Aruvam vs uruvam issue

Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha

Interesting Srivats Swamy

Your misconceptions of my response is your mistake & not mine.

1. NirguNam does not mean no Gunam at all. Aruvam does not mean no uruvam at all.

If Aruvam is taken in literal sense as formless, he will be equalled as NirGuNam in literal sense i.e. no guNams

Please have some sense Swamy

2. Syntax of title is the crux of the audio

What is Thiru Kanden Pon Meni Kanden for you aruvam?

If he quotes NammAzhWAr
I quote Pei Azhwar

3. Like AdhAram AadhEyam Dhargam
Dhonnai kku nei AdhAramA ?
Neikku Dhonnai AdhAramA?

Finally, SrivatS Swamy you agreed, aruvam not formless but invisible

This shows your lack of depth in understanding.

Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy has taught me to think & not be a blind vyAkaraNa supporter like you. Ref: Mukkur Upanyasam which is better?
* Jyothisham
* vyAkaraNam
* Dhargam

In fact Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy will be happy about me for these thought processes.

Dasanudasan

Vikram Swami,

You first show one piece of evidence from the discussion thread where Velukkudi swami has said his concept of ‘aruvam’ is ‘nirgunam’.

I have been asking you this question for some time now, but your answer is always elusive and evasive.

– Adiyen

Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha

Srimathe Sri Varaha Mahadesikaya Namaha

Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy Thiruvadigaley Sharanam

Swamy,

adiyen not Aadi Shankara to share deceptive answers. I beleive am up to the point for some reason devareer and co not able to appreciate/recognize that.

VELUKKUDI SWAMY NEVER EVER SAID ARUVAM = NIRGUNAM

By the way when did I say Swamy said like that? Are you people going nuts?

Also why you gentlemen are talking as if you are entitled SishyA & I am not?

In fact adiyen trying to help swamy correct the verbatim

NA THAPPU NU NENAIKARDHA SUTTI KAATA KUDA URIMAI ILLAIYA?

i SEE A GREAT PROBLEM IN THAT INTERPRETATION SO HIGHLIGHTED THE RISK

SHANKARAR HAS DECLARED FORMLESS AS SUPREME

SWAMY RAMANUJAN & SWAMY DESIKAN PROVED BRAHMAM IS OF QUALIFIED FORM AS FORM BEING AN ATTRIBUTE @SRIVATS SWAMY HOPE NOW YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE AM COMING FROM

Who am I? a speck of dust to even open my mouth about his audio or speech?

See, only problem I foresee in considering BRAHMAM as formless becoming FORM or ARUVAM TO URUVAM TRANSITION WILL LEAD TO SAYING ATTRIBUTELESS TO ATTRIBUTE

AS IF FORMLESS IS BETTER THAN FORM THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE

ARUVAM KAATIYA URUVAM IS STILL WRONG according to me but as Swamy has said I acknowledge and move forward I said. Without realizing this some great swamy came and said “Kuppura VizhundhAlum meesaila mannu ottala”.

Adiyen meesai shave panni romba naal aagardhu.

Attributeless or with Attribute clearly DEFINED by Udayavar in SriBashyam

=================================================================

Based on other website discussion for the need pf PramANam:

Ramanujacarya makes the following argument’s in his Sri-Bhasya to refute the theory of Supreme being attributeless(It goes roughly as follows):

if we see a rope and think it is a snake, that mistaken idea is due to the fact that there is something snake-like in the rope, namely the shape of the rope. Similarly, if we are really perceiving Brahman but we think we are seeing the world, then the attributes we are seeing in the world must be derived from the qualities we are seeing in Brahman So for instance, if we see a chair there must be something chair-like in Brahman, otherwise we wouldn’t mistake it for a chair. And if we see an apple then Brahman must have some apple-like attribute, etc. But that cannot be if Brahman is attributeless.

NOW PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IS THE ROOT OF FORMLESS BRAHMAM based on above explanation?

===============================================================

Aad Shankarar’s Version

Brahman is only formless to be sure, for that is the dominant mode (of the Upanishad teaching).

“It is neither gross, nor minute, neither short nor long” (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III.viii.8), “Soundless, touchless, colorless, undiminishing” (Katha Upanishad I.iii.15), “That which is known as Space is the accomplisher of name and form; That in which they are included is Brahman” (Chandogya Upanishad VIII.xiv.1), “Purusa is transcendental, since He is formless, and He is coextensive with all that is external and internal, since He is birthless” (Mundaka Upanishad II.i.2), “That Brahman is without prior or posterior, without interior and exterior. The Self, the perceiver of everything, is Brahman” (Brhadaranayaka Upanishad II.v.19), and so on. Hence in sentences of this kind, the formless Brahman alone, just as It is spoken of by the texts themselves, has to be accepted. But the other texts, speaking of Brahman with form, have the injunctipns about meditations as their main objectives. So long as they do not lead to some contradiction, their apparent meanings should be accepted. But when they involve a contradiction, the principle to be followed for deciding one or the other is that, those that have the formless Brahman as their main purport are more authoritative than the others which have not that as their main purport. It is according to this that one is driven to the conclusion that Brahman is formless and not its opposite, though texts having both the purports are in evidence.

Opponent: What would then be the fate of the texts speaking of forms?

Vedantin: Hence comes the reply.

Brahma-Sutra-Bhasya of Sri Sankaracharya III.ii.14

And like light, Brahman can (be assumed to) have different appearances, so that the scriptures may not become purposeless.

Though the light of the sun or moon spreads over the whole space, still when it comes in contact with adjuncts like fingers etc., it seems to assume the forms, straight or bent, as those adjuncts may have; similarly Brahman, too, seems to have the forms of earth etc., when in contact with those things. And it is, nothing contradictory to enjoin meditations on Brahman based on those forms. Thus the sentences presenting Brahman as having forms do not become meaningless, for it is not proper to interpret some Vedic sentences as having meaning and the others as meaningless, since they are all valid.

Opponent: Even so, does not the assertion made earlier that Brahman cannot have a dual characteristic even in association with limiting adjuncts, stand contradicted?

Vedantin: We say, no, since whatsoever is brought about by an adjunct is ot the essential characteristic of a thing, since the adjuncts themselves are conjured up by ignorance. And we said in the respective contexts that all social and Vedic behaviors crop up only when the beginningless nescience is taken for granted.

Dasanudasan

Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha

According to VishistAdvaitam is this accepted or not?

Do you agree to this ?

If true Hinduism is monotheistic in recognition of one supreme God (called Brahman), why do they adhere to all types of other deities like Shiva, Vishnu, etc. and spirits? If one can go directly to the top, why do they bother with small officials?

Because we cannot see formless things. Human mind find its difficult to worship a god that is formless. They need to see god to feel god. This is why the first stage of self-realization is to worship the various forms of the formless god.

Dasanudasan

Srimathe Rangarmanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha

So NammAzhwar thought, formless is supreme, to attain he requested Narayana to come in form is it?

Neenga venumna jaalra podungo, naa poda maaten

Dasanudasan

Now coming to the main question?

What is the name of that formless God, Brahmam?

Dasanudasan

Naa

Narayanan dhan Brahmam nu soldren

Velukkudi

Brahmam dhan Narayanan nu sAdhikAr

difference irukku

Dasanudasan

VELUKKUDI SWAMY NEVER EVER SAID ARUVAM = NIRGUNAM
By the way when did I say Swamy said like that?From vikraminside

If this is true, then why do you keep seeking justice from everyone in the forum?

You have been showing different personalities all this while like a mirror broken into thousand pieces showing different reflections of the same person.

1. As somebody who does not care to address the issue but says personal statements like “go and read scriptures yourself”.
2. Argumentative with KBD swami. 
3. Suddenly getting apologetic to Jayaram Swami.
4. Contradicting apology, again you started saying you were right.
5. Bringing up unnecessary groupism (Vadakalai and Tenkalai) into the forum and also trying to affiliate even Velukkudi swami with that.
6. Saying that you also recite “Srisaile DayapAtram’ as if Swami is biased, etc.
7. Asking how to revoke sharanAgati as if you are seeking apologies.
8. Suddenly asking the admin to delete all your posts.
9. Asking aparAdha kshama from all members and Velukkudi Swami.
10. But again starting with the same stupid proposition that Velukkudi swami made a big mistake by titling the video inappropriately.

and many more…please fix the mirror and see yourself.

Now to answer your question about the title…Uruvam illAdhavar kAttiya uruvam’. It describes a certain situation (நிகழ்வு) where NammAzhvAr is asking bhagawan to show his swaroopam.

“கண்ணுக்கு புலப்படாதவரே, எனக்கு உம்மை காட்டும்” equates to the title ‘uruvam illAdhavar kAttiya uruvam’.

அது அந்த நிகழ்வை காட்டும் தலைப்பே அன்றி, அது சித்தாந்தம் அல்ல.

– Adiyen

Srimathe Rangaramanuja Mahadesikaya Namaha
Srimathe Sri Varaha Mahadesikaya Namaha
Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy Thiruvadigaley Sharanam
Sri:

Justice of what? whether are you sane person or not? Be specific.I have clearly put down my questions.

1. “go and read scriptures yourself”
When did I say? After Jayaram Swamy said “Clearly said in Vedam as formless” after adiyen quoted “BrahmaNi SrinivAsE” quotation of Sri Ramanujar which I felt as insult against Ramanujar.Secondly he passed personal as “disgraceful”. Where were you at that time? Why you didn’t condemn it?

2. Kambandasan Swamy told “Tharkuri” for no fault of mine when I happily wanted to re-join after his repeated requests,. Will you be okay if I tell you “insane” “idiot” “incorrigible”? I TRUSTED KBD Swamy that’s my only fault.

3. Unfortunately I fear BhAgavathAa apachAram unlike you people in this forum. Did Jayaram Swamy ask sorry to me?

En kitta thappu pannitu Velukkudi mannippArA?

4. Asking sorry doesn’t mean “I am wrong”. It’s a sign of respect.Try proving point, you are not doing anything beneficial to this issue concerned by indulging in personal character assassination.

5. Yes, Velukkudi Swamy responded only to Jayaram Swamy and not to me & I was entitled to my opinion in my own rights. This was after KBD Swamy digging the closed grave issue. That’s why I am calling “you people immatured”.

6. Of course Swamy is biased towards Tenkalai. Any iota of doubt? I don’t mind. He is doing justice his AchAryA. Desikan is my AchAryan & my Acharyan’s view will supercede anyone even if it is Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy.

Even Ahobila jeeyar is biased towards Narasimhar but his holiness hailed prabhAvam of Kaanchi MahA periyavA anything wrong?

I am standing within my boundary. I speak my mind not hide like you people.

Do you have any problem in me liking Maa Munigal let me know.

7. Yes, I felt I required 1000 heads of SriRamanujar while addressing your counter productive arguments. Yes, I asked SharanAgathi after hearing Sri Velukkudi Swamy ‘s upanyasam. Even now feeling bad for it. I should have learned better before going through such procedures.

Don’t we have difference in Sankalpam?
Bhgaavath Preethyartham
Vs
Bhagavath Kainkarya roopam

While we both accept Kainkaryam why such difference?

8. It’s my prerogative. My time is precious. I am so bad na why don’t you delete my account why still keeping it?

9. Yes at least I have that courtesy to ask sorry. I don’t go about finding fault in individuals, like you do.

10. Let me be stupid. I already told I did a big mistake by asking SharanAgathi without proper learning. Let this BhAgavatha apachAram remain as a hurdle. Let me come back in next or hundred janmams or no liberation at all, I don’t care. You are the defender of Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swamy highly appreciated.
HAPPY LOBBYING

My mirror says you are at fault. What shall I do now?

Coming to your response:

Hey Sarvagnya Bhattarey
Are you aware of the difference between roopam & swaroopam”?

What did I say in first ever post to Jayaram Swamy
“It’s better to call him swaroopi” didn’t i say that?

Also this creation is also Sriman Narayana. When you say uruvam illAdhavar you are discarding the manifested form of Sriman Narayana which is against Ramanuja SiddhAntham

Yes NammAzhWAr wanted to see what he couldn’t see.

He couldn’t see doesn’t make Perumal “Uruvam illAdhavar”

Dasanudasan

Hello SrivatS thambi, formless Brahmam per sollupa. I think you need guidance. Till now that question is evaded. Just list down who is evading…

Vikram Thambi,

Of course Swamy is biased toward Tenkalai. Any iota of doubt? I don’t mind.From vikraminside

Such an answer is expected of you! Not so surprising!

You requested the admins to delete your account.

MAY I PLEASE REQUEST THE ADMIN NOT TO DELETE THAMBI’S ACCOUNT AT ANY COST? I WISH HIS ACCOUNT REMAINS HERE AND STAND AS A TESTIMONY TO HIS ‘CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT’ BEHAVIOUR.

Now I will join KBD swami’s league of not interacting with you and wasting my energy anymore.

– Adiyen

Adiyen enna Email signaturea? Arivu illa? Ozhunga behave pandra.

Dasanudasan

Dasanudasan enna unnudaya email signaturea??

அறிவில் ஆதவன் என நினைத்துக்கொள்ளும் (கொல்லும்) அறிவில்லாதவனே!!!

எண்டா என்னமோ respond பண்ண மாட்டேன் நு சொன்ன , உன் மன உறுதி அவ்வுளவு தானா?

நா சொன்னதையே திருப்பி சொல்றியே எதையுமே சொந்தமா செய்ய மாட்டியா?😂