terror in thirumala

[Guest guest]

ramanujadasan

adiyen is totally confused of the fact happening in thirumalai.the

thirumeni of deity bhaskara in thirumalai srinivasan sannidi is presented to

devariers in the attachment. actually he is present in the temple with ubdesa

mudra and with oolai suvadi in his hand and this idiol without thirukodi suits

very well for swami vedanta desigan. now i am in a confusion that wheather the

thirumeni present is desigan and not ramanuja or else since swami is called

bhasyakara or the writer of bhasyams he holds that thirumeni in thirumala. or

any other specific reason for it . i request periyavas to tell me this and

clear my iyyam.

ramanujadasan

dhivya nadhan

 

Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

Attachment: (image/pjpeg) ramanujain srirangam.jpg [not stored]

[Guest guest]

dear srI vijaya sarathy,

 

the reason why our svAmi emperumAnAr's vigraham is present with the

upadEsa mudra is because svAmi did the vEdArtha samgraha kAlakshEpam

at thirupathi, and hence it is one of the reasons why our AchAryas is

depicted in that form. Please note that the idol has the thiru-k-kodi.

 

Please note that this idol was consecreted, and the sannadhi was

built by srI anantAzhvAn, one of the 74 smhAsanAdhipadhis of

Ramanuja. It is also to be noted that there is a tradition of NOT

building any sanandhis for any other AchArya at thirumala after

Ramanuja.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

varadhan

 

 

 

ramanuja, vijayasarathy iyengar

<ramanujadasan86> wrote:

> adiyen

> ramanujadasan

> adiyen is totally confused of the fact happening in

thirumalai.the thirumeni of deity bhaskara in thirumalai srinivasan

sannidi is presented to devariers in the attachment. actually he is

present in the temple with ubdesa mudra and with oolai suvadi in his

hand and this idiol without thirukodi suits very well for swami

vedanta desigan. now i am in a confusion that wheather the thirumeni

present is desigan and not ramanuja or else since swami is called

bhasyakara or the writer of bhasyams he holds that thirumeni in

thirumala. or any other specific reason for it . i request periyavas

to tell me this and clear my iyyam.

>

ramanujadasan

>

dhivya nadhan

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Vijayasarathy,

The following may also (in addition to Sri

Varadhan's post) shed some light on your query.

 

During Swami Emberumanar's time there was a dispute as to whether the

archa tirumeni in Tirumalai was that of Emberuman or Siva or Shakti

etc. Despite Swami Emberumanar's attempts to present multiple evidence

to the fact that it was Emberuman who was the presiding deity, the

turmoil continued as Swami's words fell on deaf ears. Finally, it was

decided that the sanctom sanctorum would be filled with ayudhams of

different deities and the doors secured for the night. In the morning

when the doors were opened, it was reasoned that those ayudhams that

were typical of the presiding deity would be taken up. Lo and behold!

Emberuman took up the Tiruvazhi and Tiruchakaram which all of us

behold today at Tirumalai.

 

As to the question of why the deity had no wepaons prior to this

incident, is the fact that Lord Srinivasan lent his Tiruchakram and

Tiruvazhi to his devotee Tondaman Chakravarti for assistance in the

latter's armed conflicts. Thus, at the point of Swami Emberumanar's

intervention, Emberuman's tirumeni at Tirumalai was without the

traditional conch and discuss. This situation encouraged rival sects

to advance arguments that the deity at Tirumalai was Shiva, Shakti

etc. Swami Emberumanar's intervention helped to secure these ayudhams

for Emberuman. Sampradayam holds that the individual who invests

people with "changka - chakra laanchanam" is the acharyan. Swami

Emberumanar invested Tiruvengadamudaiyan with changkam and chakaram

and may thus be regarded as HIS acharyan. Therefore the upadesha

mudra. This is not adiyen's thesis. Adiyen became aware of this angle

based on a traditional upanyasam. Unfortunately, adiyen is not able to

recall the scholar and is wary of hazarding a guess.

 

Additionally based on traditional accounts, books published by TTD

etc. no other acharyan is mentioned in this connection. Considering

Swami Emberumanar's monumental contribuition (without which this

glorious divya desam and Emberuman who was hailed by Azhvar as

"alarmel mangai urai marbha" may not have continued as a Sri

Vaishnava Tirutalam!!!) in regard to Tirumalai it hardly surprising

that this one and only one acharya has sannidhi inside the temple.

 

regards

 

rAmAnuja dAsan,

Vedaraman Sriraman

 

 

 

ramanuja, vijayasarathy iyengar

<ramanujadasan86> wrote:

> adiyen

> ramanujadasan

> adiyen is totally confused of the fact happening in

thirumalai.the thirumeni of deity bhaskara in thirumalai srinivasan

sannidi is presented to devariers in the attachment. actually he is

present in the temple with ubdesa mudra and with oolai suvadi in his

hand and this idiol without thirukodi suits very well for swami

vedanta desigan. now i am in a confusion that wheather the thirumeni

present is desigan and not ramanuja or else since swami is called

bhasyakara or the writer of bhasyams he holds that thirumeni in

thirumala. or any other specific reason for it . i request periyavas

to tell me this and clear my iyyam.

>

ramanujadasan

>

dhivya nadhan

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.

[Guest guest]

Sreemathe Ramanujaya Namaha:

This is the version we have all heard from even our grandparents. The

Vigraham is known to be that of Emberumaanaar. What is new now? Also I would

like to know why the subject matter is referred to as "terror in Thirumala"?

Adiyen,

dasan,

ramanujam

Alwar Emberumaanaar Jeeyar Tiruvadigale Saranam.

 

>"vedaramansriraman" <vedaramansriraman

>ramanuja

>ramanuja

>[ramanuja] Re: terror in thirumala

>Tue, 05 Apr 2005 23:19:55 -0000

>

>

>Dear Sriman Vijayasarathy,

> The following may also (in addition to Sri

>Varadhan's post) shed some light on your query.

>

> During Swami Emberumanar's time there was a dispute as to whether the

>archa tirumeni in Tirumalai was that of Emberuman or Siva or Shakti

>etc. Despite Swami Emberumanar's attempts to present multiple evidence

>to the fact that it was Emberuman who was the presiding deity, the

>turmoil continued as Swami's words fell on deaf ears. Finally, it was

>decided that the sanctom sanctorum would be filled with ayudhams of

>different deities and the doors secured for the night. In the morning

>when the doors were opened, it was reasoned that those ayudhams that

>were typical of the presiding deity would be taken up. Lo and behold!

> Emberuman took up the Tiruvazhi and Tiruchakaram which all of us

>behold today at Tirumalai.

>

>As to the question of why the deity had no wepaons prior to this

>incident, is the fact that Lord Srinivasan lent his Tiruchakram and

>Tiruvazhi to his devotee Tondaman Chakravarti for assistance in the

>latter's armed conflicts. Thus, at the point of Swami Emberumanar's

>intervention, Emberuman's tirumeni at Tirumalai was without the

>traditional conch and discuss. This situation encouraged rival sects

>to advance arguments that the deity at Tirumalai was Shiva, Shakti

>etc. Swami Emberumanar's intervention helped to secure these ayudhams

>for Emberuman. Sampradayam holds that the individual who invests

>people with "changka - chakra laanchanam" is the acharyan. Swami

>Emberumanar invested Tiruvengadamudaiyan with changkam and chakaram

>and may thus be regarded as HIS acharyan. Therefore the upadesha

>mudra. This is not adiyen's thesis. Adiyen became aware of this angle

>based on a traditional upanyasam. Unfortunately, adiyen is not able to

>recall the scholar and is wary of hazarding a guess.

>

>Additionally based on traditional accounts, books published by TTD

>etc. no other acharyan is mentioned in this connection. Considering

>Swami Emberumanar's monumental contribuition (without which this

>glorious divya desam and Emberuman who was hailed by Azhvar as

>"alarmel mangai urai marbha" may not have continued as a Sri

>Vaishnava Tirutalam!!!) in regard to Tirumalai it hardly surprising

>that this one and only one acharya has sannidhi inside the temple.

>

>regards

>

>rAmAnuja dAsan,

>Vedaraman Sriraman

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

adiyen ramanujadasan

at the very outset i would like to thank swamin for giving me some picture of

the confusion.the thirumeni of emperumanar is with a thirukodi tied to the

thirukaigal of swami and the view that ramanujar is the acharyan of

thirumalaiappan is also agreeable but the same is the case of manavalamamunigal

in srirangam.he is the acharyan of namperumal but he is with koopiya karangal

and also outside the temple.to support my view there is a ramanujar temple on

the way we climb the thirumala hills.the photos of swami emperumanar at

thirumala and manavalamamunigal at srirangam are attached kindly reply

dasan

dhivya nadhan

Make your home page

Attachment: (image/pjpeg) ramanujar in thirumalai.jpg [not stored]

Attachment: (image/pjpeg) manvala mamunigal in srirangam.jpg [not stored]

[Guest guest]

the matter is reffered to be a terror because

normally we recite srisailesa dayapatram in emperumanar sannidhi of thirumala

but if the vigraham is of swami desigan then is it fare reciting the same in

emperumanar sannidhi of thirumala?

the unfare things done are reffered as terror by adiyen

dasan

dhivya nadhan

(thirukottiyur)

 

Better first dates. More second dates. Personals

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namah

 

dear srI dhivya nAdhan,

 

I encourage you not to make conclusions based on baseless hypotheses

(kattu kadhais) that people propogate due to sectarian reason.

 

I think the real terror in the srIvaishNava sampradAyam is the

spread of such baseless hypotheses and the blind belief/hatred that

it has created among many people in the srIvaishNava sampradAyam.

 

It may be helpful for you to really understand the folowing by

asking someone who is not prone to making such baseless hypotheses -

 

(i) position of vEdAnta dEsika in the Ramanuja sampradAya, and how

Ramanuja sampradaya followers revere/venerate vEdAnta dEsika

 

(ii) the history behind vEdAnta dEsika sannadhis is several

divyadEsams (in thirupathi, for example, the dEsika sannadhi was,

and is still being run by the thirumalai jeeyar svAmi, who follows

Ramanuja sampradAya strictly).

 

As a moderator, I am compelled to close this thread soon as this is

taking the form of you asking people to justify/refute baseless

claims. I initially thought you had a genuine question, but now I am

not sure. I will allow this thread to continue for a day or more and

see.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

varadhan

 

 

 

ramanuja, vijayasarathy iyengar

<ramanujadasan86> wrote:

> adiyen ramanujadasan

> the matter is reffered to be a terror because

> normally we recite srisailesa dayapatram in emperumanar sannidhi

of thirumala but if the vigraham is of swami desigan then is it fare

reciting the same in emperumanar sannidhi of thirumala?

> the unfare things done are reffered as terror by adiyen

> dasan

> dhivya nadhan

> (thirukottiyur)

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Better first dates. More second dates. Personals

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Varadhan,

Thanks for continuing this thread for some more time.

Kindly allow me to enlighten Shri.Vijaysarathy and many more others

of his kind and clear their doubts, if at all genuine.

 

Dear Shri.Vijaysarathy,

 

If you consider the the physical appearance of the vigrahams alone -

vigrahams of Acharyas with right hand in upadEsa mudra and left

hand holding the sacred text is not the copyright for Vedanta Desika

vigrahams alone. You many note that the vigrahams of Nathamunigal,

Periya Nambi and Pillai Lokacharya also appear thus.

The vigraham of Sri Desika at Kanchi Varadarajaswamy temple and the

idol of Sri Desika at the Tiruvallur temple can, by the above

logic, be taken to be that of Sri Pillai Lokacharya.

 

Moreover have you seen the Molavar vigraham of svAmi emperumAnAr in

Kanchi and that of the Molavar vigraham of svAmi emperumAnAr

(Thanana Thirumeni) in Srirangam and that in Thirukkurungudi - all

are with right hand in preceptor's pose (upadEsa mudra ) and left

holding the sacred text. So is that of svAmi emperumAnAr in Thondanur.

 

Before trying to draw some vague analogy with the vigraham of swami

Manavalamamunigal - note that in Srirangam all utsavar idols of

Acharyas will be with Anjali Hastham ( in your words koopiya

karangal ) only.

This is only to bring out that the vigrahams ( Molavar and Utsavar )

of Acharyas in every divya desam has some significance unique to

that place, which elders of that divya desam alone can explain.

 

Ofcourse, people ,who so far till recently ,had no raditional link /

attachment with

divya desams, initially, can fall into a trap - like the one you have

fallen, because they did not have the chance of association with the

practices and customs unique with that sketram. So when someone comes

and tells them otherwise they accept it without realising that the

logic is flawed.

Your logic is defeated, because your physical observation of

the vigraham, on which you have based your conclusion is wrong!!!

If at all you have observed the vigraham more closely, you would not

have hurried to make such outlandish statements with an intention of

creating mischievous, malignant distortions. If only you had taken

time to observe the vigraham more closely you would have not missed

the following :-

 

1) The vigraham of svAmi emperumAnAr is present with the right hand in

upadEsa mudra , but

2) The left hand holds nothing and is left uncovered. So the analogy

that it is of Sri Desika collapses because universally all Sri Desika

vigrahams is supposed to hold the sacred text in left palm.

 

In your next visit to tirumala kindly observe closely the vigraham

of svAmi emperumAnAr.

So, please do a little homework before you try to pose innocent

questions borne out of genuine thirst for knowledge.

Elders recall that such kattu kadhais are in vogue for some time

now, and such myths have been exploded time and again, only to

resurface after some time. In this case of tirumala it was

sucessfully propagated for some time that the left hand was holding

the sacred texts but purposefully hidden within the folds of the

Saffron robe!!! In those days it seems that people propogating such

blasphemy and in order to make it appear genuine even invited their

innocent listeners to take a trip to Tirumala at their cost and

verify the truth, and when challenged ran for cover. It only proves

that such people nor their forefathers were never associated with

svAmi emperumAnAr sannidhi in Tirumala, otherwise they would never

have dared to propagate such blasphemy.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Narasimhan

 

 

ramanuja, "tavaradhan" <tavaradhan> wrote:

>

> srImathE rAmAnujAya namah

>

> dear srI dhivya nAdhan,

>

> I encourage you not to make conclusions based on baseless

hypotheses

> (kattu kadhais) that people propogate due to sectarian reason.

>