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
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |