Tanian of ManavALa MAmuni (Re:Podhu Thaniyans)

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH

SrImatE nigamAnta mahAdESikAya namaH

 

Dear bhaktas,

 

Thanks to SrI Madhavakannan for his wonderful series

on PeriAzhvAr Thirumozhi.

 

aDiyEn would like to say few things regarding the tanian

dedicated to SrI ManavALa MAmunigaL :

 

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

There is also another thaniyan which is recited :(by the sishyas of

thennAcharya sampradayam):

 

Sri SailEsa dayA pAthram dhI bhakthyAdhi guNArNavam |

yathIndhra pravaNam vandhE ramya jAmAthram munim ||

 

I salute Sri ManavaaLa MaamunigaL, who has the blessings of

Thiruvaaimozhip

Pillai (ManavaaLa Maamuni¡¦s Aachaarya- Sri SailEsar) and who is an

ocean of

jnAnam (knowledge) and Bhakthi (devotion).

 

It is known to one and all that the above thaniyan was submitted to

the feet

of Sri Manavala mamunigal by none other than Lord Sri Ranganatha.

Namperumal

wanted to hear tiruvoimozhi kalakshepam from Sri Manavala mamunigal.

He

conducted kaalakshepam of Thiruvaaym6ozhi starting on the paritaapi

year

31st day of avani sukla chaturdasi friday. It continued for 1 year and

the

sARRumuRai was on aani moolam. For this one year all the utsavams of

namperumal were stopped. During the sARRumuRai, namperumal appeared as

a 5

year old archaka boy and recited this sloka in praise of Sri Manavala

mamunigal.

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

 

This is the description as per ThennAchAryas, for whom

MAmunigaL is a very important AchArya and very dear to

their hearts.

 

In SrIra~nga-SrI VivEchanam, SrI MadhurAntakam SwAmi, a

stalwart of the past century has made some remarks on this

issue.

 

Swami cites YatIndra-pravaNa PrabhAvam, a thennAchArya

treatise on the glories of MAmunigaL. Page number is given

to be 117 (of the popular edition I guess). Regarding the boy who

recited this tanian, the treatise states " azhagiyamaNavALa

bhattarAna archakaruDaya kumArarAi aindu vayaduLLa ra~nganAyakan

enRu thirunAmam uDaya siRu piLLai ... " ie. The small boy's name

was Ra~nganAyakan, aged 5 yrs and was the son of AzhagiyamanavALa

Bhattar - the archaka for PerumAL.

 

What happened was that, the tanian to be dedicated Or infact a

glorifying verse, was taught to the small boy and was made to

perform the vinnappam to the goshTi. Recitation by this boy

captured the hearts of sishyas and everyone started pouring out

their anubhavams esp. that Lord Ranganatha Himself (due to

similarity in the name of the boy, the occasion and circumstances

etc) has made this vinnappam of this tanian to His AchArya, in

the form of a small boy.

 

Wonderful anubhavam indeed by them. There is nothing wrong in it.

It glorifies one's own AchArya and the soulabhyam of PerumAL.

But, in the post MAmunigaL period, these things are used for

ulterior motives.

 

MadhurAntakam SwAmi states that the SamASrayaNa AchArya is not

mentioned in this tanian; But the " SrIsailEsa " (in connection

with Thirumalai of Lord SrInivAsa) word connotes both of his

kAlakshEpa AchAryas. ThiruvAimozhi PiLLai's name is

SrIsailEsar. He taught ThiruvAimozhi with eeDu vyAkyAnam. Another

SrIsailEsar is the SrI-BhAshya AchArya of MAmunigaL. It was

Thirumalai-AzhvAn alias KiDAmbi Thirumalai Iyengar / PurushOttama

DAsar, a disciple of Bramhatantra-Svatantra JIyar, the stalwart

disciple of SwAmi DESikan. MAmunigaL is referred to have had the

dayA of his Ubhaya-VEdAnta AchAryas, in the tanian.

 

MadhurAntakam SwAmi also points out that MAmunigaL had a name

called " thUppil kulamuDayAr dAsar " because of the above reason

(connection with SwAmi DESikan, known as thUppul piLLai). SwAmi

cites some source for the same which is interconnected with other

texts/book which I don't have.

 

All the thenkalai SrI VaishNavas do recite the tanian of

SwAmi DESikan viz. " SrImAn VE~nkaTanAthAryaH ... " when they

perform SrI-BhAshya kAlakshEpam - Because SwAmi DESikan is

an Acharya for them in their SrI-BhAshya parampara.

 

VAnamAmalai Mutt, as well as PrativAdi bhaya~nkaram paramparai

of ThennAchAryas, recite the tanian of SrI KumAra VaradAchArya,

the son of SwAmi DESikan, in their daily anushThAnam, due to their

link with that AchArya in their parampara. SwAmi DESikan's tanian

is also in their anusandhAnam.

 

While MAmunigaL is not an AchArya for VaDakalai Guruparampara,

SwAmi DESikan is certainly a pUrvAchArya for Thenkalai

Guruparampara.

------

 

Though the following is not pertinent to the original posting

by our SrI Madhavakannan, aDiyEn would like to make few comments :

 

Fanatics glorify MAmunigaL to the fullest extent they can

possibly imagine, not actually to exhibit their Acharya bhakti

Or whatever one may call, but for their cheap satisfaction

in their minds which say to them that they have well made their

case to put down Swami DESikan / Vadakalai Sampradayam.

Some alpa buddhi ! In essence they want to perform

asahya-apachAram by trying to denounce SwAmi DESikan, a

PUrvAchArya of VEdAnta reverred by MAmunigaL. But, they feel that

it will be most pleasing to MAmunigaL !! Such fanatics don't

know many other things about even MAmunigaL or his writings, Or

rather does not want to dwell in it as well - But, like a tape

recorder, always play the tanian episode to the audience, with

the cheap mentality that everyone of Vadakalai SampradAyam should

thus accept MAmunigaL as the Topmost AchArya of the world since

Lord Himself has only one AchArya in him etc (by suitable

prenentation in their words on the history) and rather make

Vadakalais feel guilty that they don't have MAmunigaL as their

AchArya etc etc - hardly makes any sense !

 

Pseudo-Samarasa vAdigaL glorify MAmunigaL to the fullest extent

possible, not actually to exhibit their own appreciation Or

whatever one may call towards that Acharya, but to simply make a

point that they are kith and kin to Thenkalais and are to be kept

in the good books of theirs - thereby misleading many of both

kalais.

 

Lets be truthful and not be guided by such thoughts and behave

in a matured manner. That will actually reduce the kalai conflict

in aDiyEn's opinion.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan alias Anand.

[Guest guest]

Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

 

MadhurAntakam SwAmi also points out that MAmunigaL had a name called " thUppil

kulamuDayAr dAsar " because of the above reason (connection with SwAmi DESikan,

known as thUppul piLLai). SwAmi cites some source for the same which is

interconnected with other texts/book which I don't have.

 

Dear Sri Anand:

1. Would you please give us the list of sources quoted by Sri Madhuranthakam

Swami? It is important to know these sources, so that we could actually tell

everyone about Sri Mamunigal's prathipathi for Swami Desikan.

From your writings it is very clear that during the time of Sri Mamunigal, there

was no such thing called dhvesham towards (or for that matter it was just a

difference of opinion among various scholars) Swami Desikan or among the

SriVaishnavas. I completely agree with you. Sri Prathivadhi Bayangaram Anna is

another good example. His thaniyan itself says he is the receiver of grace of

both Sri Vedanta Desika and Sri Ramyajamathru Muni.

 

Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

 

" Pseudo-Samarasa vAdigaL glorify MAmunigaL to the fullest extent possible, not

actually to exhibit their own appreciation Or whatever one may call towards that

Acharya, but to simply make a point that they are kith and kin to Thenkalais and

are to be kept in the good books of theirs - thereby misleading many of both

kalais. "

 

 

2. Adiyen don’t see any problem with these so-called Pseudo-Samarasa vAdigaL.

Because after all the Thennacharya Sampradhayam are also SriVaishnavas only. It

is a great bhaghyam to be in the good books of a SriVaishnava, right? All the

Thennacharyas also daily recite " Ramanujarya Divyagnam Vardhatham

AbiVardhatham. " Apart from the scholarly difference of opinions between the two

sampradhayam, adiyen do not see any problem in accepting them as SriVaishnavas.

So, what is the problem of being in the good books of a SriVaishnava? Or for

that matter a SriVaishnava community? I know for sure in many Thennacharya's

homes (some of them are leading Sthalathars in Divyadesams) the chief

Brhaspathis are Swamis belong to our Desika Sampradayam.

 

For this you may say, " well I don’t have any problem with Thennacharya

Sampradhayam, the only problem is with the fanatics. " If you ask that, Adiyen

would like to ask you a question. What about the fanatics of our own Desika

Sampradayam? Even in the very recent times, attempts were to made to take a

picture of Uraiyur Sri Kamalavalli Nachiyar with a Vadagalai Thiruman

Thirumangalyam.(To prove that temple belong to Desika Sampradhayam!) There was

a big time attempt made to takeover the avathara Sthalam of Sri Thondaradipodi

Azhwar (ThiruMandangudi). If you go to Kanchipuram both Thennacharyas and Desika

Sampradhayam would tell you stories about throwing Sri Mamunigal's idol on the

temple tank during last century. Therefore in this Kalai fight we cannot blame

anyone sect for any of the aberrations. Fanatics in both the kalais have done

lot of Ashyapacharams to both the Acharyas.

 

3. You are saying such Pseudo-Samarasa Vadhigal are misleading many of both

kalais. Adiyen do not see any such confusions. By saying be respectful to other

sect's Acharyan is not misleading. Actually only your comments are confusing.

Because, according to you Sri Mamunigal is known as " thUppil kulamuDayAr dAsar " .

If this is true, then is it not very vital for all the Desika Sampradhyam people

to have the Sambhandham of Sri Mamunigal? Because that’s what even Sri

KumaraVaradhacharyar is requesting at the end of Pillai Andhathi. Not even a

direct connection with Swami Deiskan but a thiruvadi sambhandham of his

Bhakthas. At this point you may tell me " if the Thennacharyas are ready to

accept Sri Mamunigal as " thUppil kulamuDayAr dAsar " then I would accept Sri

Mamunigal " . Well, Thennacharyas are not the ones who are saying that Sri

Mamunigal is known as " thUppil kulamuDayAr dAsar. " Therefore why to bother them?

If we (Desika Sampradhyam) strongly believe that Sri Mamunigal is inde

ed " thUppil kulamuDayAr dAsar " then we should accept him as our Acharyan.

 

Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

" Lets be truthful and not be guided by such thoughts and behave in a matured

manner. "

 

Yes, adiyen totally agree with you. Being truthful to all the SriVaishanvas is

the foremost thing for anyone. Maturity and Wisdom are the two important things

everyone needs to get by the grace Divyadhampathigal. That is what adiyen would

like to pray at the feet Swami Bhashyakarar (incidentally today is the first day

Uthsavam of Swami Bhashyakarar) and the Divyadhampathigal.

 

 

Ramanujadasan Kannan

 

 

 

See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar

http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/spl\

ash.asp

[Guest guest]

> Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

>

> MadhurAntakam SwAmi also points out that MAmunigaL had a name called " thUppil

kulamuDayAr dAsar " because of the above reason (connection with SwAmi DESikan,

known as thUppul piLLai). SwAmi cites some source for the same which is

interconnected with other texts/book which I don't have.

>

> Dear Sri Anand:

> 1. Would you please give us the list of sources quoted by Sri Madhuranthakam

Swami? It is important to know these sources, so that we could actually tell

everyone about Sri Mamunigal's prathipathi for Swami Desikan.

 

Dear Sri Kannan,

 

SwAmi cites " agarAdhi " (No idea as to what it is) and also

cites " abhidAna viLakkam 37th page " - No idea again as to

what it is. SwAmi might even refer to Sri DT TAchArya's

" SampradAya-PradIpam " . I don't have those texts and hence couldn't

verify.

 

 

> >From your writings it is very clear that during the time of Sri Mamunigal,

there was no such thing called dhvesham towards (or for that matter it was just

a difference of opinion among various scholars) Swami Desikan or among the

SriVaishnavas. I completely agree with you. Sri Prathivadhi Bayangaram Anna is

another good example. His thaniyan itself says he is the receiver of grace of

both Sri Vedanta Desika and Sri Ramyajamathru Muni.

 

Yes, while there was difference in philosophical understanding

of certain issues and there wasn't dvEsham ; Even if it were

there with followers, it was not openly brought out the way history

has witnessed in the recent centuries.

 

 

> Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

>

> " Pseudo-Samarasa vAdigaL glorify MAmunigaL to the fullest extent possible, not

actually to exhibit their own appreciation Or whatever one may call towards that

Acharya, but to simply make a point that they are kith and kin to Thenkalais and

are to be kept in the good books of theirs - thereby misleading many of both

kalais. "

>

> 2. Adiyen don’t see any problem with these so-called Pseudo-Samarasa vAdigaL.

Because after all the Thennacharya Sampradhayam are also SriVaishnavas only. It

is a great bhaghyam to be in the good books of a SriVaishnava, right? All the

Thennacharyas also daily recite " Ramanujarya Divyagnam Vardhatham

AbiVardhatham. " Apart from the scholarly difference of opinions between the two

sampradhayam, adiyen do not see any problem in accepting them as SriVaishnavas.

So, what is the problem of being in the good books of a SriVaishnava? Or for

that matter a SriVaishnava community? I know for sure in many Thennacharya's

homes (some of them are leading Sthalathars in Divyadesams) the chief

Brhaspathis are Swamis belong to our Desika Sampradayam.

 

 

You got me wrong here. What I meant was glorification of

MAmunigaL not with the true spirit of appreciation, but with

some ulterior motives. I didn't mean the way you took the

phrase " to keep themselves in the good books of thenkalais " .

Also, some glorify MAmunigaL at the expense of degrading

certaining AchAryas Or principles of their own sampradAyam,

and that too knowingly - Just to appease thenkalais for ulterior

motives - This is what I meant and concluded that lets be

truthful.

 

Having good relationship with thenkalais as Sri Vaishnavas is

good and nice - But not at the cost of abandoning the principles

of one's own sampradAyam, if one claims to be a follower of

Vadakalai SampradAyam in totality. The same holds good for

thenkalais too in having good relationship with us. Patching

up the differences and getting together in the spirit of unity

is needed; But one can't abandon one's own sampradAyam afterall -

Be it in words Or writing Or action.

 

> For this you may say, " well I don’t have any problem with Thennacharya

Sampradhayam, the only problem is with the fanatics. " If you ask that, Adiyen

would like to ask you a question. What about the fanatics of our own Desika

Sampradayam?

 

Since you are a good friend of mine, I would like to directly

tell you that the way you have framed this question and

argument is not a healthier sign. You assume as though I

am a sort of vadakalai fanatic completly blaming only thenkalais

and sanction all of whatever dvEsham-led activities performed

by vadakalais unto them. Did I mention that anywhere in the

posting ? Kindly don't assume too many things :-).

 

>Even in the very recent times, attempts were to made to take a picture of

>Uraiyur Sri Kamalavalli Nachiyar with a Vadagalai Thiruman Thirumangalyam.(To

prove that temple belong to Desika Sampradhayam!) There was a big time attempt

made to takeover the avathara Sthalam of Sri Thondaradipodi Azhwar

(ThiruMandangudi). If you go to Kanchipuram both Thennacharyas and Desika

Sampradhayam would tell you stories about throwing Sri Mamunigal's idol on the

temple tank during last century. Therefore in this Kalai fight we cannot blame

anyone sect for any of the aberrations. Fanatics in both the kalais have done

lot >of Ashyapacharams to both the Acharyas.

 

Did I refute your conclusion anywhere ? But, I don't know about

all the kalai based dvEsham-led activities (attrocities ?) you have

cited. Fortunately, I was not brought up in such an environment

wherein the kalai saNDai is the hot-news to be talked about :-).

 

> 3. You are saying such Pseudo-Samarasa Vadhigal are misleading many of both

kalais. Adiyen do not see any such confusions. By saying be respectful to other

sect's Acharyan is not misleading. Actually only your comments are confusing.

 

 

Well, I guess that you are writing these words with

more kaDuppu ..... If it is confusing, kindly ask for

clarification. I am sorry if that was not well written to express

the points.

 

>Because, according to you Sri Mamunigal is known as " thUppil kulamuDayAr

dAsar " . If this is true, then is it not very vital for all the Desika

Sampradhyam people to have the Sambhandham of Sri Mamunigal? Because that’s what

even Sri KumaraVaradhacharyar is requesting at the end of Pillai Andhathi. Not

even a >direct connection with Swami Deiskan but a thiruvadi sambhandham of his

>Bhakthas.

 

For that matter, we need to have sambandham of all the bhaktas

of Lord SrIman NArAyaNa ! Why only devotees of SwAmi DESikan ?

In RTS, SwAmi DESikan explains what it means in detail.

 

MAmunigaL has reverence for SwAmi DESikan and also because the

latter was a pUrvAchArya for SrI-BhAshyam/VEdAnta. Also MAmunigaL

cites various texts from SwAmi DESikan's RTS too as far as

explaining that tattvams are concerned etc. However, MAmunigaL

belongs to other guruparamparai and has accepted their teachings

and hence does not agree with all of what SwAmi DESikan has

written, though a pUrvAchArya - Thats absolutely fine and there

is nothing wrong in it as well.

 

>At this point you may tell me " if the Thennacharyas are ready to accept Sri

Mamunigal as " thUppil kulamuDayAr dAsar " then I would accept Sri Mamunigal " .

Well, Thennacharyas are not the ones who are saying that Sri Mamunigal is known

as " thUppil kulamuDayAr dAsar. " Therefore why to bother them? If we (Desika

Sampradhyam) strongly believe that Sri Mamunigal is inde

> ed " thUppil kulamuDayAr dAsar " then we should accept him as our Acharyan.

 

Again, you are assuming what will be my replies etc ....Thats

not a good way to go about discussions :-). That paints some

picture about me in advance !

 

I am very sorry to say that this logic is not sound. Lets assume

that " thUppil kulamuDayAr dAsar " is a name to mAmunigaL as written

by madhurAntakam swAmi, with the references swAmi has cited as

source-texts. Being that way, hardly makes one to be Vadakalai

Sampradayam's AchArya - Afterall, MAmunigaL didn't preach the

doctrines of SwAmi DESikan in totallity. Why do you want to shut

it out and claim that MAmunigaL needs to be considered as our

AchArya ? You are also not going to follow the thennAchArya

principles as laid down by MAmunigaL. Why then a bold statement

that " MAmunigaL is also to be treated as a Vadakalai AchArya ? " .

Again, such statements will be mis-leading.

 

Anyone having reverence to SwAmi DESikan can be glorified for that

aspect and MAmunigaL is an AchArya too for thennAchAryas and

ofcourse has more credentials than any ordinary bhAgavata. Lets not

swing the pendulam to one extreme to state Either MAmuigaL was

a dvEshi of SwAmi DESikan Or MAmnugaL is a Vadakalai AchArya since

he reverred SwAmi DESikan and was even known as " thUppil -

kulamuDayAr dAsar " .

 

> Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

> " Lets be truthful and not be guided by such thoughts and behave in a matured

manner. "

>

> Yes, adiyen totally agree with you. Being truthful to all the SriVaishanvas is

the foremost thing for anyone. Maturity and Wisdom are the two important things

everyone needs to get by the grace Divyadhampathigal. That is what adiyen would

like to pray at the feet Swami Bhashyakarar (incidentally today is the first day

Uthsavam of Swami Bhashyakarar) and the Divyadhampathigal.

 

Thanks for yourself being truthful also to me - A good

friend of yours. Its always good to come up openly rather

than to imagine things and pile them up in one's mind itself.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Anand.

[Guest guest]

>

> > Dear Sri Anand:

> > 1. Would you please give us the list of sources quoted by Sri Madhuranthakam

Swami? It is important to know these sources, so that we could actually tell

everyone about Sri Mamunigal's prathipathi for Swami Desikan.

>

> Dear Sri Kannan,

 

Left out this ....

 

What I wrote was for clarification on the original posting

by Sri Madhavakannan, with additional comments as made

by VaDakalai AchAryas like SrI MadhurAntakam SwAmi.

It is for this Net only, in accordance with its objectives, and

I am not interested in telling these things to thenkalais etc.

Infact, thats what will make more kalai conflicts - Though you

may be well meaning and Yourself trying to present to thenkalais

about certain things in a dispassionate manner, u will be

mistaken bitterly. If you say " 1 " , there are always people to

" make it appear as 1000 " by adding kaNNu,kAdu, mookku

which is esp. easier to this impersonal e-mail and finally

comment when asked " I thought that addition of Zeroes wouldn't

matter afterall :-) " . So, don't get into such exercises. The

posting was more of an information sake on what is available

through books - Its not an inter-kalai speech process etc. Kindly

don't extrapolate. Thanks.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Anand.

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImatE rAmAnujAya namaH

 

namO nArAyaNa!

 

Dear bhaktas,

 

aDiyEn deeply regrets that the first posting of mine in this

issue has given deep displeasure to Sri Velukku Krishnan Swami

at Chennai, with the understanding that it was written to

criticize and abuse all thenkalai Sri Vaishnavas. While the theme

was to reduce the kalai conflict, it has grown into it eventually.

aDiyEn sincerely apologizes for the posting, which was responsible

for displeasure unto thenkalai Sri Vaishnavas. aDiyEn requests

Sri Mukundan Pattangi to forward this posting too to

Sri Velukkudi Krishnan as he has forwarded atleast that first

posting on his own. Thanks.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

Anand.

[Guest guest]

Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

 

>Since you are a good friend of mine, I would like to directly tell you that the

way you have framed this question and argument is not a healthier sign. You

assume as though I am a sort of vadakalai fanatic completly blaming only

thenkalais and sanction all of whatever dvEsham-led activities performed by

vadakalais unto them. Did I mention that anywhere in the posting ? Kindly don't

assume too many things :-).

 

 

Dear Sri Anand:

Thank for acknowledging that I am your good friend. I am very proud of myself

being a friend of a scholarly person of our sampradhayam. I never said that you

are a vadagalai fanatic. All I did is to make this posting like a question and

answer. When framed different questions I always said " You MAY say " . As you know

well even in the Vedanta granthas this way of putting forward someone's views is

completely accepted. It is like Purvabaksham and Siddhantham. It is not an

assumption. If I have assumed I would have said " You WILL say " and would not

have used " You MAY say. " There is a difference between " You may say " and " You

will say. " It was a general question and answer kind of posting. Where ever I

have mentioned " You may say " should be taken as an objection raised (by myself)

against my answer. Therefore there is no question of assumption here.

 

Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

>What I meant was glorification of MAmunigaL not with the true spirit of

appreciation, but with >some ulterior motives.

 

Ulterior motives?? As you said too much assumptions are not good. Let us not

assume others intentions and motives.

 

Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

>But not at the cost of abandoning the principles of one's own sampradAyam, if

one claims to be a follower of Vadakalai SampradAyam in totality. The same holds

good for thenkalais too in having good relationship with us. Patching up the

differences and getting together in the spirit of unity is needed; But one can't

abandon one's own sampradAyam afterall - Be it in words Or writing Or action.

 

Yes. I am totally agree with you. Here I would like to quote my previous

posting. I said in that, by saying " be respectful to other sect's Acharya " does

not mean that people going to change their Achaya or their philosophy. No one is

advocating either. Please do not assume about others intentions.

 

Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

>Did I refute your conclusion anywhere ? But, I don't know about all the kalai

based dvEsham->led activities (attrocities ?) you have cited. Fortunately, I was

not brought up in such an >environment wherein the kalai saNDai is the hot-news

to be talked about :-).

 

Thanks for agreeing on this. Yes, I had the great fortune of being brought up in

a Divyadesam sung by three Azhwars. I do not have regrets on this whatsoever.

Because of adiyen's vasam in Triplicane for twenty-five years I do understand

the dynamics of these Kalai bedhams well. Before concluding with my final views

on this issue, let me look into your second mail.

 

Sri Anand K Karalapakkam wrote:

>What I wrote was for clarification on the original posting by Sri

Madhavakannan, with >additional comments as made by VaDakalai AchAryas like SrI

MadhurAntakam SwAmi. It is for this Net only, in accordance with its objectives,

and I am not interested in telling these things to thenkalais etc. Infact, thats

what will make more kalai conflicts - Though you may be well meaning and

Yourself trying to present to thenkalais about certain things in a dispassionate

manner, u will be mistaken bitterly. If you say " 1 " , there are always people to

" make it appear as 1000 " by adding kaNNu,kAdu, mookku which is esp. easier to

this impersonal e-mail and finally comment when asked " I thought that addition

of Zeroes wouldn't matter afterall :-) " . So, don't get into such exercises. The

posting was more of an information sake on what is available through books - Its

not an inter-kalai speech process etc. Kindly don't extrapolate. Thanks.

 

 

Sri Anand, I have no idea about what you are talking. I have never taken this

issue to any other forum or to any other Thennacharya sampradhayam people. Not

even to very close friends of mine. First of all that’s against to my

principles. By showing your mail to another Thennacharya sampradhayam person

what will I gain? I will be spreading more hatred against my community (Desika

Sampradhayam). Secondly I do know this is against the norms stipulated by the

Malolan Net. I would never violate this e-groups rules and regulations. If you

find at any point of time that I am violating the objectives of this e-group, as

the moderator, please me from the list. I am not here to extrapolate

anything. Let us not assume and accuse others. As you said assumptions are not

good.

 

Let me complete my posting by saying these sentences. My take on this is very

simple. Just being respectful to other sect's Acharya is not a crime or a sin.

Hatred breeds hatred. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Both Sri

Desika Darsanam(eye) and Sri Thennacharya Darsanam are equally important to Sri

Bhashyakarar's Darsanam. At this point what we all need is a better guidance

from scholarly persons like you.

 

 

Ramanujadasan Kannan

 

 

 

See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar

http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/spl\

ash.asp