Biographies of Sri Ramanuja

[Guest guest]

Recently there was a question raised about the "authenticity" of an episode

in Sri Ramanuja's life. The particular incident under consideration deals

with caste issues, and as Sri K. Srinivasan points out clearly, Ramanuja has

shown himself to be against discrimination based on caste in devotional

matters. Hence, this episode is puzzling and does seem admittedly against

Sri Ramanuja's usual code of behaviour. However, since I am not an

authority on all biographies of Ramanuja -- and there are several of them --

and also because P. Sri and C.R. Srinivasa Iyengar have mentioned it, I

would be more inclined to research the origins of the story than to dismiss

it immediately. The other prominent biographies of Sri Ramanuja include

(apart from those listed by Sri K. Srinivasan) Sri Ramanuja Vaibhavam by

Vadivazhagiya Nambi Dasan (possibly 15th cent ; he also composed Alvargal

Vaibhavam); Andhra Purna's Yatiraja Vaibhavam; Desika's Yatiraja Saptati;

Prapannaamritam (1st part, Ramanuja Charitram) etc. One must also list two

Guruparamparaa prabhaavams. *This story, as far as I remember, is not in

any of these biographies *( I could be wrong; both Ramanuja Vaibhavam in

Tamil verses and Prapannamritam in Sanskrit verse are very long pieces).

Episodes from Sri Ramanuja's life are also found in the Tiruvaymoli and

other commentaries. In some places, his opinion is quoted (nirvahangal),

and in others a particular incident (aitiham) is narrated. I have listed

the Bhagavad Vishayam passages where these are found in an appendix to my

book The way and the goal (1987); if there is any interest, I can quickly

cite the verse numbers in a later posting. Other incidents from the

acharyas lives are narrated in Vaarta maalai. This book is just a set of

unrelated anecdotes, most of them not more than a paragraph long. I will

try to check this in the next few days to see if the incident is there. We

must also remember that some sthala puranams may bear testimony to some

incidents in Sri Ramanuja's life; the incident under question may well be

from that source. In any case, the point is that we have several narrations

within our sampradaya on Sri Ramanuja's life and the audiences and times for

all of these have been varied. Some may expand on some incidents; for

instance, the Prapannamritam is fairly long on the Ramapriya/ Tulukka

nacchiyar/Melkote story. Similarly, the Divya Suri Caritam gives unusual

stories in the lives of the alvars which I have not found elsewhere--

Nammalvar is posited as Andal's uncle, and one of the longest svayamvara

scenes with descriptions of the lords (different manifestations of Visnu)

from almost all the divya desas are given. Without having a command on all

of these resources, I would hesitate to pass judgment on the authenticity of

the story, although, as I said before, it does seem highly unlike Ramanuja.

I am also conscious that many of our sampradayas have some similar

narratives with congruent themes. Sri K. Srinivasan points out that this

incident may be from Sri Sankara's life, and certainly we have heard it in

his biography. One may also point out the similarity in the contexts of the

compositions of a hymn attributed to Sankara (Kanakadhara stotram) and the

Sri Stuti of Vedanta Desika. There are other similar stories. Thus, given

the puzzling fact that the story does not seem to fit in with the rest of

Sri Ramanuja's life, it is worth looking at further. I will try to check

Vaarta maalai (I'm almost definite it is not in the other texts) and write

soon.

Vasudha Narayanan, University of Florida

[Guest guest]

> If Nammaazhvaar was the supreme to Madhurakavi, if Sri Ramanuja

> was the five dhivyaayudhaas for amudhanaar, *in the same way*,

> nothing more, why can't maNavaaLa maamunigaL be AdhisEshaa

> for then aachaaryaa follwers? Why can't Swmai Sri Desikar

> be the amsam of Thiru Mani for vada kalai Sri Vaishnavaas?

 

Pardon me for entering into what seems to be an internal SrI vaishNava issue,

but it seems to me that considering nammAzhvAr and rAmanuja to be amSas of

the Lord would be acceptable to all, but not so in the other two cases. Unless

the vaDakalai-tenkalai divide is sought to be crystallized further.

 

It is the general Indian tendency to glorify the gurus of our tradition, to the

extent of deifying them. But the moment this is done with an intention of

one-upmanship, sourness results. To take a specific case from the advaita

tradition, some modern advaitins want to find support for SankarAcArya's

avatAra in the SatarudrIyam of the yajurveda. Other learned advaitins, however,

point out that this is not desirable, because the interpretation is far-fetched.

The point is that in the drive to declare our gurus to be amSas of one or the

other thing associated with divinity, we are apt to get carried away and make

hagiographic claims that only serve to cloud the real personalities, in the

long run.

 

Also, if it is claimed that maNavAla mAmuni is to be considered AdiSesha by

tenkalais and vedAnta deSika as tirumaNi for vaDakalais only, this is not

very helpful, is it? It is reduced to the level of aitIkam, rather than upheld

as really real. It cannot be logically defended, excpet through the adoption

of very advaitin-sounding arguments. I doubt if SrIvaishNavas would want to

do that.

 

Regards,

 

S. Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

>

> I pay my respects to Sriman NArAyanA, and his divine consort Sri.

> I pay my respects to SadagOpA, Naathamuni, YamunA, and Ramanuja.

> I pay my respects to all the vaishnavAs in this mailing list.

>

>

 

 

Premises:

 

ARe you suggesting that you wrote these lines simply becasue you

are paying respect to all the persons listed in the 3 lines due to their

*age* (or they appeared on this earth prior to you)

or respect them becuase you believe what they say with faith ?

if you say it is mere respect out of age then you are not even

accepting that Sriman Naaryaana and his divine consort Sri are the GOD.

In that case please donot read the follwoing.

> ======

>

> It appears like a few people in this mailing list find Mani's

> objections to certain postings from elder Bhakthas distasteful.

> I have myself found a few postings from Mani to be harsh,

> especially the ones in response to Sri Ramaswamy's postings.

 

 

Sri Ramaswamy had learnt saasthraas under the jeer's of two respected

mutts. So if Ramaswamy is not elaborating on certain things please say so.

Noone can justify by commenting that his posts are to be evaluated for merits ?

Due to his gurupaarampariyam (ie learning directly from jeers) If he is even an

young kid by age, his postings are to be respected and we are *not qualified*

to rate them.

> I

> respectfully submit that age of the poster be not considered in

> evaluating the merits of a posting.

 

is there any merit in this and other such statements

when they are appeared to

have stumbled and look confused in the usage of terminology

*respect* several times above ? If we understand what is respect

then we *will not* attempt to *find merit* on some posts which are

way above our perception and the available, already acquired

*limited* knowledge.

 

>I only have to mention

> Bhattar and Nanjeeyar, in this connection.

>

 

 

 

> The lighthearted comments by Mani quoted above, in fact makes a

> very important point. It cautions us not to compare any of our

> AcharyAs with the traditional western view of the prophets,

> papacy etc. I myself do not like using the words 'Pontiff' to

> refer to the matAdhipathis in India.

>

 

If it is convenient for us can we use western philosphy and

compare jesus in this forum (there was a discussion several days back

on this) and rule out such comparison now as it doesnot somehow suit

our impulses now ? Are we consistent in our approach when we say this

(as said by you above) ?

> VedAntA does not ask us to believe something merely because it

> has been brought to us by the "claimed messengers" of IsvarA. Sri

> Ramanuja did not ask us to believe his words blindly nor did he

> ever claim that he was a prophet or even an avatArA of AdisEsha.

>

> I find it disturbing that several hagiographies, and in

> particular the sectarian portions of the guruparampara

> prabhAvam(s) trying to upstage one another by projecting one

> person as an amsA of Parabrahman or one of His attendents, in a

> bid to legitimise one set of views over the other.

>

 

 

Totally wrong assumption. No one seek to *legitimise* anything

over the other simply by saying they are avathaarams of such and such.

As I have suggested when *complete* faith is lacking one will get

confusions such as this.

 

> In particular, the efforts to show Sri manNavaaLa maamuni as

> another avatArA of AdisEsha and hence his views as that of Sri

> RamAnujA himself - who is thought to be an avatArA of AdisEsha -

> and therefore the "right" one as opposed to that of, say,

> Desikar. Where is the pramANA for all this?

>

> It is perfectly possible that all the AzhvAr and AchAryA were

> mere jeevAtmA like us who through the grace of IsvarA and

> brahmagyAnA attained their mukti.

 

 

It is a very *attractive* logical argument and avoids the truth told by

lineage of achaaryaaLS.

 

Swami Desikan HIMself had delivered *directly* in one slOkam and

hinted in few others on *part* of

his avathaara rahasyam. I am not authorised to say those

but however if you wish you may ask any of the achaaryaaLS

in his gurupaarampariyam, *after* you pay your *respects*

(once you resolve and observe this terminology *respect*)

in line with the *protocols* of such mutt and ask them for this

slOkam.

 

>If they all were one or the

> other amsA of the Brahman Himself, and only such people attained

> mukti, is there any point at all in us, mere mortals, in trying

> to understand vedAntA and aspire to attain mukti?

>

> If that may be the case, why would other jeevanmuktAs like the

> succeding AchAryAs wrote and claimed that the AzhvArs & AchAryAs

> before them were in fact nityasUris?

>

> It has to be noted that beliefs of this kind stay only within a

> sampradAya. Naturally so! Because, the pramANA for all this does

> not come from texts that are commonly accepted by all the

> sampradAyAs,

 

Lack of faithful knowledge and the extraordinary confidence on one's own

knowledge as complete makes one beleive that they know

all the texts. For example the slOkam on swami desikan's avathaara

rahasyam delivered by Swami HIMself is not known to you yet. For many reasons

some of the holy slOkams are not available to us in the form of

a book store literature. However these are known to our achaaryaaLS

and are conveyed in their paarampariyam to their successors and as well

*faithful* bakthaaLS. So without knowing these,

it is not wise to question or

even conclude avathaara rahasyaam of our achaaryaaLS and azhwaars

on the basis of some *logical inquisition* alone which was

in anyway developed by the *some of the

(not even all) book store literatures*.

Untill one get the upadEsam from a guru or achaaryaaL in the lineage

of such philosphy, their knowledge is considered insufficient to question

or rate others who are especially trained by achaaryaaLS.

The only praMANA is such that it is preached by a guru or achaaryaaL

and that such praMANA *can not* be obtained from a

literature from a book store.

Becuase achaaryaaLS preach only truth and nothing else.

 

SR

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 17:58:18 -0400 Badri said:

>

>Sri Dileepan wrote:

>

>

>* In my understanding no one has ever forced an universal

>* acceptance of any of these beliefs. I find nothing wrong

>* in celebrating the memory of ones own achaaryaas by

>* equating them to certain amsaas of the Lord.

>

>This is precisely the problem. If I consider my AchAryA

>as _equal_ to Sriman NArAyanA, I believe that I am

>committing a mistake. If I consider that both are to be

>respected, and in that sense group them together as ones

>worthy of respect, that is perfectly fine. We have great

>examples of madhurakavi himself, and then thiru

>arangaththu amudhanAr. madhurakavi says "thEvu maRRu

>aRiyEn". We can quibble much about this point. However do

>you honestly believe that madhurakavi was denying the

>existence of Sriman NArAyanA, and claiming that sadagOpan

 

 

Please tell me where I gave such an impression, either

ditrectly or indirectly.

 

>is the parabrahman ? I do not think so. He will be a

>'blasphemer' if he really meant so! You say that you do

>not find anything wrong at all "in celebrating the memory

>of ones own achaaryaas by equating them to certain amsaas

>of the Lord." So you do agree that it was a mere figment

>of imagination on the devotees part and that there is

>indeed no support for such ?

 

 

Your protests seem very strange to me. If you are

prepared to accept "dhEvu maRRaRiyEn" of madhurakavi

AzhvAr, could you not apply the same "suuport" for

 

 

"adaiyaar kamalth thalarmagaL kELvan kaiyaazhiyennum

padaiyodu naandhagamum padar thaNdum oN saarngavillum

pudaiyaar purisangamum indha boodhalam kaappadhaRkenRu

idaiyE iraamaanusa muni aayina in^n^ilaththE."

 

-- 33 iraamanusa nooRRandhaadhi

 

and accept that Sri Ramanuja is an amsam of the five dhivya

Ayudhaas of Sriman Narayana? Thats all I am asking for,

nothing more.

 

If Nammaazhvaar was the supreme to Madhurakavi, if Sri Ramanuja

was the five dhivyaayudhaas for amudhanaar, *in the same way*,

nothing more, why can't maNavaaLa maamunigaL be AdhisEshaa

for then aachaaryaa follwers? Why can't Swmai Sri Desikar

be the amsam of Thiru Mani for vada kalai Sri Vaishnavaas?

 

 

-- Dileepan

[Guest guest]

I have tried answering a few follow-up postings generated

by my little note this morning.

 

I do not mean to disrespect the learned Vaishnavas in

this forum.

 

 

Sri Jaganath wrote:

 

* With respect to Badri's comments on what will happen to mere jivatmas

* if all Acharyas claimed to be Nitya Suris, I wish to submit the

* following:

 

I did not say that the AcharyAs themselves claimed that

they are nityasUris. It is their followers who claim so.

 

* Swami Desikar states in the RTS that every jivatma is meant to be a

* prince like the Kaustubha gem, and that he (it should be a better

* word) has forgotten this relationship due to evil desires and

* passions.

 

I do not dispute this at all. My suggestion was that,

even the AzhvArs as well as swami DEsikar himself are

jeevAtma, only they could realize the TRUTH unlike us.

The claims that they were not mere jeevAtmAs but rather

nityasUris or the BhagavAn Himself are the ones I am

objecting to.

 

[...]

 

* One need not bemoan what will become of us if all acharyas are

* claimed as amsas of Narayana. When we surrender we too will become

* amsas of Sriman Narayana and will enjoy bliss serving Him.

 

No, no. I was not bemoaning what would become of us if

all AchAryAs are claimed as amsAs of Sriman NArAyanA.

That was rather a rhetorical question. If all the

liberated souls are portrayed as an amsA of Sriman

NArAyanA or His attendents even before their attaining

the liberation, it would imply that only such people can

attain liberation. That is what I was objecting to.

 

=========

 

 

Sri Dileepan wrote:

 

[...]

 

* >If that may be the case, why would other jeevanmuktAs like the

* >succeding AchAryAs wrote and claimed that the AzhvArs & AchAryAs

* >before them were in fact nityasUris?

* >

*

*

* Were AchAryaas jeevanmukthaas?

*

* Are AzhArs and AchAryAs considered NithyasUris?

 

Yes. The work 'NityasUri vaibhavam(??)' apparently talks

about many AchAryAs as NityaSuris. In any case, all

AzhvArs are considered NityasUris as per the Sri

Vaishnava belief, and is so explicated in the

guruparampara prabhAvam.

 

[...]

 

* >It has to be noted that beliefs of this kind stay only within a

* >sampradAya. Naturally so! Because, the pramANA for all this does

* >not come from texts that are commonly accepted by all the

* >sampradAyAs, and hence only of spurious or limited value.

*

*

* In my understanding no one has ever forced an universal

* acceptance of any of these beliefs. I find nothing wrong

* in celebrating the memory of ones own achaaryaas by

* equating them to certain amsaas of the Lord.

 

This is precisely the problem. If I consider my AchAryA

as _equal_ to Sriman NArAyanA, I believe that I am

committing a mistake. If I consider that both are to be

respected, and in that sense group them together as ones

worthy of respect, that is perfectly fine. We have great

examples of madhurakavi himself, and then thiru

arangaththu amudhanAr. madhurakavi says "thEvu maRRu

aRiyEn". We can quibble much about this point. However do

you honestly believe that madhurakavi was denying the

existence of Sriman NArAyanA, and claiming that sadagOpan

is the parabrahman ? I do not think so. He will be a

'blasphemer' if he really meant so! You say that you do

not find anything wrong at all "in celebrating the memory

of ones own achaaryaas by equating them to certain amsaas

of the Lord." So you do agree that it was a mere figment

of imagination on the devotees part and that there is

indeed no support for such ?

 

 

=========

 

Sri Kaushik wrote:

 

* Badri writes:

*

* *** I respectfully submit that age of the poster be not considered in

* *** evaluating the merits of a posting. I only have to mention

* *** Bhattar and Nanjeeyar, in this connection.

*

* I agree, but age should temper the tone and character of the way

* one responds. A child can be censured readily, an elder, in my

* opinion, should not. This is *not* and has *never* been the Vedantic

* tradition. If my understanding of the biographies are correct,

* Ramanuja cried at Yadava Prakasa's misinterpretations, and *only* when

* asked, did he make his objections known. He did not laugh at him or

* slight him before his disciples.

 

I humbly note your point. I am not advocating that elders

be laughed at. But at the same time, I am requesting that

age be not brought up in dismissing a posting. As for

myself, I respect every one in this forum irrespective of

their own beliefs which may or may not agree with me.

 

 

* *** VedAntA does not ask us to believe something merely because it

* *** has been brought to us by the "claimed messengers" of IsvarA.

*

* On what basis are we to accept the Pancaratra texts? Especially the

* portions pertaining to the rituals, constructions of temples etc.

* I see no "logical" basis than merely accepting "blindly" that these

* scriptures were directly given to us by "messengers" of IsvarA.

 

Yes. I do realise that the Sri Vaishnava belief system is

founded upon the prastAnathrayI materials, pancaratra

AgamAs and AzhvAr prabandham. So do we follow several

other smrti texts including RAmAyanA and MahAbArathA. My

point was that the works by Sri RAmAnujA are valuble in

themselves and not in the least because he "happened" to

be an avatArA of AdisEshA.

 

[...]

 

* *** I find it disturbing that several hagiographies, and in

* *** particular the sectarian portions of the guruparampara

* *** prabhAvam(s) trying to upstage one another by projecting one

* *** person as an amsA of Parabrahman or one of His attendents, in a

* *** bid to legitimise one set of views over the other.

*

* You may call it sectarian, but I think it is a very common feature of

* Indian thought and culture (if I am not mistaken, there is significant

* "historical" evidence to believe that Kamakshi, now an avatara of

* Parvati, was once "merely" a Queen). It is merely the Indian way of

* bringing the abstract to the concrete.

 

But that do not validate the claims, do they ?

 

 

* Furthermore, it seems very much the *Vedantic* tradition to lift ones

* Guru to the loftiest heights of esteem. It is peppered throughout the

* Puranas, and even in the Upanishads (viz. Matru Devo Bhava, Pitru

* Devo Bhava, Acharya Devo Bhava..). It is only undestandable that a

* pupil views his Acharya as God incarnate and seeks to find God in all

* his behaviour.

 

I fully agree with lifting one's Guru to the loftiest

heights of esteem. After all, without the help of Guru,

no one can cross the ocean of samsArA. A person like

Arjuna was fortunate enough to have Sri KrishnA Himself

as Guru. But calling one's Guru as an avatArA of Sriman

NArAyanA (or His attendents) without any valid scriptural

quote is not right.

 

=========

 

Sri Sampath Rengarajan wrote:

 

* > I pay my respects to Sriman NArAyanA, and his divine consort Sri.

* > I pay my respects to SadagOpA, Naathamuni, YamunA, and Ramanuja.

* > I pay my respects to all the vaishnavAs in this mailing list.

* >

* >

*

*

* Premises:

*

* ARe you suggesting that you wrote these lines simply becasue you

* are paying respect to all the persons listed in the 3 lines due to their

* *age* (or they appeared on this earth prior to you)

* or respect them becuase you believe what they say with faith ?

* if you say it is mere respect out of age then you are not even

* accepting that Sriman Naaryaana and his divine consort Sri are the GOD.

* In that case please donot read the follwoing.

 

 

I do hope you read my posting and understand the intent.

I was very clear when I wrote the above statements! I

clearly mentioned who Sriman NArAyanA was with the help

of the quote from paripAdal. (I can furnish the English

translation if anyone needs it.) I very clearly

delineated and placed the people above in the order of

their merit. I do not think any one in the (n+1)th line

is in any way equal to those in the (n)th line:-)

 

[...]

 

* > It is perfectly possible that all the AzhvAr and AchAryA were

* > mere jeevAtmA like us who through the grace of IsvarA and

* > brahmagyAnA attained their mukti.

*

*

* It is a very *attractive* logical argument and avoids the truth told by

* lineage of achaaryaaLS.

 

I apologise if I portrayed myself as a brazen

'iconoclast'. I didn't mean to.

 

A few of us who are more fortunate find an AchAryA, have

full faith in him and follow whatever he says. A few less

fortunate ones like me can accept only those things that

are only meaningful to our limited knowledge. So, I may

ask some questions from time to time that may seem to

affect the sensibilities of a few people (such as you). I

seek your forgivenness. I also request you (and others)

to be patient with my idiotic enquiries, and if possible

lead my kindly to see the light.

 

If you so desire, I will stop making further comments

that could be of controversial nature, in this forum and

look elsewhere for the answers.

 

 

* Swami Desikan HIMself had delivered *directly* in one slOkam and

* hinted in few others on *part* of

* his avathaara rahasyam. I am not authorised to say those

* but however if you wish you may ask any of the achaaryaaLS

* in his gurupaarampariyam, *after* you pay your *respects*

* (once you resolve and observe this terminology *respect*)

* in line with the *protocols* of such mutt and ask them for this

* slOkam.

 

I once again state that I was not being disrespectful of

Swami Desikar or any other illustrious AchAryA. However,

I have only a little point to make here. If Sriman

NarAyanA Himself authored a work, it can not have a flaw

(for example: GItA). Normal human beings can produce a

work which can (and usually will) have a flaw. That is

why the works of various bhAshyakArAs are hotly contested

by others even though their respective followers venerate

them as equal to God.

 

If Swami Desikar indeed was an avatArA of Sriman

NarAyanA, piLLai LOkAchAryA's (and hence the later day

maNavALa mAmuni's) works should be rejected outright

since Desikar refutes the views held by the former

AchAryA. If maNavALa mAmuni was an avatArA of AdisEshA

and hence Sri RAmAnujA himself, then Desikar's work

should be rejected as mAmuni upholds and elaborates upon

piLLai LOkAchAryA's work! See? we get caught up in

resolving these issues!

 

That each of these are various amsAs of Sriman NArAyanA

can also be easily refuted since various amsAs of Him can

not disagree with each other. Hence my suggestion that

they were all mere jeevAtmAs, and susceptible to flaw

like every human being. I do not think this view is in

any way belittling them. Unlike the rest of the humanity,

they elevated themselves and attained mukti. (Well, this

can not be proved! so I modify my statement to say that

they are all venerable and worthy of emulating.)

 

[...]

 

* > If that may be the case, why would other jeevanmuktAs like the

* > succeding AchAryAs wrote and claimed that the AzhvArs & AchAryAs

* > before them were in fact nityasUris?

* >

* > It has to be noted that beliefs of this kind stay only within a

* > sampradAya. Naturally so! Because, the pramANA for all this does

* > not come from texts that are commonly accepted by all the

* > sampradAyAs,

*

* Lack of faithful knowledge and the extraordinary confidence on one's own

* knowledge as complete makes one beleive that they know

* all the texts. For example the slOkam on swami desikan's avathaara

* rahasyam delivered by Swami HIMself is not known to you yet. For many reasons

* some of the holy slOkams are not available to us in the form of

* a book store literature. However these are known to our achaaryaaLS

* and are conveyed in their paarampariyam to their successors and as well

* *faithful* bakthaaLS.

 

[and so on...]

 

Once again I apologise. As an epilogue to my little note,

I quoted a few lines from paripAdal, which expresses my

sentiments succintly! I do realise that I do not have the

knowledge many of you possess. I have not learnt anything

from any AchAryA. I am not privy to any special mantrA

that reveals to me the nature of the self etc.

 

However, I am not willing to become a "blind" follower

even if that is the only way to attain knowledge. I will

try to be as humble as possible but will continue to

question the beliefs and accept them only if I find a

satisfactory answer.

 

--badri

 

 

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

Badri Seshadri

Graduate Student

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Cornell University

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

[Guest guest]

Badri writes:

*

* If you so desire, I will stop making further comments

* that could be of controversial nature, in this forum and

* look elsewhere for the answers.

*

 

Badri,

 

Please continue to challenge us with your inquisitive

spirit and your insightful postings. I would consider

it a great loss if you no longer contributed to our

little group.

 

emberumaanaar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 19:55:31 +0800 S. Vidyasankar said:

>

>> If Nammaazhvaar was the supreme to Madhurakavi, if Sri Ramanuja

>> was the five dhivyaayudhaas for amudhanaar, *in the same way*,

>> nothing more, why can't maNavaaLa maamunigaL be AdhisEshaa

>> for then aachaaryaa follwers? Why can't Swmai Sri Desikar

>> be the amsam of Thiru Mani for vada kalai Sri Vaishnavaas?

>

>Pardon me for entering into what seems to be an internal SrI vaishNava issue,

>but it seems to me that considering nammAzhvAr and rAmanuja to be amSas of

>the Lord would be acceptable to all,

 

 

By "all"? Not here in "prapatti"!!!

 

 

but not so in the other two cases. Unless

>the vaDakalai-tenkalai divide is sought to be crystallized further.

>

>It is the general Indian tendency to glorify the gurus of our tradition, to the

>extent of deifying them. But the moment this is done with an intention of

>one-upmanship, sourness results.

 

 

Are you sure that this is the case, i.e. one-upmanship,

in these two cases? Please explain.

 

If your line of argument is to be accepted, then you MUST

object to considering Nammaazhvaar and Sri Ramanuja as

amssas of the Lord also, which I am surprised you don't.

If your intent was that the first two are acceptable by all

Sri Vaishnavaas only, then the argument should support

maNavaaLa maamuni and Swami Sri Desikar equated to the

respective amsaas by the respective kalais. What is the problem?

 

I don't understand what is the big deal about all this.

On the one hand the "rationalists" question the mere

celebration of AchAryaas as amsaas of God, yet perfectly

willing to accept that Sri Krishna was indeed Lord. Why

do you accept this?. Why can't you question that He simply

claimed He was God, or His followers went to the extent of

deifying Him? Why can't we say all this was just a pigment

of Vedha Vyaasaa's vivid imagination? Why do you accept

the vEdhaas are eternal? What logical and scientific

explanation can you give for this?

 

To me personally, the writings of aazhvaar's and aachaaryaas

are so inspiring that I am moved more by their words than

even Sri Krishna's or the Lord's dharsan in most temples,

save a few. Nammaazhvaar, Sri Ramanuja, and Swami

Sri Desikan are God, even more than God, to me.

Kulasekaraazhvaar's words move me more than the words of

Sri Krishna or the life of Sri Rama, etc. etc. As for present day

aachaaryaas, I cannot do without the direction they provide.

To that extent they are God to me. If this is

blasphemy, so be it. As a Sri Vaishnava I would like

to look to Swami Sri Desikar and learn to be a good

Sri Vaishnava and a good pupil. Part of that is not

to judge my acharyaa's conduct. I would rather try to remove

the log in my eyes than remove the spec of dust that

I may imagine to see in someone else's eyes, let alone

my achaaryaa.

 

 

 

To take a specific case from the advaita

>tradition, some modern advaitins want to find support for SankarAcArya's

>avatAra in the SatarudrIyam of the yajurveda. Other learned advaitins, however,

>point out that this is not desirable, because the interpretation is

>far-fetched.

>The point is that in the drive to declare our gurus to be amSas of one or the

>other thing associated with divinity, we are apt to get carried away and make

>hagiographic claims that only serve to cloud the real personalities, in the

>long run.

>

>Also, if it is claimed that maNavAla mAmuni is to be considered AdiSesha by

>tenkalais and vedAnta deSika as tirumaNi for vaDakalais only, this is not

>very helpful, is it? It is reduced to the level of aitIkam, rather than upheld

>as really real.

 

I am not knowledgeable in this area, but I think

maNavaaLa maamuni and Swami Sri Desikar are

highly respected by the two kalais. The past

bickerings are more among the later-day followers,

not due to the claims of amsaas.

 

BTW, what is wrong with aitIkam? What in our Hindu

religious tradition can be logically proved to

be "really real"?

 

Somehow it does not bother me that our figment of

imagination is not acceptable to historians

and secular scholars.

 

 

 

It cannot be logically defended, excpet through the adoption

>of very advaitin-sounding arguments. I doubt if SrIvaishNavas would want to

>do that.

>

 

How far can one progress spirutually with logic?

>Regards,

>

>

>

 

 

-- Dileepan

 

 

 

p.s. I have no quarrel with logic minded bhakthaas, (some

may feel this is a contradition in terms); all I ask is

permit me some illogic, i.e. faith.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 01 May 96 08:38:05 EDT I wrote:

>>

>>Pardon me for entering into what seems to be an internal SrI vaishNava issue,

>>but it seems to me that considering nammAzhvAr and rAmanuja to be amSas of

>>the Lord would be acceptable to all,

>

>

> By "all"? Not here in "prapatti"!!!

>

 

 

By this I don't mean there are some in prapatti

who do not hold Sri Ramanuja in high esteem.

All I intended to say was that not all will

consider Sri Ramanuja to be an amsa of the Lord.

I apologize for having been vague.

 

>

> I don't understand what is the big deal about all this.

> On the one hand the "rationalists" question the mere

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

 

By "rationalist" I don't mean athiest. Again

I apologize for rash use of labels. I shall

try to refrain from using such politically

charged labels.

 

 

 

Now, it seems to me that we are not that far apart.

I really don't know why we are quarreling so much.

>From the exchanges we have had, it seems to me that

both sides agree with the following:

 

[1] Age must be respected, but not equated with

infallibility,

 

[2] Book learning is valuable and not something to

be sneered at, but in the final analysis it is

faith that will take one to the lotus feet of

our Lord Sriman Narayana,

 

[3] The words of our great poorvaacharyaas are great

because of their force of intellect inspired by

the grace of our Lord Sriman Narayana, whether

or not one believes them to be amsaas of the Lord, and

 

[4] there is nothing wrong with "dhEvu maRRaRiyEn"

type of reverence for our aachaaryaas.

 

 

Please correct me I am wrong.

 

I hope we express our appreciation as quickly and freely

as we share our frustrations. A case in point is Murali's

wonderful post on Lakshi Nrusimhar. Murali, that was a

wonderful post.

 

 

 

-- Dileepan

[Guest guest]

Mr. Dileepan wrote:

> I hope we express our appreciation as quickly and freely

> as we share our frustrations. A case in point is Murali's

> wonderful post on Lakshi Nrusimhar. Murali, that was a

> wonderful post.

 

I have been planning to mention my appreciation of Srinivasan's posts on

the Vishnu Sahasranamam for quite some time. This is as good a time as any!

:-) Thanks for the explanations of the various names of the Lord.

 

Partha

 

 

--

-----

Parthasarathy Ranganathan Graduate Student

Dept of ECE, MS 366 Office: A211 Abercrombie

Rice University email : parthas

Houston TX 77251-1892 Phone : 713-527-8101 x3222

Webpage : http://www-ece.rice.edu/~parthas

-----

[Guest guest]

Dileepan wrote:

> By "all"? Not here in "prapatti"!!!

 

I'm sure the SrI vaishNavas on "prapatti" would have no problems with

considering rAmAnuja to be an incarnation of AdiSesha. Or, am I wrong?

>>It is the general Indian tendency to glorify the gurus of our tradition, to

the

>>one-upmanship, sourness results.

>

> Are you sure that this is the case, i.e. one-upmanship,

> in these two cases? Please explain.

>

> If your line of argument is to be accepted, then you MUST

> object to considering Nammaazhvaar and Sri Ramanuja as

> amssas of the Lord also, which I am surprised you don't.

> If your intent was that the first two are acceptable by all

> Sri Vaishnavaas only, then the argument should support

> respective amsaas by the respective kalais. What is the problem?

 

I don't know if one-upmanship does or does not contribute to talking of

different AcAryas as amSas. However, I don't think I can honestly object

to the SrI vaishNavas considering rAmAnuja and nammAzhvAr as amSas. The

idea of amSas and avatAras is not strictly consistent with advaita, but we

do accept that disciples can and do regard their AcAryas thus. Similarly

for describing SankarAcArya as an avatAra of Siva.

 

As for the argumentt about the kalais, is the division between the two kalais

as deep as say the division between smArtas and SrI vaishNavas? My impression

was that it was not. Now, if one kalai says vedAnta deSika is such and such

an amSa, and maNavAla mAmuni is another, and this is not acceptable to the

other kalai, won't this create unnecessary sourness?

> BTW, what is wrong with aitIkam? What in our Hindu

> religious tradition can be logically proved to

> be "really real"?

 

Only the Atman, and only because one cannot logically admit any denial

of the Atman. Obviously, this is different from "proof" as understood

from a mathematical perspective.

> How far can one progress spirutually with logic?

 

Maybe not very far, but no tradition asks you to suspend logic or swing

to the side of being completely illogical, in order to achieve progress.

 

In a general vein, while talking of amSas and avatAras, it is informative

to note how Sankara describes kr.shNAvatAra in the gItA-bhAshya. Every

statement he makes of how bhagavAn Himself came down to earth in order to

protect dharma, is qualified by an "as it were" (iva). This obviates the

need to describe kr.shNa as a pUrNAvatAra, but the acceptance of kr.shNa

as bhagavAn Himself is more than mere aitIkam. The reasoning is that

the taking up of a material body for the purposes of living on earth is a

limiting adjunct that parabrahman is associated with.

 

S. Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

I would like to unequivocally state that the following piece is not intended

to hurt anybody or question the knowledge (or lack of it) of any specific

individual. If I perpetrate any Bhagavatha apacharam in the process of

presenting my thoughts, I beg your kind forgiveness and hope you will

understand that these thoughts do not stem from a paucity of regard for any

elderly or knowledgeable person, but from a love of our Siddhantham whose

glories can be retained and perpetuated only if we allow for open-minded

inquiry and an even-tempered exchange of ideas for universal benefit. I

hope learned prapannas in this forum will agree with me when I say that

there is no place for ego in prapatti (and none whatsoever for fragile ones).

 

Before saying anything else, what I present here is a view point developed

over twenty years of association with our siddhantham (not vada-kalai or

then-kalai) and a few things learnt in association with people whom I

consider to be great thinkers in visishtadwaithic tradition. These include

Sri Bhu-Varaahachar swamy of Bangalore (one has to listen to his upanyasams

to get a sense of true erudition synthesized with Bhakti in its most

pristine form), Sri VeLukkudi Varadaachaar (who attained paramapadam on Jan

17, 1991) and the current Mudaliyandan Swamy (Sri Kumara Venkatachar

swamy). I have also been keenly following discussions in this forum, hoping

that I can find association in NA akin to the joy experienced listening to

these great souls talk about the innate beauty inherent to the out-pourings

of our Azhwars and Acharyas and inimitable joy that is engendered in the

appreciation of SrimanNarayana's kalyana gunangal as presented by these

liberated souls.

 

However, the contents of the Bhakti digest in the recent past has been

replete with polemic and often times, there is open discouragement when

someone disagrees with the view points of someone CONSIDERED erudite and

knowledgeable. However, proof of erudition, knowledge and so on lies rather

in the contents of one's thoughts rather than claims. A case in point:

>> Sampath Rengarajan writes:

>> * A saints life is full of events every day and historians

>> * write or track only a few as they see it important in

>> * their context. A prophet's life is

>> * full of events every second (1/60 th of a minute).

>> * Sri Ramanujaas life ...

>>

>> So now Ramanuja is a prophet? I wonder when Mutt

>> Infallibility will be declared and the Inquisition

>> started ... ;-)

>>

>> Mani

>>-- End of excerpt from Mani Varadarajan

>

>Dear Mani,

>

>Your comments are good joke, though they are taken out of context and

>*very* reactionary as similar to such sevral past instances from you.

>The exhibition of inconsistancy by young persons in this

 

While it is quite trivial to dismiss honest and well-represented inquiries

as reactionary or immature, it is equally plausible that the writer might lack

the wherewithal to adequately explain his or her posting. Further, it is

incumbent

on the person posting to the digest to communicate his/her thoughts in a

cogent and linguistically appropriate manner. To be-little a question and

then to say that there are hidden meanings available to an evolved few to me

is a euphemistic way of saying 'I don't know but I am unwilling to accept it

here or I was wrong but I don't want to admit it'.

 

On another note, postings of Sri Ramaswamy on some of the Then-Kalai

Acharyas is incorrect in some cases or has some important omissions.

However, to highlight these in this forum, I am compelled to note, will

inevitably bring censure from some of the 'evolved elders' here. Still, I

will proceed to state them with the belief that I will (and some of you

might) learn from this exchange:

 

Sri Ramaswamy in Acharyas-Section 3.6 to 3.12 writes about Sri Azhagiya

Manavala Perumal Nayanar thus:

> His younger brother, Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Nayanar wrote Acharya

Hridayam as per

> the advice of Pillai Lokacharya

 

Acharya Hridayam is a devotional masterpiece composed spontaneously by Sri

Azhagiya Manavala perumal Nayanar during NumPerumal thiruveedhi purappadu at

Thiru Arangam. Acharya hridayam (literally Nammazhvaar's inner thoughts) is

considered by the cogniscenti to be nothing but an out-pouring of tremendous

divinity and is considered to be Apaurusheyam (See Sri P.B.

Annangaraacharyaar's edition of Acharya Hridayam, BNK Press, Madras, 1954

for an eloquent testimony to AcharyaHridayam and Sri Azhagiya Manavala

Perumal Nayanar). Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Nayanar's other significant

works include AruLiccheyal Rahasyam, PaTTolai, Araayirappadi Vyakhyanam for

Thiruppavai, Vyakhyanam for Thiruppaanazwar's AmalNaadhiPiraan, Madhura kavi

Azhwaar's (whose thiruNakshtram happens to occur on 5/2/96) KaNNinuN

Siruthaambu etc.

>Sri ManavaLa maamunigal got his Sannyas from Aadhi Van Satakopa Jeeyar of

Ahobhila Mutt

 

Sri MaNavaaLa MaamunigaL obtained his Sannyasam from Num PerumaaL and was

named yatheendra PraNavar by RangaNaathar akin to the fact that Sri Ramanuja

got his Sannyaasam from ThepperumaaL and was named Yatheendra by the Lord

himself (Please see Yatheendra PravaNa Prabhaavam, Sudarsanam Printers,

Putthur, 1961).

 

Another omission that is glaring in this series (unless I missed it, in

which case, I do beg forgiveness) is the fact that Sri Ramanuja established

a lineage of 74 Acharya Simhaasanaadhipathigal to perpetuate our

Sampradayam. These include lineages of Aalawandaar, Thirukkottiyur Nambi,

ThiruMaalaiyaanDaan, Periya Thirumalai Nambi, Koorathazhwaan, MudaliyaanDaan

(Dasarathi), Naduvilaazhwaan, GomaDathaazhwaan, thirukkovilur Aazhwaan,

Thirumohur Aazhwaan, Pillai Pillai Aazhwaan, NaDaathur Aazhwaan, EngaL

Aazhwaan, Ananthaazhwaan....so on.

 

I would like to commend and thank Sri Ramaswamy on his comprehensive effort

detailing the lives and glories of our Acharyas, specifically Sri Vedantha

desikan. Sri Desikan also belongs to the lineage one of the 74 Acharya

lineages established by Sri Ramanuja. While it is not possible to overstate

the significance or the genius of Sri Desikan's compositions and the

importance of his role in establishing Visishtaadwaitha siddhaantham, I wish

as much focus was also given in Sri Ramaswamy's laudable effort to other

Acharyas such as PiLLai Lokaachaarya (whose Sri Vachana BhushaNam alone is a

composition that boggles the mind in terms of its depth of thought and

philosophical significance) or Sri MaNavaaLa MaamunigaL.

 

A parting thought. It is disquieting to see a trend here where even a

semblance of disagreement (NOT DISRESPECT) with a view point with one of the

elders is treated with a vehemence unbecoming of our tradition. I have been

raised to believe that open inquiry and rational thought treated with

kindness from those who know is the basis for the development of faith.

Faith cannot be claimed to stem from paucity of insight. If so, it becomes

blind belief. I close with what KrishNa says of Sattwa in the Gita (can

there be a better PramaaNa?):

 

Anudwegakaram vaakyam sathyam priyahitham cha yath

 

Aazhwaar Emberumaanaar Jeeyar ThiruvadigaLe SharaNam

 

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 1 May 1996 17:06:18 -0700 Vidya said:

>Dileepan wrote:

>

>> By "all"? Not here in "prapatti"!!!

>

>I'm sure the SrI vaishNavas on "prapatti" would have no problems with

>considering rAmAnuja to be an incarnation of AdiSesha. Or, am I wrong?

>

 

Sri Vaishnavas in general accept Sri Ramanuja to be

an incarnation of Adisesha. But at least two members

of prapatti, Badri and Mani have expressed their

unwillingness to accept this. Therefore, *in this

narrow context*, yes, you are wrong.

 

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I have no doubt

that both Badri and Mani hold Sri Ramanuja in very

high regard. I am only stating their admitted positions,

which they have every right to hold and advocate.

 

 

>

>As for the argumentt about the kalais, is the division between the two kalais

>as deep as say the division between smArtas and SrI vaishNavas? My impression

>was that it was not. Now, if one kalai says vedAnta deSika is such and such

>an amSa, and maNavAla mAmuni is another, and this is not acceptable to the

>other kalai, won't this create unnecessary sourness?

 

 

Not if the two kalais show the same magnanimity

you have shown by accepting Namaazhvaar and Ramanuja

to be amsaas of Lord.

 

 

 

 

>> How far can one progress spirutually with logic?

>

>Maybe not very far, but no tradition asks you to suspend logic or swing

>to the side of being completely illogical, in order to achieve progress.

 

 

I must say this is not fair, I never said anything like

this or close to it, I think.

 

Let me ask you, and interested others, is there a place

for blind faith in our religion?

 

 

-- regards, Dileepan

[Guest guest]

Sri. Sridhar Srinivasan writes....

>On another note, postings of Sri Ramaswamy on some of the Then-Kalai

>Acharyas is incorrect in some cases or has some important omissions.

>However, to highlight these in this forum, I am compelled to note, will

>inevitably bring censure from some of the 'evolved elders' here. Still, I

>will proceed to state them with the belief that I will (and some of you

>might) learn from this exchange:

>

 

[.....]

>>Sri ManavaLa maamunigal got his Sannyas from Aadhi Van Satakopa Jeeyar of

>Ahobhila Mutt

>

>Sri MaNavaaLa MaamunigaL obtained his Sannyasam from Num PerumaaL and was

>named yatheendra PraNavar by RangaNaathar akin to the fact that Sri Ramanuja

>got his Sannyaasam from ThepperumaaL and was named Yatheendra by the Lord

>himself (Please see Yatheendra PravaNa Prabhaavam, Sudarsanam Printers,

>Putthur, 1961).

>

 

I think the recent posting to the list by Sri. Sridhar Srinivasan, kind of

summarises the thoughts that were prevaling in my mind. While I do not

consider myself to be very learned/informed in every aspect of

vishistadvaitham, but

having to listened to a few discourses by great scholars like Sri. U.Ve

Bhu-varahachar

swamy, Sri. U.Ve VeLukkudi Varadaachar Swamy and Sri. U.Ve Krishna Premi

when I was in

Bangalore, I too was surprised by a few things that were stated in Sri.

Ramaswamy's

articles on our Azhwars and Acharyas, as pointed out by Sri. Sridhar Srinivasan.

 

>I would like to commend and thank Sri Ramaswamy on his comprehensive effort

>detailing the lives and glories of our Acharyas, specifically Sri Vedantha

>desikan. Sri Desikan also belongs to the lineage one of the 74 Acharya

>lineages established by Sri Ramanuja. While it is not possible to overstate

>the significance or the genius of Sri Desikan's compositions and the

>importance of his role in establishing Visishtaadwaitha siddhaantham, I wish

>as much focus was also given in Sri Ramaswamy's laudable effort to other

>Acharyas such as PiLLai Lokaachaarya (whose Sri Vachana BhushaNam alone is a

>composition that boggles the mind in terms of its depth of thought and

>philosophical significance) or Sri MaNavaaLa MaamunigaL.

 

 

I think the above very rightly summaries my thoughts too.

 

 

With due respect to all Bhagavathas and Bhaktas

 

ADiyaen Ramanuja Daasan

 

Govindarajan Varadarajan