Essays Lectures on Religion of Hindu Vol 01

SR No.: 007688
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: H H Wilson
Publisher: Trubner and Company London
Publication Year: 1861
Total Pages: 480
Language: English
Classification: Interfaith & Hinduism
File Size: 28 MB

Page 54

38
RELIGIOUS SECTS
The worship of the followers of RÁMÁNUJA, is addressed to VISHŃt and to LAKSHMI, and their respective incarnations, either singly or conjointly; and the Sri Vaishắavas, by which general name the sect is known, consist of corresponding subdivisions, as NÁRÁYAŃA, or LAKSHMI, or LAKSHMI NÁRÁYAŃA, or RÁMA or Sirs, or Sírá Ráma, or KRISHŇA, or RukMINI, or any other modifications of Vishnu, or his consort, is the preferential object of the veneration of the votary! The Sri Vaishnava worship in the north of India, is not very popular, and the sect is rather of a speculative than practical nature, although it does not require, in its teachers, secession from the
1 Mr. Colebrooke, A. R. 7, [Essays &c. London: 1858. p. 124.] says the Rámánujas are of three classes, those who worship Ráma alone, Sírá alone, and Sirá and RÁMA conjointly. One of my authorities, Mathurá Náth, says, they worship Mahá Lakshmi, and other information agrees with his; from the texts quoted in the Sarva Darśana Sangraha, [Calcutta: 1858. pp. 54. 55.] VISIŃu as VÁSUDEVA, is the deity to be worshipped, but no doubt all the varieties exist: without, however, affecting the identity of the sect, the real object of whose devotion is Vishấu, as the cause and creator of the world, and any of his, or his Sakti's more especial manifestations, are consequently entitled to reverence. The term Sri Vaishnavas, most commonly applied to them, denotes an original preference of the female deity or Mahá Lakshmi: the worship of Ráma is more properly that of the Rámánandis, and they may be the persons intended by Mr. Colebrooke's informants, as those of the Rámánujíyas who worship RÁMA only (A. R. 7, 281). It may also be observed, that the Rámánujiyas unite with KRISHŃA, Rukmini, not Rádhd, the latter being his mistress only, not his wife, and being never named in the Bhágavat, except in one ambiguous passage.