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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00043 May 2002

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


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




[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