Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: avatAras of rAmAnuja etc.

From the Bhakti List Archives

TV Venkatesh/FXSLF/SEC/SANMAR • November 29, 2001 


srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha
srImadh varavara munayE namaha



Sri Srinath Chakravarty wrote :
=================================Quote
======================================
Sri Venkatesh and others with similar passionate dispositions:
adiyEn thinks it is unwise to get into kalai-specific anubhavams
about who represents the punar-avatAram of udayavar etc.  Just
so you know, SriRangaRamanuja mahAdesikan (kOzhiyAlam swAmi) was
hailed as abhinava rAmAnuja during his time in bhoolokam during
the last century.  Overlapping claims to udayavar's legacy abound,
and before asserting one's feelings so strongly one should stop
to think where the discussion is leading towards.  This is not to
dispute any particular tradition but an attempt to show equal
respect to all without making mutually exclusive claims.  We must
understand that even though there is AchArya paramparai which
attests to certain punar-avathArams, those kalakshepam traditions
are not unformly accepted across SriVaishnavam and therefore we
must approach such controversial subjects with great caution.
============================Unquote=================================

Dear Sri Srinath.

I would like to clarify the following on the above posting of yours.

First, a passion will or may lead to athivAda. There is for sure, no
athivAda in this and hence no passion. Also there is a GREAT DIFFERENCE
between hailing one to be Sri rAmAnuja, by virtue of his deeds and the
actual avatAra of Sri rAmAnuja. There is no doubt, the the title of
"abinava rAmAnuja" is conferred upon Sri kOzhiyAlam swAmi, for his
knowledge and contributions towards the sampradhAyam. This cannot be used
to disclaim the fact that swAmy maNavALa mAmuni was punaravathAram of
rAmAnuja.

Secondly, there can be no "kalai-specific" to this. The Thenkalais rever
swAmy dEsikan to a great extent, in as much, not a single upanyAsakar
belonging to this sect will complete a upanyAsam, without quoting from the
Sri sUktis of swAmy dEsikan. The only difference between the kalais were on
some, I repeat some, philosophical issues. The vadakalais, stop to swAmy
dEsikan in the greater guruparamparai while the thenkalais, stop with swAmy
maNavALa mAmuni in the same. The guruparamparai that runs after them is
kalai specific. May be the vadakalais think that even swAmy maNavALa mAmuni
as kalai specific AchAryA. I do not want to comment on this for the fear of
invoking an argument.

As is known to the world, I repeat, swAmy maNavALa mAmuni, was the only
AchArya who had the distinction of being the AchArya of Sriman nArAyaNan
Himself, not even Sri rAmAnuja. If one can claim that Sri rAmAnuja became
the AchArya of Sriman nArAyaNan in Thirukkurungudi, well it is accepted.
But Sriman nArAyaNan gave that pride only to swAmy maNavALa mAmuni by
creating the famous thaniyan "Sri sailEsa dayA pAthram" which is in vogue
in almost all the 108 divya dEsams barring a few.

Henceforth it is clear that equating a "hail" to a "fact" is completely
unwarranted. In the same post by Sri Sadagopan iyengar, he even went to the
extent of saying Sri rAmAnuja took avathAram as Sri nArAyaNa yathIndra
mahAdEsikan, the present Jeeyar swAmy of Sri ahObila maTam. No one can
dispute it for the fact that he is being hailed and this IS the correct
example of kalai-specific anubhavams. Yes, the thenkalais respect the
vadakalais anubhavams and that is why I, in my posting did not take any
exception to this.

Lastly, though I did not give the pramANa slOka, about swAmy maNavALa
mAmuni showing his true form as Sri AdhisEshan, to his AchAryan, Sri
thiruvAimozhip piLLai, it is a fact which cannot be refuted. I request
scholars in the list, who are aware of the slOka to provide the same. Now
my request is, can one such incident be attributed to Sri kOzhiyAlam swAmy
or Sri ahObila maTam jeeyar that they showed their forms as Sri AdhisEshan
to claim that they are punaravathArams of Sri rAmAnuja. PLEASE NOTE, NO
DISRESPECT IS BEING MEANT WHILE ASKING THIS QUESTION. I agree, I do not
even, have the qualification to take up the names of such great swAmis and
yathis, but I am just asking this question to only differentiate once again
that, "HAILING ONE TO BE A PUNARAVATHARAM IS VERY MUCH DIFFERENT FROM THE
ACTUAL AVATHARAM".

I believe, this note leaves no doubt in anybody's mind about the fact that
swAmy maNavALa mAmuni was THE FINAL AVATARA of Sri AdhisEshan and hence Sri
rAmAnuja.

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam
adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh












                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *        
                                                                            
                                                                            
                                                                            
 The   information  contained  in  this message is  legally  privileged and 
 confidential   information  intended  only   for the use of  the addressed 
 individual   or  entity   indicated  in this  message (or  responsible for 
 delivery   of  the  message to such person).  It must not be read, copied, 
 disclosed,  distributed  or  used  by any person other than the addressee. 
 Unauthorised  use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited and may be 
 unlawful.                                                                  
                                                                            
 Opinions, conclusions  and other information on  this message  that do not 
 relate  to  the  official business of  any of the constituent companies of 
 the  SANMAR GROUP  shall  be  understood as  neither given nor endorsed by 
 the Group.                                                                 
                                                                            
 If  you   have  received  this  message in error,  you should destroy this 
 message and kindly notify the sender by e-mail.                            
                                                                            
 Thank you.                                                                 
                                                                            
         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *        
                                                                            






--------------------------------------------------------------
           - 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/