Fwd: Return of Nam-perumal to Srirangam

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Members,

 

Please read this wonderful posting in sv-general by Sri

S.A.Narasimhan. Beautiful! Irrefutable arguments.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

 

 

-- In sv-general, "s_a_narasimhan" <sanarasimhan@r...> wrote:

Dear Bhakthas,

My humle pranams

 

Shri. Mani wrote :-

------------

Mukundan, I never said that it's a definite conclusion

that Namperumaal came back in 1371. All I said is that

there are a couple of inscriptions on the Srirangam

walls which praise Gopanna Udaiyar and which are dated

to 1371.

-------------

The inscriptions are cut in the eastern wall of the rAja-mahEndran

(second) tiru-c-chuRRu (enclosure).

It is highly unlikely that inscriptions will be chiseled years after

the event took place. Moreover are there any works of Sri.Desika

which was written after Nam-perumal's return?

--------------

Shri. Mani wrote:-

One would be hard pressed to come up with a

reason for his presence in Srirangam unless Srirangam

was liberated by then.

---------------

Sri.Desika praying for the restoration of Lord Sriranga to His abode

in Srirangam, and for the return of peace and piety in Srirangam,

composed the prayer into the hymn 'abheeti-stavam'.

Definitely after return of Nam-perumal, he would have definitely have

expressed his joy and happiness into verses – the veritable lion

among poets and philosophers he was.

Are there any works of Sri.Desika which was written after Nam-

perumal's return ? Or is such a work lost ? If lost, is there any

reference to such a work by a later Acharya?

---------------

Shri. Mani wrote:-

Inscriptions indicate that

the Gopanna Udaiyar defeated the occupying forces in the year

known as 'bandhupriya', which corresponds to 1371 in the

Julian calendar. Some historians believe this inscription is

in error and that it should be 'bahupriya', meaning 1360.

Swami Desika passed away from bhUloka and attained

paramapada in 1369. All texts are universal in reporting

this event. This means that Srirangam was probably restored

earlier, or the inscription was chiseled later, or that

Swami Desika did not see the full reinstallation of Sri

Ranganatha at Srirangam. The first two alternatives are

more plausible given the historical record.

 

My personal recollection of the research is

that Srirangam was liberated sometime in the 1360s.

This tallies well with the account that Swami Desika

was present during the restoration of Srirangam.

------------------------------

 

When inscriptions are made they are meant to be correct, at least

correct about the time they are engraved. If at all mistakes are made

would not the responsible persons at that time point out and take

actions to correct the same – especially when such a grave one is

made i.e. putting back history by nearly 11 years (1371 to 1360). I

think there would have been enough people at Srirangam who would have

known the difference between `bandhupriya' and

`bahupriya'. Is it

implied that this mistake was intentional?

Mani, it is not binding on you, but since these dates seem to create

more confusion rather than clear I would be grateful if you can give

details of the research and other records of the same.

There seems to so many versions, GP3000, kOyil-ozhugu, and also

Shri.T.K.T.V's own version!.

 

Also, Shri. Sadagopan wrote:-

----------------------------

it is generally accepted that Swamy Desikan ascended to parama Padham

in 1369 C.E at Srirangam.

The date of 1371 C.E as the date of return of Lord RanganAthA

to Srirangam is shaky.

He returned much earlier and Swamy Desikan celebrated the Adhyayana

Uthsavam and enjoyed PerumAL Sevai for a few years before He was

called back to SrI Vaikuntam . This is the generally accepted view.

--------------------------

We have solid evidence in form of inscriptions which point out to the

fact that Nam-perumal returned in 1371. What could make this shaky.?

Nam-perumal is supposed to have been taken to Chenjee before being

brought to Srirangam. Gopanna Udaiyar being instrumental in bringing

back Nam-perumal, and being the ruler of Chenjee, would definitely

have loved to have Nam-perumal in his State for same time before

restoring him to Srirangam!

 

My original question in previous posting, regarding two Utsavars and

the role of washer man in identifying Nam-perumal ( and hence the

name Nam-perumal ) remains. I am once again repeating the same –

 

I have a question here:-

I have heard from elders regarding the controversy of two Utsavars

at Srirangam during this tumultuous period, and the role played by a

washer man in identifying Nam-perumal.

My question is that if SriDesika was alive during the return of Nam-

perumal would he not have identified Nam-perumal? Who else is more

fitting than him to identify Nam-perumal? Why seek the help of a

washer man? Or is the entire episode a later day addition? This

episode has been narrated by SriKrishna Premi .

 

 

If the above incident is true, when did the above incident take

place? 1360s, 1371 or later?

I once again request elders to enlighten me on the above. As already

mentioned, Sri Krishna Premi Swami has narrated this episode in his

"

Aranganum Acharyargalum" .

 

I once again request elders to clarify on this point.

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Daasan,

Narasimhan

--- End forwarded message ---