incarnations
and achAryALs whom we consider as nityAs who directly discend from
Sri Vaikundam as per the thiru uLLam of perumAL.
Considering the reference to sudhdha  saththuvam in the following
lines for the  composition  or make up of these azwars it can only
mean  that they are  incarnations  of the Lord  vishnu  who is the
embodiment of sudhda  saththuvam or nityAs.  ie., while it is generally
conceived that the bodies of baddha
jivatama is the composition of their karmAs, the bodies of Lord and
nityAs are sudhda  satvams.  Since they are made to  incarnate  as
sudhda   saththuvam   could the Lord   have  entered  such  an
embodiment lately  that HE was already made of.  ie., they  incarnated as
the Lord's incarnations and hence the entering later on may not be
an easily conceivable arththam. I may be wrong totally as i consider
that these are merely due to my anyAnams. May be, Sri Anbil can tell
about this.

pin pazhagiya jeer thiruvadikaLE saraNam
Sampath Rengarajan