acharyas and their hagiologies (aitihyam)

[Guest guest]

sri:

 

Please accept adiyEn's humble pranams:

 

:-Recently Mukundan has written a pained note expressing dismay

:-that someone has tried to challenge that the Lord himself learnt

:-from Maamunigal.

 

Not just someone, so many mails from various members, taking every chance

to disprove Mamunigal as lord's acharyan (If one does not want to

agree,just leave it alone, Do NOT Put down anyone's Acharya)

 

:-I really do not think anyone wishes to "disprove"

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

 

Just read your next two lines:

 

:-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,

 

You are not wishing to disprove anything here, but your sentences are

leading to that.

 

It is our limitation in understanding that makes us ask:

- : Why THe Mass of Knowledge Himself wants to learn from Mamunigal.

 

If we approach periyavas (Not JUST in age, but also in TRUE KNOWLEDGE)

we might get to learn:

Periyavas say: Its the Anubhavam of enjoying Thiruvaimozhi, so much that

tears are pouring out for hours together while giving and enjoying

Mamunigal's discourses on Thiruvaimizhi.

 

Lord wanted to experience this divine Anubhava.

Lord also wanted to show to the world true nature of acharya.

Adisesha had been serving Lord in the way only HE can, Lord wanted to do

something back for this ardent dAsan.

He also wanted to complete the PurvaAcharya GuruParampara, with HIM,

as it also started by HIM.

 

There are so many more reasons, for reasons better left unsaid, adiyEn

will stop with these.

 

For those not wanting to take on Mamunigal or accept him in small parts,

Its ok. Mamunigal is not the looser, Ramanuja is not the looser,

sampradaya is not the looser.

 

adiyEn will stop with this,

Let us all strive to follow Bhagawath Ramanuaja's teachings,

no ill feelings/no Kamam/no anger/no anavasya vaadham,

 

--truth is truth & will be so regardless of what we say or think----

 

It is our limitation in understanding and the Ahankaram that we can read a

couple of books that further keeps us from enjoy these anubhavas.

 

Forgive me for this note, as I write this in tears for all of us.

 

adiyEn rAmAnujA dAsan

Mukundan Vankipuram Pattangi

[Guest guest]

Dear Mukundan,

 

I am really astonished that you have taken this so emotionally.

Your acharya-bhakti runs deep, and I am sorry if what I have

written has triggered some bad feelings. I think in this case

I may have not properly explained myself. It is

not that I deny Swami Manavala Maamunigal's greatness. He is

rightly celebrated and honored in nearly all temples for

his contributions. At the same time, his contribution should not

be overshadowed by improperly explained stories, i.e., stories

which are not given proper context. To cite an example, you

wrote:

 

bhakti-list, Dan Pattangi <danp@u...> wrote:

> It is our limitation in understanding that makes us ask:

> - : Why THe Mass of Knowledge Himself wants to learn from Mamunigal.

>

> If we approach periyavas (Not JUST in age, but also in TRUE

KNOWLEDGE)

> we might get to learn:

> Periyavas say: Its the Anubhavam of enjoying Thiruvaimozhi, so much

that

> tears are pouring out for hours together while giving and enjoying

> Mamunigal's discourses on Thiruvaimizhi.

 

It is beyond doubt that Manavaala Maamunigal's anubhavam of

Tiruvaymozhi was unsurpassed, and that his lucid explanations

brought the meaning of the divine hymns home to everyone.

The propagation of Tiruvaymozhi is perhaps Swami Maamunigal's

greatest contribution to the world.

 

However, what you are saying is that the Lord *literally*

lacked some anubhavas and had to go seek them from someone

else. In other words, there was a shortcoming in His own

jnAna and Ananda forcing Him to go elsewhere. Now, does this

really make sense in the context of innumerable statements

from Sruti, Prabandham, and Smrti that He is 'kurai onRum illAda

gOvindA', 'satykAma, satyasankalpa', 'vijnAna-ghana', 'satyam,

jnAnam, anantam'?

 

It is these exaggerations that pose problems to the objective

listener. Now I may be missing something in my understanding --

so please correct me if I am -- but the Lord's presence in

Maamunigal's goshTi was perhaps more because he wished to show

how *everyone* should enjoy Tiruvaymozhi, particularly as so

lucidly explained by Maamunigal, and that everyone

should sit among bhAgavatas and participate in

bhagavad-guNAnubhavam together (kUDi irundu kuLirndu). We need

not posit shortcomings in the Lord's anubhava to praise another.

> Lord wanted to experience this divine Anubhava.

> Lord also wanted to show to the world true nature of acharya.

> For those not wanting to take on Mamunigal or accept him in small

parts,

> Its ok. Mamunigal is not the looser, Ramanuja is not the looser,

> sampradaya is not the looser.

 

I am afraid you have totally misunderstood the point and

have taken an emotional tangent. I apologize if I was unclear.

I accept Maamunigal wholesale as one of the greatest acharyas

ever. I view his writings as displaying divine inspiration.

His profound wisdom combined with utter humility are a constant

source of pride in me as one who belongs to his tradition.

 

I suppose there may be a few petty people who cannot see past

the thirumaN and view Maamunigal with disdain. It is up to the

rest of us to educate those people not by doggedly insisting

on Maamunigal's divinity (which they will hardly accept), or

claiming that bad things happened to them because they criticized

Maamunigal (which sounds like nothing but witchcraft), but to

patiently demonstrate the historical reasons *why*

Maamunigal was held in as high an esteem as Sri Ramanuja.

It is so obvious if one simply reads a few pages of Maamunigal's

works, or thinks about what role Maamunigal played in historical

context. Why is it we don't hear these things? Why is it we

only hear of some dogmatic doctrines of divinity?

 

I often wonder whether the people who insist repeatedly only on

the divinity of Maamunigal or Desika have bothered to learn

anything else about these great mahAtmas. Is there nothing

else to say other than 'person A was the avatAra of divinity B'?

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

srImathe rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Mani,

 

This is a wonderful note (rather essay) that you have written. I agree with

you fully on all the points. However I would like to bring to you

attention, the following.

 

First : Sri Sadagopan Iyengar wrote a really wonderful article

explaining the kalyANa guNas of Sri Ananthan in which he elaborated on his

avatArAs and stopped with Sri rAmAnuja as the final avatArA, though he

"hailed" srImadh Azhagiyasingar as his present day avatAram, out of utmost

love and devotion to his AchAryA.

 

Second: I posted a message indicating that swAmy maNavALa mAmunigaL was

also considered as his avatAram and he is the FINAL avatArams "according to

the scriptures available".

 

There ended the matter. Where was an argument in this, until Sri Srinath

Chakravarthy posted a message attributing swAmi maNavALa mAmunigaL as a

kalai specific AchAryA. If this posting could be avoided, there was no

arguments in this. Of course, he was honest enough, to say indirectly swAmy

dEsikan is a kalai specific AchAryA. But the fact is, not. Because, while

the vadakalai consider swAmy maNavALa mAmunigaL as kalai specific AchAryA,

the thenkalais have as a part of their guruparamparai, swAmy dEsikan also

and they rever them much. This point can be clearly established from the

fact that mostly all the thenkalai temples DO have a sannidhi for swAmy

dEsikan, even, if they fail to have some AzhwArs, whereas, none of the

divyadEsams, which are completely vadakalai in character do have a sannidhi

for swAmy maNavALa mAmuni.

 

Your point, that the origin of our AzhwAr-AchAryAs, have no importance in

understanding their works is very good. Yes, I agree with it fully.

 

But I believe, strongly, that the way to put down this argument is NOT by

attributing these claims as "hagiologies", but only by accepting the fact

or atlease by not writing ill about other AchAryAs. As Sri Mukudan had said

in response to your posting, not considering swAmy maNavALa mAmunigaL as

the avatAram of Sri Ananthan is not at all a loss for him and to Him. Also

it does not go any longer in understanding their works as correctly stated

by you.

 

On the otherhand if we are to discard finally these as only "aitihyams",

and cannot be proved, what kind of sanctity are we to have on our AchAryAs,

who have eulogized this in their works. How much are to consider their

works are nothing but truth, if we are only to insist on historical

evidences or the "pratyaksha pramANAs"?

 

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh