Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Biographies of Sri Ramanuja

From the Bhakti List Archives

Parthasarati Dileepan • April 30, 1996 


On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 17:58:18 -0400 Badri said:
>
>Sri Dileepan wrote:
>
>
>*    In my understanding no one has ever forced an universal
>*    acceptance of any of these beliefs.  I find nothing wrong
>*    in celebrating the memory of ones own achaaryaas by
>*    equating them to certain amsaas of the Lord.
>
>This is precisely the problem. If I consider my AchAryA
>as _equal_ to Sriman NArAyanA, I believe that I am
>committing a mistake.  If I consider that both are to be
>respected, and in that sense group them together as ones
>worthy of respect, that is perfectly fine. We have great
>examples of madhurakavi himself, and then thiru
>arangaththu amudhanAr. madhurakavi says "thEvu maRRu
>aRiyEn". We can quibble much about this point. However do
>you honestly believe that madhurakavi was denying the
>existence of Sriman NArAyanA, and claiming that sadagOpan


    Please tell me where I gave such an impression, either
    ditrectly or indirectly.


>is the parabrahman ? I do not think so. He will be a
>'blasphemer' if he really meant so!  You say that you do
>not find anything wrong at all "in celebrating the memory
>of ones own achaaryaas by equating them to certain amsaas
>of the Lord." So you do agree that it was a mere figment
>of imagination on the devotees part and that there is
>indeed no support for such ?


    Your protests seem very strange to me.  If you are
    prepared to accept "dhEvu maRRaRiyEn" of madhurakavi
    AzhvAr, could you not apply the same "suuport" for


       "adaiyaar kamalth thalarmagaL kELvan kaiyaazhiyennum
       padaiyodu naandhagamum padar thaNdum oN saarngavillum
       pudaiyaar purisangamum indha boodhalam kaappadhaRkenRu
       idaiyE iraamaanusa muni aayina in^n^ilaththE."

                     -- 33 iraamanusa nooRRandhaadhi

    and accept that Sri Ramanuja is an amsam of the five dhivya
    Ayudhaas of Sriman Narayana?  Thats all I am asking for,
    nothing more.

    If Nammaazhvaar was the supreme to Madhurakavi, if Sri Ramanuja
    was the five dhivyaayudhaas for amudhanaar, *in the same way*,
    nothing more, why can't maNavaaLa maamunigaL be AdhisEshaa
    for then aachaaryaa follwers?  Why can't Swmai Sri Desikar
    be the amsam of Thiru Mani for vada kalai Sri Vaishnavaas?


-- Dileepan