Namaskaram Swami

By performing Homam, one prays / worships to devathas. From this, “it is clear that one can pray / worship devathas also. No swami”. What Krishnan swami stated is in BG 3rd chapter 11th slokam, which goes as, It is the duty on both the parties i.e on Devas to provide with the essentials like rain etc and for which humans who are authorised to perform the yajnas shall adhere with performing the same as prescribed in the shastras and since both are doing their duties, there isn’t any question of worshiping as a whole a demigod.

The Sangati of this sloka no. to the previous i.e 10th, undertakes 2 considerations by Bhagwan .1 Why did Krishna created Demigods

2 Why to do rituals.

and both have been answered in the following slokas numbered 12,13, 14 and 15th, marking as  the concluding statement with  Krishna being Antaryami in demigods, in the performer of the yajna, in the yajna itself and in short in all.

Adiyen Dasan

Ramanuja- Parakalan dasan swamy,
Namaskaram Swami.

I take the following for discussion.
When homam is performed mantras are chanted on the devathas. Chanting mantras is not worshipping?.

adiyen

Namaskaram Swami

 Chanting mantras is not worshipping. Yes swami, it isn’t because, mantrams just state the next in order to perform the yajna.

Adiyen 

Namaskaram Swami.

I am ignorant in this regard. I hope they say “namahah” to the devatha during homam.

adiyen

Namaskaram Swami

                                                         NAMAHA

For a Sri Vaishnavan, it is important to understand the deeper meanings/ insights of the word Namaha. For this Adiyen would like to share the reference of Swami Manavala Mamunigal’s Upadesa Rathina Maalai Pasurum 26th on Sri Madhura kavi Azhwar.

Mamunigal states, Sri Madhura kavi Azhwar’s Divya Prabhandam (Kanninun Siruthambu) is actually equal to Thirumantram’s Namaha Shabda Artham.

“Namaha means Virodhi Kazhidal” and has it’s significance lying with it’s precedent, successor and with itself in the Thirumantram.

1. Pranavam Namaha, meaning ( Jeeva Swaroopa ( Sesha Bhootan) Virodhi Kazhidal)
2. Namo Narayanaya, meaning ( Prapyathai Adaya ottamal Thadkara Virodhi Kazhidal)
3.  Namo Namaha, meaning ( Thirumalai naan upayam aaga Patrinadungre Virodhi Kazhidal)

This is what Ashtakshara Thirumantram discloses and this is what is seen in Madhurakavi Azhwar’s Pasuram Divya Prabhandam. However, all this with relation to NamAzhwar i.e Adiyarku Adimai is what Jeeva Atma Swaroopam is all about, i.e Adiyargal are like ( Seshi, Upayam and Prapyam), when a jeevan understands and follows it then only Thadiya Seshatvam sidhikum.

At last, Adiyen would like to complete what our poorvacharyas Thiruulam was and aptly stated by Mamunigal in Upadesa Rathina Maalai over as:

Vedathuku surukam: Pranavam

Similarly, Dravida Vedam, Divya Prabhandathuku Surukam, Thirupallandu.

26th pasuram Artham Mamunigal stated Kanninunsiruthambu as Namaha and other Thirumozhis as Naryana Shabda Artham to ” Thirumantram”.

Swami, Adiyen could have  explained it even more nicely. Kshamika Prarthikkaren.

Nevertheless, Devarir can listen to the explanation in detail in the below mentioned link of Upadesa Rathina Maalai Kalakshepam.

https://www.kinchit.org/lesson/day-13-urm/

Adiyen Dasan

enpanifan swamy,
Namaskaram.

I went through this thread now.
It appears to be in support of my initial post.

adiyen

enpanifan swamy,

Thank you for notifying the thread.

adiyen

Ramanuja- Parakalan dasan swamy,

Namaskaram.

Thank you for notifying the audio. I listened to the audio. Sri Velukkudi Krishnan swamy clearly explained that we are indeed worshipping the devathas through Pancha maha yagnam. This has provided the much needed clarification on this thread.

I have a long-standing doubt.  I have NIL knowledge on vedas. I have only checked through google in this regard. Para Brahmam and Vedas are anadi. Vedas mention several Gods and devathas, prescribe details about worshipping and so on. I understand that Lord Narayanan is not mentioned as Para Brahmam in vedas. Later puranas only mention Lord Narayanan as Para Brahmam. If I can get details in this regard, I will be happy. I would to like see the details from vedas and not from later puranas.

adiyen

Vedas constitute karma kanda. One cannot find Brahmam there. We can find Brahmam only in Vedanta which is the Brahma Kanda. There are many verses in Vedanta which mention Narayana as Para Brahmam and the only cause of Universe. Puranas explain them. Your understanding that Puranas are later additions and not reliable is not right. In fact, without the guidance of Puranas (and only with Vedic verses) one cannot lead a life. We would be left in the dark.

Resp. Sri Velukkudi Krishnan swamy,

Namaskaram.

I am delighted to get the reply from you. Thank you very much for providing explanation in simple and understandable words.

Swamy, I would like to indicate the reason behind my statement in my previous post.

Later puranas only mention Lord Narayanan as Para Brahmam.From pd_jayaram

I am from a family worshipping Lord Narayanan. My grand mother had samasrayanam. I have accepted the existence of Para Brahmam (Lord Narayanan) and used to worship Para Brahmam only, irrespective of the temples I used to visit, in my 20’s (about 35 years back). I am very firm that there is only one Almighty. Sanadana dharmam has several sampradayams. I believe, all the sampradayams accepted vedas. There are many instances wherein, whenever a bhaktha worships God as per his sampradayam, the Almighty appears in the form in which bhaktha worship as per his sampradayam, as mentioned in Gita (with other religions may be miracles). When I was in late 20’s, I used to blame Him, since He appears in the form in which the bhaktha worships, people think that the God whom he worships is the Ultimate. Since, Vedas are accepted by all the sampradayams, if Lord Narayanan is mentioned as Para Brahmam in vedas, then probably there would have been only vaishnavism. This probably would have reduced the difference of opinion, unwanted incidents amongst human and harmony would have been more. I do not know why Lord Narayanan is not mentioned as Para Brahmam in vedas. This makes me to feel some sort நெருடல்.

Kindly excuse me if I have mentioned anything unwarranted.

adiyen

https://www.kinchit.org/kinchit-en-pani/1151-1200/ audio 1175 ” 2 complaints on Santana dharma” might be useful for this swamy.

Namaskaram Swamys,

True. He allows swathantram, we choose different paths and finally may reach vaikuntam. I also listened to the enpani audio mentioning about different lanes for different speeding traffic, sometime back.

The point I was trying to stress is, if vedas (I will mention here as an universal text for all) itself mentioned about Lord Narayanan as para brahmam, there would have been only one sampradayam. He has limitless power. One who gave vedas could have very well mentioned this in vedas and provided proper education. Why to let it happen at our freewill, wait to make us to realise, expect us to come under His fold and enter vaikuntam, thus taking a very very very long period of time. Probably, if everyone follows single path, will reach vaikuntam much much earlier, then number of atmas to reach vaikuntam will be reduced drastically, leaving Him with lesser play. Just a wild thought.

Excuse me if I have made any unnecessary point.

adiyen

Srimate Ramnujaye Namaha!

Swamy you can extrapolate the same reason and will reach to a point as why he should allows us to be in Leela vibhuti, he should have kept us in Vaikuntam itself. The answer is to accommodate our desires without force. So the same applies here as well.

Also Velukkudi swami did clarify that in Vedantam it is clearly specified about Parabrahmam. So in one sense what you are asking has been provided, is it not swamy?

Adiyen

Namaskaram swamy,

Point 1: I have my own view point. I always wonder why Brahmam should exist at all?. I am just thinking of a situation wherein there is no Brahmam, atmas etc., Though it is mentioned that Brahmam is anadi, I still enquire how and why Brahmam has come into existence?. It is just impossible for us to think about creation of such a magnitude.

Point 2: Though Vedanta is said to be part of vedas, generally they are quoted separately when it is being referred. So also in my case and responded. Further, when vedanta is part of vedas, why other sampradayams who considers vedas, still consider other than Lord Narayanan to be Brahmam?. Is it because of interpretation of vedanta or other sampradayams do not consider vedanta. These are the points running in my mind. Nevertheless, I am not going to bother about this point. It has already happened and nothing we can do about that. It is His botheration and correction if it be necessary. I was concerned about this and hence posted.

adiyen

Namaskaaram Swamy,

I think my point is not understood properly. I believe in God. I just went ahead and thought of a situation wherein there is no Brahmam, atmas etc., an hypothetical case. I just mentioned why Brahmam has come into existence and what is the reason?.

adiyen