Lokacharya Panchasat

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas:

 

In his book "Acharya Hridayam" of Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Nayanar,

Sri B.S.S. Iyengar Swami has quoted the following sloka from a work

called "Lokacharya Panchasat" attributed to Swami Vedanta Desikan,

under the title "A Homage from one genius to another"

 

"VaNee puNya sudhaapagaam sathagitah svairam vigaahyaadaraat

Aaneeyaamrutamatra chakraturubhaou paaNeeya saalaatmakam /

Yow vaagbooshaNa dEsikEndra hridaya abhikya prabandhadvayam

Tau vandE bhuvanaarya sundaravarau krishNaatmajou dEsikou //"

 

(Vedanta Desika – Lokacharya Panchasat – 10)

 

Meaning as given by Sri B.S.S. Iyengar Swami:

 

"I prostrate the two Acharyas, Lokacharya and Azhagiya MaNavaaLan,

the sons of KrishNapaadar, one of the two famed compositions composed

by them, the ornament of the sayings (Sri Vachana bhooshaNam) and the

inner core (Achaarya Hridayam) of the foremost Acharya (Nammazhwar),

as if nectar brought here like the cool drink in a stall (for the

weary traveler), from the flood of nectar called the sacred

utterances of SathagOpa, with the exhilaration of plunging in it with

abandon"

 

We have never heard of such a work by Swami Vedanta Desikan. If it

had been really written by Swami Desika, Scholars of SrivaishNava

Satsampradayam would have definitely commented on it or at least

referred to it in their numerous works in these 700+ years. There

seems to be a total absence of such references and this renders the

work susceptible to doubt its authorship.

 

Some have suggested that it was written by some latter day scholar

interested in projecting a kind of rejoinder to the now famous verse

of Pillai Lokacharya - praising Swami Desikan.

 

"Seeronru Thoopul Tiruvenkatamudaiyaan

Paar onrac chonna pazhamoziyul

Ore onru taanE amiyadO daaraNiyil Vaazhwaarkku

VaanErap pOmaLavum Vaazhvu"

 

If any comments / references to the work from Poorva Acharyas can be

quoted, it would help in confirming the claim.

 

I invite scholars to throw light on this with adequate PramaNams.

 

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Venkatesan:

 

Thank you for pointing this out.

 

I have heard elders saying that the Tanian "Seeronru" was composed by

Lokacharyar.

 

You are right in asking a restatement in my post to the effect that - "the

thaniyan is "attributed by some" to Sri Pillai Lokacharya".

 

I will try to get the appropriate Pramanam for this and present.

Meanwhile, if you come across any Pramanam reg. "Lokacharya Panchasat" kindly

let me know. Let me hasten to assure you that there is no bias either way.

 

Both Swami Desika and Lokacharyar were great friends and it is probable that the

verses attributed to both of them may be rightly so.

 

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

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

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear Sri Anbil Ramaswamy Swamin,

 

It is only fair that you seek the authenticity of a

work that has been atrributed to Sri Vedanta Desika.

And I look forward to readers input into the same.

 

However, in your message you have clearly implied that

you believe that the "seeronRu" thanian for Sri Vedanta

Desika was written by Sri Pillai Lokacharya. As far

as I know, this is not accepted by everyone. As such,

I would request you to "prove with pramanams" that

this thaniyan was indeed written by Sri Pillai

Lokacharya. Otherwise, I would request you to change

your post to say that the thaniyan is "attributed by

some" to Sri Pillai Lokacharya.

 

AdiyEn does not mean to start a controversy with this

post. My intent only is that the coin should be held

equal on both sides. If pramaNams are requested for

one (as it should be) then the other side should be

equally convincing. I apologize if this post hurts

anyone's feelings as that is not my intent.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

TCA Venkatesan

http://www.acharya.org

 

--- ramanbil <Ramanbil wrote:

> Dear Bhagavatas:

>

> In his book "Acharya Hridayam" of Azhagiya Manavala

> Perumal Nayanar,

> Sri B.S.S. Iyengar Swami has quoted the following sloka

> from a work

> called "Lokacharya Panchasat" attributed to Swami Vedanta

> Desikan,

> under the title "A Homage from one genius to another"

>

> ...

>

> Some have suggested that it was written by some latter

> day scholar

> interested in projecting a kind of rejoinder to the now

> famous verse

> of Pillai Lokacharya - praising Swami Desikan.

>

> "Seeronru Thoopul Tiruvenkatamudaiyaan

> Paar onrac chonna pazhamoziyul

> Ore onru taanE amiyadO daaraNiyil Vaazhwaarkku

> VaanErap pOmaLavum Vaazhvu"

>

> If any comments / references to the work from Poorva

> Acharyas can be

> quoted, it would help in confirming the claim.

>

> I invite scholars to throw light on this with adequate

> PramaNams.

>

> Dasoham

> Anbil Ramaswamy

 

 

 

 

Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More

http://faith.

[Guest guest]

, TCA Venkatesan <vtca> wrote:

> as I know, this is not accepted by everyone. As such,

> I would request you to "prove with pramanams" that

> this thaniyan was indeed written by Sri Pillai

> Lokacharya.

 

 

Please refer to page 180 of the LIFCO publication (1968)

of the Grantham titled, "MuvAyirappadi Guru Parampara

PrabAvam" written by Srimad Thrutheeya Brahmatantra

Svatantra Swami, the third Jeeyar of Sri Parakala Matam.

Here is the relevant sentence,

 

"... piLLai lOkAchAryArum sri bAshyaththai athikariththu

rahasyArththangaLaiyum pala kAlam kEttu andha prabAvatthai,

 

"sIronru thUppil ......

...

...

.........pOmaLavum vAzhvu."

 

enRu aruLichcheydhAr."

 

Please note that this text was written about the time

of Sri Manavala Mamunigal.

 

Couple of questions come to mind.

 

[1] Is there an authentic refutation of the above

reference in any Thenkalai text by either a contemporary

of the Third Jeeyar of Sri Parakala Matam, or someone

close to that time frame? Please note, I am not implying

that Thenkalais must accept the given reference as

authentic if such a formal refutation was not made;

just that it would be interesting to know whether this

was actually refuted formally in written form by anyone.

 

[2] With respect to Swami Sri Desikan being the author

for Lokacharya Pancasat, what is the source reference

Sri B.S.S. Iyengar quotes in support of his claim?

Is that widely accepted as authentic by Thenkalais

in the same way Vadakalais accept the mUvAyirappadi

text as authentic source for the authorship of

Sri Pillai Lokacharyar for the "sIronRu thUppil.. "

thaniyan.

 

I appreciate Sri TCA Venkatesan's caveat about not

intending any controversy. The same goes for my

post as well. Let us keep this academic and not

get emotional.

 

-- adiyEn

[Guest guest]

Sri:

Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

 

Dear BhAgavatas,

 

Thanks to Sri Anbil Swami and Sri Dileepan Swami for

taking a balanced approach to this topic - which is to

approach it with academic interest.

 

In a similar vein, I request everyone who reads this to

be aware that whatever points that I am making is made

from an objective sense.

 

I am personally not aware of any refutations to the quote

from Muvayirappadi from Mamunigal's time. But then my

knowledge is severely limited on this topic and as such I

will let others address it.

 

However, let us take the statement itself. Based on

interaction with Thenkalai scholars, I can state that

it is their belief that not everything that is said in

Muvayirappadi is correct. Lest someone mistake that

their acharya's words are being doubted, let me hasten to

add that the belief is that the work has been tampered

with over the years in order to foster certain lines of

thought. Needless to say it is likely that Vadakalai

sampradhayins also harbor similar doubts about some of

the contents of the Arayirappadi work. Certainly the

statement that Namperumal Himself uttered the Srisailesa

dayapatram thaniyan (archaka kumAranAy, not archaka

kumAran) in the Arayirappadi is not being accepted at

face value.

 

So, even if no one from Mamunigal's time or immediately

thereafter refuted this claim, it still does not prove

much, as the thought is that this statement could have

been introduced at a much later time. Note that Thenkalai

scholars state that the kalai split occured at a time

much after Mamunigal's time (some put it around the mid

1600s).

 

So, a single pramANam such as this is found lacking. The

only way to "prove" is to have several independent works

by scholars from both sampradhayams that state the same

thing. Based on that, it is adiyEn's opinion that it will

be next to impossible to prove that this thaniyan was

written by Sri Pillai Lokacharya. So, all we will have

is that we believe what our acharyas have told us and

leave it at that. This is why I requested Sri Anbil

Swami that he should change his statement (only because

he required proof for the other while stating this one

as accepted truth) to "attributed by some".

 

On the other hand there is a better chance of proving a

whole grantha was written by a specific acharya. In that

sense it is appropriate to seek pramANams for the

Lokacharya Panchasat authorship. I will wait to see what

others have to post on that subject.

 

Finally a note which is somewhat subjective but not

intended with any malice. There were recently notes on

some claiming a couple of new works were

authored by Sri Vedanta Desika. While some replies

followed wondering about the claim, I saw none which

requested the author to prove with pramANams that the

works were indeed authored by Sri Desika. I would request

everyone to show the same zeal in asking such questions

whether it is one work or the other. The contents of the

work alone should not be the reason to question a claim.

 

Considering the prolific and prodigious capabilities

of Sri Desika it is for sure that many of his works

have been lost. But sufficient proof should be

required for all claims - this is for the glory of

the acharya himself.

 

Once again, adiyEn's apologies, if inadvertently, I

have hurt any bhAgavata's feelings.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

TCA Venkatesan

http://www.acharya.org

 

 

--- dileepan <dileepan wrote:

> , TCA Venkatesan <vtca>

> wrote:

> > as I know, this is not accepted by everyone. As such,

> > I would request you to "prove with pramanams" that

> > this thaniyan was indeed written by Sri Pillai

> > Lokacharya.

>

>

> Please refer to page 180 of the LIFCO publication (1968)

> of the Grantham titled, "MuvAyirappadi Guru Parampara

> PrabAvam" written by Srimad Thrutheeya Brahmatantra

> Svatantra Swami, the third Jeeyar of Sri Parakala Matam.

> Here is the relevant sentence,

>

> "... piLLai lOkAchAryArum sri bAshyaththai

> athikariththu

> rahasyArththangaLaiyum pala kAlam kEttu andha

> prabAvatthai,

>

> "sIronru thUppil ......

> ...

> ...

> .........pOmaLavum vAzhvu."

>

> enRu aruLichcheydhAr."

>

> Please note that this text was written about the time

> of Sri Manavala Mamunigal.

>

> Couple of questions come to mind.

>

> [1] Is there an authentic refutation of the above

> reference in any Thenkalai text by either a contemporary

> of the Third Jeeyar of Sri Parakala Matam, or someone

> close to that time frame? Please note, I am not implying

> that Thenkalais must accept the given reference as

> authentic if such a formal refutation was not made;

> just that it would be interesting to know whether this

> was actually refuted formally in written form by anyone.

>

> [2] With respect to Swami Sri Desikan being the author

> for Lokacharya Pancasat, what is the source reference

> Sri B.S.S. Iyengar quotes in support of his claim?

> Is that widely accepted as authentic by Thenkalais

> in the same way Vadakalais accept the mUvAyirappadi

> text as authentic source for the authorship of

> Sri Pillai Lokacharyar for the "sIronRu thUppil.. "

> thaniyan.

>

> I appreciate Sri TCA Venkatesan's caveat about not

> intending any controversy. The same goes for my

> post as well. Let us keep this academic and not

> get emotional.

>

> -- adiyEn

 

 

 

 

 

Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

http://webhosting./

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri TCA Venkatesan:

 

Your position is quite understandable and

not altogether unexpected. But, I think

claims of insertion in 3000 padi, etc. can

be viewed as motivated.

 

Let us just stick to facts. It is a fact

that recognized and traditional Vadakalai

vidwans unanimously affirm the authenticity

of the 3000 padi pramANam that was provided

in support of Swami Sri Pillai Lokacharya's

authorship of the Thaniyan. I know Thenkalais

do not accept this, but at least among

Vadakalai vidwans there is unanimity about

this. It is in this sense that I enquired

whether there was unanimity among Thenkalai

vidwans about Swami Sri Desikan's authorship

of the referred Pancasat. I have now received

private e-mails indicating that this is not so.

This claim is not universally accepted by all

the Thenkalai vidwans. Particularly, it has

not been accepted by a noted Thenkalai vidwan

who is well known for grantha publications.

 

IMHO, each side should respect the other's

considered opinions in these matters, and,

each side should also admit that their

view in these matters is just their position

and the other side may not accept it. They

must not then try to "prove" to the other

side why their view is more authentic, etc.

What would be the point of that? All the

proofs have been offerred and countered a

million times over. Neither side is going

to be persuaded by the other side. The best

thing for us to do is to live and let live.

The two kalais have much in common, but we

cannot start to celebrate this until we can

respect our differences and accept them as

they are. If we try to out do each other

(e.g. my acharya is better than yours), or

try to deny the legitimacy of the other side

(e.g. your acharya actually belongs to my

sampradayam, your sampradayam did not even

exit more then xxx years ago), we have a

bright future in acrimony.

 

-- dileepan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Dileepan:

 

I think you have misunderstood me. My point was not that

there have been insertions into 3000padi. My point was

that Thenkalai scholars believe (motivated or not) that

there have been insertions. With such a belief in hand,

how do you "prove with pramanams", when that pramanam is

a single quote from the said document. I do not question

the contents of 3000padi, but if it is offered as a

pramanam I have to point out the objections that are made

to it (right or wrong). AdiyEn is sticking to the facts

and these are the facts in the debate.

 

This is why I said that it is my belief that it cannot be

proved that Sri Pillai Lokacharya authored that thaniyan.

And my final recommendation which I made before as well,

is in tune with what you are saying - that each believe

what their acharyas have told them.

 

Regarding the authorship or agreement on the Panchasat

grantha, adiyEn is not aware of what all Thenkalai

scholars have to say and that is why I did not comment

on the same. However, I think I know who the Thenkalai

vidwan that you are pointing who does not believe that

the work was authored by Sri Desika. May I point out

that the said vidwan does not agree that the Desikar

thaniyan was authored by Sri Lokacharyar either.

 

The only reason this email debate started was the

statement that pramanams were required to prove the

authorship of Lokacharya Panchasat while the thaniyan

matter was stated as fact that Sri Lokacharyar wrote it

(when clearly it is not universally accepted). If the

original mail had simply left it as a query about

Lokacharya Panchasat there would have been no debate.

But when it is coupled with the thaniyan note then it

had to be challenged.

 

I agree with you that proofs should not be demanded for

what one sampradhayam believes in, but then that needs

to be a two way street.

 

AdiyEn hs nothing further to say other than that I agree

with you that both sampradhayams should learn to respect

and celebrate each other.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

TCA Venkatesan

http://www.acharya.org

 

--- dileepan <dileepan wrote:

> Dear Sri TCA Venkatesan:

>

> Your position is quite understandable and

> not altogether unexpected. But, I think

> claims of insertion in 3000 padi, etc. can

> be viewed as motivated.

>

> Let us just stick to facts. It is a fact

> that recognized and traditional Vadakalai

> vidwans unanimously affirm the authenticity

> of the 3000 padi pramANam that was provided

> in support of Swami Sri Pillai Lokacharya's

> authorship of the Thaniyan. I know Thenkalais

> do not accept this, but at least among

> Vadakalai vidwans there is unanimity about

> this. It is in this sense that I enquired

> whether there was unanimity among Thenkalai

> vidwans about Swami Sri Desikan's authorship

> of the referred Pancasat. I have now received

> private e-mails indicating that this is not so.

> This claim is not universally accepted by all

> the Thenkalai vidwans. Particularly, it has

> not been accepted by a noted Thenkalai vidwan

> who is well known for grantha publications.

>

> IMHO, each side should respect the other's

> considered opinions in these matters, and,

> each side should also admit that their

> view in these matters is just their position

> and the other side may not accept it. They

> must not then try to "prove" to the other

> side why their view is more authentic, etc.

> What would be the point of that? All the

> proofs have been offerred and countered a

> million times over. Neither side is going

> to be persuaded by the other side. The best

> thing for us to do is to live and let live.

> The two kalais have much in common, but we

> cannot start to celebrate this until we can

> respect our differences and accept them as

> they are. If we try to out do each other

> (e.g. my acharya is better than yours), or

> try to deny the legitimacy of the other side

> (e.g. your acharya actually belongs to my

> sampradayam, your sampradayam did not even

> exit more then xxx years ago), we have a

> bright future in acrimony.

>

> -- dileepan

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

http://webhosting./