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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00018 May 2002

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


srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha
srImadh varavara munayE namaha

Dear Sri Mani and all others in this list,

Please accept my humble pranams. Here, I am attempting to clarify 
certain things about the intentions in my earlier postings regarding 
swAmi maNavALa mAmunigaL's thaniyan. This is in response to Sri 
Mani's mail where in he is pained to see some of the scholars of the 
vadagalai sampradhAyam are hatefully denounced. Sri Mani was 
magnanimous in not mentioning my name in his mail. But I know that I 
was the only one who wrote that and hence I am attempting to clarify 
the same.

Please read through my mail once again. I did use the word fanatics 
to address Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy and Sri D.T.Thathachariar swAmi. 
But I did not use that word for Sri Utthamur swAmy. [Here I would 
like to submit that I need not have brought in Sri Utthamur swAmy's 
name in this at all. However, I included that for a different reason. 
But I apologize for the fact that I have not clearly indicated the 
reason for including Sri Utthamur swAmy's name. I will do it in this 
post later]

It is a well known fact that, there are some difference of opinions 
in some philosophical matters between the two kalais. It is the 
freedom for the individual to follow either of them and be loyal to 
them. I also agree that there is nothing wrong in criticising the 
view of the other sect by one sect on the philosophical matters. When 
difference of opinion is there, these are all normal ones. 

However, what one should refrain from are the personal attacks on the 
persons belong to the opposite sect. You may wonder, what I have done 
now, different from this. Yes, as I said above, I agree that I did 
address Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy and Sri DTT swAmy as fanatics. But 
what made me say this? Please read through further.

Mani, I am surprised that while my mail caught your attention & put 
you in pains, the mail from Anand did not attract you, where in he 
quoted Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy as saying that the "srisailEsa 
dayApAthram" thaniyan was taught by some people to a small boy and 
was made to recite on the day when the "eedu" kAlakshEpam was 
concluded and hence it has no sanctity at all. 

Now please tell me who is hatefully denouncing and insulting vidwAns 
of a sampradhAyam. Is it me or is it Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy. If not 
for fanaticism, what else could be the genuine reason for him to 
write a book like this. If you do not call these fanatics a fanatics, 
what else do you call them. I agree that Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy is 
a great scholar. But did he have the humility to accept/respect the 
feelings of the other sect. Okay, I now agree that even Sri 
Annangarachariar swamy used to write a lot about how, the "rAmAnuja 
dayA pAthram" thaniyan could not be a genuie one and that It is only 
a later day deviced only. I will come to this later in this post.

I am sure you would have browsed through the replies provided by Sri 
Velukkudi Krishnan swAmy and Sri M.A.Venkatakrishnan swamy. They have 
clearly indicated, how conveniently Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy has 
misinterpreted the "yatheendra pravaNa prabhAvam" for supporting his 
views. Any unbiassed person will agree to the clear difference 
between the words "archaka kumAran" and "archaka kumAranAi". [the 
first one means for sure it is the son of the archaka, the second one 
with the suffix "Ai" clearly means, in the disguise of the son of the 
archaka]. May I ask you why did Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy deliberately 
let go this suffix of "Ai" and write a damaging book. Also Sri VK 
swAmy and Sri MAV swAmy have clearly quoted the following passage 
from the same book in which it is clearly said that perumAL made this 
thaniyan to be recited in all the divya dEsams from that day onwards, 
by order through Sri sEnai mudhaliyAr. Why did Sri Madhuranthakam 
swAmy not comment about this in his books. Well please note that I am 
quoting all these from the postings of Anand on Sri Madhuranthakam
swAmy's books. If Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy had really not done this, 
the Anand has to be severly condemned. Let alone the above, I do know 
of some books by Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy where in he had addressed 
the thennAchAryAs as the incarnation of kali purushA. These where 
clearly condemned and criticised by Sri Puttur Krishnamachariar 
swamy, Sri Velukkudi Varadhachariar swamy (no matter whether they 
were thick friends or not) and Sri P.B Annangarachariar swamy. So who 
is hatefully denouncing or insulting vidwAns of the other 
sampradhAyam? Me, who just writes what has happened or these swAmy's 
who initiates heated arguments by such flaring books? Please come to 
a conclusion by yourselves. 

If pointing out the mistakes or such fanatic writings of a person, be 
it a great swAmy or a vidwAn, by a lowly person like me is "hateful 
denouncement", what about those books that these great swAmy's and 
vidwAn's wrote, in which they have denounced great pUrvAchAryAs like 
Sri periyavAcchAn piLLai and Sri NampiLLai. You may be surprised to 
know this. But be assured that this is a fact. I can prove this
from some books by Sri Puttur Swamy.

Mani, I know your stand on these accounts which are hagiological in 
nature. But I am sure, your stand and Sri madhurAnthakam swAmy's 
stand are not one and the same. I am also sure that Sri 
Madhuranthakam swAmy respected the hagiological accounts w.r.t the 
vadagalai sampradhAyam. So you cannot say that one should not attach 
importance to such hagiological accounts. Comparisons and hence 
evaluations have to be made on the same plane. Even if one agrees to 
your view that these are only hagiological in nature, there was no 
necessity for Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy to denounce it by deliberately 
misinterpreting the grantha and subsequently hiding the facts too. 

Here I would like to comment about my reference to Sri Utthamur 
swamy. I know that Sri Utthamur swamy, while he was involved in 
arguments or debates which are philosophical in nature, he never 
indulged in personal attacks. So I was trying to write that even Sri 
Utthamur swamy could not reply to many questions from Sri PBA swamy 
on philosophical matters. I do agree and apologize that my earlier 
mail gave a picture as if I have said that, even Sri Utthamur swAmy 
did such cheap acts of personal attacks. I really feel sorry for not 
being clear in my earlier message.

On the note regarding Sri PBA swAmy writing about the rAmAnuja dayA 
pAthram thaniyan being a later day composed one, please note that he 
wrote about this only based on the actual sanskrit meters for slOkas 
and other vyAkaraNAs. He never misinterpreted the works of a 
vadagalai scholar deliberately or for that sake misquoted them. What 
is to be condemned is the so called smart act of trying to used the 
literature of the other sect to disprove their own philosophy, MORESO 
when the text is very clear in upholding the philosophy.

Now coming to Sri DTT swAmy, I just will quote just one example from 
a book which I read recently. His brother (Sri Varaha thathachariar) 
published a book by name "Thiruvarangam" [even many vadagalai 
scholars were of the opinion that Sri DTT swAmy's brother was not so 
scholarly a person that he can write a book like even this one where 
there is no traceability of any truth) where in he said that a place 
called "thiruvarangam" near thirukkOvilUr is the actual 
"thiruvarangam" sung by AzhwArs in some pAsurams. Of course he did 
not say that Srirangam is not at all a divya dEsam. He was only 
trying to create an image for his place as a divya dEsam. This book 
was clearly countered by Sri Puttur Krishnamachariar swamy through 
his book "SriRangaRaja Vijayam" wherein he asked certain questions to 
Sri DTT swAmy proving how silly his research is. An example from that 
book will prove how, egoistic was his view that he even wrote 
something personally attacking Sri Puttur swAmy for asking such 
questions to which he cannot reply. The example is as follows ;- 
Sri DTT swamy used a pAsuram from periya thirumozhi (5-5-9) in which 
there is a word "chandOgan". This pAsuram is on NamperumAL. This word 
was interpreted by Sri PeriyavAcchAn piLLai as having its root in the 
word "chAndhOgya upanishad". But Sri DTT swamy wrote that this word 
is referring to the chAndhOgya vimAnam in his village temple of 
thiruvarangam and hence Sri Thirumangai AzhwAr was only singing about 
his place and so this is a divya dEsam. But Sri Puttur swamy proved
that Sri DTT swamy was clearly wrong and all his writings were only 
driven by his love towards his native place and there is no proof to 
substantiate his claim that the village of "thiruvarangam" on the 
banks of the peNNai river is actually a divya dEsam. On seeing this 
rebuttal, Sri DTT swamy could not even open his mouth. Important fact 
is that, though he belonged to the vadagalai sampradhAyam, not a 
single scholar belonging to this sampradhAyam accepted this research 
book of his. He even went to the extent of saying that swAmy 
dEsikar's nyAsa thilakam was sung in praise of Sri Ranganathan of 
this thiruvarangam only, when clearly everyone irrespective of the 
kalai have accepted that this was sung only on NamperumAL of 
Srirangam. Sri DTT swAmy was in fact, more vigorous hater of the 
thennAchArya sampradhAyam than Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy and if I 
attempt to give examples of them, a single mail (which is already 
very very long) is not at all enough.

So I wish to say here that I was not denoucing any vidwAn, but only 
calling a spade, a spade. Hope you will agree to this after my 
clarification above. Also I hope you will understand the sentiments 
of this sect of people, when one condemns their AchArya. Do you still 
say, calling Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy as just fanactic, is 
a hateful denouncement and messages contain high level of acidity.

Lastly, if a thennAchArya sampradhAya vidwAn would have called swAmy 
dEsikan or his immediate sishyAs as having "alpa buddhi", what would 
have been the reaction on the bhakthi list or malolan net. I am sure 
you know what kind of posts would have come up. So this is purely 
hurting the sentiments of one sect. Also I have given subtle proof, I 
think, to let you know that the word 'fanatics' used for Sri 
Madhuranthakam swAmy and Sri DTT swAmy are not just emotional in 
nature but is based on their own deeds. 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam
adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan
Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh



--- In ramanuja@xxxx, Mani Varadarajan <mani@xxxx> wrote:
> 
> Dear Members,
> 
> I was browsing some articles on the "ramanuja" email group
> from early April 2002 and was quite shocked to see vitriolic
> messages hatefully denouncing Sri Vaishnava vidvAns such
> as Sri Madurantakam Veeraraghavachariar Swami, Sri Uttamur
> Veeraraghavachariar Swami, and Sri D.T. Tatachariar Swami. 
> Yes, these scholars were Vadagalai and held different viewpoints 
> from many on this list, but that is no excuse to show such
> disrespect to scholars of this magnitude. Such disrespect
> shouldn't be shown to any human being, for that matter. I should
> add that it doesn't matter that it was in response to an email
> about Swami Manavaaala Maamunigal. Two wrongs don't make
> a right.
> 
> To those who do not know, Sri Uttamur Swami was a guru to
> many of the Thengalai sampradaya's brightest stars, including
> Sri Velukkudi Varadachariar Swami, Sri T.A. Krishnamacharya
> Swami, Sri M. Narasimhachariar Swami and others. Sri Uttamur
> Swami's editions of many sampradAya granthas such as 
> Bhagavad Ramanuja gItA-bhAshya with tAtparyacandrikA, SrutaprakASika
> on SrIbhAshya, and the upanishad-bhAshyas of Sri 
Rangaramanujacharya 
> are the standard editions used by scholars and students within
> and without the Sri Vaishnava sampradAya. 
> 
> Sri Madurantakam Swami was, as Sri Velukkudi Krishnan personally
> told me, one of Sri Velukkudi Varadachariar Swami's closest
> friends, so much so that they would be willing to 'pisingify' 
> sAdham for each other (Sri VK's literal words). If these two
> stalwarts of their respective traditions could show such
> regard for each other, should we show any less?
> 
> Sri D.T. Tatacharya Swami, for whatever else one may say,
> was a great scholar of SrIbhAshya who wrote a brilliant defense
> of Visishtadvaita in his 'visishTAdvaita-siddhi', as a partial
> rejoinder to an Advaita attack on the fundamentals of the system.
> 
> It is a great thing to exalt one's acharyas, but such a thing
> should never come at the expense of others. Please -- I beseech
> members and the moderator to exercise control in this regard.
> 
> quite pained,
> aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
> Mani




[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