acharyas and their hagiologies (aitihyam)

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

I am afraid this discussion about such-and-such an

acharya being an avatAra of some other divine being

is getting out of hand. The problem in insisting that

these stories of, say, Swami Manavala Mamunigal being

the reincarnation of Sri Ramanuja (or Adisesha) or

Swami Desika being the incarnation of the bell of

Lord Srinivasa (or Lord Srinivasa Himself) is that

*none* of these things (a) can be historically verified

(b) has any *real* value in philosophical discourse,

other than to increase devotionalism, and that too,

only in a minor, secondary manner.

 

I would *strongly* urge the members of our list to

keep these opinions and emotions to themselves and not

make them points of argument. The problems caused by

such insistence are immense. For, let us accept

both of the above mentioned legends as fact, ignoring

all historical problems -- that Desika is in fact the

'ghaNTAvatAra' and that Maamunigal is indeed Ramanuja reborn.

There were *definite* differences of opinion between

Swami Desika and Swami Maamunigal. Are we now saying that

the ghaNTA of the Lord and the Lord's primary servant

(Adisesha) are at odds with one another?! What is an

objective observer (as I hope each one of us is) to make of this?

What's more, why not we believe that Sri Madhvacharya was the

veritable incarnation of Vayu and that Sri Chaitanya was

Radha-Krishna personified? Their followers have as much

evidence as we do. Where does it end?

 

I must confess that I often find it troubling when praise

goes to this extent. There have been statements here

that because the boy who recited 'SrI-Sailesha-dayA-pAtram'

was considered Lord Ranganatha that Maamunigal was

even greater than Sri Ramanuja -- not *equal* to Ramanuja,

but *greater* than Ramanuja. Need we go to this extent

to laud our acharya, such that the bhAshyakAra himself is

placed at a lower pedestal? Let there be absolutely no doubt

that Swami Manavala Mamunigal was in fact one of the

greatest acharyas of our tradition -- his kAruNya, his

bhagavad-anubhava, and his clarity of writing are

of a supreme order. His ability to reestablish the kainkarya

in so many temples and preseve and propagate the bhagavad-vishaya

can only be called superhuman. There is no doubt about this. But

why not we focus on *these real kalyANa-guNas* of the

revered acharya, and not stray stories, none of which

truly and objectively add to our appreciation of the

acharya?

 

For, no matter how many times one simply declares (no

matter what Pillai Lokam Jiyar wrote) that Manavala Maamunigal

was the veritable reincarnation of Sri Ramanuja, or that

Swami Desika was the ghaNTA incarnated, these contribute

*nothing* to our understanding of either acharya's *true*

contribution to our tradition. Neither can we say that

either statement is anything more than partisan rhetoric.

For neither Maamunigal nor Desika urged others to believe

in their own divinity, nor did they wish to be elevated to

the status of even Sri Ramanuja, not to speak of nitya-sUris

like the ghaNTA or Adisesha. It does not help us in understanding

the clarity and contribution of, say, Maamunigal's 'tattva-traya

vyAkhyAnam', or, say, Swami Desika's 'tAtparya-candrikA'. Only

by using our minds and eyes and delving into these treasures

of thought and insight can we really appreciate these

mahAtmas.

 

Recently Mukundan has written a pained note expressing dismay

that someone has tried to challenge that the Lord himself learnt

from Maamunigal. I really do not think anyone wishes to "disprove"

Maamunigal's acharya-ship to the Lord. For that matter, it is not

provable either, and it carries no water with me. (What would it

mean for the sarvajna, the mass of knowledge Himself, to "learn"

from Maamunigal? In what way was he a sishya?) It is, however,

valuable in estimating the *respect* with which contemporaries

held Maamunigal.

 

To explain, we may examine a similar debate which was carried

on by the early acharyas concerning the apparent divinity of

the Alvars. This debate can be found in the introduction to

the commentaries on the Tiruviruttam. Some acharyas felt that

the Lord Himself came as Nammalvar. Others felt that a nitya-sUri

had taken descent as the saint. Yet others felt that he was

a samsArin like the rest of the jIvas. The commentator (Nampillai

in this case) concludes that the earlier opinions about the

divinity of Nammalvar are statements made to express their

appreciationh of the incomprehensible greatness (prabhAva) of the

saint. Nampillai

concludes, on the basis of the Alvar's own statements, that

Nammalvar was a jIva stuck in samsAra rescued by the grace of

the Lord.

 

Without entering the debate over whether the Alvars were

nitya-sUris or not, I would like to propose the idea that

we may view these stories of our acharyas in the same light.

These stories mentioned in the traditional biographies and

hagiologies seek to impress upon us the incomprehensible

contribution of these scholar-saints. But they should be taken

*no further*. They should not be made points of argument,

or take any independent philosophical significance of their

own. They should also not be used to declare emotionally

that one acharya is "the greatest", without providing solid

supporting material in terms of actual contributions. For,

what good is it to declare such things? Only to make others

feel bad? Or to beat one's chest to express one's own devotion

to one's acharya? I don't think any of our acharyas, particularly

Maamunigal, Desika, or Sri Ramanuja, would want this of us.

 

All in all, I hope our community as a whole, and at least the

membership of this list, can move past the miracle-mongering

and fanciful stories that constitute the bulk of what passes

as biographies of our acharyas and Alvars. There is *so much

more* we can learn from what they *actually said* that we are

wasting far too much time on these trivialities. Honestly,

I am rather disappointed so far that the series on Swami Manavaala

Maamunigal's vaibhavam has concentrated more on these hagiological

details rather than his actual, concrete contributions. When

I open up Maamunigal's 'SrI-vacana-bhUshaNa' vyAkhyAnam, even

to my untutored eye I find so many insights written in the

simplest of maNipravALa. Can we not get *someone* to elaborate

on any of these great thoughts?

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani