[Pre-Ramanuja status]

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir,

 

You have mentioned that {"Ramanujar himself was born into a VaDamAL family

that followed Yajur Veda"}. May I request you to kindly quote authentic

history or Sampradaaya vishayam with the actual quotations of our

Aacharyas (preceptors) in this regard. Please include the references

while quoting regarding the same.

 

Thanks & Regards

M.S.HARI Ramanuja Dasan

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

 

schakrav wrote:

> ------------

> Attachment: 

> MIME Type: multipart/alternative

> ------------

Dear bhaktas:

 

Earlier I'd mentioned that most Mandya Srivaishnavas were originally

Jains under King Bittideva of HoyasaLa. Regardless of the truth of

this statement, no "corollary" was intended. We know that Ramanujar

himself was born into a VaDamAL family that followed Yajur Veda. Some

of the Azhwars were also Saivites or Jains, prior to their entering the

Vaishnavite fold. It all goes to show, that one's beginnings do not

necessarily determine one's entire lifespan and legacy. Some of the

Mandya Srivaishnavas today are known to be the most faithful followers

of Ramanuja sampradayam.

 

Truly

-Srinath Chakravarty

email: xsrinath

 

 

__________________

Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1

[Guest guest]

Sri M.S. Hari wrote:

> Dear Sir,

>

> You have mentioned that {"Ramanujar himself was born into a VaDamAL famil=

> y =

>

> that followed Yajur Veda"}. May I request you to kindly quote authentic

> history or Sampradaaya vishayam with the actual quotations of our

> Aacharyas (preceptors) in this regard.

 

It is universally accepted that Ramanuja was a vaDama.

So were Kurattalvan, Desika, Maamunigal and many other

acharyas of our sampradAya. This can be seen in periya

tirumuDi aDaivu, guru paramparA prabhAvam (GPP) and other

traditional biographies where the 'kulam' of each acharya

is given. Periya Nambi, for example, was a bRhaccaraNa

brAhmaNa, and therefore had trouble getting his daughter

(or some other relation, I forget exactly) married to a

relative of Alvan. The details are in GPP.

 

In those days, even within the Sri Vaishnava community,

there were distinctions between groups of brahmins.

Such distinctions continue to exist in a minor away

in the Tamil smArta brahmin community. Among Sri Vaishnavas

today, the only community difference among brahmins that

still persists is the cOzhiya/non-cOzhiya division, and

this too only in southern Tamil Nadu where cOzhiyas thrive.

 

For example, Sri U.Ve. Puttur Krishnaswamy Iyengar (the

publisher of the Divya Prabandham commentaries and other

sampradAya works) is a cOzhiya Sri Vaishnava brahmin and

very proud of it. He does not tire of mentioning that

Sri Vaishnava stalwarts such as Peria-Accan Pillai,

Engal Alvan (Vishnucitta) and others also were cOzhiyas.

 

The real question is not whether Ramanuja was a vaDama,

which he most definitely was, but whether he was strictly

speaking a non-Sri Vaishnava before his contact with

Tirukkacci Nambi (and subsequently Periya Nambi). In my

opinion, his family were strict Vaishnava smArtas but

not necessary Sri Vaishnavas as we understand it today.

We should keep in mind, however, that the distinction

between Sri Vaishnava/smArta was *not* very apparent

in the old days (many vaDama families are as strongly

Vaishnava as Sri Vaishnavas to this day).

 

The evidence for this is as follows. Ramanuja was sent

after his upanayanam to study with Yadava Prakasa, an

exponent of Advaita (or perhaps bhedAbheda, but it

really doesn't matter). Why did his father send him

here, instead of to Alavandar? This philosophy is diametrically

opposed to the philosophical tradition espoused by

Alavandar and the Sri Vaishnava acharyas.

In fact, until Ramanuja came into contact with Tirukkacci

Nambi, it appears that Ramanuja was totally unaware

of Alavandar. This is despite the fact that Ramanuja's

very maternal uncle was a disciple of Alavandar.

 

Furthermore, it is the custom in Sri Vaishnava household

for male brahmin children to have samASrayaNam very soon after

their upanayanam. There is no reason to believe this was

different in those days. However, we read of Ramanuja

taking samASrayaNam very late after his upanayanam, indeed,

after his Vedantic studies with Yadava Prakasa and his

subsequent estrangement from him. Would a strict Sri

Vaishnava have postponed such a fundamental sacrament?

 

Furthermore, we read in the GPP that Ramanuja learnt the Divya

Prabandham mUlam only after his contact with the sishyas of

Alvandar -- i.e., after he was well into his twenties. This is

not the norm in a strict Sri Vaishnava household, when both boys

and girls learn Divya Prabandham as soon as possible, in many

cases even before upanayanam.

 

Further, there is no record of Ramanuja's paternal ancestors being

*Sri* Vaishnavas along the lines of Alavandar, etc.

 

All this leads me to the conclusion that Ramanuja, while coming

from a strict vaidika Vaishnava family, did not come from a *Sri*

Vaishnava family.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Mani

 

P.S. Re: Hebbar and Mandyam Iyengars

 

We have to pause before concluding that *all* of these communities

in the mElnADu were converted smArtas and Jains. For one, I find

it hard to believe that such converts would start speaking Tamil

when their ancestral language would have been some form of Kannada.

Yet, we find all Sri Vaishnavas today speaking some form of Tamil.

I can believe there were *some* Jains and smArtas who were

converted and who subsequently joined the Sri Vaishnava community,

but it remains a question for resarch and debate.

 

One interesting thing to note is that Hebbar Iyengars in particular

used to prefer marrying Hebbar Iyengars, to the exclusion of

other Sri Vaishnavas as well. They followed this practice more

than other Sri Vaishnava subcommunities, to my knowledge. This

perhaps points to their origin as a converted community, which

would explain their preferring to marry people of their own,

and not even other Sri Vaishnavas.

 

Other mElnADu Sri Vaishnavas (such as the Hemmige Sri Vaishnavas,

of which I am one) believe that they were invited by a king

to settle in Karnataka, or that they came along with Ramanuja

or Desika in their sojourns in this area.

 

mElnADu Sri Vaishnava Tamil is peculiar in that it contains

many archaic Tamil expressions which can only be found in

the paasurams of the Alvars and the early writings of the

acharyas. For example, we use the word 'kaDAram' for a

small tank of water -- lifted straight out of Periyalvar's 'nIrATTam'.

We say 'tiruppiNDi' for 'kOlam', which I discovered being used

in the 'vArttAmAlai'. When this archaic Tamil is mixed with

Sanskrit and Kannada expressions, you get mElnADu Sri Vaishnava

Tamil, which is very peculiar and often unintelligible due

to accent and vocabulary to modern Tamil Sri Vaishnavas.