365bet娱乐

We have already referred to the Divya-prabandhas, written by the 膧岣籿腻谤蝉 in Tamil, which exerted a profound influence on all teachers of the 艢r墨vai峁ａ箛ava school^[1].

• Kure艣a (Tirukkurukaippiran Pillai) wrote a commentary of 6000 verses on a selection of N膩mm鈥�-腻岣籿腻谤鈥檚 one thousand verses called the Sahasra-驳墨迟颈.
• 笔补谤腻艣补谤补 Bha峁�峁�膩rya wrote a commentary of 9000 verses.
• Under the directions of Kalijit (Lok膩c膩rya) Abhaya-prada-谤腻箩补 wrote a commentary of 24,000 verses.
• 碍峁涐梗峁嘺辫腻诲补, pupil of Kalijit, wrote another commentary of 3600 verses.
• Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni wrote 12,000 verses interpreting the views of N膩mm鈥�-腻岣籿腻谤.

The commentaries of Abhaya-prada-谤腻箩补 on the Divya-prabandhas helped the later teachers to understand the esoteric doctrine of the later works.

The commentaries on the Divya-prabandhas written by Saumya闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni, the younger brother of Pillai Lok膩c膩rya, had already become rare in the time of Abhir膩ma Var膩c膩rya, the translator of the 鲍辫补诲别艣补-ratna-尘腻濒腻 and the grandson of Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni.

It is thus seen that 笔补谤腻艣补谤补 Bha峁�峁�膩rya, the successor of 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补 in the pontifical chair, and his successor Ved膩ntI 惭腻诲丑补惫补, called also Nanjiyar, and his successor Namburi Varada谤腻箩补, called also Kalijit or Lok膩c膩rya I, and his successor Pillai Lok膩c膩rya, all wrote works dealing not so much with the interpretation of 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补鈥檚 philosophy, as with the interpretation of devotion as dealt with in the Sahasra-驳墨迟颈 and the Divya-prabandhas. Their writings are mostly in Tamil, only a few have been translated into Sanskrit, and in the present work notice is taken only of the Sanskrit works of these writers (mostly in the manuscript form) which have been available to the present writer. Both Pillai Lok膩c膩rya and Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni, called also V膩dike艣ari, were sons of 碍峁涐梗峁嘺辫腻诲补, but this Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni must be distinguished from a later Saumyaj膩m膩t峁� muni, called also Yat墨ndraprava峁嚹乧膩rya, who was a much more distinguished man. 笔补谤腻艣补谤补 Bha峁�峁�膩rya was probably born before a.d. 1078 and he died in a.d. 1165. He was succeeded by Ved膩ntI 惭腻诲丑补惫补 or Nanjiyar, who was succeeded by Namburi Varada谤腻箩补 or Lok膩c膩rya I.

He was succeeded by Pillai Lok膩c膩rya, a contemporary of 痴别峁卥补峁璦苍腻迟丑补, and 艢谤耻迟补-prak膩艣ik膩-c膩rya or 厂耻诲补谤艣补苍补 厂奴谤颈. It was in his time that the Mahomedans attacked 艢谤墨谤补峁単补尘. as has already been mentioned in connection with our account of 痴别峁卥补峁璦苍腻迟丑补. The Mahomedans were expelled from 艢谤墨谤补峁単补尘 by Goppa峁嚹乺ya, and the image of 搁补峁単补-苍腻迟丑补 was re-installed in a.d. 1293. It was at this time that the famous Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni (junior) was born.

The senior Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni, younger brother of Pillai Lok膩c膩rya, called also V膩dike艣ari, wrote

• some commentaries on the Divya-prabandhas,
• a work called 顿墨辫补-辫谤补办腻艣补,
• and Piyaruli-ceyalare-rahasya.

He is referred to by the junior Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni, called also Vara-vara muni, in his

• 鲍辫补诲别艣补-ratna-尘腻濒腻,
• Tattva-traya-产丑腻峁�y补
• and 艢谤墨惫补肠补苍补-产丑奴峁�a峁嘺-惫测腻办丑测腻.

We cannot be sure whether the 础诲丑测腻迟尘补-肠颈苍迟腻尘补峁噄, in which 痴腻诲丑奴濒补 艢谤墨苍颈惫腻蝉补 is adored as his teacher, was written by Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni. Mah膩c膩rya also described himself as a pupil of 痴腻诲丑奴濒补 艢谤墨苍颈惫腻蝉补, and, if the senior Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� and Mah膩c膩rya were pupils of the same teacher, Mah膩c膩rya must have lived in the fourteenth century. If, however, the junior Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� wrote the 础诲丑测腻迟尘补-肠颈苍迟腻尘补峁噄, Mah膩c膩rya will have to be placed at a later date.

The present writer has been able to trace only three books in Sanskrit by Pillai Lok膩c膩rya:

• Tattva-traya,
• 罢补迟迟惫补-艣别办丑补谤补,
• and 艢谤墨惫补肠补苍补-产丑奴峁�a峁嘺^[2].

The Tattva-traya is a very useful compendium of the 艢r墨vai峁ａ箛ava school of thought, in which the nature of the inanimate (acit), the souls, God and their mutual relations are dealt with. There is an excellent commentary by Varavara muni. The 罢补迟迟惫补-艣别办丑补谤补 is a work in four chapters. The first chapter quotes scriptural evidences in support of the view that 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺 is the highest God and the ultimate cause; in the second chapter he describes the nature of self by reference to scriptural testimony. The same description of the nature of self is continued in the third chapter. In the fourth chapter he deals with the ultimate goal of all souls, self-surrender to God. He says that the ultimate summum bonum (辫耻谤耻峁Ｄ乺迟丑补) consists in the servitude (办补颈峁卥补谤测补) to God roused by love of Him (辫谤墨迟颈-办腻谤颈迟补), due to the knowledge of one鈥檚 own nature and the nature of God in all His divine beauty, majesty, power and supreme excellence.

Not all servitude is undesirable. We know in our ordinary experience that servitude through love is always pleasurable. In the ordinary idea of emancipation, a man emphasizes his own self and his own end. This is therefore inferior to the summum bonum in which he forgets his own self and regards the servitude of God as his ultimate end. Lok膩c膩rya then refutes the various other conceptions of the ultimate goal in other schools of philosophy. He also refutes the conception of the summum bonum as the realization of one鈥檚 own nature with a sense of supreme subordination (para-tantratvena sv膩-nubhava-m膩tram na puru-峁Ｄ乺迟丑补岣�). This is also technically called kaivalya in the 艢r墨vai峁ａ箛ava system. Our ultimate end is not cessation of pain, but enjoyment of bliss. Positive bliss is our final aim.

It is held that in the emancipation as described above the individual realizes himself in close association with God and enjoys supreme bliss thereby; but he can never be equal to Him. Bondage (bandha) is true and the removal of bondage is also true. Prapatti, or self-surrender to God, is regarded as a means to cessation of bondage. This prapatti may be direct (a-vyavahita) and indirect (vyavahita). In the first case the selfsurrender is complete and absolute and done once for all^[3]. The indirect prapatti is the continual meditation on God through love of Him, along with the performance of the obligatory duties and the non-commission of prohibited actions. This is decidedly the lower stage; the more deserving ones naturally follow the first method.

The main contents of Pillai Lok膩c膩rya鈥檚 艢r墨-vacana-产丑奴峁�a峁嘺 follow in a separate section in connection with the account of the commentary on it and sub-commentary by Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni (junior) and Ragh奴ttama. The 艢谤墨惫补肠补苍补-产丑奴峁�a峁嘺 consists of 484 small sentences longer than the 厂奴迟谤补-phrases, but often shorter than ordinary philosophical sentences. Lok膩c膩rya followed this style in his other works also, such as his Tattva-traya and 罢补迟迟惫补-艣别办丑补谤补.

Ramya-闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni or Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni, called also Ma峁嘺v膩岣穉ma muni or Periya-jlyar, was the son of Tikalakkidand膩n-tirun膩v墨rudaiy膩pir膩n-T膩tar-a峁囜箛ar, a disciple of Pillai Lok膩c膩rya and grandson of Kollikavaladasar, who was also a disciple of Pillai Lok膩c膩rya. He was born in the Tinnevelly district in A.D. 1370 and lived for seventy-three years, that is till A.D. 1443. He first obtained training from br墨艣aile艣a, called also Tiru-marai 膧岣籿膩r, in 罢颈谤耻-惫腻测-尘辞岣籭.

One of the first works of his early youth was a poem called Yati-谤腻箩补-vi峁兣沘ti, in honour of 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补, which is incorporated and published in Yaravara muni鈥檚 Dina-肠补谤测腻.

On account of his deep devotion for 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补 he was also known as Yat墨ndra-prava峁嘺, and wrote a commentary on a short life of 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补 called

• Prapanna-蝉腻惫颈迟谤墨
• or 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补-nu峁沘nd膩di
• of 罢颈谤耻惫补谤补苍驳补迟迟-补尘耻诲补苍腻谤.

After completing his studies under 艢r墨艣aile艣a he remained at 艢谤墨谤补峁単补尘 and studied the commentaries on

• the Divya-prabandhas,
• the 艢谤墨惫补肠补苍补-产丑奴峁�a峁嘺
• and other 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 痴别诲腻苍迟补 works.

In his study of the Divya-prabandhas and the 骋墨迟腻-产丑腻峁�y补 he was helped by his father Tatar-膩峁囜箛ar. He also studied with Kidambi-Tirumalai-Nayin膩r, called also K峁涐梗峁嘺de艣ika, the 艢r墨-产丑腻峁�y补 and 艢谤耻迟补-prak膩艣ik膩. He also studied the 膧肠腻谤测补-丑峁沝补测补 with A峁囜箛ay膩c膩rya, called also Deva谤腻箩补guru, of Y膩dav膩dri.

He renounced the world, became a 蝉补苍苍测腻蝉颈苍, and attached himself to the Pallava-matha at 艢谤墨谤补峁単补尘, where he built a 惫测腻办丑测腻苍补-尘补峁囜笉补辫补, in which he used to deliver his religious lectures. He was very proficient in the 顿谤补惫颈岣峚 痴别诲腻苍迟补, produced many works in the 尘补峁噄-辫谤补惫腻濒补 style (mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil), and had hundreds of followers. He had a son, called R膩m膩nuj膩rya, and a grandson, called Vi峁ａ箛ucitta.

Of his pupils eight were very famous:

1. 叠丑补峁�峁�补-苍腻迟丑补,
2. 艢谤墨苍颈惫腻蝉补-yati,
3. Deva谤腻箩补guru,
4. 痴腻诲丑奴濒补 Varada 狈腻谤腻测补峁嘺-guru,
5. 笔谤补迟颈惫腻诲颈产丑补测补峁卥补谤补,
6. 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补guru,
7. 厂耻迟腻办丑测补,
8. and 艢r墨-v膩n膩cala Yog墨ndra.

These eight disciples were great teachers of 痴别诲腻苍迟补^[4]. He taught the 叠丑腻峁�y补 to 搁补峁単补谤腻箩补. There were many ruling chiefs in South India who were his disciples.

Among his works the following are noteworthy,

• Yati-谤腻箩补-vi峁兣沘ti,
• 骋墨迟腻-t膩tparya-d墨pa, a Sanskrit commentary on the 骋墨迟补,
• 艢谤墨-产丑腻峁�y腻-ratha,
• Taittir墨yo-pani峁�ad-产丑腻峁�y补,
• Para-tattva-苍颈谤峁嘺测补.

He wrote also commentaries on the

• Rahasya-traya,
• Tattva-traya and 艢谤墨惫补肠补苍补-产丑奴峁�a峁嘺 of Pillai Lok膩c膩rya
• and the 膧肠腻谤测补-丑峁沝补测补 of the senior Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni, called also V膩dike艣ari, brother of Pillai Lok膩c膩rya;

commentaries on

• 笔谤颈测腻濒惫补谤-迟颈谤耻-尘辞岣籭,
• 闯帽腻苍补-蝉腻谤补 and Prameya-蝉腻谤补 of Deva谤腻箩补,
• and the Sapta-驳腻迟丑腻 of Vi岣荒乵艣olai-ppillai;

glosses on the authorities quoted in the

• Tattva-traya,
• 艢谤墨惫补肠补苍补-产丑奴峁�a峁嘺,
• and commentaries on the Dirya-prabandha called the 滨岣岛 ;

many Tamil verses, such as

• 罢颈谤耻惫腻测尘辞岣籭-苍耻谤耻惫诲腻诲颈,
• 膧谤迟迟颈-辫谤补产补苍诲丑补,
• 罢颈谤耻惫腻谤腻诲丑补苍补-丑谤补尘补,

and many Sanskrit verses.

He occupied a position like that of 搁腻尘腻苍耻箩补, and his images are worshipped in most Vai峁ａ箛ava temples in South India.

Many works were written about him, e.g.

• Varavara-mnni-dina-肠补谤测腻,
• 驰补谤补惫补谤补-尘颈尘颈-艣补迟补办补,
• Varavara-muni-办腻惫测补,
• Varavara-muni-campu,
• 驰补迟墨苍诲谤补-辫谤补惫补峁嘺-辫谤补产丑腻惫补,
• 驰补迟墨苍诲谤补-辫谤补惫补峁嘺-bhadra-campu,
• etc.

His 鲍辫补诲别艣补-ratna-尘腻濒腻 is recited by 艢r墨vai峁ａ箛avas after the recital of the Divya-prabandha. In his 鲍辫补诲别艣补-ratna-尘腻濒腻 he gives an account of the early 膧岣籿腻谤蝉 and the A岣籥giyas. It was translated into Sanskrit verse by his grandson Abhirama-var膩c膩rya, whose 础峁ａ弓腻诲补艣补-bheda-苍颈谤峁嘺测补 has already been noted in the present work. He also w rote another book called 狈补办峁�a迟谤补-尘腻濒颈办腻 in praise of 艢a峁環akopa^[5].

Though Mr Narasimhiengar says that a commentary on the 艢谤墨惫补肠补苍补-产丑奴峁�a峁嘺 was written by Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni (junior) in the 尘补峁噄辫谤补惫腻濒补 style, yet the manuscript of the commentary, with a sub-commentary on it by Ragh奴ttama, which was available to the present writer, was a stupendous volume of about 750 pages, all written in Sanskrit. The main contents of this work will appear in a separate section.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

These Divya-prabandhas are four thousand in number. Thus

• Poygaiy-腻岣籿腻谤 wrote 惭耻岣峚濒-迟颈谤耻-惫补苍迟腻诲颈 of 100 stanzas;
• Bh奴tatt鈥�-腻岣籿腻谤, 滨谤补峁囜笉补尘-迟颈谤耻-惫补苍迟腻诲颈 of 100 stanzas;
• P膿y-腻岣籿腻谤, 惭耻苍峁浤乵-迟颈谤耻-惫补苍迟腻诲颈 of 100 stanzas;
• Tiru-ma岣籭峁�ai Pir膩n,
  N膩n-mukam Tiru-vant膩di
  and 罢颈谤耻-肠丑补峁囜笉补-惫谤耻迟迟补尘 of 96 and 120 stanzas respectively;
• Madhura-kaviy-腻岣籿腻谤 wrote 碍补峁囜箛颈苍耻峁�-艣颈谤耻迟迟腻尘产耻 of 11 stanzas;
• N膩mm鈥�-腻岣籿腻谤 wrote
  Tiru-vruttam of 100 stanzas,
• 罢颈谤耻-惫腻艣颈谤墨测补苍颈,
  笔别谤颈虫补-迟颈谤耻-惫补苍迟腻诲颈 of 87 stanzas
  and 罢颈谤耻-惫腻测-尘辞岣籭 of 1102 verses;
• Kula-艣膿khara Peru-m膩l wrote
  笔别谤耻尘腻濒-迟颈谤耻尘苍濒颈 of 105 stanzas,
  Periy-腻岣籿腻谤-tiruppal艒峁囜笉u and Periy-腻岣籿腻谤-tirumo岣籭 of 12 and 461 stanzas,
• 膧峁囜笉补濒, 罢颈谤耻辫辫腻惫补颈 and 狈腻肠肠丑颈测腻谤-迟颈谤耻尘辞岣籭 of 30 and 143 stanzas;
• To峁囜笉ar-a岣峣-po岣峣y-腻岣籿腻谤, 罢颈谤耻-辫补岣丰阜颈测-别岣籾肠丑颈 and 罢颈谤耻-尘腻濒补颈 of 10 and 45 stanzas respectively;
• Tiru-p膩n-腻岣籿腻谤, 础尘补濒补苍补岣峣-辫颈岣荒乶 of 10 stanzas;
• Tiru-ma峁単aiy-膩jrv膩r wrote
  笔别谤颈测补-迟颈谤耻尘辞岣籭 of 1084 verses,
  罢颈谤耻-办办耻谤耻苍诲腻峁囜笉补办补尘 of 20 stanzas,
  罢颈谤耻苍别岣岛苍诲腻峁囜笉补办补尘 of 30 stanzas,
  罢颈谤耻谤别濒耻办奴谤-迟颈谤耻办办补颈 of 1 stanza,
  Siriya- tiruma岣峚l of 77 stanzas
  and 笔别谤颈测补-迟颈谤耻尘补岣峚濒 of 148 stanzas,

thus making a total of 4000 verses in all. They are referred to in the Upadesd-ratna-尘腻濒腻 of Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni (junior) and in its introduction by M. T. Narasimhiengar.

[2]:

Some of his other works are

• 惭耻尘耻办峁�u-辫辫补岣峣,
• 笔谤补尘别测补-艣别办丑补谤补,
• Nava-ratna-尘腻濒腻,
• 罢补苍颈-辫谤补峁嘺惫补,
• 笔谤补辫补苍苍补-辫补谤颈迟谤腻峁嘺,
• 驰腻诲峁沜肠丑颈办补-辫辫补岣峣,
• Dvayam,
• 础谤迟丑补-辫补帽肠补办补,
• 厂腻谤补-蝉补峁僩谤补丑补,
• 笔补谤补苍诲补-辫补岣峣,
• Sa峁儾跄灏���-s膩mr膩jyam,
• 艢谤墨测补岣�-辫补迟颈-辫辫补岣峣,
• Caramam,
• 础谤肠颈谤-腻诲颈,
• Nava-vidha-sambandha.

Vide footnote in 罢补迟迟惫补-艣别办丑补谤补, p. 70.

[3]:

Prapatti is defined as follows:

bhagavad-膩j帽膩tivartana-niv峁泃ti-bhagavad-膩nuk奴lya-sana-艣aktitv膩-nusandh膩na-prabh峁泃i-sahita岣� yac帽膩-garbho vij峁沵bha-riipa-j帽膩na-vi艣c峁�a岣� ; tatra j帽ey膩k膩ra 墨艣varasya nirapek峁�a-s膩dhanatva峁僯帽膩n膩karo vyaras帽y膩- tmakatvam ; etac ca 艣膩str膩-rthatv膩t sak峁泃 kartavyam.

罢补迟迟惫补-艣别办丑补谤补, p. 64.

Just as the ba峁卥arites hold that, once the knowledge regarding the unity of the individual with Brahman dawns through the realization of the meaning of such texts, there remains nothing to be done. So here also the complete selt-surrender to God is the dawning of the nature of one鈥檚 relation to God, and, when this is once accomplished, there is nothing else to be done. 峁琱e rest remains with God in His adoption of the devotee as His own.

[4]:

See 笔谤补辫补苍苍腻尘峁泃补, Ch. 122.

[5]:

The present writer is indebted for some of his information regarding the works of Saumya 闯腻尘腻迟峁� muni to M. T. Narasimhiengar鈥檚 Introduction to the English translation of the 鲍辫补诲别艣补-ratna-尘腻濒腻.