Popular iyers in the four sub sects of the community

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.......

Dear TBS Garu,

Yes I know about this story..even Actor Vivek made a joke out of this!LOL

 

[tbs]

hi
so the fight is not for common eneny....but here fight for SUPREMACY......means who is the great supreme?.....muscle and money

power in the name of sect/religion....

 

[renuka]

means who is the great supreme?

There is only One Supreme and He is God!

 

[renuka]

Dear TBS Garu,

Here is the case....poor elephant..he should have followed his ancestor Gajendra's style and called out Narayana, Narayana to save him for the gripping ties of the world!

http://www.maransdog.net/RRamanujam/Kanchi_Elephant_Judgment.pdf

 

[sravna]

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.

Yes Renuka I agree with you when you say that there should not be a fight between communities. But when you have that ego, even the bond between a mother and the child can break. So it may not be possible to not fight when you have that ego.

 

[renuka]

Yes Renuka I agree with you when you say that there should not be a fight between communities. But when you have that ego, even the bond between a mother and the child can break. So it may not be possible to not fight when you have that ego.

Dear Sravna,

Ego as in Ahamkara( I am the Doer) is a component is all of us till we are one with the Supreme.

But fighting is usually caused by desires and it is not compulsory to fight.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

Ego as in Ahamkara( I am the Doer) is a component is all of us till we are one with the Supreme.

But fighting is usually caused by desires and it is not compulsory to fight.

Dear Renuka,

The word "I" is what is problematic. In my view the Almighty is the doer of everything and we just experience and try to understand. When this truth is understood the desire to fight others will not be there.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Smartas accept Vishnu as GOD and worship Vishnu. All the Krishna temples in Kerala are Smarta controlled. The temples in Puri and Badrinath have Smarta priests.

Smartas accept Vishishta Advaita and Ramnujacharya. If you read Tattvaloka the magazine published by Shringeri Math you will find a number of articles on Vishishta Advaita and Ramnujacharya. Sometimes the articles make you wonder whether you are reading a Vaishnavite magazine because the majority of the articles are about worship of Vishnu.

BTW VishishtAdvaita is a philosophy. Narayana being the only GOD is not an essential part of that Philosophy.

VishishtAdvaita (literally "Advaita with uniqueness/qualifications") is a non-dualistic school of Vedanta philosophy. It is non-dualism of the qualified whole, in which Brahman alone exists, but is characterised by multiplicity. It can be described as qualified monism/nondualism or attributive monism.

Vishishtadvaita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only difference is that for Vaishnavas Vishnu is the only GOD. Like Jesus and Allah for Christianity and Islam.

There have been many conversions form Smarta to Vaishnavas. The conversions continue to happen. The Smarta matams have never been bothered about that.

The conflict between some of the Matams is always about control of temples. About Power.

Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, and atheism among others; and its concept of God is complex and depends upon each individual and the tradition and philosophy followed. It is sometimes referred to as henotheistic (i.e., involving devotion to a single god while accepting the existence of others).

 

[sangom]

Smartas accept Vishnu as GOD and worship Vishnu. All the Krishna temples in Kerala are Smarta controlled. The temples in Puri and Badrinath have Smarta priests.

Smartas accept Vishishta Advaita and Ramnujacharya. If you read Tattvaloka the magazine published by Shringeri Math you will find a number of articles on Vishishta Advaita and Ramnujacharya. Sometimes the articles make you wonder whether you are reading a Vaishnavite magazine because the majority of the articles are about worship of Vishnu.

BTW VishishtAdvaita is a philosophy. Narayana being the only GOD is not an essential part of that Philosophy.



Vishishtadvaita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only difference is that for Vaishnavas Vishnu is the only GOD. Like Jesus and Allah for Christianity and Islam.

There have been many conversions form Smarta to Vaishnavas. The conversions continue to happen. The Smarta matams have never been bothered about that.

The conflict between some of the Matams is always about control of temples. About Power.

Dear shri iniyan,

one doubt please; if, as you say,"BTW VishishtAdvaita is a philosophy. Narayana being the only GOD is not an essential part of that Philosophy.", how and why is it that "for Vaishnavas Vishnu is the only GOD. Like Jesus and Allah for Christianity and Islam."?


Will you be able to shed light?

 

[suraju06]

Dear Tbs,

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

I know not only about this elephant and namam story. I also know about the dispute between thillai saivite Dikshitars of Nataraja temple and the saivite othuvars who wanted to chant Thevaram standing at a particular place and many such stories. I wrote about the strife here only as a response to a certain posts, just to show where we all stand. I will not be writing here any more about the strife. I am sorry if you and some of your friends are disappointed.

Cheers.

 

[suraju06]

Dear Renuka,

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.

Why not!! That is a brownie point you can take home, frame it and hang it on the wall.

Cheers.

 

[sarang]

When did the practice of adding iyer-iyengar as surnames start?

All vaishnavites are not iyengars. All saivites are not iyers.
Bharanidharan has written a four volume book on temples of tanjore (and nearby areas). Every village, he claims, has a perumal temple and an eswaran temple. In some villages the perumal temple is prominent and prosperous and in some, the eswaran temple. So both have coexisted for ages, not only in tamil nadu, but also in bharatavarsha.

There are many significant differences in both theory (philosophy) and practice. For every group their sampradaya is supreme till the adherent studies the other in earnest and in depth and gets converted. Yadhavaprakasa, an advaitin, was a teacher of Ramanuja; later on he accepted Ramanuja's teachings and became his sishya.

There are countless differences in the understanding of purusha and in the day to practice of anushtanams and loukika issues in all sects and subsects.

 

[sarang]

For vishitadwaitin, snake is also real, rope is also real, there is no maya. Only ajnana.

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

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

When did the practice of adding iyer-iyengar as surnames start?

All vaishnavites are not iyengars. All saivites are not iyers.
Bharanidharan has written a four volume book on temples of tanjore (and nearby areas). Every village, he claims, has a perumal temple and an eswaran temple. In some villages the perumal temple is prominent and prosperous and in some, the eswaran temple. So both have coexisted for ages, not only in tamil nadu, but also in bharatavarsha.

There are many significant differences in both theory (philosophy) and practice. For every group their sampradaya is supreme till the adherent studies the other in earnest and in depth and gets converted. Yadhavaprakasa, an advaitin, was a teacher of Ramanuja; later on he accepted Ramanuja's teachings and became his sishya.

There are countless differences in the understanding of purusha and in the day to practice of anushtanams and loukika issues in all sects and subsects.

Iyers are not Saivites. They are Smartas.

 

[sangom]

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

Smt. Renuka,

I know that you know very well the murky past of the sectarian developments among the South Indian brahmins. (I suppose such extreme fanaticism based on gods etc., was not there among the people who were covered by the brahmins' umbrella term "soothran", but I have no evidence to cite here.) Many inconvenient truths are sought to be swept under the carpet today because, if the real truth is spoken by the very God himself, He may come into trouble. In this forum, however, speaking the truth may invite a ban from Shri Praveen.

It should nevertheless be amply clear to yourself and other discerning readers that a lot of ill-will and hatred existed between vaishnavites and non-vaishnavites and, like the proverbial spots of the leopard, surface polishing will not erase these animosities so quickly. We could have a more truthful account of the saiva-vaishnava conflicts if we had among us some one who was well-versed in the medieval religious history of South India.

Local knowledge or knowledge transmitted by word of mouth is almost always true, as corroborated by post #67 from Shri tbs. I had just stated what I had heard from some elderly people (none of whom is now alive) and also from my own experience some 60 or so years ago.

What saddens me is that no smartha here seems bothered by the comparison drawn by one "honourable" member between looking at godheads as supreme divinity and looking at every female as one's wife (which you promptly pointed out, becomes kAmadarsinaH). Although an agnostic I do not go down to this level, but that simile or equivalency was vulgar to say the least (as indirectly admitted by that very same honourable member, subsequently).

For cults and sects, such intolerance and overzealousness is a sure giveaway, imo and I think I had written this in a post addressed to you.

Anyway, I think the best course (for me at least) will be to stop arguing, as the saying goes that otherwise we may be get drawn to the opponent's level.

 

[sarang]

It is for establishing territorial rights. Two groups were doing various kainkaryams in the temple for a long time. In the good old days, they would have settled it among themselves with the help and advice of their acharyas; but with the british judicial system established, one group got administrative control, based on whatever documents and evidence each provided.

Compare itt with the ayodhya verdict. The litigants wanted the site to be handed over only to hindus or muslims. The wise court ruled to trifurcate the site for three parties, which neither wants.

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.......

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Smt. Renuka,

I know that you know very well the murky past of the sectarian developments among the South Indian brahmins. (I suppose such extreme fanaticism based on gods etc., was not there among the people who were covered by the brahmins' umbrella term "soothran", but I have no evidence to cite here.) Many inconvenient truths are sought to be swept under the carpet today because, if the real truth is spoken by the very God himself, He may come into trouble. In this forum, however, speaking the truth may invite a ban from Shri Praveen.

It should nevertheless be amply clear to yourself and other discerning readers that a lot of ill-will and hatred existed between vaishnavites and non-vaishnavites and, like the proverbial spots of the leopard, surface polishing will not erase these animosities so quickly. We could have a more truthful account of the saiva-vaishnava conflicts if we had among us some one who was well-versed in the medieval religious history of South India.

Local knowledge or knowledge transmitted by word of mouth is almost always true, as corroborated by post #67 from Shri tbs. I had just stated what I had heard from some elderly people (none of whom is now alive) and also from my own experience some 60 or so years ago.

What saddens me is that no smartha here seems bothered by the comparison drawn by one "honourable" member between looking at godheads as supreme divinity and looking at every female as one's wife (which you promptly pointed out, becomes kAmadarsinaH). Although an agnostic I do not go down to this level, but that simile or equivalency was vulgar to say the least (as indirectly admitted by that very same honourable member, subsequently).

For cults and sects, such intolerance and overzealousness is a sure giveaway, imo and I think I had written this in a post addressed to you.

Anyway, I think the best course (for me at least) will be to stop arguing, as the saying goes that otherwise we may be get drawn to the opponent's level.

As you rightly said Sectarianism has always been known for intolerance and overzealousness. I have seen arguments between Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita followers in religious forums.

The South Indian history talks about the conflict between Saivas and Vaishnavas. But never about any conflict between Smartas and Vaishnavas.

The reason is very simple. You need two sides to have a conflict. Smartas can not attack Vaishnavism because they are also worshippers of Vishnu.

The basic reason for evolution of Smart religion/tradition is to put an end to such conflicts.

All Hindus believe that Brahman is the Supreme GOD. For Advaitins he is Nirguna and so does not have any attributes.

For the Non-Advaitins Brahman has attributes Saguna Brahman. Whether you call him/her Narayana, Vishnu, Siva, Krishna or Kali depends on the sect one belongs to. Smartas also mostly believe in Saguna-Brahman

Saguna brahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sravna]

There are various philosophies of reality, the continuum ranging from advaita to science, and in my view one is not necessarily superior over the rest. While advaita stands at one extreme asserting that brahman is the only reality , the current philosophy of science stands at the other extreme asserting that anything not physically verifiable is not real. The question it seems essentially boils down to whether those who believe in spiritual reality more, in any way hold a better view of reality than those who do not and vice versa. The answer is in my view is a NO. These two are inseparable. Physical reality accompanies spiritual reality.

A critic of advaita can say that those who believe in advaita are totally out of touch with the practical reality and hence are lacking in their ability to cope up with the practical reality just as one who is opposed to the philosophy of science can say that science is too much obsessed with the physical reality which can prove detrimental in discovering spiritual truths. In my view both are valid criticisms.

The best approach would thus seem to be to strike a balance between the two worlds and enjoy the benefits of both.

 

[suraju06]

Refer post #90:

you know very well the murky past of the sectarian developments among the South Indian brahmins. (I suppose such extreme fanaticism based on gods etc., was not there among the people who were covered by the brahmins' umbrella term "soothran", but I have no evidence to cite here.)

If there is no evidence to cite here it is not worth citing here, by the very standards set by the "honorable member" himself. According to him, in the absence of evidence it becomes I-know-it-all statement. Just a reminder.

knowledge transmitted by word of mouth is almost always true, as corroborated by post #67 from Shri tbs. I had just stated what I had heard from some elderly people (none of whom is now alive) and also from my own experience some 60 or so years ago.

This includes such wisdom statements like பெண் மூலம் நிர்மூலம், ஆயில்யத்து மாமியார் அதிசந்தியிலே, பூராடம் மாமியாருக்கு நூலாடாது, etc. also which are all "statement of truth by word of mouth". Any way, it is a convenient escape hatch in case of need, to say "that is what my elders said. I can not bring my elders back to life to confirm that they said this indeed". My experience of about 50 years reveals this truth.

What saddens me is that no smartha here seems bothered by the comparison drawn by one "honourable" member between looking at godheads as supreme divinity and looking at every female as one's wife (which you promptly pointed out, becomes kAmadarsinaH). Although an agnostic I do not go down to this level, but that simile or equivalency was vulgar to say the least (as indirectly admitted by that very same honourable member, subsequently).

The other smarthas are all more smart and intelligent and that is perhaps the reason for their proper understanding of what was said by me. I find two funny attempts here. One is to draw others in the name of denomination to come and pull the member out of the trouble that he has created for himself and two, trying to credit me with an admission to some imaginary guilt. I repeat I have not said any thing wrong and I stand by whatever I have said. I have said earlier too that whatever I said was correct and I reiterate that I have no regret whatsoever about whatever example I used earlier. Rather it is the "honorable member" who should feel ashamed about the kind of vulgar twist he gave to it and said something unacceptable to decent members here about the vaishnavite women.

Anyway, I think the best course (for me at least) will be to stop arguing, as the saying goes that otherwise we may be get drawn to the opponent's level.

I have done precisely this and I am glad that the member too has followed suit.

Cheers

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Dear shri iniyan,

one doubt please; if, as you say,"BTW VishishtAdvaita is a philosophy. Narayana being the only GOD is not an essential part of that Philosophy.", how and why is it that "for Vaishnavas Vishnu is the only GOD. Like Jesus and Allah for Christianity and Islam."?

The difference is between Philosophy and religion.

Let us look at at the Philosophies.

According to Sankara, whatever is, is Brahman, and Brahman itself is absolutely homogeneous, so that all difference and plurality must be illusory.

According to Ramanuja also, whatever is, is Brahman; but Brahman is not of a homogenous nature, but contains within itself elements of plurality owing to which it truly manifests itself in a diversified world.

The world with its variety of material forms of existence and individual souls is not unreal Maya, but a real part of Brahman's nature, the body investing the universal Self. The Brahman of Sankara is in itself impersonal, a homogeneous mass of objectless thought, transcending all attributes; a personal God it becomes only through its association with the unreal principle of Maya so that strictly speaking Sankara's personal God, his Isvara, is himself something unreal, Ramanuja's Brahman, on the other hand, is essentially a Personal God, the all-powerful and all-wise ruler of a real world permeated and animated by his spirit. There is thus no room for the distinction between Parama Nirguna and an Aparama Saguna Brahman, between Brahman and Isvara.

There are three terms that are mainly involved:

Isvara or Brahman - God
jeeva - individual soul, which is the locus of "I" within you.
jagat - The world or the universe

The difference between different systems of philosophy are the ways they consider the relationship between these three entities. There differences also spring from their definitions of Isvara, the causalty of jagat etc.

In advaita, both jeeva and jagat, are unreal, and Isvara is the only reality. Some advatins have a different view, but all advatins are uniform in their views that the jeeva and jagat have no eternal existance.(real or unreal).

In advaita, Isvara is superceded by the concept of Nirguna Brahman, which is nivisesha or devoid of all attributes. Advaitins consider Brahman as both material and instrumental cause of the jagat.

In Vishsitadvaita, Isvara and jeeva are different, Isvara and jagat are different, jagat and jeeva are different. Jagat and jeeva are connected to Isvara in the form of attributes. That is to say - both jagat and jeeva form an inseperable part of Isvara eternally. Vishistadvatins consider Brahman as saguna or as a personal diety with an innumerable number of auspicious attributes. They also consider Brahman as the material cause of the world.

Now Narayana being the Supreme GOD is Religion and it is only an application of the Philosophy.

Let me quote another example with Sankya Philosophy

Sāmkhya is an enumerationist philosophy that is strongly dualist. Sāṃkhya denies the final cause of Ishvara (God). Sāmkhya philosophy regards the universe as consisting of two realities; Puruṣa (consciousness) and prakriti (phenomenal realm of matter). Jiva is that state in which puruṣa is bonded to prakriti through the glue of desire, and the end of this bondage is moksha. Samkhya does not describe what happens after moksha and does not mention anything about Ishwara or God, because after liberation there is no essential distinction of individual and universal puruṣa.

Puruṣa is the transcendental self or pure consciousness. It is absolute, independent, free, imperceptible, unknowable through other agencies, above any experience by mind or senses and beyond any words or explanations.

Prakriti is the first cause of the manifest material universe — of everything except the Puruṣa. Prakriti is accounts for whatever is physical, both mind and matter-cum-energy or force.

Sankya philosophy can be considered Atheist because it denies the existence of a supreme GOD.

Now according to Sakthism, Kali is Mula Prakriti and Siva is Purusha. That is Religion. Applied Philosophy. Applying Atheist Philosophy to Theist religion.

The Swaminarayan sect claim to be followers of Vishsitadvaita. The sect worship Swami Narayan a Godman who claimed to be an Avatara of Krishna. He is the first Hindu Godman to become popular.

The Abrahamic religions are monotheistic that is the belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God. They also believe that the only path to spirituality is their path.

Vaishnavism and Saivam are also monotheistic and they also believe that their path is the only path.

I am excluding sakthism though it is monotheistic because the conception of the Supreme Deity is the combination of the sakthi of all the Gods of Hindu pantheon.

 

[Govinda]

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

Rope in the light, mistaken for snake, is even more advaitic. We dont accept that our knowledge/interpretation is faulty or our eyes are defective, we conclude rope and snake are illusion

 

[Govinda]

There are various philosophies of reality, the continuum ranging from advaita to science, and in my view one is not necessarily superior over the rest. While advaita stands at one extreme asserting that brahman is the only reality , the current philosophy of science stands at the other extreme asserting that anything not physically verifiable is not real. The question it seems essentially boils down to whether those who believe in spiritual reality more, in any way hold a better view of reality than those who do not and vice versa. The answer is in my view is a NO. These two are inseparable. Physical reality accompanies spiritual reality.

A critic of advaita can say that those who believe in advaita are totally out of touch with the practical reality and hence are lacking in their ability to cope up with the practical reality just as one who is opposed to the philosophy of science can say that science is too much obsessed with the physical reality which can prove detrimental in discovering spiritual truths. In my view both are valid criticisms.

The best approach would thus seem to be to strike a balance between the two worlds and enjoy the benefits of both.

You sound reasonable. Science is about the material Reality, and science is based on Proven Facts (Perception, Inference (methods and invisible matter)). Science cannot validate any of the metaphysical elements of Philosophy and hence religion, but Philosophy cannot invalidate 'known' Science (although there may be gray areas)! In areas of perceptible knowledge, if Vedas contradict Reality/Science, Our vedic seers had asked us to accept the Reality.

Plus, for Science, even the invisible matter or infinitesimal matter/atoms are real and has mass, for vedas, anything with name and form is a jiva.

 

[Govinda]

Now Narayana being the Supreme GOD is Religion and it is only an application of the Philosophy.

I appreciate your explanation.

But, I decipher your inner mind as this:

"Man came up with the understanding of Reality and thrust upon names of gods for those divinities." This is like saying Reality existed and noone was revealed, so Religion is Man-made.

So, You understand all religions made Supreme God from their own Perception/Interpretation of Reality!

----

Oops! The Vedic philosophy, Religion and understanding of Reality everything originated from Narayana and was revealed to the Seers.
The later philosophies and their God-heads are the only interpretations, not creations.

 

[biswa]

There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet.
vs
There is no God but Vishnu and Ramanuja is his prophet.

Please explain what is the intrinsic difference between these two statements and why one is compatible with Hinduism while the other is not.

 

[renuka]

There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet.
vs
There is no God but Vishnu and Ramanuja is his prophet.

Please explain what is the intrinsic difference between these two statements and why one is compatible with Hinduism while the other is not.

Both are have Advaitic undertones.

It is just another way of saying Ekam Advaita Brahman(God is One without a second)

The names of the people who established this school of thoughts is like a signature we see at the bottom of any document.