Misconception

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakthi members:

 

To further focus the question of whether or not Sri Krishna misunderstood

Swami Sri Desikan I am reproducing a passage from the 23rd Chapter entitled

"SiddhOpAya sOdhanA athikaaram" of Srimad RTS. I am not suggesting that

you must agree with Sri Krishna. But you can't say that the Vadakalai POV

as stated by him is a misunderstanding of Swami Sri Desikan. This in

effect challenges its very legitimacy and thus should not be allowed to

stand. I am sure this was not done intentionally.

 

Not long ago Sri Varadan claimed Thenacharya sampradayam is equal to Sri

Vaishnavam and Sri Vaishnavam is nothing but Thenacharya sampradayam, thus

completing the necessary and sufficient conditions defining a Sri Vaishnava

and quoted Sri PBA in support. However, he is yet to furnish the

clarifications I requested. He further went on to accuse me of being

sectarian!! While I have no interest in silly fights about Kalais, I am

not going to be the one to simply stand by when views such as this are

stated. Please remember, no one has suggested here that Desika

Sampradayam is Sri Vaishnavam and Sri Vaishnavam is nothing but Desika

Sampradayam! Thus, the origin of sectarian views is obvious.

 

Let me also add for the sake of clarity, this note is not about Vadakalai

vs. Thenkalai. Such fights are just a waste of time. Which of the two

kalai's POV appeals to you is purely your personal decision and I am not

here to say to you which should be the right choice for you. I would like

to see the followers of both the "Then" and "Vada" acharya sampradayams

respect each other and serve Sri Ramanuja Darsanam. It pains me when I see

a Vadakalai disrespected just because of his affiliation. But it pains me

without measure when I see the great Acharya Sri Manavala Maamunigal

disrespected routinely in certain temples. Taking our cue from our

Acharyas such as Srimad Azhagiya Singar and Sri Vaanamaamalai Jeeyar Swami,

we, as expatriates, should lead the way in showing how the two kalais can

coexist in a respectful way. One of the prerequisites for this to happen

is to not label one or the other POV as misconceptions even unintentionally.

 

Anyway, this note is mainly about Sri Krishna's views being characterized

as misconception. Read the passage I have excerpted and decide for

yourself. There is much more in Chapter 23 and other chapters of RTS

dealing with this subject. But I think the passage I have quoted below

clearly shows that Sri Krishna was right on the money; no misunderstanding,

no misconceptions.

 

Again, I am not suggesting any intentionality on the part of Sri Mani or

Sri Mohan Sagar. I respect both of them. Sri Mani is a treasured friend.

But I do feel we should be restrained in labeling other interpretations.

 

Thanks, Dileepan

 

 

=====Passage from the 23rd Chapter of Srimad RTS passage============

Doubt (1):- No upaya is necessary on the part of the jiva:

 

(1) Iswara who ignored a man from beginningless time has now concerned

Himself with him. (for his protection ). This is not due to any action or

work on the man's part, but only to the Lord's omnipotence. If it is not

so, how is it that when the Alwar asked:- "The Lord has now made me realise

Him and placed Himself within me. Why is it that He allowed me formerly to

stray from Him?," no reply was given except that "the cloud which adorned

the measureless sky thundered in music." (TVM 10-9-1) The implication is

that there is no answer to this question except that it was the Lord's will

to do so. Therefore why should we perform or adopt any upaya (for securing

His protection)? Some say, therefore, that, of His own accord, and at the

time when He chooses, the Lord saves us and that the Lord bestows His grace

on His servants and protects them when He is pleased to do so and that no

endeavour of any kind is incumbent on us.

 

This doubt may be cleared as follows:- Although Iswara is omnipotent, He

makes the man adopt some gesture, some means vyaja ) or pretext on his part

and, in consideration of it, protects him in order that the fault of

partiality and cruelty (vaishamya, nairghrnya) may not stain Him. The

Alwar himself has declared this truth in:- "I said "'Tirumalirunsolai" and

immediately, the Lord of Lakshmi filled my mind with His presence." (The

Vyaja, endeavour, or gesture, here, is the utterance of the word

Tirumalirunsolai by the Alwar). It may be asked "This vyaja, too, is

adopted by the Lord's grace. Why did He not make the person adopt it

before?" The answer is as follows:- "The souls of men have streams of

karma flowing from beginningless time. These streams of past karma produce

their respective consequences at different times and Iswara has to bestow,

on each individual, the rewards or punishments that are in accordance with

such karma. If He were to do otherwise, He would be tainted with

partiality (and injustice). Iswara did not make the person adopt the vyaja

before, as the time for the ripening of the fruit of the karma had not yet

come. Therefore from the effect we have to infer the cause, as stated

above. If this view be not accepted, no follower of any system will be

able to, answer the question why a person acquires, (at a certain time),

such things as eagerness for moksha which did not exist before. That these

are due to the varied nature of the streams of beginningless karma is the

common explanation for both those who believe in Iswara and those. who do

not. Iswara's independence and omnipotence, consist in His determination

to protect the jiva when He chooses to do so, on the adoption of a vyaja or

some form of upaya (endeavour) (or even an, apology for vyaja) and in there

being no power to prevent Him from doing so.

=========From the translation of Sri M.R. Rajagopala Aiyangar======

[Guest guest]

Sri Parthasarati Dileepan wrote:

>

> Not long ago Sri Varadan claimed Thenacharya sampradayam is equal to Sri

> Vaishnavam and Sri Vaishnavam is nothing but Thenacharya sampradayam, thus

> completing the necessary and sufficient conditions defining a Sri Vaishnava

> and quoted Sri PBA in support. However, he is yet to furnish the

> clarifications I requested. He further went on to accuse me of being

> sectarian!! While I have no interest in silly fights about Kalais, I am

> not going to be the one to simply stand by when views such as this are

> stated. Please remember, no one has suggested here that Desika

> Sampradayam is Sri Vaishnavam and Sri Vaishnavam is nothing but Desika

> Sampradayam! Thus, the origin of sectarian views is obvious.

 

 

Dear Sri.Dileepan,

 

I am not interested in 'debating' your interpretation of what was said.

There is

no point in me trying to debate the position that u have taken when what

I said

never was intended to be interpreted in the way you did.

 

My intepretation of the passage that I quoted is to include both the

vadakalai

and the thenkalai sampradaayams as 'thennaachaarya sampradaayam'. But

since

a lot of people in this group seem to be offended by that

interpretation, I

will not refer to SV as thennaachaarya sampradaayam anymore.

 

If I had interpreted PBA's words the same way you did, then I would have

had

to ascribe a motive (i.e. denying the existence of the vadakalai

sampradaayam) to

Sri.PBA. Who am I to ascribe such motives to such a great bhaagavatha?

 

Sri.PBA does not consider vEdaanta dEsikar as a 'vadagalai' aachaaryan.

He considers him to be a SV aachaaryan. The same holds true for the

so-called 'thenkalai' aachaaryaas. PBA takes the stand that all the

achaaryaas

are SV aacharyaas.

 

PBA has written volumes on vEdaanta dEsikar's works. For example, I

happen to have a copy of the first volume of his series titled 'sri

dEsika

rahasya maalai' [ this has 16 rahasyams in it - sampradaaya parisudhdhi,

thathva padhavi, rahasya padhavi, thathva navaneedham, rahasya

navaneedham,

thathvamaathrukaa, rahasyamaathrukaa, thathva sandhEsam, rahasya

sandhEsham,

thathva rathnaavaLi, thathva rathnaavaLi prathipaadhya sangraham,

rahasya

ratnaavaLi, rahasya ratnaavaleehridayam, srimad thathvatraya suLakam and

rahasyatraya suLakam; volume 2 is srimad rahasyaatraya saaram, volume 3

has many rahasyams including saarasaaram.].

 

I also happened to grow up about 5 houses next to him in keezhanda maada

veedhi

in Kanchipuram. Having had the good fortune of learning some parts of

the prabhandham

and about the sampradaayam from him, and knowing his family quite well,

I interpreted the word thennaachaarya sampradaayam to be an inclusive

one in this

context. (Even if I had not known him, I would still have the same

interpretation.)

 

Also, Sri.Dileepan, when PBA was still with us, he always performed the

'thodakkam'

kainkaryam [starting the gOshti] to all the gOshtis in Kanchipuram- This

includes

vEdaanta Desikar's goshti on every thiruvONam day, and vEdaanta

dEsikar's

thirunakshattiram. Even to this day, if you go to Kanchipuram on a

thiruvONam,

you can see thenkalais proudly leading the gOshti during vEdaanta

dEsikar's

purappaadu. [i am just mentioning this to try to clarify things to you.

In my opinion,

it really does not matter who is in what gOshti. I do not even care to

see who is

what kalai in gOshtis].

 

Am I guilty of writing something that leaves room for interpretation?

Yes. I apologise

for that I will try my best not to write things that leave room for

interpretation in

the future. But, Am I guilty of taking the position that you seem to

think I took?

No.

 

Just to summarize,

(i) My interpretation of PBA's words was that he includes both the

sampradaayams

in this context.

(ii) Even if I was confused about what he meant, I still would have

taken the same

position - Who am I to attribute such non-inclusive motives to Sri.PBA?

 

(iii) If you seem to think that Sri.PBA tried to deny the existence

of the vadakalai sampradaayam, I do not know what to say to you. Thei

choice is

yours - You either can interpret sri.PBA's words with the basic

assumption that

such a great bhaagavatha will have no such intentions - Or, you can

still interpret

his words with the assumption that he was trying to deny the existence

of the

vadakalai tradition. You make the call.

 

(iv) If you still want clarifications, I would much rather take this

conversation

to emails rather than discussing this on the group.

 

Varadhan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri. Varadhan:

 

Thank you for your clarifications. Sri. PBA's quotations you had provided

earlier did leave room for different interpretations. That is why I had

requested clarifications from you. As a matter of fact I had asked

specific questions. For your convenience I am providing the url of that

post from bhakthi digest below:

 

http://www.best.com/~mani/sv/bhakti/archives/mar97/0103.html

 

If you wish to answer these questions via e-mail, I have no problem.

 

Please be assured, I have only respect for Sri Vaishnavas in general and

the utmost respect for paramaikaanthins such as Sri PBA. I was not

questioning Sri PBA's motives as you seem to suspect. Since Sri PBA's

words you quoted left questions in its wake I wanted clarifications. What

am I to think if genuine questions are left unanswered? I hope asking for

clarifications is not equated with making accusations in this forum.

 

Thanks.

 

Sri Prathivaathi Bhayangaram ANNangrachariyaar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

 

-- Dileepan

 

 

p.s. I hope you find time to resume your contributions on Sri Manavala

Maamunigal. I would be grateful if you could write more about Sri PBA

also. Since you seem to have had first hand experience with this great

Acharya it would truly be a treat to hear about him from you.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakthi members:

 

I had a long talk with Sri Mani and exchanged a few e-mails with Sri.

Varadhan yesterday. Sri. Mani clarified that his concern about

misconception was not about the official Vadakalai position, but only about

what common Sri Vaishnavas tend to believe. Had I understood it in this

way, the intensity of my objections would not have crossed the threshold

for making them public. He has promised to elaborate further.

 

Regarding Sri. PBA's words, I am still a little confused about the intent

behind the words. But I shall seek clarifications from learned scholars

here and in India. Let me assure everyone that I have only the highest

respect for Sri. PBA and what I want to do is to understand, even if I end

up not agreeing.

 

Sri Varadhan's gracious post to this group yesterday shows I may have

overstated my objections in this matter. I seek the forbearance of this

group. I hope this little controversy will bring us closer than before

and help us debate issues freely.

 

Thank you Sri V. Sadagopan, for your calming words of wisdom.

 

Thank you.

 

-- Dileepan