hearsay etc.,

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear members,

 

I just happened to read the above thread only today. While Sri

Varadhan has clearly explained the basis of the tradition of word of

mouth, Sri Venkatesan has very clearly come out explaining the aspect

of "belief" in the traditions of the word of mouth.

 

I would not say, Sri Mani's points are absurd. As Sri Varadhan and

Sri Venkatesan stated, these are just the two sides of the coins.

Once again, we Indians have been very poor in recording our histories

and only a very few did it out of divine order. So we have some of

the scriptures today.

 

In my opinion, it is purely the individuals belief on which side of

the coin, which makes the argument. One can neither say that

the "disbelief" view is wrong nor say that the "belief" view is wrong

as for both of them there is no scriptural evidence. If one can turn

down the belief that Sri emberumAnAr sannidhi was built by Sri

AnanthAzhwAr, by saying that there is no scriptural evidence, then

the other side, i.e., it was not built by Sri AnanthAzhwAr, can also

be negated with the same argument of no scriptural evidence

availability. These are the part of the "tharka sAstrAs".

 

But I request one information. What is it that we are going to do by

saying that either Sri AnanthAzhwAr built the sannidhi or not. What

are we trying to achieve here. I am sure the sannidhi of Sri

emberumAnAr is a very very desirable one between all the Sri

Vaishnavas. So why this thread?

 

On the other hand, I came to know a disturbing hearsay, that, as Sri

emberumAnAr in Thirumalai is not wearing a kAshAya vasthram and also

since he has a vyAkhyA mudhrai, this is actually Swamy dEsikan and

only the thenkalais, later converted this to Sri emberumAnAr. Please

do not say that none of you heard this. This is a very very popular

rumour. Any clues on this? I am sorry to have dragged this argument

into another potential thread. But I did this to let you all know how

the hearsays, can be true and false both to either of the sect or

people. But what I am surprised in this is that the question is on

Sri emberumAnAr's sannidhi, who is undisputedly the greatest AchArya

for both the sects. This is not on a sannidhi of Sri maNavALa

mAmunigaL or Sri dEsikar. So what are we going to gain with this and

what is the clarification one is expecting. I am sure nobody, who is

rational, will say Sri Mani was wrong when he initiated this. While

Sri Mani's view is one possible view, the other view is also another

possibility. I think this has to be left just here.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

[Guest guest]

Sri:

SrimathE Ramanujaya Namaha:

AzhwAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar thiruvadigalE Saranam,

 

Dear Sri Venkatesh

 

With due respects I have to come to Mani's defence here. There is no

reason to bringing in a different hearsay to a discussion that is not

related to the initial question. As you and others believe, mani's

question was not intended to counter a traditional belief under some

ulterior motive. Given that it is not fair to bring up a tangential

topic and then apologising for bringing it up. Please, let us not

fall into this trap of he said, she said issues, which will only make

things worse.

 

Thanks

 

 

Venkatesh Elayavilli

 

> On the other hand, I came to know a disturbing hearsay, that, as

Sri

> emberumAnAr in Thirumalai is not wearing a kAshAya vasthram and

also

> since he has a vyAkhyA mudhrai, this is actually Swamy dEsikan and

> only the thenkalais, later converted this to Sri emberumAnAr.

Please

> do not say that none of you heard this. This is a very very popular

> rumour. Any clues on this? I am sorry to have dragged this argument

> into another potential thread. But I did this to let you all know

how

> the hearsays, can be true and false both to either of the sect or

> people. But what I am surprised in this is that the question is on

> Sri emberumAnAr's sannidhi, who is undisputedly the greatest

AchArya

> for both the sects. This is not on a sannidhi of Sri maNavALa

> mAmunigaL or Sri dEsikar. So what are we going to gain with this

and

> what is the clarification one is expecting. I am sure nobody, who

is

> rational, will say Sri Mani was wrong when he initiated this. While

> Sri Mani's view is one possible view, the other view is also

another

> possibility. I think this has to be left just here.

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Mani, Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli and all,

 

I agree to your views and I sincerely apologize for this piece of

posting. After reading through, I realised that this para was

unwarranted and should not have been included. Sorry for the offense

from my end. I assure you that I will be more careful in future.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

 

ramanuja, "elayavalli" <elayavalli@h...> wrote:

> Sri:

> SrimathE Ramanujaya Namaha:

> AzhwAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar thiruvadigalE Saranam,

>

> Dear Sri Venkatesh

>

> With due respects I have to come to Mani's defence here. There is

no

> reason to bringing in a different hearsay to a discussion that is

not

> related to the initial question. As you and others believe, mani's

> question was not intended to counter a traditional belief under

some

> ulterior motive. Given that it is not fair to bring up a tangential

> topic and then apologising for bringing it up. Please, let us not

> fall into this trap of he said, she said issues, which will only

make

> things worse.

>

> Thanks

>

>

> Venkatesh Elayavilli

>

> > On the other hand, I came to know a disturbing hearsay, that, as

> Sri

> > emberumAnAr in Thirumalai is not wearing a kAshAya vasthram and

> also

> > since he has a vyAkhyA mudhrai, this is actually Swamy dEsikan

and

> > only the thenkalais, later converted this to Sri emberumAnAr.

> Please

> > do not say that none of you heard this. This is a very very

popular

> > rumour. Any clues on this? I am sorry to have dragged this

argument

> > into another potential thread. But I did this to let you all know

> how

> > the hearsays, can be true and false both to either of the sect or

> > people. But what I am surprised in this is that the question is

on

> > Sri emberumAnAr's sannidhi, who is undisputedly the greatest

> AchArya

> > for both the sects. This is not on a sannidhi of Sri maNavALa

> > mAmunigaL or Sri dEsikar. So what are we going to gain with this

> and

> > what is the clarification one is expecting. I am sure nobody, who

> is

> > rational, will say Sri Mani was wrong when he initiated this.

While

> > Sri Mani's view is one possible view, the other view is also

> another

> > possibility. I think this has to be left just here.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri .Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

Your mail came at the correct time for me in the line of discussion about

kalai diffs,

Adiyen of the view that just by discussing some thing controversial we are

not hurting any feeling , also only by discussion we will come to know the

truth and by keeping the views within ourselves. Sure this will never create

any hatred(thVesham) upon others..

(e.g) The upanyasam of Sri.M.A.VenkataKrishnan swamy, he has been talking

about all minute details to the core without affecting any Bhagavada's

feeling (received appreciation from both sects), so discussion per say is

not catastrophic.

 

Reg the Emberumanar's sannidhi , I also heard from some groups that it was

Swamy Desikan's sannidhi and was converted later to Bhasyakarar Sannidhi,

So hearsay always play a role, Adiyen also not clear about the root of this

gossip and its better if we know further details/background about this,

This list is not a controversial list and everyone knows what other

Bhagavada's feeling is and so I feel if any one specially SriVaishnavas

closely connected with Thirumalai can enlighten the list on this reg, and I

am sure this will not create any heated arguments/feelings, its only getting

ourselves aware.

 

Best Regards

 

Gunaseelan Venkatachary

Ph - 408 588 6672 (W)

guna_venkat

 

-

"vinjamoor_venkatesh" <vinjamoorvenkat

<ramanuja>

Monday, April 29, 2002 10:21 AM

[ramanuja] Re: hearsay etc.,

 

 

> srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> srImadh varavara munayE namaha

>

> Dear Sri Mani, Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli and all,

>

> I agree to your views and I sincerely apologize for this piece of

> posting. After reading through, I realised that this para was

> unwarranted and should not have been included. Sorry for the offense

> from my end. I assure you that I will be more careful in future.

>

> AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

>

>

>

> ramanuja, "elayavalli" <elayavalli@h...> wrote:

> > Sri:

> > SrimathE Ramanujaya Namaha:

> > AzhwAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar thiruvadigalE Saranam,

> >

> > Dear Sri Venkatesh

> >

> > With due respects I have to come to Mani's defence here. There is

> no

> > reason to bringing in a different hearsay to a discussion that is

> not

> > related to the initial question. As you and others believe, mani's

> > question was not intended to counter a traditional belief under

> some

> > ulterior motive. Given that it is not fair to bring up a tangential

> > topic and then apologising for bringing it up. Please, let us not

> > fall into this trap of he said, she said issues, which will only

> make

> > things worse.

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> >

> > Venkatesh Elayavilli

> >

> > > On the other hand, I came to know a disturbing hearsay, that, as

> > Sri

> > > emberumAnAr in Thirumalai is not wearing a kAshAya vasthram and

> > also

> > > since he has a vyAkhyA mudhrai, this is actually Swamy dEsikan

> and

> > > only the thenkalais, later converted this to Sri emberumAnAr.

> > Please

> > > do not say that none of you heard this. This is a very very

> popular

> > > rumour. Any clues on this? I am sorry to have dragged this

> argument

> > > into another potential thread. But I did this to let you all know

> > how

> > > the hearsays, can be true and false both to either of the sect or

> > > people. But what I am surprised in this is that the question is

> on

> > > Sri emberumAnAr's sannidhi, who is undisputedly the greatest

> > AchArya

> > > for both the sects. This is not on a sannidhi of Sri maNavALa

> > > mAmunigaL or Sri dEsikar. So what are we going to gain with this

> > and

> > > what is the clarification one is expecting. I am sure nobody, who

> > is

> > > rational, will say Sri Mani was wrong when he initiated this.

> While

> > > Sri Mani's view is one possible view, the other view is also

> > another

> > > possibility. I think this has to be left just here.

>

>

>

> azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Guna,

 

Thanks for the understanding. You are right. By just discussing the

controversial matters, one need not feel offended unless, the words are

unpolite and unparliamentary and highly egoistic. However, as Sri Mani and

Sri Venkatesh elayavalli felt it is unwarranted in the current context and

was a potential spark for the unpleasantries to start, I tendered my

sincere apologies. I still hold it good and I did it truly. However, I am

sure, if one would understand the motive behind the posting (of-course not

all can read the author's mind from just a few words), there will be no

heated arguments or controversies.

 

You may think, why I have not said this in my previous mail. Had I done it,

it will only look like I am covering up for a deliberate intention to start

an argument. My intention was never to start an argument there. That is

why, I said, it is just one of the examples for the 'hearsay' and how

serious it could be for different people with different followings from

just one correct/incorrect hearsay account. Also I was only trying to prove

like this. Again, please read this with open mind. For the vadagalais, this

hearsay may be a good and desirable one, while for the Thenkalais, this may

be offending. So, I was only trying to prove, that the 'belief' on the

hearsay is upto the individual and cannot be construed as completely

correct by one or completely incorrect by the other. That is why I said in

my earlier posting that - If it is Shri Mani's belief it has to be left

there and no further discussion is required. I do agree that on a cursory

note, the mention about this particular hearsay is unwarranted. But I hope

I have clarified about my position in the above para.

 

Please rest assured that there was nothing intentional to offend the

vadagalais by giving that account of the hearsay. And I tendered my

sincere apologies, in case it has hurt anybody's feelings.

 

I thank Sri Guna for giving me a chance to bring out the true purport of my

earlier posting and thereby clear any doubts in anybody's mind about the

intentions of posting.

 

Having said all the above, one question that I threw in my earlier posting,

still stands. What is the objective, behind this effort to find out whether

the sannidhi is old, or was established by Sri ananthAzhwAr, or was it a

later day inclusion. Are we going to stop praying to our dear emberumAnAr

if the sannidhi was not consecrated by Sri anathAzhwAr or if it is not a

very old one. If it is so, what is the sanctity one can attach to the new

temples that are being built everywhere. Are we still not praying to the

emberumAnAr sannidhis or for that sake any sannidhis even if it is brand

new. perumAL in any form, new or old is perumAL and so are our dear

pirAtti, AzhwArs and AchAryAs. Remember the incident of our dear

emberumAnAr taking the sand in the banks of thirukkAvEri as the prasAdam of

perumAL from the young kids. He did not even question the authenticity of

the claims of those kids when they asked him to prostrate before the

perumAL that they have created using the sand. "thamarugandhadhu evvuruvam

avvuruvam thAnE....". Why emberumAnAr for that sake, see our own people

doing pradakshiNams for a perumAL or siRiya thiruvadi or sri

chakkarathhAzwAr on a pillar in a temple ( I don't know about other

temples, but this is a common sight in thiruvallikkENi) while the same

perumAL is consecrated in the sannidhis in the same temple, strictly

according to the AgamAs and other rituals. A pillar is a pillar. Can we say

that an image of a perumAL on a pillar that is not consecrated is not

having any divinity and hence indulge in committing any sacrilege to it? I

am sure your answer is a big no for this. This is the same intention behind

my question - what are we trying to achieve, talking about the origin of

the emberumAnAr sannidhi in thirumalai, when we are all convinced that in

any form we are going to worship him. For that sake, we will certainly

worship that 'idol'(sorry I have to use this word) even if it not

emberumAnAr but any of our other SrivaishNavite poorvAchAryA. Isn't it

true?

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

 

 

"Guna Venkat"

<guna_venkat@el To:

.nec.com> <ramanuja>

cc:

30/04/2002 Re: [ramanuja]

03:41 AM Re: hearsay etc.,

Please respond

to ramanuja

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sri .Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

Your mail came at the correct time for me in the line of discussion about

kalai diffs,

Adiyen of the view that just by discussing some thing controversial we are

not hurting any feeling , also only by discussion we will come to know the

truth and by keeping the views within ourselves. Sure this will never

create

any hatred(thVesham) upon others..

(e.g) The upanyasam of Sri.M.A.VenkataKrishnan swamy, he has been talking

about all minute details to the core without affecting any Bhagavada's

feeling (received appreciation from both sects), so discussion per say is

not catastrophic.

 

Reg the Emberumanar's sannidhi , I also heard from some groups that it was

Swamy Desikan's sannidhi and was converted later to Bhasyakarar Sannidhi,

So hearsay always play a role, Adiyen also not clear about the root of this

gossip and its better if we know further details/background about this,

This list is not a controversial list and everyone knows what other

Bhagavada's feeling is and so I feel if any one specially SriVaishnavas

closely connected with Thirumalai can enlighten the list on this reg, and I

am sure this will not create any heated arguments/feelings, its only

getting

ourselves aware.

 

Best Regards

 

Gunaseelan Venkatachary

Ph - 408 588 6672 (W)

guna_venkat

 

-

"vinjamoor_venkatesh" <vinjamoorvenkat

<ramanuja>

Monday, April 29, 2002 10:21 AM

[ramanuja] Re: hearsay etc.,

 

 

> srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

> srImadh varavara munayE namaha

>

> Dear Sri Mani, Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli and all,

>

> I agree to your views and I sincerely apologize for this piece of

> posting. After reading through, I realised that this para was

> unwarranted and should not have been included. Sorry for the offense

> from my end. I assure you that I will be more careful in future.

>

> AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

> adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

> Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

>

>

>

> ramanuja, "elayavalli" <elayavalli@h...> wrote:

> > Sri:

> > SrimathE Ramanujaya Namaha:

> > AzhwAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar thiruvadigalE Saranam,

> >

> > Dear Sri Venkatesh

> >

> > With due respects I have to come to Mani's defence here. There is

> no

> > reason to bringing in a different hearsay to a discussion that is

> not

> > related to the initial question. As you and others believe, mani's

> > question was not intended to counter a traditional belief under

> some

> > ulterior motive. Given that it is not fair to bring up a tangential

> > topic and then apologising for bringing it up. Please, let us not

> > fall into this trap of he said, she said issues, which will only

> make

> > things worse.

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> >

> > Venkatesh Elayavilli

> >

> > > On the other hand, I came to know a disturbing hearsay, that, as

> > Sri

> > > emberumAnAr in Thirumalai is not wearing a kAshAya vasthram and

> > also

> > > since he has a vyAkhyA mudhrai, this is actually Swamy dEsikan

> and

> > > only the thenkalais, later converted this to Sri emberumAnAr.

> > Please

> > > do not say that none of you heard this. This is a very very

> popular

> > > rumour. Any clues on this? I am sorry to have dragged this

> argument

> > > into another potential thread. But I did this to let you all know

> > how

> > > the hearsays, can be true and false both to either of the sect or

> > > people. But what I am surprised in this is that the question is

> on

> > > Sri emberumAnAr's sannidhi, who is undisputedly the greatest

> > AchArya

> > > for both the sects. This is not on a sannidhi of Sri maNavALa

> > > mAmunigaL or Sri dEsikar. So what are we going to gain with this

> > and

> > > what is the clarification one is expecting. I am sure nobody, who

> > is

> > > rational, will say Sri Mani was wrong when he initiated this.

> While

> > > Sri Mani's view is one possible view, the other view is also

> > another

> > > possibility. I think this has to be left just here.

>

>

>

> azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

 

 

Your use of is subject to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

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

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Guna and Sri VenkatEsh

 

First, I would like to say that I did not request folks not to talk

about hearsays. All I said was that it was not necessary to bring in

a different topic into discussion.

 

On your question, I cannot answer as to why Sri Mani had raised the

discussion in the first place. However I can add my own thoughts on

this. without dis-respecting any of the acharyas or elders, some (me

included) may have questions about the turn of events. For example,

Thirumala follows the Vaikhanasa system and they are very strong in

resisting change. Given that background, one would logically want to

know, how did a shrine for EmperuimAnAr come about in a Vaikhanasa

temple, that too, when there is a shrine for EmprumAnAr and none for

his predecessors or successors (?please correct me if I am wrong?). I

also remember the shrine to be really large at thirumala, more so,

compared to the one in thiru allik kEni. To me, history of temple and

society development is fascinating and i do not mind questions of

this nature. The answer is not going to affect my practices one way

or the other.

 

Additionally, I would not posed this question on a larger mailing

list out of concern that it will get clobbered and morphed into V/T

issue.

 

 

thanks

 

Adiyen

Venkatesh Elayavilli

 

 

 

> still stands. What is the objective, behind this effort to find out

whether

> the sannidhi is old, or was established by Sri ananthAzhwAr, or was

it a

> later day inclusion. Are we going to stop praying to our dear

emberumAnAr

> if the sannidhi was not consecrated by Sri anathAzhwAr or if it is

not a

> very old one. If it is so, what is the sanctity one can attach to

the new

> temples that are being built everywhere. Are we still not praying

to the

> emberumAnAr sannidhis or for that sake any sannidhis even if it is

brand

> new.