Popular iyers in the four sub sects of the community

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

hi
hi nachi sir,

asthram sarira Mimansa devasthu Parameswara

Acharya Sankaracharya santhu me janma janmani

These clearly indicate that Smarta religion follows all the six Dharsanas or systems of Philosophy.


this is not neccessary....we are smarthas....vadamas....but we follow vaishnava acharyas....we put naamam....keethu naama,.....


we follow srirangam panchangam....not any shankarachaya matam followers.....our family kuladaivam vishnu.....still we called


as VADASESTHU VADAMAS......we purely follow vaishnava system....stilll we are SMARTHAS....

Thank You, TBS.

Please see this new thread.

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/11296-smartas-eclectic-hindus.html#post178770

 

[sangom]

What is the point of obsessing about the past and which ancestor was more glorious? Does it matter if my great-grandfather was a king, if I am unable to put food on the table myself?

Dear Shri Biswa,

What I have heard from my elders (and this may not be palatable today) is that Ramanuja was obsessed with a kind of monistic philosophy of the western kind where there is only one god and not many as was the condition prevailing among the brahmins of the south in his (Ramanuja's) times. He therefore propounded visishtadvaitam more to project vishnu as the supreme-most godhead and all the rest of the brahminical pantheon as "demi gods" etc. It was this lack of "samadarsana" which alienated the smartas from the vaishnavas.

There was a period, till very recently, when a smarta would not drink water from an iyengar's house and vice versa. I have witnessed such hostilities even 50 or 60 years ago.

Hence, it is quite understandable that staunch vaishnavites of today should imagine that they had at no time in the past, any connection, whatsoever with the general pool of south indian brahmins. It is also a commonly held notion among the smarta brahmins that Ramanuja allowed a lot of people belonging to the untouchable classes also in order to create a following for his new philosophy, that such followers did not know for generations, what it was for which they had been elevated as brahmins, etc. This is one more point for the smarta brahmins to put down the vaishnavites.

Of course, all these plus the open conflicts between the two sects, are part of history today, but strong sectarian beliefs is more visible among the vaishnavites.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Biswa,

This has reference to the post #52, a reply to your post from Sangom Sir,

If the elders had said all this they were completely wrong. It is pure hearsay. Whether it is palatable or not is besides the point. For the members here what is important is whether it is true or not and whether what is said is supported by reason and evidence or not. There is no evidence available to show that Ramanuja was obsessed with anything. If there is any that should be provided here. If it is a conclusion reached on the basis of analysis of the events of that time today then there can be other such reasoned interpretations too. I present one such interpretation. I have respect for Sankara’s advaitam as a philosophic idea. Smartha brahmins are not my enemies either. In fact I have many friends who are smarthas. But I thought I will spend some time to put the matters in clear perspective as mischief makers are quoting dubious sources to vitiate the ambiance in this forum. For this reason I am sticking to only the broader issues and am not going to discuss strife.

The brahmins of those days calling themselves smartha brahmins (the name itself is derived from the root word smrithi) were becoming more and more rituals/code oriented and less of philosophy oriented. They were in conflict with the saivites who were siva worshippers and these saivites were so fed up with these brahmins that they disowned vedas and declared that they would accept the vedas only to the extent of the portions which are not in conflict with their saivagamas and the rest of the vedas were not acceptable to them as authority. This is the situation today too. The Tambirans and sannidhanams of all the saivite matams do not subscibe any allegiance to vedas.They also rejected the smrithis in a similar way. So these brahmins were in course of times finding themselves neither here nor there just as they find themselves today too. None of the saivites belonging to the saivite matoms (the saiva mudaliyars, pillais, thevars, rajas, gounders) accept smartha brahmins as belonging to their religious faith. They do not want to have anything to do with advaitam either. They have their own பசுக்கொள்கை which is Latin to these smartha brahmins too.But for the influence they enjoyed with the kings of those times these brahmins would have lost their identity completely. There was complete anarchy and internecine wars between the so called shan mathams. Every sect had a god of its own like the tribals' totem of Africa. These brahmins laid so much stress on smrithis that the sruthis which were the vedas (including the upanishads) were pushed to the background and philosophy was no where there in religious discourse.

In this scenario came Sankara and he tried to bring some semblance of an order in the sanathana dharma. He was stressing the importance of recognizing the single God principle to the exclusion of multiple god heads. Thus he spoke about a paramatma and a Jeevatma and about the relation between the two. He also supported his theory of advaita with extensive quotes from vedas and upanishads and from interpretations of them. The smartha brahmins of Tamilnadu who were looking for some kind of acceptability to their shanmatham and shad darsana ideas plumped for Sankara’s new philosophy because it gave philosophic content to the religion and pulled it up from the depths of ignorance that it had fallen into. As this was happening and smartha brahmins became vedantis many of them could not give up their old blinkered vision of smrithis and archaic practices and interpretations of smrithis. Now Ramanuja came on the scene.

Vaishnavam was prevalent as a religious faith even before Sankara propounded his vedanta philosophy of advaitam. There is enough evidence for this in vedas, upanishads (please refer to R.G.Bhandarkar’s book “Vaishnavism, Saivism and Minor Religious Systems”). Vaishnavam was also known by the names BhAgavatham, PAncharAthram, SAtvatham and EkAnthikam. There are references to Vishnu in Rg Veda and Yajur Veda.

There is evidence in the form of a stone inscription discovered by archaeologists in Gosundhi in Rajasthan belonging to 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] century BC in which there is reference to worship of Vasudeva and Samkarshana which are names of Vishnu. There is another stone inscription discovered in Beznagar which speaks about a certain Eliodora, a Greek, which arranged to raise a massive and tall Pillar on top of which he got the image of a Garuda seated. This Greek also called himself a BhAgavatha as per the stone inscription. This stone inscription has been dated to be belonging to the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] century BC. In the Nanaghat cave temples, on the walls there are inscriptions which speak about worship of Samkarshana and Vasudeva. On the basis of the script(Lipi) form used in these inscriptions these have been determined to be belonging to the period of 1[SUP]st[/SUP] centure BC. Also there is evidence to show that the vasudeva worship from ancient times had Ahimsa as its kernel.

In Itihasas and puranas there are extensive coverage about vishnu worship.

In Tamil Sangam Literature we have several references to Vishnu worship. This includes references in Silappathikaram and Manimekalai which belong to 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Century AD. Further :

In Tholkappiyam Vasinavam is spoken of as worship of Vishnu or TirumAl. There is evidence in Tholkappiyam to show that this vishnu worship was prevalent even much before the time of Tholkappiyam itself. Please refer to (i) மாயோன் மேய காடுறை உலகமும்(தொல்காப்பியம்-பொருள்-அகத்திணை 5) (ii)மாயோன் மேய மன்பெருஞ்சிறப்பிற்றாவா விழுப்புகழ் பூவை நிலையும்(தொல்.பொருள்-புறத்திணை 5) (iii)காமப்பகுதி கடவுளும் வரையார், ஏனோர் மருங்கினும் என்மனார் புலவர் (தொல்.புறத்திணை 23) (iv)குழவி மருங்கிலும் கிழவதாகும்(தொல்.-புறத்திணை 24) Tholkappiyam speaks not only about worship of mAyOn or Kannan but also about worship of Balarama. In the Ezhuththathikaram of Tholkaappiyam while laying down the rule for combining words he says கொடிமுன் வரினே ஐஅவன் நிற்பக் கடிநிலை இன்றே வல்லெழுத்து மிகுதி(தொல்.-எழுத்ததிகாரம்-உய்ர்மயங்கியல் 53) the panaikkodi he speaks about is that of Balarama. Tholkaaappiyam being the oldest work in Tamil the references given above show that Vishnu worship or vaishnavam was prevalent in ancient times in north as well south India.

In the first Tamil anthology Paththuppaattu (பத்துப்பாட்டு) belonging to the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] century AD which is part of Sangam Literature there are references to Vaishnavam. Please refer to(i) புள்ளணீ நீள்கொடிச் செல்வன்(திருமுருகாற்றுப்படை-151) and (ii)நாற்பெருந்தெய்வத்து நன்னகர் நிலைஇய, உலகம் காக்கும் ஒன்றுபுரி கொள்கை(திருமுரு-160-61) (iii)இருநிலங்கடந்த திருமறு மார்பின், முந்நீர்வண்ணன் பிறக்கடை(பெறும்பாணாற்றுப்படை-29-31) (iv)நேமியொடு வலம்புரி பொறித்த மாதாங்க்கு தடக்கை, நீர்செல நிமிர்ந்த மாஅல் போல (முல்லைப்பட்டு 1-3) களங்க்கொள் அவுணர்க்கடந்த பொலந்தார் மாயோன் மேய ஓண நன்னாள் (மதுரைக்காஞ்சி 591-92)

In the second anthology Ettuththokai (எட்டுத்தொகை) of sangam times in paripAtal(பரிபாடல்) there is clear reference to vishnu worship in at least 7 poems(1,2,3,4,13,15 and one in paripAtal thirattu). In kaliththokai(கலித்தொகை)there are extensive references to vishnu worship and vaishnavam. For sample please refer to 27,36,52,103, 104, 105, 106, and 124. In Akananooru (அகநாநூறு) please refer to 59,70,220,137 for reference to Vishnu worship. In purananooru (புறநாநூறு) please refer to 174, 378, for such references.
In natrinai (நற்றிணை) please refer to the invocation poem in which vishnu is praised.In pathitruppaththu (பதிற்றுப்பத்து) please refer to நான்காம்பத்து-1 for a reference to thirumAl in Thiruvananthapuram.

In the third anthology called பதினெண்கீழ்க்கணக்கு of Sangam literature in Tirukkural (திருக்குறள்), thirikadukam (திரிகடுகம்), nAnmanikkadikai(நான்மணிக்கடிகை), kAr nArppathu (கார் நாற்பது),iniyavai nARpathu(இனியவை நாற்பது), ainthinai aimbathu(ஐந்திணை ஐம்பது), pazhamozhi naanooru (பழமொழி நானூறு) there are references to vaishnavam and vishnu worship. In Silappathikaaram and manimekalai (சிலப்பதிகாரம், மணிமேகலை) there are clear references to Vishnu worship and Vaishnavam. When M.S. Subbulakshmi sang “vadavaraiyai maththaakki (வடவரையை மத்தாகி......) it was from Silappathikaaram that she took those lines.

So Vaishnavam is not an upstart in the indian firmament of religious philosophy and people of this country and state were not introduced to Vishnu worship by Sri Ramanujacharya. When smartha brahmins were given to polytheistic worship of many Godheads investing them with equal veneration and used Sankara’s Advaitam as the higher vedantic and philosophic content to justify that, Ramanuja came there and after studying vaishnavam and advaitam under his teachers understood the greatness of vaishnavam. In order to counter the smartha brahmin’s flaunting of vedantic philosophy in the form of advaitam, he countered it with visishtadvaitam as a distinct philosophy based on the same vedas and upanishads. An anthropomorphic form of God idea was the need of the society when the society was unable to accept the nihilism of advaitam’s mayA vAdham. A sagunabrahmam with all desirable and pleasing kalyanagunas-a kalyaana guna Arnavam- was what they could easily relate to. That is the reason why vaishnavam is a success. Vaishnavam’s God entity is nearer, recognizable and intelligible to the followers. This is the reason why vaishnavites consider Ramanuja as an avatara and say “na deivam Ramanujaath param”.

It was not lack of samadarsana that makes a vaishnavite worship only Sriman Narayana as the supreme God, the one and only ultimate prabrahmam. Once you accept in principle a monotheistic worship of one God there is no scope for accepting any number of Gods for the sake of samadarsana. In a samadarsana frenzy you can not see in every woman in the world your wife. That kind of a samadarsana will be called lunacy.

The other innuendo about Ramanuja converting other castes is not worth commenting on. It is just pure mischief.

There is nothing to fight between smarthas and vaishnavas of the present time. They are all brahmins. Perhaps in minor aspects like method of worship, belief in vishnu as ultimate God, and other connected issues. As for the philosophic content of the Dharma, advaitam as well as Visishtadvaitam are both monisms only. Those who are aware of this just do not bother about the divisions and they just ignore the mischief makers.

 

[renuka]

In a samadarsana frenzy you can not see in every woman in the world your wife. That kind of a samadarsana will be called lunacy.

Dear Suraju ji,


What kind of Samadarshinah is that?

That is Kamadarshinah!LOL

When one uses the terminology Samadarshinah that means sans the Arishadvargas Kama,Kroda,Lobha,Moha,Mada and Matsarya.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Vaishnavism, Saivam and Saktham are all pre-Vedic religions. Smartas are of a recent origin compared to them.

I do not think that there was ever a conflict between Smartas and Vaishnavas or for that matter with any sect.

Definitely not Vaishnavas because the Smartas are most part worshippers of Vishnu. Their Achamanam is 100% Vishnu names. They recite and swear by Vishnu Sahasranamam. In fact the Saiva Siddhanta and other Saivas were/are unhappy with Smartas because they considered them as pseudo Vaishnavas. The Smartas end a Rudram recital with kayanavacha and submit everything to Narayana.

The Brahcharanam sect is more Saivite than Vadamas.

Smartas are mainly proponents of Vaidika Dharma. Please see my other thread.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Tks,

You said this:

Similarly other than the kind of Namam used what is the difference between Then Kalai and Vada Kalai (who I am told think they are superior and accepted) as opposed to each of the Iyer sub-sects all think they are the greatests ..
From a distance all this look very comical

That shows your ignorance. The difference between vadakalais and thenkalais are not the pundram only. There are substantial differences in interpretation of scriptures between the two sects. This has been discussed in this forum once earlier. If you dig a little deeper you may get the info. Things will comical or serious depending on the onlookers mind.

Cheers.

 

[sangom]

Ref: post # 53

But I thought I will spend some time to put the matters in clear perspective as mischief makers are quoting dubious sources to vitiate the ambiance in this forum. For this reason I am sticking to only the broader issues and am not going to discuss strife.

Does this not clearly imply that there really was "strife", and any discussion thereof may/will generate disharmony in this forum and thus vitiate the ambience?

The brahmins of those days calling themselves smartha brahmins (the name itself is derived from the root word smrithi) were becoming more and more rituals/code oriented and less of philosophy oriented. They were in conflict with the saivites who were siva worshippers and these saivites were so fed up with these brahmins that they disowned vedas and declared that they would accept the vedas only to the extent of the portions which are not in conflict with their saivagamas and the rest of the vedas were not acceptable to them as authority.

Available evidence is very meagre or practically nil when we consider those days as the days of Ramanuja. Even during Shankara's time, there seem to have existed kApAlikas, gANApatyas, SAktas ,etc., who practised ritual sacrifices including perhaps human sacrifices. This, however, was not the way of life of the ordinary brahmins and their practice of even the vedic yagas with their ritual sacrifices, was generally on the decline, may be because the lay population which comprised mostly of the Shudras, panchamas, and the illiterate sections of the vaisyas, had been influenced by Jainism which was present in south India and which many kings had embraced. As regards the so-called "dark ages" of the Kalabhras also, there is not yet any evidence that this period encouraged ritualistic religion.

Hence when Adishankara started his spreading of the advaita philosophy, the main opponents which he had to reckon with were the (Poorva) mimamsa philosophers, and the extremist fringes like the kApAlikas, gANApatyas, SAktas ,etc. The latter were all belief systems based on Tantra and the vedic followers actually considered (and even today consider) tantra as not sanctioned by the vedas. Therefore, the above observation does not appear to be borne out by facts. Additional evidence of an authentic type have to be given instead of know-it-all statements like the above.

The smartha brahmins of Tamilnadu who were looking for some kind of acceptability to their shanmatham and shad darsana ideas plumped for Sankara’s new philosophy because it gave philosophic content to the religion and pulled it up from the depths of ignorance that it had fallen into. As this was happening and smartha brahmins became vedantis many of them could not give up their old blinkered vision of smrithis and archaic practices and interpretations of smrithis.

The shaNmatam and smartas were two entirely different things. It requires to be proved with satisfactory evidence if one has to be convinced about the two being just different names for the same thing. Smarta brahmins did not become vedantins nor did they embrace advaita in any significant manner; they continued their practice of a virtually infinite pantheon of equally-ranked godheads. Shankara's advaita probably gave them a convenient additional justification for their belief system because now they could say very well that each of their pan-en theistic godheads is but a manifestation of the Parabrahman which is without any attribute. Whatever their vision of smrithis and practices

So Vaishnavam is not an upstart in the indian firmament of religious philosophy and people of this country and state were not introduced to Vishnu worship by Sri Ramanujacharya. When smartha brahmins were given to polytheistic worship of many Godheads investing them with equal veneration and used Sankara’s Advaitam as the higher vedantic and philosophic content to justify that, Ramanuja came there and after studying vaishnavam and advaitam under his teachers understood the greatness of vaishnavam.

It may be noted that in post #52, there was no mention or claim that worship of vishnu was something new or that Ramanuja was an upstart who suddenly brought in vishnu as a new godhead. What is said above as "Ramanuja came there and after studying vaishnavam and advaitam under his teachers understood the greatness of vaishnavam.", tells why vaishnavism as a narrow, sectarian phenomenon, could not allow any one of the myriad godheads to be as good as vishnu and allow its adherents that freedom of choice. I am surprised that a pro-brahmanic warrior of this forum equates his view of a godhead with the view of a person looking at a woman as his wife! Anyway, there should be no problem for vaishnava women at least (or, is there? with all the talk of LGBT nowadays!). may be vaishnavism teaches that way to look at their only god!! And, if a follower of vaishnavism some 1200 years on with a samadarsana frenzy, it is but imaginable what sort of obsessive fenzy would have been there in the days of Ramanuja.

The other innuendo about Ramanuja converting other castes is not worth commenting on. It is just pure mischief.

This is the view prevalent among non-vaishnavas and the strife between the two "kalais" (vadakalai & thenkalai) which took the namam of a temple elephant up to the supreme court/privy council, is testimony to the above notion.

There is nothing to fight between smarthas and vaishnavas of the present time. They are all brahmins. Perhaps in minor aspects like method of worship, belief in vishnu as ultimate God, and other connected issues. As for the philosophic content of the Dharma, advaitam as well as Visishtadvaitam are both monisms only. Those who are aware of this just do not bother about the divisions and they just ignore the mischief makers.

But some do not ignore and waste so much typing and web space, that is, perhaps, their privilege, or their OCD!!

 

[suraju06]

Dear Sangom Sir,

Your post #57:

But I thought I will spend some time to put the matters in clear perspective as mischief makers are quoting dubious sources to vitiate the ambiance in this forum. For this reason I am sticking to only the broader issues and am not going to discuss strife.

Does this not clearly imply that there really was "strife", and any discussion thereof may/will generate disharmony in this forum and thus vitiate the ambience?

A meaningless repetition of a statement of the obvious. Of course you have the freedom to waste your time and webspace and of course energy needed for typing. There is strife and if evidence is needed here it is. These are your own wise cracks: “why vaishnavism as a narrow, sectarian phenomenon, could not allow any one of the myriad godheads to be as good as vishnu and allow its adherents that freedom of choice”. Do you still want people to believe there is no strife?

The brahmins of those days calling themselves smartha brahmins (the name itself is derived from the root word smrithi) were becoming more and more rituals/code oriented and less of philosophy oriented. They were in conflict with the saivites who were siva worshippers and these saivites were so fed up with these brahmins that they disowned vedas and declared that they would accept the vedas only to the extent of the portions which are not in conflict with their saivagamas and the rest of the vedas were not acceptable to them as authority.

Even during Shankara's time, there seem to have existed kApAlikas, gANApatyas, SAktas ,etc., who practised ritual sacrifices including perhaps human sacrifices. This, however, was not the way of life of the ordinary brahmins and their practice of even the vedic yagas with their ritual sacrifices, was generally on the decline, may be because the lay population which comprised mostly of the Shudras, panchamas, and the illiterate sections of the vaisyas, had been influenced by Jainism which was present in south India and which many kings had embraced. As regards the so-called "dark ages" of the Kalabhras also, there is not yet any evidence that this period encouraged ritualistic religion.

All this know-it-all statements need proof. Where is it? In the absence of evidence it is just shibboleth. You are not a chronicler who lived there those days nor do you have the Sankara’s time poorva janma vasana.

Hence when Adishankara started his spreading of the advaita philosophy, the main opponents which he had to reckon with were the (Poorva) mimamsa philosophers, and the extremist fringes like the kApAlikas, gANApatyas, SAktas ,etc. The latter were all belief systems based on Tantra and the vedic followers actually considered (and even today consider) tantra as not sanctioned by the vedas. Therefore, the above observation does not appear to be borne out by facts. Additional evidence of an authentic type have to be given instead of know-it-all statements like the above.

I was given to understand that gAnapatyam, sAktham etc were part of the shan matham that Sankara reinstated and that is why he was called shan matha sthapaka. But now you are telling a completely different story that Sankara fought gAnapatyam, sAktham etc and that they were extremist fringes. Either you are confused or are trying to confuse people here.

The smartha brahmins of Tamilnadu who were looking for some kind of acceptability to their shanmatham and shad darsana ideas plumped for Sankara’s new philosophy because it gave philosophic content to the religion and pulled it up from the depths of ignorance that it had fallen into. As this was happening and smartha brahmins became vedantis many of them could not give up their old blinkered vision of smrithis and archaic practices and interpretations of smrithis.
The shaNmatam and smartas were two entirely different things. It requires to be proved with satisfactory evidence if one has to be convinced about the two being just different names for the same thing. Smarta brahmins did not become vedantins nor did they embrace advaita in any significant manner; they continued their practice of a virtually infinite pantheon of equally-ranked godheads. Shankara's advaita probably gave them a convenient additional justification for their belief system because now they could say very well that each of their pan-en theistic godheads is but a manifestation of the Parabrahman which is without any attribute. Whatever their vision of smrithis and practices

So what is your contention? Do you say that the shanmathams did not have a single smartha brahmin in their fold. If so which religion did the smartha brahmins follow in those days? A shivling as a attributeless representation of God idea is understandable. But all the multiple godheads, each with distinct anthropomorphic features, a different weapon, a distinct consort, a distinct mount with distinct preferences about what he relishes to eat etc. representing an attributeless parabrahmam is beyond one’s grasp. Perhaps Sankara himself will have to come to tell these people that his original idea of advaitam has been battered and twisted beyond shape. An ordinary human being trying to understand the smartha brahmins multiple godheads may ask, if supreme is not supreme without equals, what exactly is supreme?

So Vaishnavam is not an upstart in the indian firmament of religious philosophy and people of this country and state were not introduced to Vishnu worship by Sri Ramanujacharya. When smartha brahmins were given to polytheistic worship of many Godheads investing them with equal veneration and used Sankara’s Advaitam as the higher vedantic and philosophic content to justify that, Ramanuja came there and after studying vaishnavam and advaitam under his teachers understood the greatness of vaishnavam.
It may be noted that in post #52, there was no mention or claim that worship of vishnu was something new or that Ramanuja was an upstart who suddenly brought in vishnu as a new godhead.

Post #53 was a reply to your post and many other posts here in which people has asserted that Ramanuja promoted vaishnavam and he was born a smartha brahmin.

What is said above as "Ramanuja came there and after studying vaishnavam and advaitam under his teachers understood the greatness of vaishnavam.", tells why vaishnavism as a narrow, sectarian phenomenon, could not allow any one of the myriad godheads to be as good as vishnu and allow its adherents that freedom of choice.

How? Please explain how this makes vaishnavam a narrow, sectarian phenomenon. A supreme God entity can be only one (to be supreme, ultimate reality)and not many. This is simple logic. That supreme entity has to have a name to identify it and humans need such an identifying name to understand the idea. Vaishnavam calls it vishnu. Islam calls it Allah christian call it the Father and a smartha brahmin may call it siva and pray to that siva. But he calls it siva and worships it as a linga, calls it subramanya and worships it sitting on a peacock with a spear in hand, worships it Ganapathy with a mouse before it waiting to do its duties as a mount etc.,all at a time. This is just to say the least ridiculous. Vaishnavam opposes this kind of populating of the God space. The freedom of choice is not the issue here but the freedom to be wandering without a clear goal.

I am surprised that a pro-brahmanic warrior of this forum equates his view of a godhead with the view of a person looking at a woman as his wife! Anyway, there should be no problem for vaishnava women at least (or, is there? with all the talk of LGBT nowadays!).

What is LGBT please? It is an example and don’t waste time on analysing it threadbare leaving the main point. I have said nothing wrong when I gave that example. It requires a special deviant mind to look for masala in it and use it to take pot shots at a community. Sad that you have such a mind.

may be vaishnavism teaches that way to look at their only god!! And, if a follower of vaishnavism some 1200 years on with a samadarsana frenzy, it is but imaginable what sort of obsessive fenzy would have been there in the days of Ramanuja.

Why not? I am sure you have read about Andal and Thirumangai Azhwar who have sung assuming the position of a lover. To understand all these you require maturity.

The other innuendo about Ramanuja converting other castes is not worth commenting on. It is just pure mischief.
This is the view prevalent among non-vaishnavas and the strife between the two "kalais" (vadakalai & thenkalai) which took the namam of a temple elephant up to the supreme court/privy council, is testimony to the above notion.

I know many non vaishnava scholars as well as ordinary bhakthas but no one ever gave this kind of a lewd twist to Ramanuja’s work. May be the people in the village from which you hail were privy to this piece of info and they are passing it on from generation to generation as a kind of family treasure.

There is nothing to fight between smarthas and vaishnavas of the present time. They are all brahmins. Perhaps in minor aspects like method of worship, belief in vishnu as ultimate God, and other connected issues. As for the philosophic content of the Dharma, advaitam as well as Visishtadvaitam are both monisms only. Those who are aware of this just do not bother about the divisions and they just ignore the mischief makers.
But some do not ignore and waste so much typing and web space, that is, perhaps, their privilege, or their OCD!!

Yes that privilege is equally shared by you and me here .

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

There is nothing to fight between smarthas and vaishnavas of the present time. They are all brahmins. Perhaps in minor aspects like method of worship, belief in vishnu as ultimate God, and other connected issues. As for the philosophic content of the Dharma, advaitam as well as Visishtadvaitam are both monisms only. /QUOTE]

Raju sir,
Your post was for Mr. Biswa,
But I liked your above comment. (it would have been enough without getting into personalities).
Like Mr. Nachi said

Definitely not Vaishnavas because the Smartas are most part worshippers of Vishnu. Their Achamanam is 100% Vishnu names. They recite and swear by Vishnu Sahasranamam. In fact the Saiva Siddhanta and other Saivas were/are unhappy with Smartas because they considered them as pseudo Vaishnavas. The Smartas end a Rudram recital with kayanavacha and submit everything to Narayana.

We are smarthas but follow Vaisnav traditions. My Uncles use the traditional namam in day to day use. So to say vaishnavisim is exclusive to Iyangars would be a mis-statement. There are non-brahmin Vaisnavs too. I am working with a group here in USA who are trying to build a Vaisnav Temple in line with the Srinath ji. They are all Vaisha community.

Two of my nephews are married to Iyyangar girls.

So these fights are unnecessary.
Mr. Govinda made the claim that Iyyangar (or as he claimed Vaisnavas) were distinct group from other Tamil Brahmins. I just pointed out that we are all from the same group of Tamil Brahmins.

 

[Govinda]

There is nothing to fight between smarthas and vaishnavas of the present time.

We are smarthas but follow Vaisnav traditions. My Uncles use the traditional namam in day to day use. So to say vaishnavisim is exclusive to Iyangars would be a mis-statement. There are non-brahmin Vaisnavs too. I am working with a group here in USA who are trying to build a Vaisnav Temple in line with the Srinath ji. They are all Vaisha community.

Two of my nephews are married to Iyyangar girls.

So these fights are unnecessary.
Mr. Govinda made the claim that Iyyangar (or as he claimed Vaisnavas) were distinct group from other Tamil Brahmins. I just pointed out that we are all from the same group of Tamil Brahmins.

Prasad sir,

Smartha may have been vaidikAs, but have had multiple practices/philosophical ideas. What I meant was, The philosophy of Vaishanavam or Vishishtadvaita existed long before the smartha stock or even Sankara Advaita. There was a lineage of Nathamuni (sadamarshana gotra) who had lineage of disciples on vishitadvaitam. Sri Ramanuja became their disciple. Even before them were the alwars of non-brahmins, for whom Vishnu was the Supreme Person. Sri Ramanuja, just propagated the wisdom of their preceptors, and that is called SampradAya. And, SampradAya is not obsession.

Even with such examples, Sangom sir misquoted Ramanuja, being obsessed with monism.

The earlier brahmins were originally classsified only by gotra. So, there is not much differences between brahmins.

Sangom Sir,

Our vedic understanding of Monism , is that all creation form the body of that one Brahman. If you say 10 gods can be that Brahman, are you defying
Vedic message of One Brahman or contradicting monism?

Sankara himself got into this dilemma, and had to come up with nirguna Brahman to distinguish that Monistic Brahman from Saguna/other gods/divinities.
Though he handled the monism in a round about fashion, he pushed that Nirguna Brahman to a status of formless/mindless jadam.
Plus, he fell prey for associating different gods for the 2 Brahmans, thus defying monism itself!

Plus, The first Acharya of Sankara sampradaya is Lord Narayana! . Now, Who is obssessed for the sake of monism?
[ P.S: But, I don't have the details of Sankara's samprayada/lineage, though he defeated Kumarila Bhattar in debate (and debate is not violence!)]

 

[biswa]

Ok, finally I got the gist of Govinda's arguments in the forum. Behind all the hocus pocus of Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Smartha, Vaishnava, he is just trying to prove one thing.

My God is better than your God! Therefore by inference, I must be better than you!

Only thing I dont understand is why he tries to hijack a thread about Iyers to evangelize his religion.

 

[renuka]

and a smartha brahmin may call it siva and pray to that siva. But he calls it siva and worships it as a linga, calls it subramanya and worships it sitting on a peacock with a spear in hand, worships it Ganapathy with a mouse before it waiting to do its duties as a mount etc.,all at a time. This is just to say the least ridiculous.
Cheers.

Dear Suraju ji,


You are a father..your children view you as a father.
You are a husband..your wife views you as a husband.
You are a son..your parents view you as a son.


Is it ridiculous???

 

[Govinda]

Ok, finally I got the gist of Govinda's arguments in the forum. Behind all the hocus pocus of Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Smartha, Vaishnava, he is just trying to prove one thing.

My God is better than your God! Therefore by inference, I must be better than you!

Only thing I dont understand is why he tries to hijack a thread about Iyers to evangelize his religion.

Biswa,

Post #35, Prasad Sir, said Vaishnava are from smarta stock, like jesus from judaism. I just gave only a single line reply. there ends.
But, I just was dragged.

You are the one, commented that food on the table is important and why worry about antiquity. Then, how does it matter, I hijack the thread ?

This reminds me, the G.V.Iyers movie about Sri Ramanuja was well done! I would like to watch his other movies too (about old religious personalities).

 

[tks]

Dear Tks,

You said this:


That shows your ignorance. The difference between vadakalais and thenkalais are not the pundram only. There are substantial differences in interpretation of scriptures between the two sects. This has been discussed in this forum once earlier. If you dig a little deeper you may get the info. Things will comical or serious depending on the onlookers mind.

Cheers.

Truth is not subject to interpretation, school of thought , point of view etc.

If you throw a ball in the air hopefully you dont say in my interpretation the ball will drop back or in my school of thought the ball does not drop but that earth has expanded to hit the ball.


I dont expect you to understand & agree or disagree with understanding of the above statement.


So in my view anytime anyone talks about interpretation they are in the realm of topics of ignorance.


Yes, I am ignorant about many topics of ignorance and many topics of knowledge.


In this instance I dont know differences between the two kalais anymore than I know the differences between Hutus and Tustsis ...and probably do not care to know..

 

[suraju06]

post #64:

Truth is not subject to interpretation, [COLOR=#DA7911 !important]school of thought[/COLOR] , point of view etc.

An entrance with a door in place is a truth and reality. The door can be in different positions is also a reality. At a given moment in a given situation some people say it is half closed and some others say it is half open. This is what is called interpretation of the given situation and truth or reality. So the truth or reality is perceived through interpretation. This is also called point of view. Now please try to perceive!

If you throw a ball in the air hopefully you dont say in my interpretation the ball will drop back or in myschool of thought the ball does not drop but that earth has expanded to hit the ball.

The ball coming down is the truth or reality and why it comes down straight and not taking a zig zag path is subject to interpretation of the forces in display. LOL.

I dont expect you to understand & agree or disagree with understanding of the above statement.

I have no problem whatsoever with your that position.

So in my view anytime anyone talks about interpretation they are in the realm of topics of ignorance.

You have the right to hold that opinion/view. I do not want you change that.

Yes, I am ignorant about many topics of ignorance and many topics of knowledge.
In this instance I dont know differences between the two kalais anymore than I know the differences between Hutus and Tustsis ...and probably do not care to know..

Ignorance is bliss.

Cheers.

 

[renuka]

So the truth or reality is perceived through interpretation.

Wow! This sounds very Advaitic...like rope in the dark mistaken for a snake!

 

[tbs]

Dear Shri Biswa,

What I have heard from my elders (and this may not be palatable today) is that Ramanuja was obsessed with a kind of monistic philosophy of the western kind where there is only one god and not many as was the condition prevailing among the brahmins of the south in his (Ramanuja's) times. He therefore propounded visishtadvaitam more to project vishnu as the supreme-most godhead and all the rest of the brahminical pantheon as "demi gods" etc. It was this lack of "samadarsana" which alienated the smartas from the vaishnavas.

There was a period, till very recently, when a smarta would not drink water from an iyengar's house and vice versa. I have witnessed such hostilities even 50 or 60 years ago.

Hence, it is quite understandable that staunch vaishnavites of today should imagine that they had at no time in the past, any connection, whatsoever with the general pool of south indian brahmins. It is also a commonly held notion among the smarta brahmins that Ramanuja allowed a lot of people belonging to the untouchable classes also in order to create a following for his new philosophy, that such followers did not know for generations, what it was for which they had been elevated as brahmins, etc. This is one more point for the smarta brahmins to put down the vaishnavites.

Of course, all these plus the open conflicts between the two sects, are part of history today, but strong sectarian beliefs is more visible among the vaishnavites.

hi
i never know there is vaishnava sect in my child hood.....when i was in palakkad agraharams/veda patasala ...only palakkad

smarthas allowed....even gurukkal/vaishnavas unknown to me...when i moved to chennai.... then tirupati.....i learned

more abt thengalai/vadagalai etc....even when i was in tirupati....,,many staunch iyengars not allowed smartha boys

in their home....the tirupati iyengars treat iyers as UNTOUCHABLES.... even water was not allowed to drink....

i heard like this.....யானை முட்ட வந்தாலும் சிவன் கோயில் உள்ளே போக கூடாது.....even elephant comes and kill ....

we should not enter a siva temple......

 

[renuka]

hi
...,,many staunch iyengars not allowed smartha boys

in their home....the tirupati iyengars treat iyers as UNTOUCHABLES.... even water was not allowed to drink....

i heard like this.....யானை முட்ட வந்தாலும் சிவன் கோயில் உள்ளே போக கூடாது.....even elephant comes and kill ....

we should not enter a siva temple......

Dear TBS Garu,

This is so shocking to read...then why people complain that Brahmins are targeted and discriminated when Brahmins themselves discriminate against one another among themselves??

That means human nature is basically not much different.

When we have no one to fight with..we will fight among ourselves!LOL

 

[suraju06]

Dear Suraju ji,
You are a father..your children view you as a father.
You are a husband..your wife views you as a husband.
You are a son..your parents view you as a son.
Is it ridiculous???

Dear Renuka,

Your example suffers from a logical error. If I am not mistaken (already people including you have mistaken me earlier) it is like this:

I am a father of my children. I have no problem their viewing me as their father. I do not want them to view every man in this world as their father.

I am a husband to my wife and have no problem as long as she views me in that light. But if she extends it to every man in this world I will have to get her admitted to a good doctor for treatment.

I am a son to my parents. If they start seeing every male in this world as their son (irrespective of age etc.,) then there is some serious problem.

These are ridiculous situations. That is what is my point. I have been careful to make this post free from even unintended vulgarity. In spite of this if there is any perceived, excuse me for that. It is unintentional.

Cheers.

 

[tks]

Wow! This sounds very Advaitic...like rope in the dark mistaken for a snake!

Dr Renu - That is quick and so appropriate a response - this is getting more comical

Responding without understanding and perceiving is also bliss

 

[sravna]

Dear TBS Garu,

This is so shocking to read..

Dear Renuka,

Should not be really shocking when you see people fight against their mother, father , brothers and sisters

 

[suraju06]

Dear Renuka,

Wow! This sounds very Advaitic.

Why not!! it sounds very "qualified advaitic" too. After all advaitam is the common denominator there. LOL.
And when you read the following shining piece you are convinced that the posts in this forum are just phenomenal and maya's influence on souls is tight.

Responding without understanding and perceiving is also bliss

Cheers.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Should not be really shocking when you see people fight against their mother, father , brothers and sisters

Dear Sravna,

That is different..there is a saying in Malay that goes..Air Ditetak Tak Akan Putus which means that even if you try to cut flowing water it can not be cut..in other words blood ties do not get destroyed.

I am sure you are aware of the story in Mahabharat where the Kauravas and Pandavas joined hands and fought a common enemy.

They felt that they might have their internal differences but they will stand united when faced with a common enemy.

So you see somehow family fights can get resolved when some one starts off Amma, Appa, Anna,Akka or even the time tested Thali sentiment!

But as a community people should not fight especially in cases where a community is being marginalized.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,



Why not!! it sounds very "qualified advaitic" too. After all advaitam is the common denominator there. LOL.

Cheers.

So you do agree that the foundation of everything is Advaita..cos the word Vishistha is like an Adjective..it has to have a Substantive to carry weight and make an impact.

 

[tbs]

Dear Sravna,

That is different..there is a saying in Malay that goes..Air Ditetak Tak Akan Putus which means that even if you try to cut flowing water it can not be cut..in other words blood ties do not get destroyed.

I am sure you are aware of the story in Mahabharat where the Kauravas and Pandavas joined hands and fought a common enemy.

They felt that they might have their internal differences but they will stand united when faced with a common enemy.

So you see somehow family fights can get resolved when some one starts off Amma, Appa, Anna,Akka or even the time tested Thali sentiment!

But as a community people should not fight especially in cases where a community is being marginalized.

hi doctor,
you know story abt namam for elephant in a famous temple in tamil nadu....two kalais fought each other for the sake

of NAMAM FOR THE TEMPLE ELEPHANT..... the case went to high court and appealed in supreme court too...i think....

i dont know the entire court case of NAMAM FOR TEMPLE ELEPHANT BETWEEN 2 KALAIS....i think suraju sir might be knowing

very well.......