Humble clarification regarding my mail on Sri Anbil's biography of Desika

[Guest guest]

message, he does not intend any disrespect to Swami Desikan or HIS followers]

SrI:

Dear SrIvaishnavAs,

I got a bunch of emails saying that I was being

disrespectful to SrI Anbil rAmaswamy, and that he was a senior person with ~ 80

years of age, etc.

Again, I am apolegtic to all the brethen from dEsika SampradAyam, for my intent

was not to slight Swami dEsikan or His followers. Just wanted to point out the

inconsistencies in Sri Anbil Swamin's mail, that is all.

I never knew he was 80~ years of age. As a matter of fact, I haven't even met

him in person, and I don't have a reason to wield a personal grudge against Sri

Anbil. However, the very persons who are hurt because of their perceptions that

I might have insulted Sri Anbil should recognize how hurt should all the

rAmAnujA Sampradaya followers be for his article has insulted all our

poorvAchAryAs, including SwAmi piLLai lOkAchAryan, SwAmi periyavAchAn piLLai,

SwAmi Sudharsana Bhattar, SwAmi utthAnda Bhattar, and many more.

 

Coming back to the topic, for example this is what Sri Anbil HIMSELF had

written in his Saranagathi Journal while discussing the lifetimes of the

AchAryAs.

PeriyavAchAn PiLLai 1167 - 1262

Pillai Lokacharya 1264- 1327 ( Some sources say

1205-1311)

Vedanta Desikacharya 1268- 1369

Looking at the dates, PeriyavAchAn PiLLai appears to have attained Paramapadam 6

years even before the Birth of Desikar!! How could he have even met Desikar in

Person?????

If there is an argument regarding the suggested lack of accuracy in chronology,

it is not valid, as there are only expected inaccuracies in the time periods of

AzhvArs, but not with respect to the AchAryAs. The time periods of AchAryAs are

taken from more than a single source, which include: As suggested by the

biographers, written by Christian Missionaries of those days, authors of the

Islamic Kingdoms, scholars from other dynasties (Hoysala Kingdom, KrishnadEva

rAyA's kingdom); and all their numbers over or less support each other.

Even otherwise did Sri Anbil publish a disclaimer saying that the numbers and

the data he presents are all subjected to inaccuracies??

 

Now, let us look at the account with respect to Sudarshana Bhattar asking Swami

dEsikan to dispute the advaitins. The irony here: If anybody looks at SwAmi

dEsikan's divya mangaLa vigraham, he/she can observe swAMi dEsikan holding some

palm manuscripts in his left hand. The palm manuscripts are nothing but Srutha

prakAshikai, which was written by sudarshana bhattar Himself, and swAmi dEsikan

was even prepared to give his life to save those manuscripts, as we see in Thiru

Arangan UlA. If such is the greatness of the text that swAmi dEsikan tried to

save at all costs, is it too hard to comprehend the greatness of Sri Sudarshana

Bhattar??? SwAmi dEsikan was a student of Srutha prakAsikai. How fair is it to

say that such a great Sudarsana Bhattar could not argue the advaitins??

As for the "Seeronru" thanian:

Many scholars have agreed the perceived differences in SwAMi dEsikan's works

before visiting Srirangam and after visiting Srirangam. For example, he chose

to write munivAhana bogam, the commentary on AmalanAdippiran, as his first and

and one of the very few (the only commentary in TAMIL) after visiting Swami PL

at Srirangam.

In the same context, there are no differences in the stance of Swami PL in any of his works

SwAmi PL instructed SwAmi dEsikan to save SruthaprakAsikai, as seen in

Thiruarangan UlA. How could the instructor pay obeisances to the disciple??

 

If GPP 3000 is conveniently cited as the source, dear Sri VaishnavAs, I am sorry

to say that GPP 6000 doesn't even mention a single line about swAmi dEsikan,

will then be fair on my part to even question the existence of such a great

AchAryA?? No i would never committ such a maha-apachara

 

Sri PrativAdhi Bhayankaram Anna was the stalwart disciple of Swami dEsikan's

son, KumAra varadAchAriar, before he surrendered to ManavALa mAmunikaL, and

this is an indisputable fact accepted globally, Infact, Swami PB Anna's thanian

has SwAmi dEsikan's name. Moreover about 50% of Desika Mangalam contains slokas

written by Swami PB Anna.

Do we observe anywhere that we gloat over the fact that somebody from dEsika

sampradayam accepted Swami MM as his AchAryan??

 

In the Bhagawad Gita, Lord Krishna talks about how to seek knowledge:

tad viddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya upadeksyanti te jnanam

jnaninas tattva-darsinah

One should humbly surrender to an AchAryan, and ASK QUESTIONS. Our whole

sampradayam spread because of immense inquiries from the seeker and accurate

answers from the sought.

 

The intent of my mail was not to insult Sri Anbil. I don't know him at all, I

have not even seen him, infact I have not even heard of him much till the

recent past. I just wanted to point out that these kinds of information passed

out by people like Sri Anbil could do permanent damages for generations to

come. All I am asking for is mutual respect. Let us first learn to respect the

AchAryAs of the Srivaishnava Sampradayam, and then talk about "Kalai Unity".

Again, I am apolegtic to all the brethen from dEsika SampradAyam, for my intent

was not to slight Swami dEsikan or His followers. Just wanted to point out the

inconsistencies in Sri Anbil's article, and website, that is all. And to be

honest ladies and gentleman, I was deeply hurt when I read the contents of his

presentation.

I am sure many more Ramanuja Sampradaya Devotees are being hurt by this webpage

and presentation. Can anyone who has a rappo or knows sri Anbil talk to him to

rectify these errors at the website and his presentation.

Again i apologize if my mail was hurtful to any desika Sampradaya devotees,

however I humbly request them to consider the emotional distress caused to

Ramanuja sampradaya devotees by reading that webpage and presentations.

 

adiyen dAsan,

kidAmbi Soundararajan.

 

AzhwAr emperumAnAr jIyar thiruvadigaLE Saranam.