Sri Ramanuja archa at Tirumalai.

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Venkatakrishnan svamin,

 

I had the privilege of attending the exciting

'Geetacharyan' silver jubilee function held at

Narada-gaana sabha on Sunday (10th).

 

Please accept my congratulations for organising the

function so well. I saluted Sri Vaana-maa-malai svami,

and felt blessed, but I could not personally come to

you to convey my greetings as you were obviously busy.

 

I also greedily acquired a copy of the second edition

of your excellent book, 'Vaazhvum Vaakkum', and also

the 4-volume midget edition of 'aruli-c-cheyal'. My

wife Padma (whom Nam-perumal recalled unto Himself on

March 14, and who received the 'charama samskaaram' in

the Tiru-alli-k-keni outskirts) had enjoyed many a

'sampradaayam' insight by borrowing the first edition

copy from my 'manni', Smt Rajalakshmi Kannan, but we

could not just secure a copy for ourselves then as it

had sold out.

 

The copy I purchased on Sunday would be my wife's

memento to me, as I survive her to discharge the

duties the Lord would deem fit to assign to me.

 

The Geetaachaaryan just glows in the new format. I

would however humbly suggest that the graphics be

omitted, until you can afford an artist of the calibre

of Maniam Selvan etc.

 

May the precious Lord of Tiruvalli-k-keni ever attend

your excellent services with His grace.

 

Regards from

(Srirangam Tirumanjanam) Sundara Rajan.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--- Geethacharyan <geethacharyan wrote:

 

> Dear bhagavatas,

> I happened to go through the articles about sri

> Ramanujar in Tirumalai that the vigraham might be

> desikan's and not Ramanuja's.It is a world known

> fact that except for Ramanuja there is no vigraham

for any other Azhwar or Acharya in Tirumalai temple

> (Initially there was no other Vigraham for any other

Azhwar or Acharya in Tirumala hills itself but now

some

> private mutts and people are creating new vigrahams

for their favourite acharyas and keeping in their own

place).

> This kind of campaigns were done by mischivous

> people during the golden period of Annangaracharyar

Swami itself and he has without any difficulties has

dismissed those claims with supreme authentication.

I think this issue was very deeply addressed and

> written by swami in almost a full Ramanusan issue.

Below are the strong and unanswerable reasons(by these

> campaigners) for why the vigraham is Ramanuja's and

> not Desikan's.

>

> 1.As pointed out by a friend in one of the previous

> digests, Ramanujar is considered to be the acharya

> of

> Tiruvengadamudayan himself and hence the Gnyana

> mudra.

> Even today we can hear kattiyams in places like

> sriperumbudur, tiruvallikeni saying "Appanukku

> sangazhi alitha perumal".

>

> 2.Next, Tirumalai is the place where ramanuja wrote

> and delivered Vedartha sangragham, a magnificeint

> work

> in the form of Upanyasa in front of the Lord and

> hence

> the GNyana mudra.

>

> 3.The person has also claimed that Ramanuja at

> tirumalai is having manuscripts in his left hand. I

> doubt very much the person who said this has ever

> been

> to tirumalai and seen the left hand of ramnuja. It

> is

> very clear that the left hand of ramuja contaons

> nothing and it will be just like

> tiruvengadamudayan's

> left hand pointing downwards.(Incidentally, the

> picture of Sri Ramanuja of Tirumalai has been

> published in the Chittirai issue of GEETHACHARYAN.)

> The claims that Ramanujar's left hand has

> manuscripts

> and is being covered are all nothing but nonsense

> because anyone can on anyday go to tirumala and can

> see that the left hand is not covered.

>

> 4.We have lot of scriptures(Kalvettus) in tiruamalai

> saying very clearly that After the period of

> Ananthalwan, his grandson had performed kainkaryams

> to

> tiruvengadamudayan and its is also very very clearly

> stated that he also performed kainkaryams every day

> to

> the ramanujar conscecrated by ananthalwan.

>

> After considering these points no one could for a

> second think that it might be desikan's vigraga and

> not ramanuja's. If still anyone wants to argue that

> it

> is desika and not ramanuja, we can just say that

> "Tham

> nenjil tottinathe solli ithu sutha upadesa

> varavartha

> enbar moorkaravar" and regret their ignorance.

>

> Geethacharyan

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>