Re:Thirumangai AzhwAr's ThirunedunthANdakam- 14th verse- Parakalanayaki

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Madhavakannan svAmy,

 

 

This largely differs from the vyakyanam of Sri PerivyavAchAn PiLLai.

 

There is no reference to Sri appuLLAr or SvAmy Desikan in the vyAkyanam.

 

There is a reference of Sri Periya Nambi and vudayvar -PeriyaNambi prostrating towards vudayvar.

 

2. Since your articles are carried in groups in English, there is a tendency to take it as original vaykayanam. Hence, the value of translation is very high for certain groups of people.

 

3. You may have sources like Sri UthaMur svAmy or Sri PBA Svamy or Sri Mathivanan. However, these become secondary when they do not conform with the original commentaries.

 

4. The secondary commentaries - divyartha dhepikais - are only for assisting to understand the original vyAkyanam-s and cannot supersede the vyAkyanam-s themselves- in case there is deviations.

 

5. I am sure you will understand my viewpoint. Thanks

 

adiyan ramanuja dasan

vanamamalai padmanabhan

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Padmanaban swamin,

 

It is well known that one of the reasons for Udaiyavar not giving a

vyakyanam for Azhwar srisookthis is that people usually dont comment

on a moolam which Udaiyavar already had commented. Thus Udaiyavar did

not want to stop the divyanubhavams of his sishyas from pouring out as

vyakyanams. If PVP swamin's commentary has to be the only commentary

and all anubhavams should be revolving about it then it would mean

that Swami Desikan had committed apacharam by writing Nigama Parimalam.

 

Coming to the parrot episode. Swami Desikan in Sampradaya prakriya

bhaagam of Srimad Rahasya Traya Saram mentions that he is a mere

parrot who was taught to speak by Appullar. Appullar and Swami Desikan

are Acharya purushaas belong to our Emperumaanaar Darsanam. So it is

apt to mention the anubhavam of Uthamoor swami alluding to Desikan and

Appullar. When Madhavakannan swami clearly mentions that he is giving

us the divyanubhavams of Uthamoor swami, there is no reason for

confusion. Those who feel that Uthamoor swami's vyakyanams are

saampradayic would relish others would skip it.

 

Dasan,

Aravindalochanadasanudasan

 

 

Oppiliappan , " Padmanabhan " <aazhwar wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Madhavakannan svAmy,

>

>

> This largely differs from the vyakyanam of Sri PerivyavAchAn PiLLai.

>

> There is no reference to Sri appuLLAr or SvAmy Desikan in the vyAkyanam.

>

> There is a reference of Sri Periya Nambi and vudayvar -PeriyaNambi

prostrating towards vudayvar.

>

> 2. Since your articles are carried in groups in English, there is a

tendency to take it as original vaykayanam. Hence, the value of

translation is very high for certain groups of people.

>

> 3. You may have sources like Sri UthaMur svAmy or Sri PBA Svamy or

Sri Mathivanan. However, these become secondary when they do not

conform with the original commentaries.

>

> 4. The secondary commentaries - divyartha dhepikais - are only for

assisting to understand the original vyAkyanam-s and cannot supersede

the vyAkyanam-s themselves- in case there is deviations.

>

> 5. I am sure you will understand my viewpoint. Thanks

>

> adiyan ramanuja dasan

> vanamamalai padmanabhan

>