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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00080 Jun 2002

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




SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.
APPAN THIRUVADIGALE SARANAM.

Dear Sri Venkatesh swamin,


Accept my pranam. Well done. you are proceeding in the correct path. Proper investigation with reference to authentic records is the correct approach. Mereconjecturesand assertions over them reveal the biased attitdues.

It is clear that Namperumal returned to Srirangam in 1371 .The presence of Sri VedanthA Desikar who attained Paramapadam earlier,at that time is highly impropable. A great man who waited ,deeply prayed for the Namperumal's return should have sung in plenty to express his pleasure.

Another doubt is to be cleared.

The invasion of Islamic forces in south are on 2 occassions. 1311 and 1327.

Information on 1311 is confusing. It is contended that Namperumal was taken out of Srirangamin 1327. and only valubles were looted in the earlier invasion.. This invasion appear to be mainly targetted toward Madurai. Malik Kafur died in 1318.

The second invasion was by Thuglak. in 1323/1327. Acceptance of exit of Namperumal out of Srirangam in this time by Pillai Lokachariar presents some difficulties.

Period of

Sri. Vadukku Thiru Veedhi Pillai. 1167 A.D. (+ 95).1262.
Sri. Pillai Lokacharier (son)... 1205..He should be 105/6 at the time 1st invasion. Agreeable He should be 12 /16 years older in 1323/1327. Does this fit in? 105+12=127 years. If his date of birth is taken as 1265...This also presents difficulty.

Iy you have any information Kindly enlighten me.


Another interesting information.

The website on Parakala matam reveals this information.:
"'
The orders established by Bhagavan Sri Ramanuja were decaying into dry ritualism and needless sectarian wrangles and disputations internally. ( Does any body have authentic records to establish this information ?)

Swamy Desika, as a foresighted sage towards the close of his divine life realized that unless a new order of Holy Men was not established, there was no way out of this all enveloping darkness. He caused one of his disciples dearest to him to take to asceticism, and established him as the first of a new series of Swamy's and named him as Brahma Tantra Swatantra Jeer in the year Bahudhanya (corresponding to 1338) when rAmAnuja dayApAtraM GYAnavaIrAgya bhUSHaNAm was consecrated. Swamy Desika himself continued to give directions till 1370, when Swamy Desika attained the Holy Feet of the Lord."

( After establishment of this order darkness went away and 2 Sampradhayams dawned and brightened Srivaishnava world ? People went to Court of foreigners to settle religeous disputes !!!!? and became laughing stalk of every body. Today in the common parlance Namam = ' to cheat or get cheated" )

2. Another website maintained gives the Acharya paramabarai as follows.

"The orders established by BhagavanACHARYA VAMSA VRIKSHAM
(written by Sri U.vE Anbil Ramaswamy, U.S.A)


PERIYA PERUMAL and PIRAATTI
|
SRI VISHWAKSENAR
|
SRI NAMMAZHWAR
|
SRI NATHA MUNIGAL
|
SRI UYYAKKONDAR
|
SRI MANAKKAL NAMBHI
|
SRI YAMUNAMUNI
|
SRI PERIYA NAMBHI
|
SRI RAMANUJACHARYA
|
SRI PRANATHARTHI HARAR SWAMI
(KIDAAMBHI AACHAAN)
|
SRI RAMANUJAPPILAAN SWAMI
(KIDAAMBHI)
|
SRI ATHREYA RAMANUJAR
(KIDAAMBHI APPULLAR)
|
SWAMI VEDANTA DESIKAN
|
...........
please trace down to your present AchAryA
(for Srimad Poundarikapuram Andavan AchArya Paramparai, click here)




Sri. Alavandar had 5 great stalwarts under him as sishyas. Thirukoshtiyur Namabi etc., Yet, he appionted the Young (Lakshmanachar) Ramanuja to be his successor to spread Srivaishanvism. His trustworty disciples, with full heart and wish obeyed him and completed the Order. Also, they entrusted their wards as sishyas under Sri. Ramanuja.Further, Sri. Ramanuja appionted Sri. Bhattar ( son of Great Kurathazhvan,) as his ward to spread Srivaishnavism.

From Bhattar, the Acharya Paramapara flows as
Nanjeeyar, Nampillai, Vadakkuthiruveedhi Pillai and Pillai Lokacharyar. This was the Golden period in continuation of Sri Ramanuja's. No body seems to have protested to this leadership.( that is between 1137, Sri Ramanuja's demise and 1311/1323/7, departure of Namperumal). @ TWo centuries of glorious period. During Pillai Lokacharyar's time his contemporary Sri Vedhantha Desikar, young and energitic man had some differences of opinions in sampradhayic matters. Definitely NOT on Sri Ramanuja Siddhantha.

Otherwise he would have made his own siddhantha.

Unfortunately, the Islamic invasion has caused a set back to Srivaishnavism. Pillai Lokacharyar departed with Namperumal to Unknown destination. Sri. Vedhantha Desikar went westward to satyamangalam. That was either in 1311 or 1327. He did not return to Srirangam (as discussed in the begining of this posting. ) Sudddenly it was found, (perhaps after Namperumal's departure from Srirangam,) as per the view of Parakala Mutt description mentioned above, situation has worsened and Sri Vedhantaha Desikar decided to hijack the leadership ? Am Adiyen Correct? So he nominated Brhmathantra Swatantra Jeeyar to be his successor and directed the movement. Did he instruct or order to erase the leaderships of Bhattar to pillailokacharyar ? So that the Acharya Parambarai should continue from Kidambi AAchan. Did he instruct to flout the appointment of Sri. Bhattar by Sri. Ramanuja and take shelter under the broad spectrum of 74 Simhasanathipathis and declare independence ?. Perhaps, this view can be tolerated so far SriBashyam is concerned, ; But, When Baghavat Vishyam is concerned Are these Acharyas unacceptable?.


Sri. Manavala Mamunjgal. in his Upadesa ratnamalai has given the Acharyas who are responsible for the preservation of Thirvaimozhi.

Verse.38. "EmberumanarDharsanamenreitharku ( For Ramanuja Siddhantham)
Namperumal perittu natti vaithar"


39. "Pillan Nanjeeyar Periyavachan pillai
Thellar Vadakkuthru veedhi pillai
Manavala yogi Thiruvaimozhiyaikathha
Gunavalar enru Nenje kooru"

Now, did Sri. Vedhantha desikar find those other than Pillan are not "protectors of " of Thiruvaimozhi and they should be deleted from that exalted position and a new lineage is necessary ?

And also as per 3000 padi Guruparamapara, followed by desika sampradhayam Sri. Manavala Mamunigal seems to have issued instruction that his sishyas should follow desika sampradhaym.

How Fantastic Ideas are occupying the mind and preaching the same to Younger generation ?

Sri. Manavala Mamunigal also points out that there were people who ($) considered AZHVARS AND aRULICHEYALS AS inferior, during his period. He adds such people will fall in hell and are to be avoided.

This view ($) was in existence prior to him also and that was in the period of Azhagiya Manavala perumal Nayanar,( as revealed in ACHARYA HIRUDHYAM), contemporary of Sri. Vedantha Desika. But, Sri. Desika did not rise in revolt against Acharya Paramparai or Did he ?

Is there only one Manavala mamunigal ? or ONE following DesikaSampradhya and another one following "Emperumanar Dharsanam ?

. Does any one will throw light on this ?


Adiyen Ramanuja dsan, T.Parthasarathy.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 vinjamoor_venkatesh wrote :
srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha
srImadh varavara munayE namaha

Dear Members,

Some days back I had posted a message regarding the above topic that came on SV-General for those who are not subscribed to that list. This thread is still continuing and I am presenting my latest reply
to this for your additions and corrections.

Message as posted in SV-General:

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha
srImadh varavara munayE namaha

Dear Members,

I am giving my response to four or five messages in this thread.
Please read through the following;

======1. Sri Mani's mail===========
TV Venktaesh had asked how the mnemonic 'bandhupriya' maps
to a particular year. He is correct that it does not occur
in the names of the years in the 60-year cycle. Rather, it
is based on the kaTapayAdi sankhyA. The name 'kaTapayAdi'
itself describes how this mnemonic works. Each 'varga' of
the Sanskritic alphabet, beginning with 'ka', 'Ta', 'pa'
or 'ya', can be used to encode the numerals 1, 2, 3, etc.
Hence ka = 1, kha = 2, ga = 3, gha = 4, ca = 6, cha = 7,
ja = 8, jha = 9, and as special cases, the nasals 'nga'
and 'nya' are denoted as 0. The same goes for the vargas
beginning with 'Ta', 'pa', and 'ya'. The following link
describes this system in some detail.

http://minchu.ee.iisc.ernet.in/mirror/icm/sang3.htm

Mani

=====End of Sri Mani's mail====================

adiyEn's reply:

I thank Sri Mani for pointing it out clearly. Actually he had done ii
even before. But I overlooked it when I asked this question. I
sincerely apologize for this. Indeed the Salivahana 1293 corresponds
to 'bandhupriya' when decoded using the kaTapayAdhi sankhyA.

But my question is, Sri Mani said that some historians believe that this 1293 is in error and should have been 1283 or 1282. Now since this entire thread is questioning the authenticity of one or another view, let me ask, what is the basis with which those historians tend
to say that this may be in error. When some body questions the
authenticity of some thing, I feel strongly, that he must be having some irrefutable evidences to prove his standpoint. If such evidence
is not available, then those doubts are surely to be discarded.


=====2. Mail From Sri Anand Karalapakkam (part 1)================

> SrI:
> SrImatE nigamAnta mahAdESikAya namaH
>
> namO nArAyaNa!
>
> Dear bhaktas,
>
> In 3000 paDi guruparamparA prabhAvam,
> 3rd Bramhatantra svatantra jIyar has given
> the details about the return of SwAmi DESikan
> to SrIra~ngam.
>
> Just citing two things from it :
>
> 1. SwAmi DESikan composed the following verse
> for the permanent ma~ngaLAsAsanam :
>
> " vidhi vihita saparyAm ....Samita vimatapakshAm
> SAsvatIm ra~ngalakshmeem" {available in DESika
> Stotra mUla Skt books as a separate section for
> ma~ngalAsAsana verses for the four DDs}.
======== end of part 1 of Sri Anand's mail================

adiyEn's reply

Well, I have not gone through the the 3000p padi completely. Is it
very clearly stated in it that Sri dEsikar composed this
mangaLAsAsanam AFTER returning to Srirangam, after namperumAL Himself returned? Please confirm this. I will post my actual question after
your reply.

====Mail from Sri Anand (part 2)======================

> 2. SwAmi DESikan also composed the following verse :
> < In the footnotes, it is written that this verse is present
> as kalveTTu on the madIl-suvar near sEnai-mudaliyAr
> sannidhi> :
>
> " aanIyAnIla-sRu~nga dyutirasita jagatran~janA tan~janAtrES -
> san~jn~yAm aarAdhya kan~cit samayamata -
> nihatyOddhanushkAn turushkAn |
> lakshmIshmAbhyAm upAbhyAm saha nija nilayE svAbhayan -
> ra~nganAtham samyakcaryAm saparyAmakRuta bhuvi yaSaH-
> prApaNO gOpanAryaH ||"

=========End of part 2 of Sri Anand's mail.

adiyEn's reply

Dear Sri Anand, what is the basis of your claim that this was
composed by Sri dEsikar. I do not want references to 3000p padi or
prapannAmrutham etc, because in the inscription, nowhere it is
mentioned that Sri dEsikar composed this. Also I read the "kOil
ozhugu" in tandem with the inscription regarding the return of
namperumAL and the "ozhugu" records this incident as follows:- (For those who are not aware, the "kOil ozhugu" is a historical recording of all the events that are associated with the Srirangam temple which
in our Sri Vaishnava sampradhAyam is addressed as just 'kOil')

...... gOpaNNa uDayArum niravadhika balatthuDanE vandhu, thulukkarai
nissEshamAga azhitthu; singapuratthilum
sakAptham "AayirattirunooRRuth thonnuuRRumoonRil" (please note that the Salivahana year is clearly recorded in words and not numbers. Here the Inscription on the walls of Srirangam and the ozhugu, both uniformly records the year as 1293. So there is no basis for those historians referred by Sri Mani, to have doubted the year of return as inscribed on the walls) sellA ninRa parIthApi varusham (Again, the inscription gives only the Salivahana year 1293. It does not use the
word parIthApi at all. But the ozhugu here clearly used the
word 'parIthApi'. We have seen that both clearly indicate the
Salivahana year as 1293 so it has to be only 'bandhupriya'
or 'parIthApi' and not 'bahupriya' as quoted by Sri Mani) vaikAsi mAdham padhinEzhAm thEdhi thiruvarangam thiruppathiyilE perumALai nAchiyAruDanE ezhundharuLap paNNi, kOil thirukkAppai neekki, periya perumALuDan sErthu prathishTippitthu, thiruvArAdhanamum paNNuvitthu, dharmavarmAvin thirumadhiLil keezhaNDai veLippuRatthilE avarukkuth
(here this avarukku is referring to gOpaNNA) thaniyan koDuttha
vrutthAnthatthai veLiyiTTaruLinAr.
"AnIyAnIla srungadhyuthirachitha.....saparyAm
guruthanijayasOdharappaNO" enRu silAlikitham paNNuvitthAn.


This is what is available in the kOil ozhugu. It is to be noted that neither the inscriptions nor the ozhugu, talks anywhere about the presence of Sri dEsikar. Again, accepting that Sri dEsikar would have composed the slOka, it actually praises gOpaNNA for his wonderful kainkaryam of restoring namperumAL to his grand home. If it is so,
surely this gOpaNNA, who was blessed by Sri dEsikar himself
(according to the claims made), would certainly have made Sri
dEsikar's name also to be chiseled on the walls for the great
kainkaryam that he had done. There is no such thing that is found.

Also according to Sri A. Krishnamachari swamy of Sri Vaishnava Sri, the meters or the style of this slOkA are so very simple that it does not require a "kavithArkika simham" like Sri dEsikar to compose such
thing. On the other hand, if one credits Sri dEsikar with this
slOka , it only brings disrepute to his very title, "kavithArkika simham". So by all means, it is sure that Sri dEsikar could not have composed this slOkam. It is also proved further, after having proved clearly that namperumAL returned to Srirangam only in 1371 or 1372, and accepting the fact that Sri dEsikar attained paramapadham in
1369, Sri dEsikar could not have composed this slOkam at all.


But I see nobody answering Sri SA Narasimhan's very simple
question. "If Sri dEsikar was in Srirangam after namperumAL's return, would he not have composed great slOkAs out of utmost joy as he was
the one who did great mangaLAsAsanam to namperumAL through
his 'abheethisthavam' when He (namperumAL) was in exile?". If one says that the above slOka ("AnIyAnIla..") was the one composed by him, does it mean that, a person, who made more than one slOka out of his utmost concern, would make only one, just one, when his joy would
know no bounds, after safe return of namperumAL. And his other
question is also not answered. When Sri dEsikar himself was there,
why need to go for a blind washerman to prove the identity of
namperumAL. Will there be a person more qualified that Sri dEsikar
himself to identify namperumAL. Sorry, this is
logically "iDichifying".

=====3. Mail from Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli=============

5. in 1335 harihara declares independence from Delhi Sultanate, thus starting the glorious period of Vijayanagara kings (1336 - 1565). he establishes the kingdom with his brother, Bukka - I. The vijay nagara kingdom starts war with the neighbouring muslim kingdoms.

6. The Madurai sultanate (now under tremendous stress) is liberated by Kampana Udaiyar, a prince of the Vijayanagar kingdom, in 1365.


It is possible that Srirangam was liberated in 1365 about the same time as Madurai, giving some time for restoration. The return of Namperumal in 1371 appears to be solid. However, that does not mean
that the temple fucntions did not happen prior to namperumal's
arrival.

It is also possible that the restoration porcess might have started
prior to 1365 even while under the rule of Muslim sultanate of
Madurai due to constant stress from Vijayanagra army.

the vijayanagra army was always fighting some war or other during
their 200 years of existance.

It is possible that Swami Desikar was able to go back to Srirangam after 1365, and witness some of the restoration effort. There is evidence that restoration continued during Sri Manavala Maamuni's
time frame, and past his time as well.

adiyen
Venkatesh Elayavalli

===== End of Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli's mail=============

adiyEn's reply:

Upto your point no. 5 is okay. But you say that it is possible for gOpaNNA to have defeated the muslims in the year 1365. Again what is the basis with which you are saying this. In this regard one can view
the following URL http://www.intamm.com/history/kamban.htm

In this A.Krishnaswamy (Actually written in tamizh as kiruTTinaswAmy, not the A.Krishnamachari of SriVaishnavaSri fame) has written an article with title "tamizhnADum kambaNa uDayArum". In this articles he refers to many other authors who have claimed different dates for kambaNa's victory over muslims and has clearly refuted them proving the year of victory as 1371. He clearly states that so far there are
132 inscriptions found on the victory of KambaNA. He gives the
account that KambaNA entered Tamizh Nadu from Virinchipuram and
defeated the sambuvarAyar, a small king who ruled from Kanchipuram in the year 1361 and goes on to prove that the correct year in which the
Sultan of Madurai was defeated is in 1371 AD based on the
inscriptions available from the temples in Trichy (Srirangam),
ThiruppullANi etc. (These articles are only in Tamizh).

So the correct date of victory over the sultan of Madurai is only 1371. And also since the inscriptions and Ozhugu as referred above clearly indicates the return of namperumAL as 1371 (Salivahana 1293), vaikAsi, the delay between the victory over sultan and return of namperumAL would be only in months (certainly not 12 months) or weeks
and not years as indicated by you.


======4. Sri Krishnamachari's mail (part 1)=================
Dear SrI Venkatesh Elayavalli:

I sincerely appreciate your posting. This is the kind of spirit of approach I was hoping all of us can have in discussing this topic. I
am glad to note that you are approaching the issue so that it
converges to a position that does not have to prove "one side right
and the other side wrong". Based on the facts I have so far, I
believe that the truth is along the lines that you suggest.

========end of part 1 of Sri Krishnamachari's mail)===========

adiyEn's reply:

Dear Sri Krishnamachari swamy, do you still mean to say after so much proofs that one side should not be proven wrong? For what reason you want to say so. We are discussing about the return of namperumAL and Sri dEsikar's presence in Srirangam AFTER namperumAL's return. It is clearly proved ( even Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli says that the return
of namperumAL in 1371 is solid) that
namperumAL returned in 1371. Everyone agrees that Sri dEsikar
attained paramapadham in 1369. Do you mean to say that still one should say that after return of namperumAL to Srirangam, Sri dEsikar lived in Srirangam inspite of attaining paramapadham in 1369 itself.
The logic is begging.

========Sri Krishnamachari's mail (part II)=============
SrI Vinjamoor Venkatesh:


I am still hoping that the actual wording of the stone inscription can help in getting a better understanding of the history that it records. Before we at least clearly know what the inscription says, I am not prepared to conclude anything based on the inscriptions. There may be other stone inscriptions (such as the two Sloka-s in prise of goppaNa, and may be other inscriptions) which need to be reconciled with. After all, these are also stone inscriptions. A
purely research-oriented analysis should look at all the stone
inscriptions relevant to this period, to see what they all record, in addition to the one inscription that is being talked about. Then there are the recordings of other AcArya-s of that time period which some of us may not want to recognize. "History" is a collection of
all the data available, not just one stone inscription. Until
someone clearly establishes that there was one Kampana and a
different "goppaNa" involved in the liberation of SrIrangam, for me
this is an open issue also.
=======End of part II ==============

adiyEn's reply:

Swamy, I think I have fairly reconciled the other two inscriptions also. But remember, the other two inscriptions are only slOkas of praise on gOpaNNA and doesn't talk much about the historical dates. I think I have not let one go and catch only one to prove my point. Also as you said, I have referred all our members to an URL in which, not one but 132 such inscriptions are referred regarding the date of victory of KambaNA over the Muslims. In addition I have also referred
to the kOil ozhugu. Remember, the sequence of happening may be
jumbled in ozhugu, but the facts are recorded clearly. Even in that it is not said that Sir dEsikar composed the slOka "AnIyAnIla..".

Regarding the identity of gOpaNNA with kambaNA doesn't help much in resolving this issue. However, I will clarify this once I get the copy of the Madhura Vijayam which I expect soon. However, be it they are same or are different personalilities, one would agree that this has no implication on resolving the dates of return of namperumAL and presence of Sri dEsikar at Srirangam at that time. I am even ready to agree, till I get the copy of Madhura Vijayam, that both KambaNA and
gOpaNNA are one and the same.

=======Sri Krishnamachari's message (part III)=======

Even though I am not suggesting that stone inscriptions are not
reliable, I am reminded of the great controversy we went through just two years back about our dear vaksha-sthala mahA lakshmi, where there was a non-trivial chance that the decision could have been that there was no vaksha-sthala mahA lakshmi for Lord Ranganathan all along. I wonder what history would have been quoted 700 years from now if the decision had gone the other way two years back. So it does not hurt
to give credence to other points of view on issues, including
authenticity of stone inscriptions. An open-minded discussion should allow for all possibilities, so that the collection of different facts can be reconciled so that internally consistent conclusions can
be arrived at based on all available information.
=========End of part III=======================

Swamy, I believe for sure, that this quote is totally inappropriate for this thread. You are asking, as to what would be the source for proving that Sri Ranganatha had His vaksha-sthala-lakshmi, if it was decided, two years back that He did not have Her. You are expecting me to refer only to AzhwAr's works and other granthAs. I will not disappoint you! One should remember that there are no inscriptions in any temple saying that when a perumAL was consecrated for the first first time, He had a face with two eyes, a nose and two ears and four hands and two legs and a pooNal etc. It is absurd for one to expect so. Here are our AzhwArs who have clearly indicated that He indeed had vakshasthala lakshmi and this is the proof. The intention of this quotation by you is that, if I don't refer to any inscription, as
there are none in this regard, you can very well question the
authenticity of the inscription available today which proves that namperumAL returned in 1371. Please correct me if I am wrong in my study of the obective of this question. What I mean to say is that the inscriptions are one of the authentic resources and also had been made right at the time when the incident had happened. I also quoted the 'Olai chuvadis' and the copper plates as acceptable evidences for history. Now, this is what one should reconcile. The copper plates and Olai chuvadis are to be reconciled with the wall inscriptions (if any available)and arrive at a conclusion. Any method other than this
is only defective.

I surely agree that an open-minded discussion is the best solution and strongly advocate the same. Also the credentials for the other
points can be given only if it has some basis, a basis which is
rooted in one these three proofs, the inscriptions, the Olai chuvadis or the copper plates. If some one just presents a view without a basis or a with a wrong basis, then sure it hurts giving credit to
such thesis.

========5. Sri Malolan Cadambi's mail==========


Gathering from the above evidence, we should do complete justice to both the literary sources such as Swami Desikan's grantham covering the incident as well as the inscriptions in the walls of srirangam.

This approach would be the most professional approach we can take or
rather should take when we discuss history.

=========End of Sri Malolan Cadambi's mail=========

Agreed, Sri Malolan, now based on the above indicated irrefutable historic inscriptions and the kOil Ozhugu docuement can you please do this and prove your point that Sri dEsikar was present in Srirangam when namperumAL returned. Please remember that, as indicated above,
the claim that Sri dEsikar composed the slOka "AnIyAnIla..." is
begging for proof. I am sure that, if Sri dEsikar was alive, he would not have stopped with just one sloka. Instead he would have made one thousand like a pAdhukA sahasram which he did in one night rather. That much would have been his actual joy when he sees his beloved
namperumAL back at Srirangam. Isn't it?

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam
adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan
Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam


Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



_________________________________________________________
There is always a better job for you at Monsterindia.com.
Go now http://monsterindia.com/rediffin/





[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