srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha srImadh varavara munayE namaha Dear Members, A wonderful posting! Please read through Smt Geetha's posting completely. I am happy that there are persons who can raise their voice when a sacrilege is done. As Smt Geetha had said in her mail, even I was trying to gather information and have sent a copy of this message from Sri Dileepan to Sri Puttur Krishnaswamy Iyengar of Sri Vaishnava Sudarsanam fame. No one needs an introduction of him as he is the present day doyen of our sampradhAyam and the numerous articles and books published by him regarding the false proclamations made are still to be answered convincingly. While I could have refuted the postings regarding the prapatti and the varNAsrama dharma, Sri Vacchana bhooshaNam and AchArya hrudhayam, very clearly and deliberately misinterpreted, I wanted to take the opinion of a scholarly person who has devoted his life to this. Again I am planning to disturb two very busy persons, Sri Velukkudi swamy and Sri M.A Venkatakrishnan swamy to get their advise also on this. I will post about this shortly. However, I would just like to add to what Smt Geetha had written based on my limited knowledge. =====Quote 1============ What is "Desika SampradAyam"? (i) Why should MaNavALa mAmunigaL instruct people to follow the above sampradAyam when there were so many great acharyas prior to desikan esp RAmAnujA? (ii)There is absolutely no logic in it(if GPP3000 says so!). (iii)It's like saying: A man(fool)gives credit(for his existence) to every damn soul on earth with the exception of his own mother from whose womb he came. That mother is "RAmAnujA". WHere is the question of "Desika sampradAyam"? (iv)People with half(and less than half)baked knowledge will twist and turn the story to suit their whims and fancies. ==========End Quote 1========================== Very very valid questions. Add to it the following. If Swamy Desikan would really have advocated this, then he should have done vyAkhyAnams only for Swamy Desikan's Sri Sookthis and not for Sri Vachana BhooshaNam or AchArya Hrudhayam, which clearly refutes the vadakalai view point. There is no way one can say that he wrote all things and then realized that the Desika SampradhAyam is the correct but due to non-availability of time he did not do it, for, it is a well known fact that even during his "anthima" days, he used to sit down and write the AchArya hrudhayam vyAkhyAnam and when questioned by his sishyAs, as to why he was troubling himself, he said that "I am writing this for your grandchildren to be benefitted not for me". So it is clear that until his last breath he was only holding the views of Sri Ramanuja and expounded by embAr, bhaTTar, nanjeeyar, nampiLLai, periyavAcchAn piLLai, vadakkuth thiruveedhip piLLai, piLLai lOkAchAryar/azhagiya maNavALa perumAL nAyanAr and thiruvAimozhippiLLai as dearest to his heart. Also in his upadEsaratthinamAlai, nowhere he has mentioned about Swamy dEsikan. One may say that he had glorified only those AchAryAs who were instrumental in propagation of ThiruvAimozhi, but I am sure a person would have certainly included an AchAryA without any doubt, whether he has commented on ThiruvAimozhi or not, if that person asks everybody to follow the sampradhAyam of that AchAryA. Isn't it? Common sense and logic. Again if according to those spurious accounts, if Sri maNavALa mAmuni would have asked everyone to follow Sri Desikan's sampradhAyam, out of utmost respect, then he would have composed atleast a "dEsika dasakam" if not "vimsathi". All of you know that there is nothing like this. So how is it possible that Sri maNavALa mAmuni would have advocated this. Well these are all considering and accepting that Swami dEsikan followed a completely different sampradhAyam other than the thennAchArya sampradhAyam. But in one of the earlier postings I had clearly shown, how, Swamy dEsikan supports only the thennAchArya sampradhAyam, through the slOka, "swAmin!, swasEsham..." and the avatharikai for the "munivAhana bhOgam" where in he clearly states that "kAraNa vasthu innadhendRu aRudhiyidamudiyAtha krupaiyinAlE", speaking clearly about the nirhEtuka krupA of emberumAn. Now if one accepts that swAmy dEsikan was advocating only thennAchAryA sampradhAyam, then there is no wonder, Sri maNavALa mAmunigAL was asking everyone to follow what Sri Desikan have said. ====Quote 2======= These are all concocted(cooked up)stories. I will be very happy to have a copy of GPP3000 and see what's in there! Infact in one site(I don't remember the site,and I'm going to trace and get back to the author)it said,Tirumalai Chakravarthy was a disciple of Swami Desikan. I can swear that Tirumalai Nallan Chakravarthy was a contemporary of Sri RAmAnujA. Infact I will not at all be surprised if GPP3000(after some time) claims that "RAmAnujA as a disciple of Swami Desikan". In the eyes of Quantum Mechanics one can go backwards in Time to tackle the "histories"(and also change the history). So there are people who even manipulate the History(and re-write it to suit their own wild imagination!). =====End quote 2====== Very correct observation! Yes, Thirumalai Nallan Chakravarthy was a sishyA of Ramanuja and is said to have converted even some hunters into Sri Vaishnavaites. These hunters were the ones who helped our Sri Ramanuja when he was in exile due to the atrocities commited by the KrimikanTa chOlan. On seeing their bhakthi when Sri Ramanuja asked them as to who taught them all these things, they replied that it was their AchArya by name Thirumalai nallAn, for which Sri Ramanuja said "nallAn enRa kALamEgham ippadi varshikkiradhE" (The dark cloud named 'nallAn' is pouring the grace and the bhakthi in a great manner so that everyone is benefitted). So undoubtedly Sri Thirumalai Nallan Chakravarthy is a sishyA of Sri Ramanujar and not Sri Desikar. Finally regarding Sri Ramanujar not commenting on Divya prabhandams are indeed due to the fact that, through out his life he was only arguing against the advaitis who are really masters of contradicting statements. I have explained this in my earlier posting on the Sapthagiri magazine blasphemy. Please read through that. However, Smt Geetha has echoed the same thoughts that I had written there and I am sure there can be no second thoughts to this. Having said all the above I would also like to request all the members to read through the postings of Sri Thirunarayanan Parthasarathy swamy who was to have posted the first rebuttal to it in a very very diplomatic manner. Read it in tandem with Smt Geetha's posting. Most of the "concoctions" will come to light clearly. As said, once I get a response from Sri Puttur Swamy, Sri Velukkudi swamy and Sri MAV swamy, I will post them too in the list. AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The information contained in this message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressed individual or entity indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person). It must not be read, copied, disclosed, distributed or used by any person other than the addressee. Unauthorised use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Opinions, conclusions and other information on this message that do not relate to the official business of any of the constituent companies of the SANMAR GROUP shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the Group. If you have received this message in error, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |