Guest guest Posted August 30, 2001 Report Share Posted August 30, 2001 We are aware of the dispute raised about the God at Tirumala and the role played by Swami Ramanuja in establishing it as the archa of Sriman Narayana. I am intrigued about this dispute. The Tamil kappiyam Silappathikaram mentions Tirumala as a temple of Thirumal. There are copius references to the temple in Nalayira Divya Prabhandam. Surely those who raised the dispute shoud be aware of these references during Swami Ramanuja's time. Are there any references in other literature to the contrary? Is the claim of those who dispute rests only on the iconograhic details? I am also intrigued by another remark attributed to famous Tamil scholar Mahavidwan Tirisirapuram Meenakshisundaram Pillai who also claimed that the god at Tirumala was Sri Subramanya. This remark is in the biography of Sri U Ve Swaminatha Iyer, "En Charitram". I am sure that Sri Pillai was aware of the references in Silappathikaram and Prabandham. Can the scholars in the group comment? adiyen Ramanuja dasan D Bala sundaram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 30, 2001 Report Share Posted August 30, 2001 Dear Sri Bala Sundaram, You are right. The claims by the saivaites only based on the iconographic details. However, some clever people interpreted our own AzhwArs pAsurams to concoct a story as to the deity there is a combination of VishNu and Siva. They take the reference to the 3rd ThiruvandhAdhi pAsuram, " thAzh sadaiyum, neeN mudiyum, oN mazhuvum, chakkaramum......". Their claim is because of the reference to the sadai and mazhu, which are considered as attributes to Siva. While actually the meaning of the pAsuram is different. I request members to give the correct meaning as I am not confident about my translation skills for this pAsuram. No where in any saivaite literature, to my knowledge, there is a reference to this deity as Siva. Some also claim that it is Sakthi and not Siva or VishNu. As you very correctly pointed out, SilappadhikAram, which was written even before the time of AzhwArs and nAyanmArs, very clearly indicates this deity as not only VishNu, but THE SUPREME GOD Sriman nArAyaNan. AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh ---- Begin Original Message ---- "D Bala Sundaram" <dbsundaram Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:30:31 -0700 "Bhakti-List NG" <bhakti-list> Dispute about the God at Tirumala We are aware of the dispute raised about the God at Tirumala and the role played by Swami Ramanuja in establishing it as the archa of Sriman Narayana. I am intrigued about this dispute. The Tamil kappiyam Silappathikaram mentions Tirumala as a temple of Thirumal. There are copius references to the temple in Nalayira Divya Prabhandam. Surely those who raised the dispute shoud be aware of these references during Swami Ramanuja's time. Are there any references in other literature to the contrary? Is the claim of those who dispute rests only on the iconograhic details? I am also intrigued by another remark attributed to famous Tamil scholar Mahavidwan Tirisirapuram Meenakshisundaram Pillai who also claimed that the god at Tirumala was Sri Subramanya. This remark is in the biography of Sri U Ve Swaminatha Iyer, "En Charitram". I am sure that Sri Pillai was aware of the references in Silappathikaram and Prabandham. Can the scholars in the group comment? adiyen Ramanuja dasan D Bala sundaram ----------------------------- - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH - To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/ Your use of is subject to ---- End Original Message ---- Enjoy being an Indyan at http://www.indya.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2001 Report Share Posted September 1, 2001 bhakti-list, "D Bala Sundaram" <dbsundaram@h...> wrote: Dear Sri Balasundaram, Let me try to answer your query. I divide my answer into two mails ... the first one confines itself to some observations on such questions. In the second, I will attempt to address the question about Tirumala that you have asked. > Is the claim of those who dispute rests only on the iconograhic > details? Please be informed that even those arguing for other identifications for tiruvenkatamudaiyan based on iconographic details have all been given a thorough rebuttal by the scholars of the tradition. For the most part they have been shown to have inadequate knowledge (if not total ignorance) of the texts of the vaikhanasa and pancharatra agamas. > > I am also intrigued by another remark attributed to famous Tamil > scholar Mahavidwan Tirisirapuram Meenakshisundaram Pillai who also > claimed that the god at Tirumala was Sri Subramanya. This remark is > in the biography of Sri U Ve Swaminatha Iyer, "En Charitram". I am > sure that Sri Pillai was aware of the references in Silappathikaram > and Prabandham. I myself was not able to locate this reference in "en charittiram". I'd be much obliged for a page number reference. It must be remembered that Sri Pillai as well as Sri Iyer both come of a sectarian Saivite background, having been connected with the Tiruvavaduturai Adheenam. To be sure, Sri UVS in his commentaries invariably gives many references from the Divyaprabandham and the commentaries thereof. But sometimes even he leaves me somewhat puzzled ... there was one place in his works where I found his silence intriguing and tantamount to what can only be construed as sectarian bias. I refer to his commentary on the takka yaga parani published by the UVS Library, Madras. It is well known that a Chola emperor threw the image of Sri Tillai Govindarajan in the sea with the argument that the resting place of Narayana was the sea. This act of Saivite piety of this Raja has been eulogised by the Chola court poet Ottakuttan, not once but three times ... once each in his takkayagapparani, Rajarajacholan ula and kulottungacholan ula. In the commentary to the relevant verse on takkayagapparani, all that Sri UVS says is "ittAzicaiyil kURappaTTa ceyti ... kulottunga chozan ulA .... irAcarAcachozan ulA ... enpavaRRilum kuRippikkappaTTirukkiRatu". He even points out how relevant phrases in the three different verses point to the same thing. He says that " 'munnaik kaTalpuka' enRa toTarum 'munnarkaTal akazin mUzkuvitta' enRa toTarum poruLAl ottiruttal kANka." But he very coyly avoids saying what is it that the "kURappaTTa ceyti" was ... that it was an act of intolerance viz., drowning the holy image of Sri Tillai Govindarajan in the sea. It is well known that the same Govindarajan had then to be installed in the what's now known as the Govindaraja Swami Sannidhi in Tirupati. That there was considerable sectarian bias which Saivites entertained is also revealed indirectly in one of his other commentaries where he says that the traditional commentator Parimelazakar who, despite being a Srivaishnava was capable of raising above any sectarian bias when commenting upon sections where references to Murugan and Sivan are encountered. "ivar tirumAl aTiyArAka iruntum paripATalil civaperumAn murukakaTavuL mutaliyOrkaLaik kuRippiTum iTangaLil avaravarkaLuTaiya perumaikaLai nanku viLakki cellutalAl ivaruTaiya naTuvunilaimai pulanAkiRatu" (paripATal, mUlamum uraiyum, UVS Library, Madras, 1995, p. xxx) Thus sectarian bias alone has been the cause of such irresponsible and baseless statements that the Lord at Venkatam was Siva, or Sakti or Murugan etc. The Saivite bhakti texts which are three times the size of the Divyaprabandham do not make this claim anywhere about Venkatam. Nor does the Periyapuranam which alone is bigger in size than the Divyaprabandham. So it's not clear where people like Meenakshisundaram Pillai, despite their obvious scholarship, are coming from ... I am not even thinking of the fact that the Silappatikaram identifies the Lord at Venkatam as Narayana. In my next post, I will show that aggressive posturing alone ("Akkiramippu") on the part of Saivites, without any basis in history, tradition or texts, was responsible for this dispute. Hope this helps, Lakshmi Srinivas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 1, 2001 Report Share Posted September 1, 2001 Sri U Ve T A Krishnamachariar swami of Tirupati, has written book by name "Thiruvenkata malai varalAtru mAlai" with regards to this issue. It is an excellent reference book published by TTD and all the younger generation of srivaishnava should have a copy of the same in order to understand the pains taken by Sri Ramnujar in establishing the deity at Tirumala. AzhwAr EmperumAnAr jEyar thiruvadigalE saranam adiyen srivaishnava dasan sampathkumar bhakti-list, "D Bala Sundaram" <dbsundaram@h...> wrote: > We are aware of the dispute raised about the God at Tirumala and the role played by Swami Ramanuja in establishing it as the archa of Sriman Narayana. I am intrigued about this dispute. > > The Tamil kappiyam Silappathikaram mentions Tirumala as a temple of Thirumal. There are copius references to the temple in Nalayira Divya Prabhandam. Surely those who raised the dispute shoud be aware of these references during Swami Ramanuja's time. Are there any references in other literature to the contrary? > > Is the claim of those who dispute rests only on the iconograhic details? > > I am also intrigued by another remark attributed to famous Tamil scholar Mahavidwan Tirisirapuram Meenakshisundaram Pillai who also claimed that the god at Tirumala was Sri Subramanya. This remark is in the biography of Sri U Ve Swaminatha Iyer, "En Charitram". I am sure that Sri Pillai was aware of the references in Silappathikaram and Prabandham. > > Can the scholars in the group comment? > > adiyen Ramanuja dasan > > D Bala sundaram > > > 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.