SriManavalaMamunigal

[Guest guest]

Shri, Mani, Shri Srinath and other Bhagavathas,

This list has been doing a wonderful job. I do not want to be the reason for

spoiling it. Ofcourse, I could not bear Shri.Srinath's rat - tiger analogy.

Maybe I have over reacted. But I consider it as Bhagavad Sankalpam, since it

has made me realize the repercussions. I promise I will be more cautious here

afterwards. It is a lesson for all of us not to over react and over do things.

>From my side I beg forgiveness for any Apacharam, hurt I have caused to the

learned moderate members of this group. If I am responsible for the

deterioration in the healthy functioning of this group, I would prefer to delist

rather than be a cause for putting a spade in the healthy functioning and good

service which this list is doing.

Honestly, I learnt a lot on going through the archives. For youngsters it is

the best way to learn about our sampradaya. Of-course one tends to become too

emotional while writing about their aacharya. This should not be treated as

bigotry nor should others try to down ride and question the same. When

Sri.Venkatesh mentioned that SriManavalaMamunigal was SriRamanuja’s avatara,

what hurt or insult could he have caused to the Vadagalai Sampradayam? OK they

may not consider SriManavalaMamunigal in their guruparampara, but are they

enemies of SriManavalaMamunigal, or had SriManavalaMamunigal done them so much

harm that a depiction of him as SriRamanuja’s avatara, ( which meant no harm

or disrespect to SriVedanta Desika’s Sampradaya), has triggered an immediate a

rebuttal?

We learnt a lot about Vedanta Desika's works, his life history etc. Would it be

right for Tennacharya sampradaya people to object to depictions in certain

versions, some portions of his life which they may feel does not give respect to

their aacharyas or ones which tend to belittle their aacharyas?

Today while the learned scholars and Yatis Shrestaas of our SriRamanuja

Sampradaya like, the present pontiff of Sr Ahobila mutt give so much respect to

Tennacharyas like SriBhattar, SriNampillai, SriPerivaachanPillai, and

SriManvalaMamunigal, and their works, by quoting them in their writings with

respect and reverence, what right do people like me, who stand nowhere, have to

create even the smallest misunderstanding and discord, which always has a

snowballing effect and ends up with even the most moderate and learned people

amongst us entering into verbal duet, mudslinging on each other?

On retrospect I feel that the entire events could have been avoided even if one

side had shown the slighted restraint. As SishyaA of Aacharyas who gave so much

importance to Bhagavad Vishayam, I owe up the entire responsibility for the

entire happenings and seek pardon for the harm this episode has done to this

Bhagavad Sampradaya. Though I may not contribute anything, I should not be

contributing to causes which create discord.

 

Hotheads like me should not be the cause for undoing the effort and good work

done by ShriMani, Shri.Sadagopan and others.

Once again begging forgiveness for all the Apacharam SiriyEn, may have

unknowingly caused

Adiyen SriRamanuja Daasan,

Srinivasan

[Guest guest]

Sri.Ramanujamwrote,

 

We learnt a lot about Vedanta Desika's works, his life history etc. Would

it be right for Tennacharya sampradaya people to object to depiction in

certain versions, some portions of his life which they may feel does not

give respect to their aacharyas or ones which tend to belittle their

aacharyas?

 

 

Respected Members of Bhakthi list,

 

For clarification, I would like to point out that Swami Desikan is very

much an Acharya for Tennacharya sampradayam . People like PBA Swami,

Puttur Swami has given many proofs from Swami Desikan's works to disprove

the some claims of later day Vadakalai Acharyas. To my little mind, I have

a feeling like Swami Desikan and his works were totally 'hijacked' for

sectarian causes by later day acharyas for their own ends.

 

The main reason for this I feel is get some control /Mariyadai' in temple

affairs. As Karl Marx as said , All the struggle in this world has some

economic dimension, I feel this struggle too was made big due to some

economic necessities by later day acharyas.

 

I am sure I may accrue abacharam by pointing fingers towards Sri

Vaishnava Acharyas. Yet we need to analyze this issue from rational angle

as well.

 

On one hand refusal by Tennacharya sect to allow kaimkaryam towards

Vadakalais have resulted in Vadakalai acharyas mobilizing money and man

power to construct Swami Desikan Sannadhis everywhere in the country. (No

one bothered about the his sannidhi in his avatara sthalam untilthe

temple came under their control or his sanndhis in other divya desams)

 

On the other hand, there is a genuine fear by tennacharya sect that even a

little room given to the other sect would result in change in status quo,

temple control, Tiruman etc. The case in point is recent controversy over

change in Tiruman in Udayavar's thirudandam and 'suggestions' to change

tiruman just because the most of the financiers are from one sect.

 

Few years back in Sriperumbudur one wealthy jain family wanted to donate

money for Sriperumbudur temple ,but wanted to some 'religious service' in

the sanndihi.The jeeyar at Sriperumbudur immediately refused since the

philosophy of Sri Ramanuja is much against Jainism.

 

To ensure both the sects to get equal kaimkaryam rights, I strongly

believe that 'Elders' in both the sampradayam

should re engineer their thoughts and agenda and the 'youngsters' and

particularly 'recently christened' Sri Vaishnavas should first

concentrate on learning granthams rather than wasting time in Jingoism.

 

I am sure I have committed some amount if abhacharam in writing this

mail. Yet, as one of the older members of this list, I am not able to

simply watch what is going on here.

 

Please consider my post for what is written rather than who has written

this.

 

Dasan

 

Regards

 

KM Narayanan

[Guest guest]

Re: 'hijacking' of Swami Desika

 

I apologize for letting the previous message go through.

I should have checked with the author before forwarding it.

 

The use of the term 'hijacking' of Swami Desika is highly

inappropriate. There were definitely differences of opinion

between Sri Desika and Sri Pillai Lokacharya. For that matter,

there were differences of opinion among the sishyas of Sri

Ramanuja himself. Arguments can go back and forth as to

who is "true" to whose legacy. I have read many of Sri Puttur

Swami's and Sri PBA Swami's points. While some of them have

merit, many of them are simply taken out of context. Other

people on the Vadagalai side have tried to show that Sri Pillai

Lokacharya actually agreed with Sri Desika and that the

former was misinterpreted in the succeeding centuries. A critical

view of these works shows that neither of these is true.

This is all partisan rhetoric, which neither Puttur Swami, Sri PBA

Swami, and many Vadagalai acharyas were above.

 

It is getting increasingly difficult to moderate this list.

There are so many severely uninformed opinions and so much

emotionalism that I wonder what hope we have as a community.

 

In any case, as I said, some changes will be made in the

upcoming days and I hope they will address at least part of

this problem.

 

Witih apologies,

Mani