You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Jul 2008

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00027 Jul 2008

 
Jul 2008 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear Sri Padmanaban swami,

Two things:

1) Uthamoor swami mentions "Appullar and Desikan may be remembered here."

2)  Definitely Parakala Nayaki seeing SvAmy Desikan appears to be a bit too far and  i stand by my objection  for this.

 Kaliyan and Desikan is not there in Sri Uthamoor swami vyakyanam.
But as I have mentioned in my previous email that Kaliyan seeing Desikan is not too far. When rishis can predict Nammazwar and acharyas, can't Kaliyan predict Desikan? Though Uthamoor swami does not mention this kaliyan-Desikan, I see no academic reason for any apacharam for such an anubhavam too. Kaliyan can very much predict desikan. And Madhavakannan swami clearly mentioned what Obeissance means - that is acharyan praising sishyan not worshipping. I see no reason why Kaliyan cannot predict Swami Desikan's avatharam and do praise(kataksham) to swami desikan? You may have your objection but it need not be valid.

Further,

We are talkign of Uthamur svami on one hand and you are comparing Svami Desikan's with PVP's,. I think this is out of context.

My words are NOT comparison, if you read them again. I only object that PVP swami's can't be the final word for ALL sishyas of ALL paramaparai. The reason being Swami Desikan had shown in many places his differences with PVP swami. Uthamoor swami is an exponent of swami Desikan's preachings and hence his vyakyanams need not revolve about PVP swami's - got it?. Further, if mere mention of Appullar and Desikan for an azhwar paasuram is to be condemned, just because PVP swami does not mention about Appullar and Desikan, then "Thulya-nyAyath" -  NO OTHER ACHARYAN would also deserve to be alluded to any azhwar paasuram - not just Tirunedunthandakam. So am not comparing, but I am stressing and objecting that PVP swami's commentaries are NOT the final words for ALL sishyas.

There is no Svamy Desikan's vyaknAnam for ThirunedunthANdakam and there is no difference of opninion in this context. So let us settle at that.

There is no difference of opinion in this context agreed but my point is since there are difference of opinions between Swami Desikan and PVP swami, PVP swami's cannot be the final word for ALL. Uthamoor swami, being an exponent of Desikan's works can very well be sought as a final word for Desikan's sishyas. So there is no question of revolving about PVP ' swami vyakyanam by ALL.

 As far as i am concrened. Sri PVP vyAkyanam is the only one for ThirunedunthANdakam and whenever there is a differences of opinion like above, i am constrained to point it so.

That is what am saying PVP swami's vyakyanam on Thirunedunthandakam is the final word FOR YOU and not for EVERYONE. Further, you are talking about raising objections. There are two kinds of objections

1) Objections pertaining to philosophy. That is, when someone distort Udaiyavar sidhantham then we object. But we know there are 2 philosophical interpretations in Udaiyavar sampradayam. So when such controversial philosophical interpretations are discussed it is apt to mention whose opinion it is. For eg, regarding Doshabhogyatvam one should mention that it is Pillai Lokacharyar's opinion else it would mislead Desikan's sishyas. So the objection in philosophical issues should be NOT be there for mentioning the philosophy(which may not be ur acharya's views) but the objection should be for NOT mentioning which acharyan's philosophy it is.

2) Objections pertaining to anubhavams:  If someones pours out some anubhavam that hurts and does apacharam to one's own acharya or the sidhantham then that should be condemned, In the current case even the one kalyan-desikan, which is NOT mentioned by Uthamoor, does not come under the category of  (a) apacharam to acharya (b) distortion of siddhantham. since we know rishis predict azhwars, anubhavams can come out as azhwar prediciting and praising Desikan.

I can see only one reason behind objecting other's anubhavams that does not hurt acharya or distort philosophy. But I sincerely hope that is not the reason in your case.

Aravindalochananan




I
 
If you still feel there is a bad taste, i cannot help it and let us stop at that. 
 
Pls. clarify whether Sri UthamUr svAmy did say this ?
 
thanks
dasan
vanamamalai padmanabhan

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 2:12 PM
Subject: Re:

Dear Swami,

No. I did not think that you had scant respect fro swami Desikan since just one mail is not enough to judge a person.

Coming to PVP swami commentry:   I have done kalakshepams in the traditional way under my acharyan and I have learnt PVP's swami commentry for few things. All acharya commentries are to be respected. I dont buy the statement that all vyakyanams got to revolve about PVP swami's vyakyanams. But it is not correct to mention an anubhavam without mentioning the vyAkyAtha's name. Madhavakannan swami had mentioned that he always refers to Uthamoor swami. So people who would like to stick only to PVP swami can skip it and there is no chance for them to get mislead.

Further I dont value the statement that PVP swami's commentry is the last authoratative word. There are many instances in chatusloki, Gadya vyakyanams where Swami Desikan and pointed his own difference of opinion with PVP swami. Since both the acharyas are udaiyavar thiruvadis it is not apt to say Swami Desikan's or  PVP swami's words are the last. Respective sishyas would take their respective acharyan's vyakyanams. So all we need to do is mention the vyakyatha's name. Uthamoor swami seems to have merelt mentioned Appullar and Desikan may be remembered in this instant. Now who has the right to stop Appullar praising Desikan?

When there is no apacharam committed to any acharyas it is not correct to unneccesarily break the following of anubhavams with posts with bad taste.

regards,
AG




--- On Thu, 7/3/08, Padmanabhan <aazhwar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Padmanabhan <aazhwar@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re:
To: "balaji_gop" <balaji_gop@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, July 3, 2008, 7:07 AM

Dear SvAmi,

You are writing that as if that i dont have any respects to SvAmi Desikan
and AppuLLAr.

It is not so.

The fact is that Sri PVP svAmi had given a vyAkyAnam and the fact remains
what is quoted is not in vyAkyAnam

Udayavar did not give vyakyanam-s and that is why emerged the five great
commenatries for TiruvAimozhi. Agreed. However, this does not give us
passport to interpret to our wishes and not along with Sri PVP vyAkyanam.I
feel that Sri PVP svamy's commentary is the only one we have to revolve
around but we can give simple explanations , we can translate into pure
tamil, we can try to give lectures in colloquial language.

If this goes on it will open floodgates for people go on say whatever they
want to their desires.
Neither you nor me can raise or reduce the greatness of SvAmi Desikan
by
doing like this.

I dont agree with your argument and let us stop at this.

Think, tomorrow what will happen if I is start saying that vaykyanam says
this and that and say that it should not just revolve around PVP vyAkyAnam.
It would lead to chaos.

Reg. UthamUr svAmi, i have got hihgest regards for him but i cannot agree
that he can be a substitute for PVP.

A need for refrreing to orignal vyAkyanam is need of the day and these
explanations can at best be helping in understanding the original
vyAkyanam-s,.

The explanations cannot go to the extnet of overshooting the orignal ones.

This is our opinion.

If you have do not concur with this, you are entitled to do so.
dasan
vanamamalai padmanabhan
----- Original Message -----
From: "balaji_gop" <balaji_gop@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Padmanabhan" <aazhwar@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 12:31
AM


Dear Padmanaban swamin,

It is well known that one of the reasons for Udaiyavar not giving a
vyakyanam for Azhwar srisookthis is that people usually dont comment
on a moolam which Udaiyavar already had commented. Thus Udaiyavar did
not want to stop the divyanubhavams of his sishyas from pouring out as
vyakyanams. If PVP swamin's commentary has to be the only commentary
and all anubhavams should be revolving about it then it would mean
that Swami Desikan had committed apacharam by writing Nigama Parimalam.

Coming to the parrot episode. Swami Desikan in Sampradaya prakriya
bhaagam of Srimad Rahasya Traya Saram mentions that he is a mere
parrot who was taught to speak by Appullar. Appullar and Swami Desikan
are Acharya purushaas belong to our Emperumaanaar Darsanam. So it is
apt to mention the anubhavam of Uthamoor swami alluding to Desikan and
Appullar. When Madhavakannan swami clearly mentions
that he is giving
us the divyanubhavams of Uthamoor swami, there is no reason for
confusion. Those who feel that Uthamoor swami's vyakyanams are
saampradayic would relish others would skip it.

Dasan,
Aravindalochanadasanudasan


__._,_.___

Oppiliappan Koil Varadachari Sadagopan
http://www.sadagopan.org




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list