avatAras of rAmAnuja etc.

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha.

 

Dear Members.,

 

Those of you who are members of the Bhakti list, would have read the

articles from Sri Sadagopan Iyengar and the response that adiyEn posted,

confirming that swAmy maNavALa mAmuni as the last avatAram of Sri rAmAnuja

and hence Sri AdisEshan. Today you would have also read a mail from

Srinath, in which it clearly brings out their hatred for our sampradhAyam

that they cannot even withstand the fact that swAmi maNavALa mAmuni was

rAmAnuja himself and try to equate him to later day AchAryAs like Sri

kOzhiyAlam swAmi.

 

I am giving my reply that I am intending to post on the list. I request

advice from you all to improve upon this and send separate postings to

Bhakti list with the following in mind.

 

1. No offense of any sort towards the vadakalai AchAryAs.

2. Clear cut pramANams to prove that swAmy is punravathAram of Sri

rAmAnuja.

 

AdiyEn could not give the pramANa slOka,due to my limited knowledge.

However, to keep the discussion alive, I am posting this as there cannot

be, I hope and believe, anything wrong about the facts that adiyEn has

stated here.

 

For your necessary action please,

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

======================The message that I am going to post to Bhakti List

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

 

 

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

 

 

Sri Srinath Chakravarty wrote :

=================================Quote

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

Sri Venkatesh and others with similar passionate dispositions:

adiyEn thinks it is unwise to get into kalai-specific anubhavams

about who represents the punar-avatAram of udayavar etc. Just

so you know, SriRangaRamanuja mahAdesikan (kOzhiyAlam swAmi) was

hailed as abhinava rAmAnuja during his time in bhoolokam during

the last century. Overlapping claims to udayavar's legacy abound,

and before asserting one's feelings so strongly one should stop

to think where the discussion is leading towards. This is not to

dispute any particular tradition but an attempt to show equal

respect to all without making mutually exclusive claims. We must

understand that even though there is AchArya paramparai which

attests to certain punar-avathArams, those kalakshepam traditions

are not unformly accepted across SriVaishnavam and therefore we

must approach such controversial subjects with great caution.

============================Unquote=================================

 

Dear Sri Srinath.

 

I would like to clarify the following on the above posting of yours.

 

First, a passion will or may lead to athivAda. There is for sure, no

athivAda in this and hence no passion. Also there is a GREAT DIFFERENCE

between hailing one to be Sri rAmAnuja, by virtue of his deeds and the

actual avatAra of Sri rAmAnuja. There is no doubt, the the title of

"abinava rAmAnuja" is conferred upon Sri kOzhiyAlam swAmi, for his

knowledge and contributions towards the sampradhAyam. This cannot be used

to disclaim the fact that swAmy maNavALa mAmuni was punaravathAram of

rAmAnuja.

 

Secondly, there can be no "kalai-specific" to this. The Thenkalais rever

swAmy dEsikan to a great extent, in as much, not a single upanyAsakar

belonging to this sect will complete a upanyAsam, without quoting from the

Sri sUktis of swAmy dEsikan. The only difference between the kalais were on

some, I repeatm some, philosophical issues. The vadakalais, stop with swAmy

dEsikan in the greater guruparamparai while the thenkalais, stop with swAmy

maNavALa mAmuni in the same. The guruparamparai that runs after them is

kalai specific. May be the vadakalais think that even swAmy maNavALa mAmuni

as kalai specific AchAryA. I do not want to comment on this for the fear of

invoking an argument.

 

As is known to the world, I repeat, swAmy maNavALa mAmuni, was the only

AchArya who had the distinction of being the AchArya of Sriman nArAyaNan

Himself, not even Sri rAmAnuja. If one can claim that Sri rAmAnuja became

the AchArya of Sriman nArAyaNan in Thirukkurungudi, well it is accepted.

But Sriman nArAyaNan gave that pride only to swAmy maNavALa mAmuni by

creating the famous thaniyan "Sri sailEsa dayA pAthram" which is in vogue

in almost all the 108 divya dEsams barring a few.

 

Henceforth it is clear that equating a "hail" to a "fact" is completely

unwarranted. In the same post by Sri Sadagopan iyengar, he even went to the

extent of saying Sri rAmAnuja took avathAram as Sri nArAyaNa yathIndra

mahAdEsikan, the present Jeeyar swAmy of Sri ahObila maTam. No one can

dispute it for the fact that he is being "hailed" and this IS the correct

example of kalai-specific anubhavams. Yes, the thenkalais respect the

vadakalais anubhavams and that is why, I, in my posting did not take any

exception to this.

 

Lastly, though I did not give the pramANa slOka, about swAmy maNavALa

mAmuni showing his true form as Sri AdhisEshan, to his AchAryan, Sri

thiruvAimozhip piLLai, it is a fact which cannot be refuted. I request

scholars in the list, who are aware of the slOka to provide the same. Now

my request is, can one such incident be attributed to Sri kOzhiyAlam swAmy

or Sri ahObila maTam jeeyar that they showed their forms as Sri AdhisEshan

to claim that they are punaravathArams of Sri rAmAnuja. PLEASE NOTE, NO

DISRESPECT IS BEING MEANT WHILE ASKING THIS QUESTION. I agree, I do not

even have the qualification to take up the names of such great swAmis and

yathis, but I am just asking this question to only differentiate once again

that, "HAILING ONE TO BE A PUNARAVATHARAM IS VERY MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THE

ACTUAL AVATHARAM".

 

I believe, this note leaves no doubt in anybody's mind about the fact that

swAmy maNavALa mAmuni was THE FINAL AVATARA of Sri AdhisEshan and hence Sri

rAmAnuja.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Embedded image moved to file: pic20037.pcx)

 

 

 

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

 

The information contained in this message is legally privileged and

confidential information intended only for the use of the addressed

individual or entity indicated in this message (or responsible for

delivery of the message to such person). It must not be read, copied,

disclosed, distributed or used by any person other than the addressee.

Unauthorised use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited and may be

unlawful.

 

Opinions, conclusions and other information on this message that do not

relate to the official business of any of the constituent companies of

the SANMAR GROUP shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by

the Group.

 

If you have received this message in error, you should destroy this

message and kindly notify the sender by e-mail.

 

Thank you.

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *