Guest guest Posted May 28, 1999 Report Share Posted May 28, 1999 SrI SrInivAsa parabrahmNE namah. Dear BhAgavatas, Please recall the lenghty discussions related to this topic. Many memebers said we can't accept this story as authentic, as it is not there in vAlmIki rAmAyaNa. This mAyA sItA vruttAntam, which finds place in purANas (BhavishyOttara/vArAha?), was quoted by BhagavadrAmAnuja in his arguments with the Saivas of Tirupati region. So what I feel is this must be having some kalpabhEdam and can't be dismissed as totally invalid narration. SrIvEnkatESa charaNau SaraNam prapadyE dAsan V.Srimahavishnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 1999 Report Share Posted May 28, 1999 Sri Vishnu wrote: > This mAyA sItA vruttAntam, which finds place in purANas > (BhavishyOttara/vArAha?), was quoted by BhagavadrAmAnuja in his arguments > with the Saivas of Tirupati region. As stated earlier, acharyas in the Sri Vaishnava tradition do not accept the Maya Sita story. If it has been reported that Ramanuja used this story at Tirupati, this must be a recent revision of history. According to the earliest biographies, there are few details of what arguments Ramanuja actually made, and the Maya Sita story would have had little if any relevance to the dispute. Sri Vaishnava acharyas stick to Srimad Valmiki Ramayanam and Alvar paasurams for the story of Rama. For additional anubhavas, they read Kamban, whose story is based entirely on Valmiki, by his own admission. We are best advised to do the same. Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 1999 Report Share Posted May 30, 1999 rAmAnujasya charaNau SaraNam prapadyE. Dear BhAgavatas, namO namah. On Fri, 28 May 1999 Sri Mani wrote: > > As stated earlier, acharyas in the Sri Vaishnava tradition > do not accept the Maya Sita story. If it has been reported > that Ramanuja used this story at Tirupati, this must be a > recent revision of history. According to the earliest biographies, > there are few details of what arguments Ramanuja actually made, > and the Maya Sita story would have had little if any relevance > to the dispute. Let us first discuss the relevance of the mAyA sItA episode to the dispute between VaishNavas and Saivas. BhagavadrAmAnuja referred to this, to prove that Lod VEnkatESwara is no different from rAma . As per the purANa gAthA referred to by him, the same mAyA sItA takes birth as PadmAvatI in kaliyugArambham and marries perumAL. But, the presiding deity of SrI SukapurI (TiruchhukanUr, TiruchAnUr) is considered to be a direct incarnation of Periya PirAtti.So this incident must be having some kalpa bhEdam. Also I am nobody to question our AchAryas' stand on this topic. Now let us come to the issue of discussions between BhagavdrAmAnuja and Saivas regarding the vishNutvam of saptagirISan. vEnkatAchalEtihAsamAlA gives a detailed account of these arguments. This book is considered to be an authentic source of information by SV vidwAns of Tirupati region. This is an ancient text written by none other than SrI anandALwAn."mahAmahOpAdhyAya" SrImAn anandANbiLLai SrIrangAchAryulu, a descendant of SrI anantAryar published this book in Telugu transliteration in previous century. Later TTD published it in dEvanagari lipi. SrI N C V Narasimhacharyulu traslated this book into Telugu with the assistance of SrImAn U VE T A Krishnamacharyulu, another descendant of SrI anandALwAn. SrImAn N C V carried out a sentence-to-sentence or rather word-to-word translation of the book. SrImAn Mohan Sagar has informed me that the book written in English by Sri S.Krishaswami Iyengar does not refer to this episode at all. Now coming to the point, rAmAnuja dismisses all the claims made by Saivas as bogus.He quotes more than one hundred pramANas. Interestingly, many people even today repeat the same claims.In the recent past, an AchArya of a particular school of thought said SrI vEnkatESa is "hariharAtmakan" on the basis of His nAgAbharaNatvam, jatAdhAritvam and pEyAzhvAr's (if i remember rightly) addressing Him as having soumya and bhIkara forms simultaneously. Unfortnately nobody denied his repeatedly made statements(to the best of my knowledge). Absolutely same arguments took place between BhagavadrAmAnuja and others and the former gave the latter befitting replies. BhagavadrAmAnuja refers to a "ruk" which advises the jIva to go to the hill of Parama pususha having SrI on His hrutpItham, to take refuge at His feet, for the jIva's ujjIvanam. In quite similar words, BhavishyOttara purANa confirms that the hill referred to in this rugvEda mantra is PannagAchalam only. This book also provides an account of the origns of various temple rituals as per the sadAchArams of SV and VaikhAnasa sampradAyams. Also it tells us how SrI gOvinda rAjar came to Tirupati from "Tillainagar" TiruchhittirakUdam (Chidambaram). The present mUrti of gOvindarAjar in natarAjar's sannidhi was installed later. Tirumalai oLugu(whose author is unknown), summarises SrI anadAlwAn's work and gives account of customs introduced in the post-anadALwAn period esp. by SrI mANavAla mAmunigaL. ALwAr emberumAnAr JIyar TiruvadigaLE SaraNam dAsan V.Srimahavishnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 1999 Report Share Posted May 30, 1999 SrI: SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaNN- SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESikAya namaha Dear Sri Mani and Sri Srimahavishnu, namO nArAyaNA. Sri Mani Varadarajan wrote: > Sri Vishnu wrote: > > This mAyA sItA vruttAntam, which finds place in purANas > > (BhavishyOttara/vArAha?), was quoted by BhagavadrAmAnuja in his arguments > > with the Saivas of Tirupati region. > > As stated earlier, acharyas in the Sri Vaishnava tradition > do not accept the Maya Sita story. If it has been reported > that Ramanuja used this story at Tirupati, this must be a > recent revision of history. According to the earliest biographies, > there are few details of what arguments Ramanuja actually made, > and the Maya Sita story would have had little if any relevance > to the dispute. Sri U.Ve. KarunAkaran swAmi, a leading SriVaishnava vidvAn, has already said that, the mAyA sIta episode described in the purANAs needn't be dismissed right away and it is regarded as the kalpa bEdham. Also, when yemperumAnAr Himself has cited it (as per the information provided by Sri Srimahavishnu), adiyEn feels that it is certainly a case of "kalpa bEdham". adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan ananthapadmanAbha dAsan krishNArpaNam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.