on refraining from insulting vidvAns

[Guest guest]

Dear Members,

 

I was browsing some articles on the "ramanuja" email group

from early April 2002 and was quite shocked to see vitriolic

messages hatefully denouncing Sri Vaishnava vidvAns such

as Sri Madurantakam Veeraraghavachariar Swami, Sri Uttamur

Veeraraghavachariar Swami, and Sri D.T. Tatachariar Swami.

Yes, these scholars were Vadagalai and held different viewpoints

from many on this list, but that is no excuse to show such

disrespect to scholars of this magnitude. Such disrespect

shouldn't be shown to any human being, for that matter. I should

add that it doesn't matter that it was in response to an email

about Swami Manavaaala Maamunigal. Two wrongs don't make

a right.

 

To those who do not know, Sri Uttamur Swami was a guru to

many of the Thengalai sampradaya's brightest stars, including

Sri Velukkudi Varadachariar Swami, Sri T.A. Krishnamacharya

Swami, Sri M. Narasimhachariar Swami and others. Sri Uttamur

Swami's editions of many sampradAya granthas such as

Bhagavad Ramanuja gItA-bhAshya with tAtparyacandrikA, SrutaprakASika

on SrIbhAshya, and the upanishad-bhAshyas of Sri Rangaramanujacharya

are the standard editions used by scholars and students within

and without the Sri Vaishnava sampradAya.

 

Sri Madurantakam Swami was, as Sri Velukkudi Krishnan personally

told me, one of Sri Velukkudi Varadachariar Swami's closest

friends, so much so that they would be willing to 'pisingify'

sAdham for each other (Sri VK's literal words). If these two

stalwarts of their respective traditions could show such

regard for each other, should we show any less?

 

Sri D.T. Tatacharya Swami, for whatever else one may say,

was a great scholar of SrIbhAshya who wrote a brilliant defense

of Visishtadvaita in his 'visishTAdvaita-siddhi', as a partial

rejoinder to an Advaita attack on the fundamentals of the system.

 

It is a great thing to exalt one's acharyas, but such a thing

should never come at the expense of others. Please -- I beseech

members and the moderator to exercise control in this regard.

 

quite pained,

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Mani and all others in this list,

 

Please accept my humble pranams. Here, I am attempting to clarify

certain things about the intentions in my earlier postings regarding

swAmi maNavALa mAmunigaL's thaniyan. This is in response to Sri

Mani's mail where in he is pained to see some of the scholars of the

vadagalai sampradhAyam are hatefully denounced. Sri Mani was

magnanimous in not mentioning my name in his mail. But I know that I

was the only one who wrote that and hence I am attempting to clarify

the same.

 

Please read through my mail once again. I did use the word fanatics

to address Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy and Sri D.T.Thathachariar swAmi.

But I did not use that word for Sri Utthamur swAmy. [Here I would

like to submit that I need not have brought in Sri Utthamur swAmy's

name in this at all. However, I included that for a different reason.

But I apologize for the fact that I have not clearly indicated the

reason for including Sri Utthamur swAmy's name. I will do it in this

post later]

 

It is a well known fact that, there are some difference of opinions

in some philosophical matters between the two kalais. It is the

freedom for the individual to follow either of them and be loyal to

them. I also agree that there is nothing wrong in criticising the

view of the other sect by one sect on the philosophical matters. When

difference of opinion is there, these are all normal ones.

 

However, what one should refrain from are the personal attacks on the

persons belong to the opposite sect. You may wonder, what I have done

now, different from this. Yes, as I said above, I agree that I did

address Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy and Sri DTT swAmy as fanatics. But

what made me say this? Please read through further.

 

Mani, I am surprised that while my mail caught your attention & put

you in pains, the mail from Anand did not attract you, where in he

quoted Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy as saying that the "srisailEsa

dayApAthram" thaniyan was taught by some people to a small boy and

was made to recite on the day when the "eedu" kAlakshEpam was

concluded and hence it has no sanctity at all.

 

Now please tell me who is hatefully denouncing and insulting vidwAns

of a sampradhAyam. Is it me or is it Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy. If not

for fanaticism, what else could be the genuine reason for him to

write a book like this. If you do not call these fanatics a fanatics,

what else do you call them. I agree that Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy is

a great scholar. But did he have the humility to accept/respect the

feelings of the other sect. Okay, I now agree that even Sri

Annangarachariar swamy used to write a lot about how, the "rAmAnuja

dayA pAthram" thaniyan could not be a genuie one and that It is only

a later day deviced only. I will come to this later in this post.

 

I am sure you would have browsed through the replies provided by Sri

Velukkudi Krishnan swAmy and Sri M.A.Venkatakrishnan swamy. They have

clearly indicated, how conveniently Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy has

misinterpreted the "yatheendra pravaNa prabhAvam" for supporting his

views. Any unbiassed person will agree to the clear difference

between the words "archaka kumAran" and "archaka kumAranAi". [the

first one means for sure it is the son of the archaka, the second one

with the suffix "Ai" clearly means, in the disguise of the son of the

archaka]. May I ask you why did Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy deliberately

let go this suffix of "Ai" and write a damaging book. Also Sri VK

swAmy and Sri MAV swAmy have clearly quoted the following passage

from the same book in which it is clearly said that perumAL made this

thaniyan to be recited in all the divya dEsams from that day onwards,

by order through Sri sEnai mudhaliyAr. Why did Sri Madhuranthakam

swAmy not comment about this in his books. Well please note that I am

quoting all these from the postings of Anand on Sri Madhuranthakam

swAmy's books. If Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy had really not done this,

the Anand has to be severly condemned. Let alone the above, I do know

of some books by Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy where in he had addressed

the thennAchAryAs as the incarnation of kali purushA. These where

clearly condemned and criticised by Sri Puttur Krishnamachariar

swamy, Sri Velukkudi Varadhachariar swamy (no matter whether they

were thick friends or not) and Sri P.B Annangarachariar swamy. So who

is hatefully denouncing or insulting vidwAns of the other

sampradhAyam? Me, who just writes what has happened or these swAmy's

who initiates heated arguments by such flaring books? Please come to

a conclusion by yourselves.

 

If pointing out the mistakes or such fanatic writings of a person, be

it a great swAmy or a vidwAn, by a lowly person like me is "hateful

denouncement", what about those books that these great swAmy's and

vidwAn's wrote, in which they have denounced great pUrvAchAryAs like

Sri periyavAcchAn piLLai and Sri NampiLLai. You may be surprised to

know this. But be assured that this is a fact. I can prove this

from some books by Sri Puttur Swamy.

 

Mani, I know your stand on these accounts which are hagiological in

nature. But I am sure, your stand and Sri madhurAnthakam swAmy's

stand are not one and the same. I am also sure that Sri

Madhuranthakam swAmy respected the hagiological accounts w.r.t the

vadagalai sampradhAyam. So you cannot say that one should not attach

importance to such hagiological accounts. Comparisons and hence

evaluations have to be made on the same plane. Even if one agrees to

your view that these are only hagiological in nature, there was no

necessity for Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy to denounce it by deliberately

misinterpreting the grantha and subsequently hiding the facts too.

 

Here I would like to comment about my reference to Sri Utthamur

swamy. I know that Sri Utthamur swamy, while he was involved in

arguments or debates which are philosophical in nature, he never

indulged in personal attacks. So I was trying to write that even Sri

Utthamur swamy could not reply to many questions from Sri PBA swamy

on philosophical matters. I do agree and apologize that my earlier

mail gave a picture as if I have said that, even Sri Utthamur swAmy

did such cheap acts of personal attacks. I really feel sorry for not

being clear in my earlier message.

 

On the note regarding Sri PBA swAmy writing about the rAmAnuja dayA

pAthram thaniyan being a later day composed one, please note that he

wrote about this only based on the actual sanskrit meters for slOkas

and other vyAkaraNAs. He never misinterpreted the works of a

vadagalai scholar deliberately or for that sake misquoted them. What

is to be condemned is the so called smart act of trying to used the

literature of the other sect to disprove their own philosophy, MORESO

when the text is very clear in upholding the philosophy.

 

Now coming to Sri DTT swAmy, I just will quote just one example from

a book which I read recently. His brother (Sri Varaha thathachariar)

published a book by name "Thiruvarangam" [even many vadagalai

scholars were of the opinion that Sri DTT swAmy's brother was not so

scholarly a person that he can write a book like even this one where

there is no traceability of any truth) where in he said that a place

called "thiruvarangam" near thirukkOvilUr is the actual

"thiruvarangam" sung by AzhwArs in some pAsurams. Of course he did

not say that Srirangam is not at all a divya dEsam. He was only

trying to create an image for his place as a divya dEsam. This book

was clearly countered by Sri Puttur Krishnamachariar swamy through

his book "SriRangaRaja Vijayam" wherein he asked certain questions to

Sri DTT swAmy proving how silly his research is. An example from that

book will prove how, egoistic was his view that he even wrote

something personally attacking Sri Puttur swAmy for asking such

questions to which he cannot reply. The example is as follows ;-

Sri DTT swamy used a pAsuram from periya thirumozhi (5-5-9) in which

there is a word "chandOgan". This pAsuram is on NamperumAL. This word

was interpreted by Sri PeriyavAcchAn piLLai as having its root in the

word "chAndhOgya upanishad". But Sri DTT swamy wrote that this word

is referring to the chAndhOgya vimAnam in his village temple of

thiruvarangam and hence Sri Thirumangai AzhwAr was only singing about

his place and so this is a divya dEsam. But Sri Puttur swamy proved

that Sri DTT swamy was clearly wrong and all his writings were only

driven by his love towards his native place and there is no proof to

substantiate his claim that the village of "thiruvarangam" on the

banks of the peNNai river is actually a divya dEsam. On seeing this

rebuttal, Sri DTT swamy could not even open his mouth. Important fact

is that, though he belonged to the vadagalai sampradhAyam, not a

single scholar belonging to this sampradhAyam accepted this research

book of his. He even went to the extent of saying that swAmy

dEsikar's nyAsa thilakam was sung in praise of Sri Ranganathan of

this thiruvarangam only, when clearly everyone irrespective of the

kalai have accepted that this was sung only on NamperumAL of

Srirangam. Sri DTT swAmy was in fact, more vigorous hater of the

thennAchArya sampradhAyam than Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy and if I

attempt to give examples of them, a single mail (which is already

very very long) is not at all enough.

 

So I wish to say here that I was not denoucing any vidwAn, but only

calling a spade, a spade. Hope you will agree to this after my

clarification above. Also I hope you will understand the sentiments

of this sect of people, when one condemns their AchArya. Do you still

say, calling Sri Madhuranthakam swAmy as just fanactic, is

a hateful denouncement and messages contain high level of acidity.

 

Lastly, if a thennAchArya sampradhAya vidwAn would have called swAmy

dEsikan or his immediate sishyAs as having "alpa buddhi", what would

have been the reaction on the bhakthi list or malolan net. I am sure

you know what kind of posts would have come up. So this is purely

hurting the sentiments of one sect. Also I have given subtle proof, I

think, to let you know that the word 'fanatics' used for Sri

Madhuranthakam swAmy and Sri DTT swAmy are not just emotional in

nature but is based on their own deeds.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

 

ramanuja, Mani Varadarajan <mani@a...> wrote:

>

> Dear Members,

>

> I was browsing some articles on the "ramanuja" email group

> from early April 2002 and was quite shocked to see vitriolic

> messages hatefully denouncing Sri Vaishnava vidvAns such

> as Sri Madurantakam Veeraraghavachariar Swami, Sri Uttamur

> Veeraraghavachariar Swami, and Sri D.T. Tatachariar Swami.

> Yes, these scholars were Vadagalai and held different viewpoints

> from many on this list, but that is no excuse to show such

> disrespect to scholars of this magnitude. Such disrespect

> shouldn't be shown to any human being, for that matter. I should

> add that it doesn't matter that it was in response to an email

> about Swami Manavaaala Maamunigal. Two wrongs don't make

> a right.

>

> To those who do not know, Sri Uttamur Swami was a guru to

> many of the Thengalai sampradaya's brightest stars, including

> Sri Velukkudi Varadachariar Swami, Sri T.A. Krishnamacharya

> Swami, Sri M. Narasimhachariar Swami and others. Sri Uttamur

> Swami's editions of many sampradAya granthas such as

> Bhagavad Ramanuja gItA-bhAshya with tAtparyacandrikA, SrutaprakASika

> on SrIbhAshya, and the upanishad-bhAshyas of Sri

Rangaramanujacharya

> are the standard editions used by scholars and students within

> and without the Sri Vaishnava sampradAya.

>

> Sri Madurantakam Swami was, as Sri Velukkudi Krishnan personally

> told me, one of Sri Velukkudi Varadachariar Swami's closest

> friends, so much so that they would be willing to 'pisingify'

> sAdham for each other (Sri VK's literal words). If these two

> stalwarts of their respective traditions could show such

> regard for each other, should we show any less?

>

> Sri D.T. Tatacharya Swami, for whatever else one may say,

> was a great scholar of SrIbhAshya who wrote a brilliant defense

> of Visishtadvaita in his 'visishTAdvaita-siddhi', as a partial

> rejoinder to an Advaita attack on the fundamentals of the system.

>

> It is a great thing to exalt one's acharyas, but such a thing

> should never come at the expense of others. Please -- I beseech

> members and the moderator to exercise control in this regard.

>

> quite pained,

> aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

> Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Venkatesh,

 

I don't want to prolong this discussion anymore because

you find nothing wrong in calling profound scholars

fanatics and in ridiculing their views without knowing

the whole story. I really don't want to unwittingly be

a party to this so this will be my last post on this

subject.

 

For the record I did not find the statements downplaying

Maamunigal's greatness in any way acceptable and those who

know me know that I have condemned similar disparaging

remarks in the past as well.

 

I only want to write a few more words and I will not

discuss this issue again.

 

1) I am certain that Sri Uttamur Swamy had responses

to every question Sri PBA Swamy posed, as would

Sri PBA Swamy to every question Sri Uttamur Swamy

would have posed. These matters

eventually become complex and are an issue of personal

faith. Many of them (such as prapatti's svarUpa

or the nature of Lakshmi-tattva) simply go back and

forth and there will *never* be an objective resolution.

Everyone is colored by their background.

 

In other words, after a while there is no point to

argument and I am not surprised if one side or the

other gives up and just goes home to be at peace.

 

2) The so-called "fanaticism" of Sri Madurantakam Swami

is a criticism easily levelled. But for each time

he could be so condemned so could many acharyas that

are close to your heart. This, simply put, is *not* the way to

carry out discourse. I could argue that Sri PBA Swamy

has taken Swami Desika out of context here and there,

but this gives me no right to ridicule him in public or call

him a fanatic. These vidvAns deserve a separate

level of respect, not only for their learning, but

for their anushThAna and for their status as acharya-

purushas in our tradition. Sri Madurantakam Swami

was an acharya-purusha of the Eechambaadi aachaan vamsa

and has sishyas in this country. At least out of

concern for these sishyas we should demonstrate more

care, in my opinion.

 

In other words, critize the *view* and not the *person*.

 

3) Everyone in the lIla-vibhUti is subject to the three guNas,

even great people such as Chaturmukha Brahma. If Sri D.T.

Tatacharya Swami, a recipient of the Panditaratna

title, or his brother made some errors in reference to

a temple mentioned in a paasuram, it does not seem like

a hangable offense to me. We should look at someone's

merits and not their defects.

 

I will not convince you, I am sure, but I felt duty-bound

to at least mention that these great scholars were worthy

of respect, certainly more respect than you are giving them.

 

May we never forget those paasurams beginning with

'payilum sudaroli', 'nedumaarkku adimai', and

'en adiyaar adhu seyyaar'!

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Mani,

 

You have said that you will not discuss this again. However,

I will try to present my views here. Again, even I will not

try to convince you here. But please do read the following with

open mind.

 

-----Quote 1-------

For the record I did not find the statements downplaying

Maamunigal's greatness in any way acceptable and those who

know me know that I have condemned similar disparaging

remarks in the past as well.

-----Unquote 1------

 

Mani, though I am replying point by point, I would like to point out

one thing here. Even in this message of yours you have not condemned

the mail of Anand. As you are aware, all these started from Anand's

mail only. When you are finding fault with members of the opposite

sect for criticizing AchAryAs of your sect, especially w.r.t to the

respect that they deserve, you should also have equally criticized

Anand openly for his views. I do not know, whether you are a member

of Malolan net or not. But you could have done it in Bhakti list.

Remember, the vadagalai-thengalai disputes are always in a highly

energized zone and a small spark is enough for the ignition and I am

sorry to say that, if you review with open mind, the spark always

originated in the form of a book from the Vadagalai side.

 

If you would have condemned Anand's postings in ramanuja list atleast

before criticizing my post, I would have kept quite and would have

sincerely apologised, to you atleast. But you never spoke a word

about it, & on the other hand you started finding fault with my

posting where in I have called a spade just a spade.

 

When a review of anything is made, one should review it unbiassed and

with open mind. I expected this from you certainly, but.....

-----Quote 2-----

 

I only want to write a few more words and I will not

discuss this issue again.

 

1) I am certain that Sri Uttamur Swamy had responses

to every question Sri PBA Swamy posed, as would

Sri PBA Swamy to every question Sri Uttamur Swamy

would have posed. These matters

eventually become complex and are an issue of personal

faith. Many of them (such as prapatti's svarUpa

or the nature of Lakshmi-tattva) simply go back and

forth and there will *never* be an objective resolution.

Everyone is colored by their background.

----Unquote 2----

 

Mani, again I agree with you here for your words "These

matters are an issue of Personal Faith". True words! But

will you still remain silent if your faith is intruded.

Remember my quotation from Sri PBA swamy's works regarding

swAmy dEsikan's nyAsa dasakam slOka "swAmin! swasEsham...."

I have quoted from his books as to how, grossly this slOka

has been misinterpreted to support the cause of swapravrutti

on the part of jeevAthma. You have seen it. You could have

proved me wrong, or for that sake anybody else. But I am not

going to celebrate that I have won the case, as I have not

received a reply so far. I have to be more cautious and

expectant in case of a rebuttal to this. However, what I am

trying to drive here is that, matter of faith is okay. But

what about the faith due to the matter of, if I can call it,

deliberate misinterpretation. The answers given back and forth

between two people in argument does not necessarily relieve

them of their obligation to establish the truth. For a question

in an argument, there can be a reply which makes or does not

make sense. What matters really is that whether the common man

in both the sampradhAyams, can accept one of the argument,

based on logics and sound pramANAs. Again, in particular, is

there a rebuttal to this interpretation of Sri PBA swamy on

this nyAsa dasaka slOka till date from any one which is

convincing to one and all. Please note, I am not talking about

persons who are convinced due to blind faith. I am only talking

about persons, who have the capability to analyse the value of

each of the argument and arrive at a conclusion as to which is

the correct one. For that sake, I am convinced like this. The

word used is "nyasyathi" (Second person singular)meaning you

make me renounce. And all the "swa" sabdham refers to only

emberumAn here. If the word would have been "nyasyAmi" (first

person singular) it would have conveyed a meaning as there is

something, that the jeevAthmA does to earn mOksha. How can

one justify the claim that this sloka talks about the effort

on the part of the jeevAthmA to earn mOksha.

 

Please note that, there can be another argument to this that,

just with one slOka, you cannot find fault with the entire

interpretations. There are a lot of such slOkas, referred to

by Sri PBA swAmy. I do not want to quote them here.

 

------Quote 3------

In other words, after a while there is no point to

argument and I am not surprised if one side or the

other gives up and just goes home to be at peace.

-----Unquote 3------

True, but will you go home to rest in peace if your territory

is under invasion?

 

-----Quote 4------

2) The so-called "fanaticism" of Sri Madurantakam Swami

is a criticism easily levelled. But for each time

he could be so condemned so could many acharyas that

are close to your heart. This, simply put, is *not* the way to

carry out discourse. I could argue that Sri PBA Swamy

has taken Swami Desika out of context here and there,

but this gives me no right to ridicule him in public or call

him a fanatic. These vidvAns deserve a separate

level of respect, not only for their learning, but

for their anushThAna and for their status as acharya-

purushas in our tradition. Sri Madurantakam Swami

was an acharya-purusha of the Eechambaadi aachaan vamsa

and has sishyas in this country. At least out of

concern for these sishyas we should demonstrate more

care, in my opinion.

---Unquote 4-----

Mani, I agree very much to the point that I am in no way

comparable to any of those swAmys, whom I have 'ridiculed', in

terms of knowledge or anushTAnams. But, what good are those

knowledge and anushTAnams if they cannot control a person

against writing something which will hurt the sentiments of others.

If my words criticizing Sri MadhurAnthakam swAmy and Sri DTT swAmy

have hurt you, think of it, how much , Sri MadhurAnthakam swAmy's

words that the "srisailEsa" thaniyan was only taught to a

small boy and was not recited by namperumAL, would have hurt the

sentiments of the other sect, especially when he deliberately

misquotes and hides passages from a literature which actually upholds

and glorifies it (the wound is more when a person like Anand

reproduces the same after decades, unnecessarily stirring the

hornets). Please do not bring in the term hagiology here. He

might have been a great AchArya purushA and would have many sishyAs.

Agreed. But remember the tamizh words, yAnai siRuttAl, naayum

vAlAttum. I am sure I am the dog here.

 

-----Quote 5------

 

In other words, critize the *view* and not the *person*.

----Unquote 5-----

Please pardon me for saying this. But it only gives me a picture of

a helpless advocate who is pleading the cause of his client, by

saying that he did not commit the mistake, but his hand only did it?

Mani, I did not expect this from a person with high knowledge and

analysing capability as you. Talking more philosophically about the

above words, a view can be only from the AtmA and the person is just

a sarIrA. However, you have to agree that the AtmA is in a sarIrA in

this prakruthi and so even if I criticise the view, it is actually

pointed towards the AtmA and not towards the sarIra, which is more

dangerous. Do you really want me to do this? Atleast I wouldn't. Do

you mean to say that the view is different from the person from who

it originates?

 

-----Quote 6-----

3) Everyone in the lIla-vibhUti is subject to the three guNas,

even great people such as Chaturmukha Brahma. If Sri D.T.

Tatacharya Swami, a recipient of the Panditaratna

title, or his brother made some errors in reference to

a temple mentioned in a paasuram, it does not seem like

a hangable offense to me. We should look at someone's

merits and not their defects.

----Unquote 6----

 

Mani, again you have misunderstood my example as the sole incident

which made me write it. Remember this was only an example as I have

clearly stated in my earlier mail. Forget that temple issue, I know

that in many of his books, Sri DTT swAmy has criticised almost

all the thennAchArya sampradhAya AchAryas, at times including

Sri periyavAcchAn piLLai et al. I can't give references to all in

one mail.

 

-----Quote 7-----

I will not convince you, I am sure, but I felt duty-bound

to at least mention that these great scholars were worthy

of respect, certainly more respect than you are giving them.

----Unquote 7----

You are right, you have not convinced me. But remember, a respect

comes to a person from his deeds. Remember Sri Rama was praised even

by His enemies. Of course nobody can be as perfect as Sri Rama, but

atleast try to follow Him. "kaRppAr irAma pirAnai allAl maRRum

kaRppArO". Again as I said earlier, yAnai siRutthAl, nAyum vAlATTum.

I agree that I am the dog here, but one also has to agree that these

people have fallen short of commanding respect. For that sake, take

the case of Sri Uttamur swamy himself. I have never criticised him.

I only said that he was not able to answer Sri PBA swamy's questions.

You have also said that the vice versa is true. Let us now agree to

this. So this is what respect is. I would not like to call Sri

Uttamur swamy as a fanatic at all. Afterall one should have

unshakeable faith in one's sampradhAyam. If Sri Uttamur swamy or for

that sake Sri PBA swamy would have criticized the writings (just

philosophical) of each other, that means no disrespect. But

certainly, calling the other sect AchAryAs as incarnations of kali

purusha etc are not at all in the domain of commanding respect and

certainly even dogs like me will start barking.

 

-----Quote 8-----

May we never forget those paasurams beginning with

'payilum sudaroli', 'nedumaarkku adimai', and

'en adiyaar adhu seyyaar'!

----Unquote 8-----

Sure Mani!

 

Finally, you saw Anand's posting. You all hail him as a great

upcoming scholar and tomorrow he may be equated with the same Uttamur

swamy. Will it look nice if one reads such a posting of this nature

in his earlier days. Are you convinced that what he had written is

correct. You have not even condemned Anand, who could not even

withstand, a person from his sampradhAyam, writing about the glory

of "srIsailEsa" thaniyan. All people talk about the unity between the

sects. But, tell me honestly, was there a message criticizing Anand

in any of the list dominated by vadagalais, for running a tyrade

against Sri Madhavakkannan, just for writing about the glory of

the "SrisailEsa" thaniyan. Surely, while Sri Madhavakkannan swamy is

an example for the unity among the kalais, people like Anand can only

grow the dispute and cannot bring an end to this. Instead, he writes

as if he is trying to cultivate the unity between the kalais. Great!

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Venkatesh,

 

I was a just a silent listener all this days. But circumstances force

me to write down this mail. I am starting with an apology if this

mail hurts any body.

 

Just try to understand that there is no point in arguing in this more

and more. No body can accept if you call spade a spade. That is the

practical situation now.

 

Everybody understands that you haven't tried to insult the vidvans.

You have brought down the fact that is available which is

unacceptable to them. But that doesn't mean you should keep silent.

 

Sri Parthasarathy Swamin, has nicely quoted in his mail that ego

should be brought down. I totally agree with him and at the same

time, it is our duty to raise to the occasion while seeing a posting

like this.

 

I do agree with Sri Mukundan Swami, this is a forum to get educated.

And at the same time, the one of the goals of the forum says "The

difference in concept between any two schools can be written only

with reference to purva acharyas / earlier vidwans sayings. Never on

our own." In that case, I don't find you have never deviated from the

goals of the forum.

 

Everybody just try to understand that fact, that they will never

allow you to call spade a spade. Hence don't stop whenever a burning

issue like this comes.

 

regards

SampathKumar

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Sri Parthasarathy swamy and Sri Sampath swamy

 

I thank you all for the understanding. Both of you have brought out the

facts nicely. I would like to reply in just two statements.

 

Sri Parthasarathy swamy, every words that you have written is very well

said. In fact that is what I had asked, as, if the knowledge and the

anushTAnam cannot lead a person in controlling his words what is the point

in having them and what good it is to call them as great people. As you

said very clearly, reading "nedumARkkadimai" and "payilum sudaroLi moorthy"

is no good unless followed truly. Also it is not just for one sect of

people to read it and realize it. It is for every one, including those who

instigated this (I am not refering to Sri Mani here, instead I am referring

to Sri Madhuranthakam swamy and Anand).

 

Sri Sampath swamy, I do realize (after reading your message) that, calling

a spade a spade in the present day circumstance will not be accepted by the

affected party and so there is no point in arguing further. I surely take

this advise of yours. I am also taking your other point, conveyed in the

lines of the first para above, that, our case should also be presented when

a poorvAchArya dhooshaNam is being done.

 

To close down, I would like to say onething clearly. In this list, we will

not enter in to any arguments voluntarily (of course we may write about an

argument that has happened years ago. But this cannot be considered as

instigation) or write in a way to instigate some one into argument. But if

one will write ill of our beloved poorvAchAryAs, no matter, whoever it is,

they will be severly condemned.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

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