Thiruman Issue

[Guest guest]

You wrote,

 

Sri Madavakannan Wrote

 

 

'Let me again say: It was not changed ThirumaN. On one uthsavam or

occassion

possible Sri Ramanuja would have been bedecked with thirumaN and that

picture is available in our homes and in some books. None would

change or

doctor and for what? what do we achieve?'

 

 

 

Respected Sri. Madhaavakannan,

 

 

At first, I feel very sorry that you have been pained by the accusation

that you have 'doctored'a Udayavar's photgraph etc, etc...

 

However, as one who hails near to Kanchi, I wish to state that Udayavar

does not carry

different Thirumans in different occasions. It is not a practice in

Indian divyadesams to change

Thirumans at one's will. To the best I know, Thriuman normally changes for

a temple, only if

they are totally neglected and the other group takes over maintenance of

it by their funds/people. In the recent times happened in Thriumaiyam DD.

 

Personally, I may choose to care more on Perumal rather than the Thriuman

he adores.

However, to honor the sentiments of locals, it is better to keep status

quo rather than utilizing funds and people for changing DDs. We have to

take a leaf from Guruparampra prabhavam, where Udayavar did not want to

take over some temples in Kerala because the locals were more devoted to

the Lord though they were Advaitins.

 

 

Please apologise if my words are found hurting.

 

Thanks

Dasan

 

KM Narayanan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------------------------

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to

which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged

material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or

taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or

entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received

this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any

computer.

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Members

 

What Sri Narayanan says is absolutely right. As per the records

as we have it, there is no evidence that Swamy emberumAnAr was

adorned with a vadagalai thirumaN at SriperumpudhUr. While there

is nothing wrong with having a vadagalai thirumaN on a given image

of Swami emberumAnAr, if we are presenting a photo of a

particular mUrti, in the interests of historical accuracy and

sanctity of the representation we should present it *as it is*.

Doctoring such holy images should not be considered acceptable.

Imagine how many of you would feel if the doctoring were done

the other way, from vadagalai to thengalai?

 

Also, why should one feel the need to change the thirumaN

on an existing photo? Are we not agreed that philosophically

they mean the same thing?

 

There was a book published a few years back that had

a cover photo of SriperumpudhUr emberumAnAr with a thirumaN

doctored to be a vadagalai thirumaN. Immediately a legal

notice was served to the publisher by the then jeeyar of

SriperupudhUr and the photo was withdrawn.  What I have

learnt is that the photo has however come into circulation

in many people's houses, giving people an inaccurate idea

of what the SriperumpudhUr mUrti looks like. In all probability,

this is the photo that Sri Madhavakkannan has in his house,

because as far as I know, there is no record that SriperumbudhUr

Swamy emberumAnAr ever had a vadagalai thirumaN, and certainly

not in modern days since photography of the mUrtis became

a common occurrence.

 

Some people are unfortunately spreading rumours that the

Sriperumbudhur temple was vadagalai until about 50 years ago.

One need only ask the many Srivaishnavas of both kalais who were

alive over 50 years ago. This is simply not true.   These kinds

of rumors do no good but seed dissension among the kalais.

Yes, there are temples such as Thirumeyyam where it is well-known

that due to financial reasons the temple converted from Thengalai

to Vadagalai recently.  This is accepted by everyone. But for

all other temples rumors simply generate bad feeling among

our people and are counterproductive in the long run.

 

I think all of us are agreed that further fights over the

'kalai' status of temples are the last thing our tradition

needs. In this regard, I very much appreciate the points brought

forward by Sri Narayanan. When emberumAnAr Himself left temples

along to follow their existing traditions, what rights, do we,

the less mortals have to do the same forcibly. In the recently held

Yati

Sammelanam under the banner of Swami Nammazhwar foundation, a

consensus was brought to maintain the status quo of the temples as on

date.  Unfortunately, not everyone is living up to this agreement

and some people have actually increased their political

manoeuvring since then. This is an unfortunate occurrence and

with Swamy emberumAnAr's grace perhaps we can put an end to it.

 

In any case, I would like to express my gratitude to

Sri Madhavakkannan for demonstrating great patience and

charity in this regard. He has once again revealed the

spirit of a true Vaishnava by not getting angry in the

midst of this discussion. I am also glad that we can all

discuss and come to a conclusion about the accuracy of

Swamy emberumAnAr's mUrti without dissension and conflict.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

 

Enjoy being an Indyan at http://www.indya.com