svAmi maNavALa mAmuni being rAmAnujA's avatAra

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namah

srImathE vara vara munayE namah

 

 

dear bhAgavathAs,

 

A member of this list wrote, in response to srI.

venkatEsh's mail on svAmi maNavALa mAmuni being the

avatAra of svAmi rAmAnuja as follows

 

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

Sri Venkatesh and others with similar passionate

dispositions:

adiyEn thinks it is unwise to get into kalai-specific

anubhavams

about who represents the punar-avatAram of udayavar

etc. Just

so you know, SriRangaRamanuja mahAdesikan (kOzhiyAlam

swAmi) was

hailed as abhinava rAmAnuja during his time in

bhoolokam during

the last century. Overlapping claims to udayavar's

legacy abound,

and before asserting one's feelings so strongly one

should stop

to think where the discussion is leading towards.

This is not to

dispute any particular tradition but an attempt to

show equal

respect to all without making mutually exclusive

claims. We must

understand that even though there is AchArya

paramparai which

attests to certain punar-avathArams, those kalakshepam

traditions

are not unformly accepted across SriVaishnavam and

therefore we

must approach such controversial subjects with great

caution.

============================Unquote=============================

 

 

The bottomline in all of the above, and in fact with

every religious belief we have, is whether we have

faith in what our AchAryAs have said, and whether we

accept a particular AchAryA or not.

 

In this case, many people find it very hard to accept

that svAmi maNavALa mAmuni is the avatAram of svAmi

rAmAnuja - Nothing wrong with that. Everyone is

entitled to their own opinion and biases. Noone should

 

force any opinion on anyone.

 

If one wants to see the facts behind the case, and

try to understand how our AchAryAs have established

the fact, then it is there to see. If one has a bias

for whatever reason, then it is ok too - Just becase a

 

small section of the "srIvaishNava" community does not

 

accept/recognize svAmi maNavALa mAmuni (or for that

matter, any similar history of any other AchArya), the

 

loss is NOT the AchAryA's, but indeed of the people

who, due to their bias fail to learn from His

teachings.

 

However, in the grand scheme of things, it really does

not matter for the individual anyway. After all,

the grace of the Lord is NOT dependent on our

knowldege, and in fact is unconditional.

 

My suggestion to srI. T.V.VenkatEsh would be not to

waste his time arguing back and forth over this.

After all no amount of logical argument will

overcome historical biases. Moreover, we can

collectively use the bandwidth provided on this group

for more constructive purposes.

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam,

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan,

Varadhan

 

 

 

 

GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.

http://geocities./ps/info1

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, <tavaradhan> wrote:

> However, in the grand scheme of things, it really does

> not matter for the individual anyway. After all,

> the grace of the Lord is NOT dependent on our

> knowldege ...

 

Dear Varadhan,

 

If this were the cause, how would you explain

Swami Pillai Lokacharya's repeated quotation of

the 'vAkya' -- 'jnAnAn mokshaH' -- from knowledge

comes moksha? In fact, I have even heard mahAvidvAn

Kanchi P.B. Annangarachariar Swami repeatedly mention

this in a lecture. Or, the veda-vAkya -- 'tam evam

vidvAn, amRta iha bhavati' -- one who *knows* Him

attains immortality here itself.

 

Or, the phrase from Sri Vachana Bhushana of Swami

Pillai Lokacharyar, 'adu phalippadu ivan ninaiva mArinAl'

-- the grace of the Lord bears fruit when the jiva's

*thought* changes?

 

Or, Babu svAmin's recent email describing the necessity

of tattva-traya-*jnAna*, and therefore explaining the

necessity of having an acharya?

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Mani,

 

I will try to answer these questions to my knowledge.

 

If only jnYanam (knowledge) is enough to attain mOksha, then the very

existence of visishTAdvaitha is under question or even jeopardy, for,

mOksha for jnyAna is advaitha vAdha. (Please correct me if I am wrong

here).

 

Then why do we repeat that the jnyAnam gives us mOksham. It is actually the

actions that develops further, when one attains knowledge, will lead to

mOksham. I will try to explain the answer in two parts based on your

question.

 

1. "tam Evam vidwAn amrutha iha bhavathi". I actually have not read the

vyAkhyAnam for this, but will reply to this from the brief explanation that

you gave and also based on simple logics. (Again, if I am wrong here please

do correct me). You gave the explanation as " one who *knows* Him attains

immortality here itself". The next question that comes into the mind is. If

one just knows about Him, will he attain mOksha immediately? The answer is

No. Means, you have to see what are the consequences of gaining the

knowledge about Him. It will lead the prapanna to do prapatti. Again, when

doing prapatti what does he gets to know about Him. He gets to know that "

He is the upAya for getting the mOksha". This is from the slOka " tvamEva

upAya bhoothO me bhava iti prArthanA mathi: saraNAgati", meaning, he will

attain mOksha, if he does prapatti with the knowledge that He is the upAyam

for attaining mOksham. So, here, knowing Him means, knowing 'about' Him

that He is the upAya. Naturally he gets mOksha when these corollaries are

met with in relation to the main theorem of "jnyAna" about Him.

 

2. The Sri vachana bhooshaNa sUtra " adu phalippadu ivan ninaiva mArinAl"

also talks about "avan ninaivu" as above performing saraNAgathi with the

thought that He is the upAyam to attain mOksham, yields him the mOksham.

 

So just the knowledge by itself will not get the mOksham, but the deeds of

the prapanna after attaining the knowledge is what is really required for

mOksham. What Sri Varadhan probably stated as " it does not depend on the

knowledge", is that, the lord is not bound by the knowledge and his

consequent acts to give him mOksham. For sure, when one gets the knowledge,

he will only go on the right path to attain mOksha. The knowledge and its

corollary of performing prapatti are only qualifications or "adhikAri

visEshaNa". This is very concept of "nirhEtuka kripA" of emberumAn. There

are cases to prove this, like, the prapatti did by Sri BharathAzhwAn, for

Sri rAmA to return to ayOdhyA did not yield result, though the act of

performing the surrender was clearly done according to the books, whereas

VibheeshaNa saraNAgathi yielded results for him, though it was not done

according to the books. I mean to say that actually VibheeshaNA was in the

sky and emberumAn was in the ground when the saraNAgathi was done.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

 

The information contained in this message is legally privileged and

confidential information intended only for the use of the addressed

individual or entity indicated in this message (or responsible for

delivery of the message to such person). It must not be read, copied,

disclosed, distributed or used by any person other than the addressee.

Unauthorised use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited and may be

unlawful.

 

Opinions, conclusions and other information on this message that do not

relate to the official business of any of the constituent companies of

the SANMAR GROUP shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by

the Group.

 

If you have received this message in error, you should destroy this

message and kindly notify the sender by e-mail.

 

Thank you.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *