Premika Bhavanam, Chennai

<Prev | Next >

Page 1    Page 2    Page 3    Page 4

Sri Swamigal has been rendering ‘Upanyãsam’ (discourses), in Tamizh, in Premika Bhavanam. This is being brought to you here.

There may appear to be variations in the ‘tense’ of the language. This is due to the fact that great effort has been taken to maintain the original style of the ‘Upanyãsam’. Therefore, we request you to keep this in mind while reading the translated ‘words’ of Sri Swamigal.

Sri Swamigal,

" Moving to the next step, let us say that there is water existing underground. If we fix a bore, the water from deep within the ground comes gushing up. God is deep within ('antaryãmi') each and everyone and to know this 'antaryãmi' (One who is within) we require Yogic powers. Hence, through Yogic powers one can realize God within one's heart. But even the worst sinner, even the one with a venomous heart can see the Lord in 'Archãvatãra' (idol/deity). One does not require any merit ('yogyata') to worship the Lord in 'Archãvatãra' (idol/deity). This is similar to the water that has been stored by means of a dam is brought home through pipes and is made available through taps fixed in the kitchen or anywhere else in the house as per one's requirement! Likewise, Bhagavãn in 'Vibhavãvatãra' as Rama and Krishna, has entered even the cupboards ('sãlaparai') of each and every home in the form of an idol ('archãvatãra murthy'). People can have as many idols as they need and anywhere they deem fit, like drawing the water from taps. So, God as shown by Ãzhwãrs is like 'Tiru Allikeni Kandene' - if one goes to Tiruvallikeni (Triplicane) one can see the Swamy (God) that the Ãzhwãrs show. 'Azhagan oor Arangamanro' - One can see Sri Ranganãtha. 'Tirukurungudi Nambiyai nãn kandapin' - the Lord in Tirukurungudi can be seen by all. But none can so easily see Indra shown by the Vedas, Agni shown by the Vedas, Vayu shown by the Vedas and the thirty-three crores of Devas shown by the Vedas. Here lies the difference between the Ãzhwãrs and the Maharshis. It is the Maharshis who have given us the Vedas; they grasped the Vedas and gave it to us.

Tiruvallikeni Sri Parthasarathy

The next difference between the Maharshis and the Ãzhwãrs is that there exists a lot of differences of opinion amongst the Maharshis. What does this refer to? When we say 'abhivãdaye' (a brahmin while bowing down to elders proclaims the various details of the family he belongs to) one says 'Bodãyana Sutram' while another says another 'Sutram'; each one says a different 'Sutram'. Each one has a different Veda. Therefore, when the Vedas and the 'Sutram' are different, one says, 'today is new moon' ('Amãvãsyam') while another says, 'No, no the new moon is tomorrow'. There is variation in the day one celebrates 'Ãvani Avittam'. So, there are differences of opinion in matters pertaining to the Maharshis. All the Maharshis have not spoken alike. There are contradictions in their opinions. But there are no such differences of opinion in the path shown by the Ãzhwãrs. Most of the Maharshis belonged to the same age. In spite of being contemporaries they have had differences of opinion; the twelve Ãzhwãrs were not contemporaries yet they held similar views. What do they say? What is it that is to be attained? Nãrãyana! What is the path to be followed? The Name of Nãrãyana ('Nãrãyanã ennum nãmam'). Nãma Sankirtanam is the only way. Living on the earth, what should you do in this connection? Stay here and serve the Lord. Only service to the Lord is meaningful ('purushãrtham'). This shows that the Ãzhwãrs had no differences of opinion at all in spite of belonging to different periods. The Maharshis contradicted each other despite belonging to the same period. So, this is another big difference that exists between the Maharshis and the Ãzhwãrs. How have these Maharshis spoken? One says 'Advaitam', while another says "No,no, only 'Visishtãdvaitam' is right", yet another opines that 'Dvaitam' is only right. Thus, there is difference in their philosophies ('sidhãntam'), too; there is difference even in the practice of their philosophies.

Why is there so much difference amongst the Maharshis? The reason is that they gave to the world only to the extent of their learning. They have spoken whatever they comprehended through their learning. Or if they had practised their 'Mantra' they spoke to the extent of their 'Mantra siddhi' or if they had practised penance ('tapas'), they spoke to the extent of the power of their penance. Whereas the Ãzhwãrs have spoken only through 'His Grace' - THE GRACE OF THE LORD. Since they spoke as a result of the Grace of the Lord they exhibited no differences. It has been Bhagavãn's words spoken through them. Bhagavãn's opinion has been spoken through them. So, it is only the opinions of the Ãzhwãrs that is Bhagavãn's opinion ('Swãbiprãyam'). Bhagavãn has used them as His mouthpiece. This is the reason that it is said that the Ãzhwãrs are greater than the Maharshis in all ways.

Though these Ãzhwãrs are said to be twelve in number, Ãndãl has occupied the status of the consort of Perumãl ('Pirãtti') and Madhurakavi Ãzhwãr has sung in praise of his spiritual Teacher ('Achãryan'-- Nammãzhwãr). So, broadly speaking the Ãzhwars are said to be only ten. Bhagavãn's Incarnations ('Avatãr') has also been ten. These ten had come down to the earth to sing the praises of these ten Incarnations, to sing the praises of the Supreme One. This bestows a place of pride for the Ãzhwãrs. Among these Ãzhwãrs, the first to come down to the earth was Poigaiãzhwãr followed by Boodathãzhwãr, Peyãzhwãr, Tirumazhisaiãzhwãr, Nammãzhwãr, Kulasekarãazhwãr, Periyãzhwãr, Tondaradipodiãzhwãr, Tiruppãnãzhwãr and Tirumangaiãzhwãr. Thus these ten Ãzhwãrs incarnated on the earth.

From amongst these ten Ãzhwãrs, Periyãzhwãr holds a (special) status that no other Ãzhwãr enjoys. The 'Vyãkyãna Chakravarthi' Periyavãchhãnpillai (Swamy), while speaking on Periyãzhwar says, "All the Ãzhwãrs show great concern ('parivu') towards Perumãl. Though all the Ãzhwãrs are concerned about Perumãl, Periyãzhwãr exhibits a 'very deep concern' ('pongum parivu'). His love for Perumãl is so deep. The Swamy says, "Pongum Parivu' (a very deep concern)". It is with such deep feeling of love and concern that Periyãzhwãr has sung the Perumãl. What is this deep concern of his? While the other Ãzhwãrs have, in many of their pãsurams, sung. "Venden manna vãzhkaiyai' - I do not seek married life but oh! Lord! Please bless me with Your Divine Darshan" --- Periyãzhwãr has shown his concern over the welfare of the Lord (!) by singing, "Pallãndu! Pallãdnu!" (long live!). Therefore Periyãzhwãr is deeply concerned about the Lord! the other nine Ãzhwãrs are only second to Periyãzhwãr. He stands foremost amongst them. The Swamy says that because of this reason the 'Jnãna' (knowledge) of the other Ãzhwãrs have been bequeathed to Ãndãl (daughter of Periyãzhwãr) as dowry!

Periyãzhwar's Bhakti, his Bhakti for Bhagavãn is unique. In the Vaishnava tradition, 'Temple'-'Big Temple' ('Periya Kovil') refers to Sri Ranganãtha Temple (Sri Rangam). If one says he had been to the 'Temple' none will ask, "Did you see Ranganãtha? Or Kasturi Rangan? Or 'nam Perumãl?" instead people will ask, "Did you see the Big Perumãl? ( 'Periya Perumãl')"

Sri Ranganãthar          Sri Ranganãyaki Thãyar

Perumãl means 'Periya Perumãl', Pirãtti means 'Periya Pirãtti' (Srirangam)- the Vedas say "Maha Devi cha" --- the Great Goddess - so, Pirãtti is Mahadevi. 'Periya Kovil', 'Periya Perumãl' and 'Periya Pirãtti' - ('Periya' means Big/Great). Manavãlla Mãmunigal is known as 'Periya Jeeyar'. Among the Ãzhwãrs it is only this one Ãzhwãr who is known as Periya ãzhwãr. The name of the one who wrote a commentary on all the four thousand pãsurams was only Ãchhãnpillai. But since he had written a commentary for all the four thousand pãsurams he has been named as Periyavãchhãnpillai (Periya + Ãchhãnpillai). Therefore this term 'Periya' has been prefixed to all these.

So, while the 'Grantha' (Texts) of the Ãzhwãrs are so renowned, 'Thiruppãvai' enjoys a special reputation amongst all these writings of all the Ãzhwãrs. In what way is this Thiruppãvai reputed? In the normal course when a 'Grantha' is taken up it is always spoken in relation to the Vedas. This is the opinion of the Mahãns. The Mahãns will not take up the work of writing a commentary on a 'Grantha' that has contradicted the Vedas on any matter. They will not accept that 'Grantha' because the Vedas are impartial. The writings of a man of lust will reflect his thoughts in them; that of a worldly man reflects his impressions ('vãsanas') in them. But the Vedas that have been born from Bhagavãn are absolutely unbiased. So the Scriptures ('Smritis') speak only that which has been spoken by the Vedas. The Epics speak of what is found in the Scriptures. Therefore, Bhãgavatam says, "Nigama Kalpataror galitam palam sukamukãd amrita drava samyutam". The Vedas is a huge tree. Bhãgavatam is the fruit borne by this tree of the Vedas. A parrot pecks at a full ripe fruit. Here who is the parrot? The parrot that is Sukãchhãriar has pecked at the fruit that is Bhãgavatam. So this fruit has fallen down - 'Pibatha Bhãgavatam". He has given the full essence of the Bhãgavatam. One is not being asked to eat the mango fruit. It is not being asked to eat the fruit that is Bhãgavatam. "Pibatha!" - "Drink " - 'Pibatha Bhãgavatam Rasamãlayam!" - 'Drink in Bhãgavatam'. 'Rasam' (essence) - it is termed so because Bhãgavatam is full of 'Rasa Swaroopam'. 'Rasamãlayam' - the essence.

Bhãgavatam contains only that which is found in the Vedas. In Ramayana 'Veda upapramãnãrthãya' ---- the Vedas say, "Mathru devo bhava, Pithru devo bhava,"--- One's mother is the God, one's father is the God. So the Lord has taken an incarnation (to set an example) to adhere to the words of the father ('pithru vãkya paripãlnam') as deemed by the Vedas; an incarnation to be a 'Sathya Santhan' (an honest man); an incarnation to be a 'Dharmãtma' (a man of virtue). So the incarnation of the Lord as Rama has been only to adhere to all that has been spoken by the Vedas. So, Ramayanam is the essence of the Vedas. A God (Rama) to show in practice whatever the Vedas has said.

Next, when we take up Mahãbhãrata we find that it is referred to as 'iti panchamo Vedah' - this is the fifth Veda. It has spoken a lot about dharma. But, what is Thiruppãvai? - 'THE SEED OF THE VEDAS' ("Vedam anaithirkum vithhãgum"). THIRUPPÃVAI DOES NOT SPEAK THE ESSENCE OF THE VEDAS BUT THE VEDAS SPEAK THE ESSENCE OF THIRUPPÃVAI! So, it is the seed of the Vedas ('Vedam anaithirkum vithãgum'). It is thus greater than the Vedas. Well! Thiruppãvai is greater than the Vedas.

Next, the Upanishads that are a part of the Vedas. Mahãns say, "well! The worldly have been shown the way of Karma, but what about the 'mumukshus'(one who desires liberation and carries on spiritual practices)?" The 'mumukshus' are shown the way spoken of by the Upanishads. It is only the Upanishads that speak of the Atman ('Atma tatvam').

But how is this Thiruppãvai? It is greater than even the Upanishads! On the one hand Thiruppãvai is said to be greater than the Vedas and now it is also said to be greater than the Upanishads. In what way is it greater than the Upanishads? Upanishads advices ('upadesam') the ignorants. It says "Hey! fool! You are so immature ('avivekam'). Mature!('vivekam') Wake up! Meditate, do 'japa'. Your life is being wasted away. See Bhagavãn! See Bhagavãn!" Thus the Upanishads coax each and every one. It is coaxing him in spiritual matter. This is the glory of the Upanishads. What is the glory of the Upanishads? The Upanishads do not speak of any worldly matter. Without speaking of either 'Karma mãrga' or 'Upãsana mãrga', it has spoken only about 'Jnãna mãrga'. So, in what way is Thiruppãvai more significant than the glorious Upanishads? Here, Thiruppãvai does not wake up just the ignorant. And whom does it wake up? It wakes up Krishna, Yasoda, Nandababa and does not stop with these; under this pretext ('vyãjam') wakes up the twelve Ãzhwãrs. It wakes up Bhaktãs (devotees) and it wakes up Bhagavãn! Wakes up the fools ('mooda') as also the Knowledgeable ('Jnãni'). This is the greatness of Thiruppãvai. Well! Why does it wake up Bhagavãn? The Lord has to bless us (the ignorant -'ajnãni'). So, let Him also wake up! Well! then, are Ãzhwãrs ignorant? Why awaken them? "Koodi irundu Kullirndelo rembãvãi" - In bhakti, Bhãgavatam says, 'Shrunvanti, Grunanti, Gãyanti'. Let us all listen to the story together. Sing together, do Keertanams together. What is the reason? Bhakti/Satsang means --- Bhakti contains that which is to be enjoyed together by those who are filled with devotion. If a story is being told there should be somebody to listen to it and enjoy it --- someone to exclaim, 'How well he is rendering it!' When someone sings Nãmãvalli (the Lord's praises) there should be another to sing along enthusiastically. Therefore, bhakti is not something practised in solitude but is enjoyed together ('koodi irundu kullirndelo rembãvãi'). This is the reason for waking up the Ãzhwãrs!

  
The sacred tamarind tree

Nammãzhwãr had sat in the hole of a tamarind tree for sixteen years and could have continued to remain so. But Madhurakaviãzhwãr wakes him up. What is the reason? But for this we would have lost the wonderful 'Thiruvãimozhi' (the pãsuram of Nammãzhwãr). We would not have got to know how Nammãzhwãr had enjoyed Bhagavãn. So only if Mahãns are brought to the world will we be able to get their experiences of the Lord ('Bhagavat anubhavam'). So it is only with this in view that Ãndãl, in Thiruppãvai, wakes up Nandababa, wakes up Nandababa's son (Krishna), wakes up Yasoda, wakes up Nappinai and also wakes up the Ãzhwãrs, so that all enjoy this experience of the Lord ('Bhagavat anubhavam') - 'Koodi irundu kullirndelo rembãvãi". Let everyone enjoy in the same manner as She (Ãndãl) does. So, it (Thiruppãvai) is more significant than the Vedas; more significant than the Upanishads.

Nammãzhwãr and Madhurakaviãzhwãr

The Swamy says, "More significant than the Bhagavat Gita!" What more significance does this (Thiruppãvai) carry than the Bhagavat Gita? What does Krishna Paramãtma who has given the Gita do? He who preaches Dhyãna yoga, Karma yoga, Bhakti yoga and all other yogas to Arjuna feels that Truth should be enlightened, even if embarrassing -

"MÃM EKAM SHARANAM VRAJA!"
"Whatever you may do, Dhyãna or Karma or even if you give up all these,

"SURRENDER UNTO ME!"
If you are devoted ('Bhakti') to ME, have faith ('Shraddha') in ME, trust ('Viswas') ME, Love ('Anbu') ME, it is the same as having attained the fruit of all those spiritual practices ('sãdhana').

If one does not possess faith in Bhagavãn, trust in Bhagavãn, love for Bhagavãn, devotion to Bhagavãn, no spiritual practice ('sãdhana') will bear fruit. So, 'Sarva dharmãn parityajya' - 'Give up all dharmams and surrender Unto ME' -says Bhagavãn very diffidently. Bhagavãn fears to tell this even to someone like the deserving ('adhikãri') Arjuna. So, He (Bhagavãn) speaks to him about surrender only finally. Whereas what does Nãchhiãr (Ãndãl) do? That which Bhagavãn fears, hesitates, feels shy to say and speaks of it only finally, she (Ãndãl) speaks here at the very outset, in the very first pãsuram, and very boldly, too! -- "Nãrãyanane Namakke Parai Tharuvãn!" This is why Thiruppãvai has become more significant than the Gita. So, opines the Swamy.

We saw the glory of the Ãzhwãrs. We saw the glory of the Thiruppãvai. What is the glory of Nãchhiãr who has sung this? While speaking about the glory of Nãchhiãr - How is this Nãchhiãr? Devotees like Janabai, Chakkubai, Mirabai have also entertained the same attitude of the 'beloved' ('Nãyikã Bhãvam') towards the Lord (as Ãndãl had). However, there is no history that through this 'Nãyikã Bhãvam' they had married the Lord in the physical body ('sthulamã'). May be they had married Him in their dhyãna. Or having attained Bhagavãn in Sri Vaikuntam they might have married Him there. But it is only Ãndãl who was blessed with a marriage on the earth with all the people as witness. Bhagavãn Himself comes to her. Since her bhakti was so great, she had the Lord come down to the earth and married Him in Sri Villiputtur as even all the people looked on. Thus she mingled with Lord Ranganãtha. Hence, even amongst all those devotees who entertained 'Nãyikã Bhãvam' towards the Lord, she (Ãndãl) is the foremost ('Bhakta Sikãmani'). Such was her bhakti! Well! Can one draw a parallel between Rukmini/Sita and Ãndãl? But in the times of Rukmini and Sita Bhagavãn had incarnated Himself. To love and marry the Bhagavãn who had incarnated Himself is easy. But to have been in love with the 'archhãvatãra' (the idol form/deity) Perumãl and be entranced by Him! To have succeeded in bringing the 'archhãvatãra' Perumãl to her place and marry Him! Thus, she (Ãndãl) is greater than both Rukmini and Sita.

Ãndãl is greater than both Rukmini and Sita yet in another way. In what way? If Rukmini and Sita were devoted to Bhagavãn it can only be termed as devotion for their husband ('pati bhakti') and not devotion for Bhagavãn ('Bhagavat bhakti'). As per our Hindu dharma every lady has to worship her husband as verily the God. So what is the glory of Sita in being devoted to the Perumãl whom she had married? Where is the glory of Rukmini in being devoted to the Perumãl whom she had married? That is only devotion to the husband ('pati bhakti') whereas Ãndãl's was devotion to Bhagavãn ('Bhagavat bhakti') as well as devotion to the husband ('pati bhakti'). So, the Swamy says that Ãndãl is greater.

When we visit the Temple we find Ãndãl amongst the group of twelve Ãzhwãrs, a separate sanctum sanctorum ('Sannidhi') for Ãndãl and we also find her occupying the place beside Perumãl as His consort ('Pirãtti')! So, she enjoys a place in the devotees' group as well as that of the consort ('Pirãtti') of the Lord. Hence, the glory.

A parallel is drawn between Sita and Ãndãl. What is it? Sita was unearthed (as a babe while ploughing the field) and Ãndãl was also found on the 'Bhoomi' (earth). They were not born off a mother's womb. Thus a similarity exists between the two. In spite of this there exists a big difference between the two. And what is this big difference? Here, the Swamy has pointed out that Ãndãl is superior to Sita. In what way is Ãndãl superior to Sita? The 'Ranga Vimãnam' that we see in Srirangam and the Perumãl in it hail from Brahma Loka. He (Perumãl) is not of this earth ('Bhoo loka vãsi'). King Ishwãgu, a ruler in the Surya dynasty, brought this Perumãl, who was in Brahma loka, as also the 'Ranga Vimãnam' to Ayodhya through his power. In Ayodhya, Kings like Ishwãgu, Mãndhata worshipped this Ranganãtha. Dasaratha Mahãrãja worshipped this Ranganãthan. Ramachandra Prabhu (Lord Rama) worshipped this Ranganãtha. During his rule King Dasaratha performed a big Yãga to which he invited Kings from various Kingdoms. A King from the Chozha Kingdom attended this Yãga. He was also a 'Rithvig' in the Yãga. After the completion of the Yãga Dasaratha Mahãrãja asked what gift ('dakshinai') he would like to have. The Chozha King said, "Give me this 'Ranga Vimãnam' and Ranganãtha as gifts." But Dasaratha Mahãrãja refused to gift them to him. In the normal course, when a person has been invited as a 'Rithvig' he should be given whatever gift he asks. But here since this 'Rithvig' asked for the 'Ranga Vimãnam' and Ranganãtha who was the family deity, Dasaratha Mahãrãja refused to gift them. The chozha King left for his kingdom.

Today, if we happen to visit Ranganãtha temple we find the Chandra Pushkarini there. This Pushkarini exists since the creation of the Universe ('jagat srishti'). River Cauvery runs there. Arasalãr runs there. It is from this portion of the land in-between these two rivers, through the Chandra Pushkarini that Bhagavãn, in 'archarãdi mãrga' takes each and every 'jiva' to Sri Vaikuntam. It is near this Chandra Pushkarini that Vishnu Dharma, the Chozha king, performed penance ('tapas'). The aim of this penance was to bring Lord Ranganãtha to the Chozha Kingdom. He entertained a deep desire to somehow bring Lord Ranganãtha to the Chozha Kingdom and for this he performed the penance. The Lord's incarnation as Rama was at its end. Lord Rama had decided to enter river Sarayu after bestowing Sri Vaikuntam for all -- man, animal, tree and plant. He was going to disappear. At this time Lord Rama tells Vibhishana, "Take this 'Ranga Vimãnam' and Ranganãtha to Sri Lanka and build a temple there." "

<Prev | Next >

Page 1    Page 2    Page 3    Page 4

DAY 1  | DAY 2

NOTE: Any discrepancy/lapse in the translated version of the Upanyasam is the sole responsibility of the person/s who translated the work from Tamizh into English.

Home • e-MM • Contact

Radhe Krishna