srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha srImadh varavara munayE namaha Dear Mani, You have said that you will not discuss this again. However, I will try to present my views here. Again, even I will not try to convince you here. But please do read the following with open mind. -----Quote 1------- For the record I did not find the statements downplaying Maamunigal's greatness in any way acceptable and those who know me know that I have condemned similar disparaging remarks in the past as well. -----Unquote 1------ Mani, though I am replying point by point, I would like to point out one thing here. Even in this message of yours you have not condemned the mail of Anand. As you are aware, all these started from Anand's mail only. When you are finding fault with members of the opposite sect for criticizing AchAryAs of your sect, especially w.r.t to the respect that they deserve, you should also have equally criticized Anand openly for his views. I do not know, whether you are a member of Malolan net or not. But you could have done it in Bhakti list. Remember, the vadagalai-thengalai disputes are always in a highly energized zone and a small spark is enough for the ignition and I am sorry to say that, if you review with open mind, the spark always originated in the form of a book from the Vadagalai side. If you would have condemned Anand's postings in ramanuja list atleast before criticizing my post, I would have kept quite and would have sincerely apologised, to you atleast. But you never spoke a word about it, & on the other hand you started finding fault with my posting where in I have called a spade just a spade. When a review of anything is made, one should review it unbiassed and with open mind. I expected this from you certainly, but..... -----Quote 2----- I only want to write a few more words and I will not discuss this issue again. 1) I am certain that Sri Uttamur Swamy had responses to every question Sri PBA Swamy posed, as would Sri PBA Swamy to every question Sri Uttamur Swamy would have posed. These matters eventually become complex and are an issue of personal faith. Many of them (such as prapatti's svarUpa or the nature of Lakshmi-tattva) simply go back and forth and there will *never* be an objective resolution. Everyone is colored by their background. ----Unquote 2---- Mani, again I agree with you here for your words "These matters are an issue of Personal Faith". True words! But will you still remain silent if your faith is intruded. Remember my quotation from Sri PBA swamy's works regarding swAmy dEsikan's nyAsa dasakam slOka "swAmin! swasEsham...." I have quoted from his books as to how, grossly this slOka has been misinterpreted to support the cause of swapravrutti on the part of jeevAthma. You have seen it. You could have proved me wrong, or for that sake anybody else. But I am not going to celebrate that I have won the case, as I have not received a reply so far. I have to be more cautious and expectant in case of a rebuttal to this. However, what I am trying to drive here is that, matter of faith is okay. But what about the faith due to the matter of, if I can call it, deliberate misinterpretation. The answers given back and forth between two people in argument does not necessarily relieve them of their obligation to establish the truth. For a question in an argument, there can be a reply which makes or does not make sense. What matters really is that whether the common man in both the sampradhAyams, can accept one of the argument, based on logics and sound pramANAs. Again, in particular, is there a rebuttal to this interpretation of Sri PBA swamy on this nyAsa dasaka slOka till date from any one which is convincing to one and all. Please note, I am not talking about persons who are convinced due to blind faith. I am only talking about persons, who have the capability to analyse the value of each of the argument and arrive at a conclusion as to which is the correct one. For that sake, I am convinced like this. The word used is "nyasyathi" (Second person singular)meaning you make me renounce. And all the "swa" sabdham refers to only emberumAn here. If the word would have been "nyasyAmi" (first person singular) it would have conveyed a meaning as there is something, that the jeevAthmA does to earn mOksha. How can one justify the claim that this sloka talks about the effort on the part of the jeevAthmA to earn mOksha. Please note that, there can be another argument to this that, just with one slOka, you cannot find fault with the entire interpretations. There are a lot of such slOkas, referred to by Sri PBA swAmy. I do not want to quote them here. ------Quote 3------ In other words, after a while there is no point to argument and I am not surprised if one side or the other gives up and just goes home to be at peace. -----Unquote 3------ True, but will you go home to rest in peace if your territory is under invasion? -----Quote 4------ 2) The so-called "fanaticism" of Sri Madurantakam Swami is a criticism easily levelled. But for each time he could be so condemned so could many acharyas that are close to your heart. This, simply put, is *not* the way to carry out discourse. I could argue that Sri PBA Swamy has taken Swami Desika out of context here and there, but this gives me no right to ridicule him in public or call him a fanatic. These vidvAns deserve a separate level of respect, not only for their learning, but for their anushThAna and for their status as acharya- purushas in our tradition. Sri Madurantakam Swami was an acharya-purusha of the Eechambaadi aachaan vamsa and has sishyas in this country. At least out of concern for these sishyas we should demonstrate more care, in my opinion. ---Unquote 4----- Mani, I agree very much to the point that I am in no way comparable to any of those swAmys, whom I have 'ridiculed', in terms of knowledge or anushTAnams. But, what good are those knowledge and anushTAnams if they cannot control a person against writing something which will hurt the sentiments of others. If my words criticizing Sri MadhurAnthakam swAmy and Sri DTT swAmy have hurt you, think of it, how much , Sri MadhurAnthakam swAmy's words that the "srisailEsa" thaniyan was only taught to a small boy and was not recited by namperumAL, would have hurt the sentiments of the other sect, especially when he deliberately misquotes and hides passages from a literature which actually upholds and glorifies it (the wound is more when a person like Anand reproduces the same after decades, unnecessarily stirring the hornets). Please do not bring in the term hagiology here. He might have been a great AchArya purushA and would have many sishyAs. Agreed. But remember the tamizh words, yAnai siRuttAl, naayum vAlAttum. I am sure I am the dog here. -----Quote 5------ In other words, critize the *view* and not the *person*. ----Unquote 5----- Please pardon me for saying this. But it only gives me a picture of a helpless advocate who is pleading the cause of his client, by saying that he did not commit the mistake, but his hand only did it? Mani, I did not expect this from a person with high knowledge and analysing capability as you. Talking more philosophically about the above words, a view can be only from the AtmA and the person is just a sarIrA. However, you have to agree that the AtmA is in a sarIrA in this prakruthi and so even if I criticise the view, it is actually pointed towards the AtmA and not towards the sarIra, which is more dangerous. Do you really want me to do this? Atleast I wouldn't. Do you mean to say that the view is different from the person from who it originates? -----Quote 6----- 3) Everyone in the lIla-vibhUti is subject to the three guNas, even great people such as Chaturmukha Brahma. If Sri D.T. Tatacharya Swami, a recipient of the Panditaratna title, or his brother made some errors in reference to a temple mentioned in a paasuram, it does not seem like a hangable offense to me. We should look at someone's merits and not their defects. ----Unquote 6---- Mani, again you have misunderstood my example as the sole incident which made me write it. Remember this was only an example as I have clearly stated in my earlier mail. Forget that temple issue, I know that in many of his books, Sri DTT swAmy has criticised almost all the thennAchArya sampradhAya AchAryas, at times including Sri periyavAcchAn piLLai et al. I can't give references to all in one mail. -----Quote 7----- I will not convince you, I am sure, but I felt duty-bound to at least mention that these great scholars were worthy of respect, certainly more respect than you are giving them. ----Unquote 7---- You are right, you have not convinced me. But remember, a respect comes to a person from his deeds. Remember Sri Rama was praised even by His enemies. Of course nobody can be as perfect as Sri Rama, but atleast try to follow Him. "kaRppAr irAma pirAnai allAl maRRum kaRppArO". Again as I said earlier, yAnai siRutthAl, nAyum vAlATTum. I agree that I am the dog here, but one also has to agree that these people have fallen short of commanding respect. For that sake, take the case of Sri Uttamur swamy himself. I have never criticised him. I only said that he was not able to answer Sri PBA swamy's questions. You have also said that the vice versa is true. Let us now agree to this. So this is what respect is. I would not like to call Sri Uttamur swamy as a fanatic at all. Afterall one should have unshakeable faith in one's sampradhAyam. If Sri Uttamur swamy or for that sake Sri PBA swamy would have criticized the writings (just philosophical) of each other, that means no disrespect. But certainly, calling the other sect AchAryAs as incarnations of kali purusha etc are not at all in the domain of commanding respect and certainly even dogs like me will start barking. -----Quote 8----- May we never forget those paasurams beginning with 'payilum sudaroli', 'nedumaarkku adimai', and 'en adiyaar adhu seyyaar'! ----Unquote 8----- Sure Mani! Finally, you saw Anand's posting. You all hail him as a great upcoming scholar and tomorrow he may be equated with the same Uttamur swamy. Will it look nice if one reads such a posting of this nature in his earlier days. Are you convinced that what he had written is correct. You have not even condemned Anand, who could not even withstand, a person from his sampradhAyam, writing about the glory of "srIsailEsa" thaniyan. All people talk about the unity between the sects. But, tell me honestly, was there a message criticizing Anand in any of the list dominated by vadagalais, for running a tyrade against Sri Madhavakkannan, just for writing about the glory of the "SrisailEsa" thaniyan. Surely, while Sri Madhavakkannan swamy is an example for the unity among the kalais, people like Anand can only grow the dispute and cannot bring an end to this. Instead, he writes as if he is trying to cultivate the unity between the kalais. Great! AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |