GREAT COMMENTARIES.

[Guest guest]

DEAR BHAKTHI GROUP MEMBERS

I have just written a message regarding the greatness of the Commentaries and

the Great knowledge of their authors/AchAryAs.

I would like to mention, in this regard that Great tamil scholars, just for the

sake of interest in Tamil attended the discourses by SwAmi bhattar and

nampillai. There were several occasions in which these tamil scholars gave a

different interpretaions. These interpretations were not rejected in to-to,

without application of mind. I give hereunder two interpretaions which have been

accepted and two which have been rejected. I request the members to go through

these in the original text of Edu vyAkyAnam and appreciate the Greatness.

INTERPRETAION OF TAMIL SCHOLARS WHICH HAVE BEEN REJECTED

1.

thiru voizh mozhi 1-4-4 "en nErmai kandu irangi" A tamil scholar interpreted

this as keAttu irangi and addressed this to Sri Bhattar. The question was the

payalamai nOi- that is, the disease caused due to the separation of lovers is

reflected by bleachness in the skin of the woman. The tamil scholar questioned

that " if the man sees the bleachness ,then it means that he is alongwith the

woman and there is no separation and hence told that it should be" kEattu" that

is on hearing the details of separation. On this Bhattar addressed the issue

authoritiatively by quoting from Thirukkural and stated that even when both are

together when the hand is removed from one place and touches another, the first

place become white due to separation which can be seen by the man. Hence,

Bhattar described that Azhwar s prabhandham can never be at fault.

 

2. thiru voizh mozhi 2-5-10 "AnallaN pennallaN allA aliyum allaN"

God is not male gender as seen in our world or feminine in character nor a

mixture of both. For this, a tamilian interpreted that if he is neither of these

then he should be a nothing _ sOnyam.

Sri Bhattar mentioned that the tamil letter ending with N in AnallaN, pennallaN,

aliyum allaN refers to the fact that the Lord in fact is Purushothaman.

 

 

INTERPRETAION OF TAMIL SCHOLARS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED

 

1. thiru voizh mozhi 3-9-2 in sonnAl virodham padhigam - "kannan kurungudi

meymaiyea" The Thirukkurungudi which is belonging to Kannan.

A tamil scholar interpreted this as Good Place Thirukkurungudi i.e " kan nal

kurungudi"

This interpretation has been accepted and also mentioned in the commentary.

 

2.thriu voizh mozhi 3-9-7 " pArilOr patraiyai "

Patraiyay = A mateial/ person whch is neither useful to himself/itself nor to

other from his birth/origin to death/destruction..

A tamil scholar interpreted this as - A person who grips what he has firmly in

his hands and does not give out anything to anybody. This has been accepted.

 

I request the members again to go through the original text of the commentary to

understand it fully well.

 

 

There are several such instances which goes to prove beyond doubt the greatness

of the commentaries,their uprightness and knowledge. Hence, to belittle such

commentaries and start interpreting ourselves will lead to utter chaos.

Padmanabhan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

I would like to add some additional information to this without meaning any

offense to anyone.

 

Vishatha Vaak Sikamanigal Sri Manavala Mamunigal wrote Vyakayanam for

Periyazhwar Thirumozhi (not for all the pasurams). During his period,

purvacharya vyakyanam of upto 3 hundred pasurams(learned scholars please correct

me on the number) of Sri Periyazhwar had become luptham(extinct). So, Sri

Manavala mamunigal wrote vyakyanam to only those pasurams for which the

Vyakyanam was missing and whatever was not missing, he did not even attempt to

re-write it because he believed that his vyakyanam wouldn't be a match for his

purvaacharya's work. He just left it as it is. Look at his Bhakthi and Mariyadai

for the Poorvacharyargal. Sri Mamuni doesn't just advice "munnor mozhindha murai

thappamar kettu" and "than nenjil thotrinadhe solli". He has also stood by the

words.

 

Just thought of sharing this nice piece of information with the group. I meant

no offense at all. In case I've, "sarva aparadhaan kshamasva". And this has

nothing to do with the attempts of any of our dear group members to interpret

the divya prabandhams. All that I would say is Erar muyal vittu kaakkaippin

povadhe? When we have the gold in hand why should we try to dig a mine to find

the same?

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

Lakshmi Narasimhan

 

-

Padmanabhan

Tuesday, September 10, 2002 2:09 PM

bhakthi

GREAT COMMENTARIES.

 

[...]