svami maNavAla mAmunigaL et all - clarification

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namah

 

 

dear bhAgavathAs,

 

I would like to present some information on some

portions of the mail that was forwarded from

another net. The intent is to provide factual

information only, and not to prolong any kind

of discussion.

 

---excerpt from the forwarded posting----

MadhurAntakam SwAmi states that the SamASrayaNa

AchArya is not

mentioned in this tanian; But the "SrIsailEsa" (in

connection

with Thirumalai of Lord SrInivAsa) word connotes both

of his

kAlakshEpa AchAryas. ThiruvAimozhi PiLLai's name is

SrIsailEsar. He taught ThiruvAimozhi with eeDu

vyAkyAnam.

------

 

The above is correct. We do recite "nama: srIsaila

nAthAya kunthee nagara janmanE" everyday. One thing

to be noted here is that a big deal is being made

out of "samAsrayaNa AchArya" not being mentioned in

the thaniyan. The fact is that it is not mandatory

for samAsrayaNa AchARyAs name to be present in the

thaniyan - eg: emperumAnAr's has no mention of

periya nambi; nanjIyar's has no mention of bhattar;

 

The issues of different AchAryAs "samAsrayaNa

AchArya", "bhagavad vishaya AchArya", "srI

bhAshya AchArya" etc.,and trying to derive this

lineage or that lineage based on one aspect of

learning alone is being brought up very recently.

There is a reason for it.

 

In those days, there were different AchAryas who

hailed from different places. So, naturally their

samAsrayaNa was performed by their father etc.,

but generally they learnt differnt things from

specialists. So, it was very natural to have 4/5

AchAryAs. But, there was a universally accepted

leader for the sampradAyam based out of srIrangam

that everyone deferred to and followed. This has

been the case right from svAmi ALavandAr's time

through svAmi maNavALa mAmunigaL's time. And that

lineage of leaders is our guruparampara -

emperumAnAr/embAr/bhattar/nanjIyar/nampiLLai/

vadakku-th-thiuveedhippillai/pillai lOkAchAriAr/

thiruvAymozhippiLLai/maNavALa mAmunigaL.

 

You will see in the above that AchAryas like

kUrattAzhvAn, nadAdUr ammAL, engaL AzhvAn,

mudaliyANdAn, periyavAccAn

piLLai, svAmi vEdAnta dEsika is not present

in the above lineage. The reason is NOT because

they were in any way lesser! The reason is

because there was an established leader at

that time in srIrangam, and that succession

took its own course. (e.g. emperumAnAr

was the undisputed leader of his time - so

no question of kUrattAzhvAn in the list!).

Similarly when svAmi dEsikan came to srIrangam,

svAmi piLLai lOkAchAr was the leader in

every sense of the word.

 

The fact is the svAmi dEsika was an undisputed

leader in his own right hailing from kAnchipuram.

Once he moved to srIrangam, it is

clear (history, even a cursory analysis of

his works shows that) that he followed the

guruparampara (svAmi piLLai lOkAchAriAr) at

that time. I do not say the above to create

any sort of impression that PL > SD. There

were just different roles, and they were

followed.

 

And svAmi dEsika was accepted by the

srIvaishNavAs there as well as a great

AcharyA. Else, there would not be a sannadhi

for him inside the temple. He is the last

AchAryA to have a sannadhi inside the temple.

So, there is no question of all the

"fights/abuses etc." that svAmi dEsika

apparently had to undergo having happened.

All are just concoctions. One just has to

read something called the 3000-ppadi

guruparampara to have a glimpse of all

these concotions. If not for the import of

the subject, the stories are just laughable.

{e.g. svAmi azhagiya maNavALa perumAL

nAyanAr is portrayed as somekind of a thug

who picked fights/abused svAmi dEsikan! -

it will make a good movie story. The sad

part is most people believe the story

nowadays)

 

This following lineage through samAsrayaNam, or

srI bhAsyam etc. is being projected just to

get a "different and unique" lineage from

emperumAnAr to svAmi dEsika so that there

can be a "WE", rather than an "US".

 

A prime example of the "US" approach is most of

the 74 simhAsanAdhipathis. Many of us belong

to such lineages. In my case, for example,

I belong to the lineage descending from

svAmi anantAzhvAn (whether I am doing justice

to that or not is a differnt question)..

If I trace my "samAsrayaNa" lineage back,

then it will go through my AchArya, his

father, his father etc.. all the way

to anantAzhvAn and aruLaLa-p-perumAL

emperumAnAr and emperumAnAr! - There is no

trace of the guruparampara, if I take this

approach! - But, our elders at all times have

accepted the "AchAryaship" of the leader in

srIrangam at every stage, and hence, we recite

ALL the guruparampara thaniyans everyday and

take everyone to be our AchAryA.

 

 

 

-----excerpt from the forwarded mail-----

Another

SrIsailEsar is the SrI-BhAshya AchArya of MAmunigaL.

It was

Thirumalai-AzhvAn alias KiDAmbi Thirumalai Iyengar /

PurushOttama

DAsar, a disciple of Bramhatantra-Svatantra JIyar,

the stalwart

disciple of SwAmi DESikan. MAmunigaL is referred to

have had the

dayA of his Ubhaya-VEdAnta AchAryas, in the tanian.

----------

 

the above implies that srI thiruvAymozhi-p-piLLai

was NOT familar with the sanskrit vEdAnta! - That is

so untrue. kidAmbi thirumalai iyengAr wasthe one

who taught svAmi maNavALa mAmuni srIbhAsyam because

he happened to be the specialist in that. This just

shows the "US" approach again.

 

 

------excerpt from the forwarded mail

MadhurAntakam SwAmi also points out that MAmunigaL

had a name

called "thUppil kulamuDayAr dAsar" because of the

above reason

(connection with SwAmi DESikan, known as thUppul

piLLai). SwAmi

cites some source for the same which is

interconnected with other

texts/book which I don't have.

----

 

of the 16 accepted names of svAmi maNavALa mAmuni,

none even comes close to the above. Obviously, this

is a new concoction that is very recent. In fact,

this is the first time I have heard of this. But,

if there was such a name, it is a welcome name.

 

 

----excerpt from forwarded mail

All the thenkalai SrI VaishNavas do recite the tanian

of

SwAmi DESikan viz. "SrImAn VE~nkaTanAthAryaH ..."

when they

perform SrI-BhAshya kAlakshEpam - Because SwAmi

DESikan is

an Acharya for them in their SrI-BhAshya parampara.

-----

 

This just proves that there was just ONE sampradAya!

minor differences/interpretations were magnified

and unfortunately, lesser learned people took over

and now we have this ugly split and fights.

If one does some research into the split, the

saddest part comes to light. The split was not

caused because of philosophical differences. It

was caused due to petty temple control, "WE

are differnt and superior to YOU", kinds of issues

on both sides. Effectively, the universality and

kindness of ALL of our AchAryAs teachings were

let go.

 

 

AzhvAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam,

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

varadhan

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

http://taxes./

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Varadhan,

 

Wonderful posting. I would like to add some more to some of your

posts.

 

ramanuja, <tavaradhan> wrote:

> srImathE rAmAnujAya namah

 

[some portion deleted]

 

> The fact is the svAmi dEsika was an undisputed

> leader in his own right hailing from kAnchipuram.

> Once he moved to srIrangam, it is

> clear (history, even a cursory analysis of

> his works shows that) that he followed the

> guruparampara (svAmi piLLai lOkAchAriAr) at

> that time. I do not say the above to create

> any sort of impression that PL > SD. There

> were just different roles, and they were

> followed.

 

 

Yes, this is correct. Actually the thaniyan they say that Sri piLLai

lOkAchAriyar composed on Sri dEsikan is completely untrue. Almost all

the thenkalais too believe this. But the fact is that after Sri

dEsikar got cleared of all his misconceptions from Sri piLLai

lOkAchAriyar, he composed a thaniyan on Sri piLLai lOkAchAriyar and

about 50 slokas called "lOkAchArya panchAsath". The sad part is that

these slokas are in vogue only in ThirunArAyaNapuram now. Recently

these slokas with an excellent commentary on them has been published

by Sri V.V.Ramanujam swamy, a great scholar, residing in

ThiruvallikkENi. I request every one to buy and read it. The cost is

only Rs 25/-

 

 

>

> And svAmi dEsika was accepted by the

> srIvaishNavAs there as well as a great

> AcharyA. Else, there would not be a sannadhi

> for him inside the temple. He is the last

> AchAryA to have a sannadhi inside the temple.

> So, there is no question of all the

> "fights/abuses etc." that svAmi dEsika

> apparently had to undergo having happened.

> All are just concoctions. One just has to

> read something called the 3000-ppadi

> guruparampara to have a glimpse of all

> these concotions. If not for the import of

> the subject, the stories are just laughable.

> {e.g. svAmi azhagiya maNavALa perumAL

> nAyanAr is portrayed as somekind of a thug

> who picked fights/abused svAmi dEsikan! -

> it will make a good movie story. The sad

> part is most people believe the story

> nowadays)

 

This 3000-padi itself is a concocted one. It is not complied by the

3rd Brahma tantra swatantra jeeyar as the vadagalais claim. Instead

this was created by a fanatic some were in the 19th century and was

affiliated to the parakAla mutt. This account is very clearly given

by Sri P.B.Annangarachariar swamy in his autobiography and other

books. Here Sri Annangarachariar swamy proves that at one point,

stalwarts of the vadagalai sampradhayam, like Sri thirupputkuzhi appA

swAmy et al have confirmed that the 3000-padi is not at all a pramANA.

 

Regarding the story of azhagiya maNavALaperumAL nAyanaAr case, Sri

A.Krishnamachari of Sri Vaishnava Sri fame, has clearly disproved

this in his magazine "PAnchajanyam" in one of its edition. The point

he proves is clearly undebatable. According to this, when Sri dEsikar

reached Srirangam in his age of 40 (this is accepted by all including

Vadagalais), swAmy azhagiyamaNavALaperumAL nAyanAr had already

attained AchAryan thiruvadi. So how is it possible that he could have

picked up a quarrel with Sri dEsikan.

 

Also according to the 3000-padi, the elder brother composed a

thaniyan for Sri dEsikar while his younger brother picked up quarrel

with him. As every one knows the thoughts of both these brothers were

always synchronized and once when Sri piLLai lOkAchAriyar was not

available to give a comment on his Sri vachana bhooshaNam, Sri

azhagiyamaNavALaperumAL nAyanAr gave the same with the same thoughts

as that of his elder brother.

 

Isn't it clear as to how absurd these concoctions are . Instead they

are calling us fanatics.

 

Many such incidents are there and based upon your replies for my

previous query I will start writing the same in our list.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Sri TA Varadhan for his beautiful

refutation of some of the arguments of Sri

Madhurantakam Swami on Manavala Mamunigal's

Taniyan.

 

Recently adiyEn happened to read a great article

by Sri PBA Swami on the taniyan and he shows

term by term how it could have been written by

none other than Emperuman. For those who can

read Tamil, I would recommend that they go the

Geethacharyan website run by our Sri M.A.

Venkatakrishnan Swami (http://geethacharyan.org)

and read the article.

 

If everyone is interested, I can translate the

article into English, though it would be nothing

but a poor effort.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

TCA Venkatesan

 

 

 

Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax

http://taxes./