Digest Number 232

April 23, 2003

" Manavalan " ,

What a contemptible and scurillous mail you sent and of all lists

to Desika SampradhAyam list , which has nothing to do with your

maathsaryam-loaded gripes ! I hestiate to respond this way.

Please do not pollute these e-mail lists with your

pompous pronouncements.

I noticed that you became a member of the Desika sampradhAyam

ONLY this morning to enable you to send your poison mail to

pollute the tranquility here. This then is your first mail

in this list .What an inaugration !

Please cease and desist from your silly remarks and

do not go public ON THINGS THAT ARE SENSITIVE. IF YOU

MAKE A MISTAKE, APOLOGIZE. You can always write in

private before you show your bias in public.

These kaimkaryams are much bigger than yourself

and your vicious remarks . IF ANY THING HAPEENS

IN TERMS OF INTERRUPTIONS TO THIS KAIMAKRYAM OR TO

THUPPUL SWAMY DESIKAN NITHYARADHANA KAIMKARYAM ,

ALL THAT PAAPAM FROM YOUR INTERFERENCE WILL ONLY

BELONG TO YOU AND TO NO ONE ELSE.

Develop some modesty before you get on your

AchArya Peetam and give upadEsams to others .

I do not know who you are or where you come from

but you are a disgrace .You have too much venom

to spill.

Please do not bother to respond and be gone !

If my postings bother you, use the delete button .

Please do not dare to interrupt Bhagavath-BhAgavatha-AchArya

Kaimkaryams and volunteer your uninvited and unhelpful remarks .

Thanks ,

V.Sadagopan

>

>There is 1 message in this issue.

>

>Topics in this digest:

>

> 1. Your postings

> " Manavalan R " <manavala_mamuni_>

>

>______________________

>

>Message: 1

> Wed, 23 Apr 2003 04:00:18 +0000

> " Manavalan R " <manavala_mamuni_>

>Your postings

>

>srimate ramanujaya nama:

>Sadagopan,

>

>You were first asking money for ratnangi kainkaryam

>for the lord of tiruvahindrapuram by writing from the

>work of sri vaishnava acharayas. Now I see you writing

>from kritis of a advaitin musician asking for money. Has not that

>tiyagaraja written that devatantra sivan is great in his kritis? He

>has sung about other devatantarams also which a paramaikantin

>will never think about. You are comparing that advaitin's

>kritis with the works of great acharyas like srimath

>parasara bhattar and it is a sin. None of our purva acharyas

>have commented upon these advaitin kritis to explain

>the divine sri suktis of our purva acharays. It is

>horrible to see your mails in various email networks

>propagating wrong things. Have you undergone traditional

>learning at the feet of acharays? Do you have any knowledge of

>that tiyagaraja's mode of sanayasa which is advaita sampradaya

>param? Do you know the cheap value that advaitins have for

>bhakti and saguna brahaman? I am copiying this to

>ramanuja/desikasampradaya fourm because they sincerly enjoy

>azhwars prabandams and they must be informed about this.

>Why don't you restrict your sangeeta postings to your

>sangeeta lists! sri sampradayam is great and acharyas

>do not like silly things getting mixed up with it.

>Most of your postings look like translations from

>books without you having undergone traditional adyayanam.

>Most of your postings do not make sense. You also

>once wrote offending bhaktas of Shree manavala mamunigal swami

>commenting on tiruman shape etc and then apologized

>for name-sake. Please write if you are a sincere devotee

>and do not project yourself as an authority that too with

>wrong things in various lists. Please read arti-prabandam

>of swami atleast once; then you yourself will stop

>writing comparing advaitin bhakti with the bhakti of

>our acharyas. Follow tiru-malizai azwar who visited all

>darsanams and then set perfect example for parmaikantitvam.

>

>Mamunigal dasan Manvalan R

>22 April 2003

>As my previous mail to ramanuja grps etc did not get appear,

>I am sending it again.

>

>_______________

>MSN Instyle. Keeps you in sync. http://server1.msn.co.in/instyle/index.asp

>Always!

>

>______________________

>

April 24, 2003

srimate ramanujaya nama:

Sadagopan,

You seem to be very skillful in twisting the point that I raised in my mail.

I apologize if my mail is foul-mouthed. But, you have not replied to any of

my points regarding comparing advaitin bhakti with the bhakti

of our purva acharays. I am sure that you are educated enough to understand

my English mail which never aims at obstructing the kainkaryam. Tell me, who

in the world can obstruct bhagavat kainkaryam! The lord will get it done as

per his sankalpam. I think you must be knowing that azhwar has said the

kainkaryam must be ozhivil kaalamelam udanai manni VAZHUVILA adimai. Nothing

can obstruct the lord's sankalpam. Please do not shun away from responding

to my mail. If my mail has venom as you point out without reason, what about

the continuous venom of your mails comparing maaya-vada bhakti and our purva

acharya bhakti? Are they not misleading? In the first place, quote our purva

acharyas who support advaitin bhakti. Let us see. You need not teach me

about deleting such mails as they are fit only to be deleted after they are

read. Or do you hold that your mails are fit to be deleted even if they are

not read? I request you give reply

to the point and please not twist the topic again. Your twisting of

topic is very obvious in your earlier reply.

>Sadagopan <sgopan

>desikasampradaya

>Re: Digest Number 232

>Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:56:53 -0400 (EDT)

>

_______________

What is SARS? Find out! http://server1.msn.co.in/completecoverage/sars/ Be

informed.

April 24, 2003

SrI:

Dear friend who means well :

I am not twisting anything. I stil do not know

who you are and what your background is to have

this unusaul need to twist things around in

a forced manner to prove that I am advocating

some thing which I was not even thinking about.

We both agree about the Ubhaya LingAdhikaranam

of Brahma Soothram as intrepreted by our

PoorvAchAryAs is one of the central doctrines

that differnetiates us from other darsanams .

I have a clear understanding of the upadesams of

Swamy Desikan in Tatthva Muktha KalApam ,

SarvArTa Siddhi and Para Matha Bhangam

where he establishes clearly the soundness

of our siddhAntham over Advaithia and other siddhAnthams .

The context of my writing of the Krithis relating to

Raama Bhakthi has nothing to do with your point of

view. If there was a misunderstnading , let me

take the opportunity to state clearly that

devAthAnthara Bhajanam is lethal for one's Prapatthi

as well as BhaagavathApachAram. Rest of it does not matter.

Let us leave it here . Please feel free to write to

me off line so that the list members can be spared

this dialog.

Thank You.

SrI NaarAyaNa YathIndhra MahA DesikAya Nama:

ThiruviNNagarappan ThiruvadigaLE SaraNam

V.SaThakOpan

At 01:49 AM 4/24/03 +0000, you wrote:

>srimate ramanujaya nama:

>Sadagopan,

>

>You seem to be very skillful in twisting the point that I raised in my mail.

>I apologize if my mail is foul-mouthed. But, you have not replied to any of

>my points regarding comparing advaitin bhakti with the bhakti

>of our purva acharays. I am sure that you are educated enough to understand

>my English mail which never aims at obstructing the kainkaryam. Tell me, who

>in the world can obstruct bhagavat kainkaryam! The lord will get it done as

>per his sankalpam. I think you must be knowing that azhwar has said the

>kainkaryam must be ozhivil kaalamelam udanai manni VAZHUVILA adimai. Nothing

>can obstruct the lord's sankalpam. Please do not shun away from responding

>to my mail. If my mail has venom as you point out without reason, what about

>the continuous venom of your mails comparing maaya-vada bhakti and our purva

>acharya bhakti? Are they not misleading? In the first place, quote our purva

>acharyas who support advaitin bhakti. Let us see. You need not teach me

>about deleting such mails as they are fit only to be deleted after they are

>read. Or do you hold that your mails are fit to be deleted even if they are

>not read? I request you give reply

>to the point and please not twist the topic again. Your twisting of

>topic is very obvious in your earlier reply.

>

April 24, 2003

Dear Sri Manavalan,

I am not getting into the merit of your case, but being a silent member of this

group I strongly condemn the way you had put things and continue to insist on

that.

All said and done venting all your point of view in an open forum with such

offending words is not accepted as a good practice by most of the pundits. Group

manners is the key word here.

Moreover, your point of view is totally lost in your show of anger. I am sure

Sadagpan swamy would have answered all your points very elegantly if you would

have put it properly. There should be grace even in 'parapaksha nikshepam'. Your

words are too much even in private conversation.

Even among Bhshyakar's sishyas there are differences on what amounts to

'Devatantra sambhandam " . Some consider doing certain 'tarpanas', 'vaisvadevam',

'parvana srardham' are 'devatantra sambhandam'. Even in Tyagaraja's kriti's

there is nothing wrong in taking what is OK us. 'tyaja upadeyas' are not

general, but conditional.

I am eager to know who is your Acharya and from whom you had all the

kalakshepams. 'vidyat vinayam'.

I request you to kindly take my words in the right sense as I have not even a

remote motive to hurt you.

One thing is certain " capyamanasya et papam sapandham adhigacchati " .

If you see anything offending in this mail, kindly forgive me. I am not for

email-wars.

Sadagopan swamy: My humble vignapanam: Such mails does not deserve even your

first reply. Pl continue your service with the same zeal and enthu.

Dasan

Sridharan

Manavalan R [manavala_mamuni_]

Thursday, April 24, 2003 7:19 AM

desikasampradaya

Cc: sgopan

Re: Digest Number 232