You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Jun 2002

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00054 Jun 2002

 
Jun 2002 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha
srImadh varavara munayE namaha

Dear Members,

Please read this wonderful posting in sv-general by Sri 
S.A.Narasimhan. Beautiful! Irrefutable arguments.

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam
adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan
Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh


-- In sv-general@xxxx, "s_a_narasimhan" <sanarasimhan@xxxx> wrote:
Dear Bhakthas,
My humle pranams

Shri. Mani wrote :-
------------
Mukundan, I never said that it's a definite conclusion
that Namperumaal came back in 1371. All I said is that
there are a couple of inscriptions on the Srirangam
walls which praise Gopanna Udaiyar and which are dated
to 1371.
------------- 
The inscriptions are cut in the eastern wall of the rAja-mahEndran 
(second) tiru-c-chuRRu (enclosure).     
It is highly unlikely that inscriptions will be chiseled years after 
the event took place. Moreover are there any works of Sri.Desika 
which was written after Nam-perumal's return?
--------------
Shri. Mani wrote:-
One would be hard pressed to come up with a 
reason for his presence in Srirangam unless Srirangam
was liberated by then.
---------------
Sri.Desika praying for the restoration of Lord Sriranga to His abode 
in Srirangam, and for the return of peace and piety in Srirangam, 
composed the prayer into the hymn 'abheeti-stavam'.
Definitely after return of Nam-perumal, he would have definitely have 
expressed his joy and happiness into verses ? the veritable lion 
among poets and philosophers he was.
Are there any works of Sri.Desika which was written after Nam-
perumal's return ? Or is such a work lost ? If lost, is there any 
reference to such a work by a later Acharya?
---------------
Shri. Mani wrote:-
Inscriptions indicate that
the Gopanna Udaiyar defeated the occupying forces in the year
known as 'bandhupriya', which corresponds to 1371 in the
Julian calendar. Some historians believe this inscription is
in error and that it should be 'bahupriya', meaning 1360.
Swami Desika passed away from bhUloka and attained
paramapada in 1369. All texts are universal in reporting
this event. This means that Srirangam was probably restored
earlier, or the inscription was chiseled later, or that
Swami Desika did not see the full reinstallation of Sri
Ranganatha at Srirangam. The first two alternatives are
more plausible given the historical record.

My personal recollection of the research is
that Srirangam was liberated sometime in the 1360s.
This tallies well with the account that Swami Desika
was present during the restoration of Srirangam.
------------------------------

When inscriptions are made they are meant to be correct, at least 
correct about the time they are engraved. If at all mistakes are made 
would not the responsible persons at that time point out and take 
actions to correct the same ? especially when such a grave one is 
made i.e. putting back history by nearly 11 years (1371 to 1360). I 
think there would have been enough people at Srirangam who would have 
known the difference between `bandhupriya' and
`bahupriya'. Is it 
implied that this mistake was intentional?
Mani, it is not binding on you, but since these dates seem to create 
more confusion rather than clear I would be grateful if you can give 
details of the research and other records of the same.
There seems to so many versions, GP3000, kOyil-ozhugu, and also 
Shri.T.K.T.V's own version!.

Also, Shri. Sadagopan wrote:-
----------------------------
it is generally accepted that Swamy Desikan ascended to parama Padham 
in 1369 C.E at Srirangam.
The date of 1371 C.E as the date of return of Lord RanganAthA
to Srirangam is shaky.
He returned much earlier and Swamy Desikan celebrated the Adhyayana 
Uthsavam and enjoyed PerumAL Sevai for a few years before He was 
called back to SrI Vaikuntam . This is the generally accepted view.
--------------------------
We have solid evidence in form of inscriptions which point out to the 
fact that Nam-perumal returned in 1371. What could make this shaky.? 
Nam-perumal is supposed to have been taken to Chenjee before being 
brought to Srirangam. Gopanna Udaiyar being instrumental in bringing 
back Nam-perumal, and being the ruler of Chenjee, would definitely 
have loved to have Nam-perumal in his State for same time before 
restoring him to Srirangam! 

My original question in previous posting, regarding two Utsavars and 
the role of washer man in identifying Nam-perumal ( and hence the 
name Nam-perumal ) remains. I am once again repeating the same ?
---------------------------------
I have a question here:-
I have heard from elders regarding the controversy of two Utsavars 
at Srirangam during this tumultuous period, and the role played by a 
washer man in identifying Nam-perumal. 
My question is that if SriDesika was alive during the return of Nam-
perumal would he not have identified Nam-perumal? Who else is more 
fitting than him to identify Nam-perumal? Why seek the help of a 
washer man? Or is the entire episode a later day addition? This 
episode has been narrated by SriKrishna Premi . 
---------------------------------

If the above incident is true, when did the above incident take 
place? 1360s, 1371 or later?
I once again request elders to enlighten me on the above. As already 
mentioned, Sri Krishna Premi Swami has narrated this episode in his
" 
Aranganum Acharyargalum" . 

I once again request elders to clarify on this point.

Adiyen Ramanuja Daasan,
Narasimhan
--- End forwarded message ---






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