Tirumangai Alwar and the Brahmins

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas,

Mr. Murali's reference to my suggestion that probably there might be

an alternateive interpretation for the words " Mazhisai Vandha Jothi"

with regards the incident at Perumpuliyur has triggered some

passionate debate.

 

Since he had gone public, I feeel reluctantly compelled to offer my

comments.

 

The matter could have been taken up by private mail to avoid such back

and forth exchanges which do no good to any of us. Even now, I would

request members to settle such controversial topics by private mail,

lest we should be seen as washing dirty linen in public. Thanks.

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

 

==============================================================================

Ms, Nagu Satyan has referred to my earlier posting on Tirumazhisai

Alwar.

No doubt, I wrote therein-

 

" A few Brahmins were reciting Vedas. On seeing him, they stopped their

recitation since Veda was not to be recited in the presence of a person

belonging to the fourth caste. The Alwar understood and was about to

leave when the Brahmins started their recitation. They did not remember

at what point they had left the recitation. The Alwar broke open a paddy

seed with his fingernail to indicate the exact context which had a

reference to the paddy seed. The Brahmins realized the greatness of the

Alwar and begged to be excused"

 

It was nowhere suggested in the above passage that the Brahmins showed

any disrespect to the Alwar. They were just observing scrupulously the

Sastric injunctions. The Alwar also never took it as a disrespect. On

the other hand, he infact, respected it as a norm in consonance with the

Sastras. That is why, even though the Alwar knew the passage himself

(being a Nityasuri and Amsam of Chakrattalwar), he did not spell it out

but indicated by splitting the paddy seed with his fingernail.

 

This is also indicated in the Vyakhyanam for Andal’s Tiruppavai verse-9

" Thoo Mani Maadathu"in the line "Oomaiyo, Anri Sevido Ananthalo" which

is regarded as indirectly referring to Tirumazhisai Alwar.

 

The incident even as reported above reveals the greatness of the

Brahmins no less than that of the Alwar, since neither disrespected the

other.

 

This shows that both the Brahmins and the Alwar had mutual respect to

each other and both respected the Sastric injunctions equally. And, it

is we (removed as we are from the incident by over several centuries)

who doggedly debate who disrespected whom and call names!.

 

It was after posting the above article, when I was musing over Swami

Desika’s use of the words ‘Mazhisai Vandha Jothi" that it occured to me

that after all, there may be an alternative interpretation for the

incident - not with a view to " deny the obvious facts of history nor

for explaining or rationalizing them away" as presumed by Mr. Mani.

 

I was agreeably surprised to find the same Vyaakhyaanam by Vangeepuram

Swami (Vide page 31 of Desika Prabhandam, also published by Lifco) on

the Pasuram " Poigaimuni" etc in which he explains why Swami Desika used

specific adjectives to various Alwars (eg) "Thooya Kulasekaran’, "Namm

Paananaathan", "Mazhisai Vandha Jothi", "Thunbatra Mathurakavi" etc.

 

Let us consider the situation dispassionately:When there are alternative

interpretations, it is gentlemanly to give the benefit of doubt, (since

we are not privy to the actual facts of the case). But, how are we to do

even this? How are we competent to sit in jugement over an eon old norm?

 

Mr. Mani observes " On the authority of this work, it is demonstrably

clear that the Brahmins discriminated against Tirumazhisai Alwar purely

because they saw him as a Sudra… It is unlikely that this particular set

of brahmins would ever see past the mere body and external appearance of

the Alwar anyhow"

 

The poor old brahmins did not have the foresight to foresee that several

milleniums later, there would be born out somewhere there someone

farsighted enough to look over their shoulders , with no more laudable

objective than denigrating them as ‘unadmirable people’. If only they

had known this, perhaps, they would have behaved better !.

 

Mr. Mani refers to "Divya Suri Charitram’ of some "Garuda Vahana

Panditha" as ‘ one of the oldest’ and ‘best respected’ hagiographies of

the Alwars.

 

The Panditha could not have been a contemporary of the Alwar in the

ancient era. According to Katapayadi Samkhya, Nammalwar is believed to

have been born on the 43rd day of the commencement of Kaliyuga say in

3102 BC, the three Mudhal Alwars much earlier and Tirumazhisai Alwar

and Mathurakavi Alwar sometime in between. Thus, the Panditha’s work

cannot be considered ‘one of the oldest’.

 

Again, if it were ‘best respected’, our Acharyas would certainly have

quoted extensively from the work. Obviously, it is one of the less known

Sanskrit works that mushroomed in the medieval period like the

"Vemabhoopala Charitram". Thus, it cannot be ‘best respected’ as made

out. Perhaps, it is not even qualified for ‘quoting’ as ‘scripture’!

 

I agree with Mr. Mani when he observes that " in the PAST, some

Srivaishnavas have indeed committed grave Bhagavata Apacharam and have

generally been unadmirable

people.There is no need to deny the obvious FACTS OF HISTORY by

explaining or rationalizing them away"

 

In this context, the words "PAST" and "FACTS OF HISTORY" need

elucidation. The Past itself can be considered in terms of eras-

PREHISTORICPAST, HISTORIC PAST and RECENT

PAST.

 

PREHISTORIC PAST

The Kumbakonam Vasis of the Narada Samvadam in the Stala Purana as

wonderfully brought out by Sampath Rangarajan, belong to Thretha Yuga.

The period of the Alwar stretches back to Dvapara Yuga as per the

Katapayadi Samkhya mentioned earlier. Both belong to the Prehistoric

period. The earliest historical period recognized by historians is only

from the Indus valley civilization.

 

"This particular set of brahmins" whom Mr. Mani accuses were perhaps

observing the Sastras in letter and spirit. When they spotted a

‘foreigner’- "DESAANTRI", they might have stopped reciting, not

necessarily "purely because they saw him as a Sudra" as imagined by Mr.

Mani.

 

We have plethora of evidence to show that in those days of pristine

yore, persons of other varnas were highly revered by brahmins WITHOUT

ABDICATING the Sastric stipulations.

 

When I had been to Philadelphia a while ago, I tried to post an article

in the Bhakti digest in connection with the Tirunakshatram of Tirumangai

Alwar. As the e. mail address there was not d to the list, the

Computer flashed that message with a note ‘Returned undelivered’. Even

in a group like ours one who has not d and is outside the pale

of the chosen group cannot post an article. This cannot be cited as

disrespect or discrimination. The journalistic ethics (if any) and the

internet practices require some disciplines, exclusions and restrictions

which have to be honoured. The case of the Brahmins was no different. In

those days, they were precluded by Sastras from reciting the holy Vedas

in the presence of one whose antecedents they did not know. Observing

the norms THEN cannot NOW be put down as disrespectful or

discriminatory.

 

Mr. Mani himself, has marshalled cases of Tiruppaan Alwar, Mathurakavi

etc in this context. It is true that though one is born in a caste (due

to past Karma), it is not birth alone that entitles one to belong to

that caste. It is the conduct, character and

intellectual evolution that would fit in one into his caste. Great

Rishis worshipped by high caste Brahmins have been born in lower castes

(eg) Vasishta, Vyasa, Parasara, Vidhura, Nammalwar. These go to show

that the so called high caste brahmins of THOSE DAYS acknowledged the

intellectual and spiritual authority of these giants and respected them.

 

Even so, none of these giants ever claimed Brahmanatvam. On the other

hand, we see Viswamitra taking enormous pains to be called a "Brahma

Rishi". If it were not for the fact that the‘Brahmins by nature were

indeed pure and venerable", why would he do that?

 

"A temple cow" says Swami Desika, "however holy it might be, remains a

cow in its present life". Remaining a cow does not detract from its

holiness. On the other hand, the cow is venerated ‘for being a cow’.

 

Our lack of understanding and perspective stems from the social mileu of

the times when the events occured- which we from such a distant period

of time are unable to comprehend, much less appreciate. It is difficult

for people of one age to judge the customs and moral mores of another

age, so far removed from their own times. It requires a good amount of

imagination, and flexibility of mind even to understand and THEN to

assess the merits and defects of systems with which we are not familiar.

 

 

For example, let us take the conversation between Rama and Bharata,

otherwise known as Rama Gita:

 

Bharata comes to the forest to plead with his elder brother, Rama to

return and take over the reigns of Ayodhya that rightly belonged to him

by virtue of the law of primogeniture. He advances several arguments

which Rama is not able to refute. But, finally Rama explodes a bombshell

saying " It was our parents' wish that I be banished for 14 years. How

can we transgress this wish?" Matha Pitubhyaam uktoham,Katham Anyath

Samachare? (Valmiki Ramayana Ayodhya kaanda (104-22) On hearing this,

Bharata becomes speechless and had nothing further to plead against.

This was because implicit obedience to the parents was the accepted

inalienable norm of behavior for children and even the thought of

disregarding would never cross the minds of children in the Ramayana

days.

 

Times have changed so much now that even consideration, let alone,

respect for elders and parents have become not only non- existent but

also that positive insult and elder abuse if not injury have become the

hallmark of the pseudo culture of modern society. In this background,

the very essence of the debate culminating on the note of obedience to

the wish of parents cannot be countenanced or digested now. The

redeeming feature, however, is that today's youths also get old much

sooner than they imagine and would realize their folly when their own

progenies pay them back in their own coin by a repeat performance

towards them.

 

We cannot, however, blame the present day youths for this erosion. The

elders of today both in India and more so in the West have lost touch

with the Scriptures and are as unexposed to standards of rectitude as

the youngsters themselves and have thus forfeited their right to be

heard and respected. If the elders could at least strive to familiarize

themselves with the salutary morals contained in our scriptures and try

to live up to them, modern youths will not lose faith in them and will

surely endeavour to follow their example.

 

Popular misconceptions come to be accepted as gospel truth when repeated

much too often - a strategy adopted by Hitler’s misinformation minister,

Goebelles. (eg)

 

Sabari, the devout lady is said to have bitten the fruits and if found

tasty saved the saliva tainted remnants (Echil) for Rama. In Valmiki

Ramayana, there is no evidence in support of this. She was pious enough

to know that it would be an Apacharam to offer Echil to Rama.. The

correct position as explained in Kalakshepams of our Acharyas is that

she would pluck just one fruit from each one of the trees. If it tasted

good, she would leave in tact the other fruits in the same trees for

offering to Rama. But, the popular notion repeated ‘ad nauseum’ is that

she offered her Echil to Rama and this has got deeply ingrained due to

constant repetition.

 

Same is the case of Tirumazhisai Alwar’s encounter with the Brahmins.

Everyone including the Panditha, Alkondavalli, down to Pouranikas of

today keep on repeating the absurd interpretation so much that people

refuse to believe that there could be an alternative interpretation.

 

HISTORIC PAST

With the progress of Kaliyuga, there has been a steady degeneration in

values. Brahmins by slowly giving up their SVADHARMA and ANUSHTANA

forfeited their Brahmanatvam and the esteem of Society.

 

As indicated in my article on Varnasrama Dharma, according to Sastras,

there are umpteen circumstances in which a Brahmin could forfeit his

Brahmanatvam for which special purificatory rituals have been

presecribed. These rituals were honoured more in their breach than in

observance !.Yet, such Brahmins OF THIS PERIOD still clung on to notions

of supramacism and ethnic superiority without any justification !

 

This is the period when Bhagavad Ramanuja appeared on the scene and gave

a shock treatment by some dramatic, unconventional and revolutionary

exercises to bring home to what absurd lengths, SOME of the Brahmins had

stooped. Tirukkachi Nambi incident is one such.

 

The popular belief based on much too frequent repetition by people who

have not looked deeper is that Ramanuja broadcast to the rabble the

Moola Mantram from the temple tower of Tirukkoshtiyur.

 

The correct position, as explained by our Acharyas in Kalakshepams is

that he DID NOT give out the ACTUAL MANTRA. All that he announced was he

had obtained access to a Mantra that will lead to Moksham- being

easiest, surest and shortest way to Moksham and exhorted HIS FOLLOWERS

to take recourse to it in the APPROPRIATE manner.

 

Again, it was not for all and sundry that he ‘revealed’ anything. By the

time of this episode, Ramanuja had such a huge following and it was HIS

OWN SISHYAS who thronged in front of the temple. In the absence of a

Public Address System, he climbed the ramparts of the temple and

addressed HIS OWN SRIVAISHNAVA SISHYAS and NOT to Tom, Dick and Harry as

made out by some.

 

A tale bearer carried a rumour to the Guru that Ramanuja was

transgressing his command. The Guru came on the scene to enquire if it

was true. Ramanuja replied that EVEN IF he had revealed (which, in fact,

he did not) he alone would go to eternal perdition while all others

would be saved. Thereupon, the Guru embraced him - calling him

"MAN NAATHA" or "EMPERUMAANAAR"

 

If Ramanuja had acted against Sastra, certainly Swami Desika would have

referred to it and explained the situation. Even if he had acted against

Sastra, as some make out, it should be taken only as an exception which

Ramanuja alone is entitled to do in his specific circumstances and an

exception cannot be made a general rule for us to adopt.

 

The faulty story has become so deep rooted that even Pouranikas do the

rounds routinely in the ‘ popular mode’ without worthwhile study at the

feet of a qualified Acharya.The Tirumazhisai Alwar’s encounter with the

Brahmins is also one such.

 

I plead guilty that I also did much the same thing regarding

Tirumazhisai Alwar incident until I got to the bottom of the matter

through Vangipuram Swami and consultation with my Acharya.

 

RECENT PAST

The clevage started in the HISTORICAL PAST got further aggravated during

the RECENT PAST when everyone became a pawn in the ‘ Divide and Rule’

game of the Muslim and the British rulers.

 

Mr. Mani’s remarks more appropriately fit in the Brahmins of this later

period. It is indeed tragic that even after 50 years of independence,we

seem to ‘forever caught in this rut’- as Mr. Mani rightly points out.

 

By way of personal experience, even as late as 50 years ago, as a

College student ,I have seen Panchamas in our village carrying their

chappals in their hands and walking barefoot at the sight of a Brahmin

passing by at a distance !. This, indeed, was atrocious and my youthful

mind rebelled and revolted against this indignity as much as Mr. Mani’s

mind is now troubled.

 

Mr. Sudarsan has quoted Alkondavalli Govindacharya (Indological Research

Institute, Bombay) who also refers to the Varna basis for the incident.

All we can say is that the gentleman (with due respects to his

erudition) is, perhaps,no exception to the ‘Research mindset’ approach.

 

More often, than not, in the name of research, AT LEAST SOME of the so

called researchers indulge in distorting facts to give their thesis an

air of novelty to gain their doctorate ! When this is not possible, they

meekly adopt the non-controversial ‘Safe mode’ of falling in line with

the popular notions. He has also obviously adopted the ‘Safe mode’

method following the conventional interpretation of ‘discrimination’.

 

Research, if done for enriching one’s spiritual knowledge is

commendable. But, a laborious effort to dig into some odd and forlorn

work, only to discredit and prove Swami Desika, Vangeepuram Swami and

our Acharyas wrong besides abusing the holy brahmins of yore smacks of a

‘holier than thou’ attitude and does not redound to anybody’s credit.

 

In a later post, Mr. Mani has posed some searching queries and dished

out some advice for our benefit.

 

He asks-" At least be consistent if you claim to follow the Sastras.

Will ALL OF YOU stop chanting the Purusha Sukta and other Vedic texts

the next time a Sudra enters your presence?"

 

Reply: As stated earlier, MOST OF US have lost our Brahmanatvam, the

question of reciting or stopping with or without the presence of a Sudra

does not arise.

 

He proceeds- " One of us has said ‘ Brahmins by virtue of their nature

are pure’. I wonder if that makes all Non-brahmin Bhagavatas impure. If

so, I would rather have that impurity than the purity of the Brahmins"

 

Reply: The Brahmins of the Alwar’s time were indeed pure It is Lord

Krishna (and NOT one of us) who says that Brahmins are by nature pure.

Perhaps, the Lord was referring to the Brahmins of his time (which

includes the Brahmins in quetion). As for us, we have no choice and

perhaps no need to acquire impurity afresh NOW as if we have any purity

(in the Satraic sense) still left in us !

 

He observes- " If one’s Anushtanam forces one to treat the Bhagavatas

without the courtesy they deserve, that Anushtanam and that part of

Sastras is ‘Tyajyam’- to be abandoned"

 

Reply: Neither the Brahmins of the Alwar’s time nor do we advocate any

discourtesy to anyone on grounds of caste. Swami Desika and successive

Acharyas of our Guru Parampara have very categorically advised against

decrying anyone on grounds of Caste.It is such sweeping statements

against a whole community that amount to an Apacharam to Swami Desika,

Vangeepuram Swami, Our Acharyas and genuine Srivaishnavas who are now

trying to come to the mainstream.

 

He finally gives a sterling advice-" In other words, investigating and

discriminating on the basis of Jati of Bhagavatas is like examining

one’s own mother’s womb to see if it is pure.

 

Reply: I do agree but this seems to apply to Mr. Mani himself who is

doing shadow boxing against a non existent enemy. In vilifying the

Brahmins of Alwar’s time and discrediting the interpretation of Swami

Desika, Vangeepuram Swami and Acharyas he seems to indulge precisely in

what he seeks to condemn in others.

 

TODAY

The position today, as far as I see, is that Srivaishnavas are genuinely

desirous of returning to the mainstream in an honest attempt to learn

and understand from each other our Sastras in a better light at the same

time avoiding the indiscretions indulged in by SOME in the RECENT PAST.

The Bhakti group and the Swami Desika Satsangam forum themselves are

ample proof of this. It cannot be claimed that we have achieved

perfection in either. But, I believe, a beginning has been made.

 

What is required now is for us to do some introspection and soul

searching, try to understand the rationale and determine wher relaxation

of Sastric observance stops and where repugnance starts in our

interaction in society.

 

Instead of doing this, if we indulge in mudslinging of people of a

bygone age(separated in terms of centuries, if not milleniums) by

generalizations, we will be guilty of Bhagavata Apacharam to the

Bhagavatas of yore, Swami Desika, Vangeepuram Swami and our own Acharyas

who were and are against discrimination of any sort.

 

Let us remember that such Apacharam will not go unrequited.

 

Let us drop such subjects in future and concentrate on things more

Edifying. Elevating, Ennobling and Educative.

 

I would earnestly implore that, if felt necessary to have further

clarifications, they may be best sought through private mail- thus

sparing the bandwidth in the internet and avoiding our exposing

ourselves before those who would like to bash genuine Srivaishnavas.

 

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

[Guest guest]

I only have one comment on Sri Anbil Ramaswamy's

otherwise erudite comments on Thirumangai aazhvaar.

I have already made my opinions on respect for

bhaagavatas irrespective of caste so I will not

go into that.

 

However, Sri Ramaswamy is skeptical about the

authority of Divya Suri Charita, the hagiography

of the aazhvaars and acharyas that I quoted.

 

Historians of Sri Vaishnavism such as B.V. Ramanujam,

N. Jagadeesan, K.K.A. Venkatachari, and others opine

that the two oldest traditional biographies are

Garuda Vahana Pandita's Divya Suri Charita (Sanskrit)

and Pinpazhagiya PerumaaL Jiyar's Guru Parampara

Prabhaavam (maNipravaaLa). The former is listed

in some accounts as a direct disciple of Ramanuja

or descendant thereof. The latter was a direct

disciple of Periya Vaaccaan PiLLai. These two

biographies are very similar, though the GPP is

a much longer work and is more detailed. There is

some doubt as to which was based on the other.

 

I am not aware of any controversy over the general

antiquity of the DSC as an authentic biography of

the aazhvaars and acharyas. Those who have access

to Sri Vaishnava acharyas in India may wish to

consult them to confirm this.

 

adiyEn

Mani