Re: SriManavalaMamunigal
From the Bhakti List Archives
• December 5, 2001
Sri.Ramanujamwrote, We learnt a lot about Vedanta Desika's works, his life history etc. Would it be right for Tennacharya sampradaya people to object to depiction in certain versions, some portions of his life which they may feel does not give respect to their aacharyas or ones which tend to belittle their aacharyas? Respected Members of Bhakthi list, For clarification, I would like to point out that Swami Desikan is very much an Acharya for Tennacharya sampradayam . People like PBA Swami, Puttur Swami has given many proofs from Swami Desikan's works to disprove the some claims of later day Vadakalai Acharyas. To my little mind, I have a feeling like Swami Desikan and his works were totally 'hijacked' for sectarian causes by later day acharyas for their own ends. The main reason for this I feel is get some control /Mariyadai' in temple affairs. As Karl Marx as said , All the struggle in this world has some economic dimension, I feel this struggle too was made big due to some economic necessities by later day acharyas. I am sure I may accrue abacharam by pointing fingers towards Sri Vaishnava Acharyas. Yet we need to analyze this issue from rational angle as well. On one hand refusal by Tennacharya sect to allow kaimkaryam towards Vadakalais have resulted in Vadakalai acharyas mobilizing money and man power to construct Swami Desikan Sannadhis everywhere in the country. (No one bothered about the his sannidhi in his avatara sthalam untilthe temple came under their control or his sanndhis in other divya desams) On the other hand, there is a genuine fear by tennacharya sect that even a little room given to the other sect would result in change in status quo, temple control, Tiruman etc. The case in point is recent controversy over change in Tiruman in Udayavar's thirudandam and 'suggestions' to change tiruman just because the most of the financiers are from one sect. Few years back in Sriperumbudur one wealthy jain family wanted to donate money for Sriperumbudur temple ,but wanted to some 'religious service' in the sanndihi.The jeeyar at Sriperumbudur immediately refused since the philosophy of Sri Ramanuja is much against Jainism. To ensure both the sects to get equal kaimkaryam rights, I strongly believe that 'Elders' in both the sampradayam should re engineer their thoughts and agenda and the 'youngsters' and particularly 'recently christened' Sri Vaishnavas should first concentrate on learning granthams rather than wasting time in Jingoism. I am sure I have committed some amount if abhacharam in writing this mail. Yet, as one of the older members of this list, I am not able to simply watch what is going on here. Please consider my post for what is written rather than who has written this. Dasan Regards KM Narayanan -------------------------------------------------------------- - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH - To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
- Next message: Mani Varadarajan: "Re: SriManavalaMamunigal"
- Previous message: M.N.Ramanuja: "Re: Digest Number 476"
- Maybe in reply to: venkat ramanujam srinivasan: "SriManavalaMamunigal"
- Next in thread: Mani Varadarajan: "Re: SriManavalaMamunigal"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]