A clarification needed

[Guest guest]

srimathE ramaanujaaya nama:

srimath varavaramunayE nama:

srimath ananthaarya maHaaguravE nama:

 

Dear List members,

 

Recently I was reading a book "Visishtadvaita-The unique philosophy of

Srivaishnavism-Concepts at a Glance" wriitten by Sri.A.Lakshminarasimhan

published by RASIBHAM Trust, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Foreword has been

given by Prof.M.N.Narasimhachary, Head of the Department, Department of

Vaishnavism,University of Madras, Chennai. I stumbled upon one paragraph in

the book given under the Chapter 11.Disciples of Ramanuja in Page no.43 in

point no. 7. I am reproducing the paragraph here:

 

" Ananthazhvan-one of the simhasanathipathis. Ramanuja asked him to look

after the temple garden at Tirumala. ( Ananthazhvan's son was Pundarika

Somayaji. His son was Ananta Suri, who married Thotharamba and to them was

born Venkatanatha, i.e. Sri Desika.)"

 

When I read this I was confused if the author got the names Ananta Suri

mixed up. Is the above lineage true? Is there any authoritative source to

believe this? I am submitting this before the learned scholars of this list

basically to get this point cleared and to point out the mistake , if it is

a mistake to the author. I request the members from Chennai to get this

point cleared from the author or from Prof.Narasimhachary , Dept. of

Vaishnavism, Univ. of Madras.

 

I hope I haven't hurt anybody's feelings by posting this here.

 

adiyEn

madhurakavi dhaasan

 

T.A.S.Vijayaraghavan, XLRI, Jamshedpur

[Guest guest]

> Recently I was reading a book "Visishtadvaita-The unique philosophy of

> Srivaishnavism-Concepts at a Glance" wriitten by Sri.A.Lakshminarasimhan

> published by RASIBHAM Trust, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

> " Ananthazhvan-one of the simhasanathipathis. Ramanuja asked him to look

> after the temple garden at Tirumala. ( Ananthazhvan's son was Pundarika

> Somayaji. His son was Ananta Suri, who married Thotharamba and to them was

> born Venkatanatha, i.e. Sri Desika.)"

>

> When I read this I was confused if the author got the names Ananta Suri

> mixed up. Is the above lineage true?

 

I am surprised that the author has made such an obvious mistake. We

can easily determine whether this lineage is correct or not.

Sri Anantalvan belonged to bhAradvAja gotram. Sri Desika, as attested

to himself, belonged to kauSika gotram. Hence there is no patrilineal

relationship between the two, and the author has clearly simply assumed

that since Desika's father's name was Ananta Suri that he must be

a descendant of Anantalvan.

 

It is sad that even in this day of easy availability of information,

such elementary mistakes are being made and propagated.

 

rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani