Guest guest Posted April 25, 2002 Report Share Posted April 25, 2002 > again I don't think there is any evidence for the former, > other than hearsay, and we know what that's worth. I would not take the "worthlessness" of "hearsay" very far..We just do not have a history of recording our history by any other means other than passing it word of mouth through generations.. sure, there is a strong chance that there were embellishments added by succeeding generations, but if we look at multiple sources of available evidence and if the hearsay kind of meshes with the data we have, then we can conclude that the hearsay indeed is true..It must be agreed that due to our own biases/cirumstances, we will tend to lend more weight to "hearsay A" rather than "hearsay B"... but if one digs deep enough, some facts can indeed be found that help us form a factual conclusion.. even the vEdAs were passed word of mouth and so were the nAlAyiram, or for that matter most of our scriptures.. One can definitely make a case for embellishments in those as well as they were passed through generations..i.e. how does one prove that the version of taittiriya upanishad I have is the *authentic* version? How do i know that the "brahmins" with a vested interest have NOT added embellishments to it? There is a book on the "actual version" of gItA written by some person that takes the above stance.. adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, varadhan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2002 Report Share Posted April 25, 2002 Varadhan, It's not as easy to tar the Vedas or Prabandham with the same brush, for many reasons. For the Vedas, there is a relatively uniform text across all Sruti paramparAs all across the country, and what differences exist are honestly recognized as different SAkhas or acceptable pAtha-bhedas. With regard to the Prabandham, yes, we do not know if there has been any corruption over the years -- there very well may have been, given how many pAtha-bhedas there are for so many verses, but the very structure of most of the poems makes it unlikely that anyone made radical changes (sets of 10 with an 11th signature verse, andAdi style, etc.) However, one can make an argument for corruption even here, I admit. I don't think it's appropriate to conflate this discussion with the Vadagalai/Thengalai temple disputes; that's pretty inflammatory and unnecessary. Back to the issue at hand. The fact is that there *is* a lot of prestige gained when a lineage propounds the belief that it was started originally by Emberumaanaar or one of his sishyas. There are many Mandyam Iyengars, for example, who voice the opinion that the Yadugiri Yatiraja Jeeyar Matha was the first SV matha, and that it was founded by Emberumaanaar in its present form. However, critical scholarship shows that this is simply not tenable. There is no epigraphy even in Melkote which attests to this. This is just an example, but the same can be said for the Pedda Jeeyar Matha, from what I understand. Merely citing an unbroken lineage does not ipso facto make it true. We all know about the convenient histories invented by the Kanchi Sankara Matha in favor of its priority among Advaita institutions. The purported history of the Kanchi Matha placed Sri Sankaracharya c.500 B.C., and the Buddha hundreds of years before that! Clearly such things do not stand historical scrutiny. I don't think there's anything diabolical in the origins of the story that Anandalvan was the impetus behind the Emberumaanaar sannidhi, or that Emberumaanaar himself started the Pedda Jeeyar Matha. They very well may be true. But they very well may not be true as well, and it appears that there is no solid evidence indicating that it is fact. Normally, there are many inscriptions which indicate endowments by or for a Matha, usually named, to help in the temple services, to help with making garlands, providing prasaadam for bhAgavatas, providing for pArAyana and adhyApana, etc. I think it is reasonable to ask why there is no such evidence placing the Emberumaanaar sannidhi in that time period, or the Pedda Jeeyar Matha in that time, if that is what is held to be true. For example, there are many inscriptions placing Emberumaanaar, Anandalvan, Vaduga Nambi, and other sishyas in and around Melkote, Tondanur, Saligrama, and other Karnataka kshetras. There is also much evidence that Emberumaanaar was present several times at Tirupati, etc. But even according to the ArAyirappadi Guru ParamparA, which itself is heavily interpolated by much later hands, I don't think there is a mention of Anandalvan building a sannidhi to Emberumaanaar at Tirupati, or of Emberumaanaar establishing a Pedda Jeeyar Matha on the malai. If anyone can provide information on this topic, I would be much obliged. aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2002 Report Share Posted April 25, 2002 Dear Varadhan/Mani I just want list few of my views in the "hear say" of nAlaraya Divya Prabhandam.. Adiyen can not think of corruption can occur due to "hear say"..All we think is that we should believe in any scriptures /kalvettus our poorvacharyas would have left to us, we have totally forgotten the theme that the whole Prabhandam is meant for Him and how can He keep mum if there is any such corruption in our PoorvAcharyas practice. I have seen few examples in Divya Desams that if some people wants to start any new practice unless otherwise it falls in line with His Thiruvullam, it will not prolong for a long time (around 1000 yrs of Prabhanda Sevai).. Also I feel finding "corruptions" in Divya Prabhandam is beyond our scope and we should abstain from such thinking ( I feel this is paramount to discuss about the Varunam of Alwars , which we should never do) I dont want to comment about Vedas , for which I dont have any authority to discuss (comparing to Prabhandam , which I love more as it is the "eera chorkal " of our loved Alwars) BTW- I have put Guna1.bmp(sorry for file name, and Orientation of pages) which I scanned from Dr.VVR swamy's Yadindra Pravana Prabhavam , portion of Jeeyar Niyamanam by SriRamanuja and SriManavala Mamunigal., check whether this caters your needs.. Best Regards Guna Ph 408 588 6672 (W) guna_venkat - "mani2" <mani <ramanuja> Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:10 PM [ramanuja] Re: hearsay etc.. > Varadhan, > > It's not as easy to tar the Vedas or Prabandham with the > same brush, for many reasons. For the Vedas, there is a > relatively uniform text across all Sruti paramparAs all across > the country, and what differences exist are honestly > recognized as different SAkhas or acceptable pAtha-bhedas. > With regard to the Prabandham, yes, we do not know if there > has been any corruption over the years -- there very well may > have been, given how many pAtha-bhedas there are for so many > verses, but the very structure of most of the poems makes it > unlikely that anyone made radical changes (sets of 10 with an > 11th signature verse, andAdi style, etc.) However, one can make > an argument for corruption even here, I admit. > > I don't think it's appropriate to conflate this discussion > with the Vadagalai/Thengalai temple disputes; that's pretty > inflammatory and unnecessary. > > Back to the issue at hand. > The fact is that there *is* a lot of prestige gained when a lineage > propounds the belief that it was started originally by Emberumaanaar > or one of his sishyas. There are many Mandyam Iyengars, > for example, who voice the opinion that the Yadugiri Yatiraja Jeeyar > Matha was the first SV matha, and that it was founded by > Emberumaanaar in its present form. However, critical > scholarship shows that this is simply not tenable. There > is no epigraphy even in Melkote which attests to this. This > is just an example, but the same can be said for the Pedda > Jeeyar Matha, from what I understand. Merely citing an > unbroken lineage does not ipso facto make it true. We all > know about the convenient histories invented by the Kanchi > Sankara Matha in favor of its priority among Advaita > institutions. The purported history of the Kanchi Matha > placed Sri Sankaracharya c.500 B.C., and the Buddha hundreds > of years before that! Clearly such things do not stand > historical scrutiny. > > I don't think there's anything diabolical in the origins > of the story that Anandalvan was the impetus behind the > Emberumaanaar sannidhi, or that Emberumaanaar himself started > the Pedda Jeeyar Matha. They very well may be true. But > they very well may not be true as well, and it appears that > there is no solid evidence indicating that it is fact. > > Normally, there are many inscriptions which indicate endowments > by or for a Matha, usually named, to help in the temple services, > to help with making garlands, providing prasaadam for bhAgavatas, > providing for pArAyana and adhyApana, etc. I think it is > reasonable to ask why there is no such evidence placing > the Emberumaanaar sannidhi in that time period, or the Pedda > Jeeyar Matha in that time, if that is what is held to be > true. > > For example, there are many inscriptions placing Emberumaanaar, > Anandalvan, Vaduga Nambi, and other sishyas in and around > Melkote, Tondanur, Saligrama, and other Karnataka kshetras. > There is also much evidence that Emberumaanaar was present > several times at Tirupati, etc. But even according to the > ArAyirappadi Guru ParamparA, which itself is heavily interpolated > by much later hands, I don't think there is a mention of > Anandalvan building a sannidhi to Emberumaanaar at Tirupati, > or of Emberumaanaar establishing a Pedda Jeeyar Matha on the > malai. > > If anyone can provide information on this topic, I would be > much obliged. > > aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, > Mani > > > > > > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.