Re: Re: Thiruman Issue
From the Bhakti List Archives
• September 15, 2001
srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha srImadh varavara munayE namaha Dear Members What Sri Narayanan says is absolutely right. As per the records as we have it, there is no evidence that Swamy emberumAnAr was adorned with a vadagalai thirumaN at SriperumpudhUr. While there is nothing wrong with having a vadagalai thirumaN on a given image of Swami emberumAnAr, if we are presenting a photo of a particular mUrti, in the interests of historical accuracy and sanctity of the representation we should present it *as it is*. Doctoring such holy images should not be considered acceptable. Imagine how many of you would feel if the doctoring were done the other way, from vadagalai to thengalai? Also, why should one feel the need to change the thirumaN on an existing photo? Are we not agreed that philosophically they mean the same thing? There was a book published a few years back that had a cover photo of SriperumpudhUr emberumAnAr with a thirumaN doctored to be a vadagalai thirumaN. Immediately a legal notice was served to the publisher by the then jeeyar of SriperupudhUr and the photo was withdrawn. Â What I have learnt is that the photo has however come into circulation in many people's houses, giving people an inaccurate idea of what the SriperumpudhUr mUrti looks like. In all probability, this is the photo that Sri Madhavakkannan has in his house, because as far as I know, there is no record that SriperumbudhUr Swamy emberumAnAr ever had a vadagalai thirumaN, and certainly not in modern days since photography of the mUrtis became a common occurrence. Some people are unfortunately spreading rumours that the Sriperumbudhur temple was vadagalai until about 50 years ago. One need only ask the many Srivaishnavas of both kalais who were alive over 50 years ago. This is simply not true. Â These kinds of rumors do no good but seed dissension among the kalais. Yes, there are temples such as Thirumeyyam where it is well-known that due to financial reasons the temple converted from Thengalai to Vadagalai recently. Â This is accepted by everyone. But for all other temples rumors simply generate bad feeling among our people and are counterproductive in the long run. I think all of us are agreed that further fights over the 'kalai' status of temples are the last thing our tradition needs. In this regard, I very much appreciate the points brought forward by Sri Narayanan. When emberumAnAr Himself left temples along to follow their existing traditions, what rights, do we, the less mortals have to do the same forcibly. In the recently held Yati Sammelanam under the banner of Swami Nammazhwar foundation, a consensus was brought to maintain the status quo of the temples as on date. Â Unfortunately, not everyone is living up to this agreement and some people have actually increased their political manoeuvring since then. This is an unfortunate occurrence and with Swamy emberumAnAr's grace perhaps we can put an end to it. In any case, I would like to express my gratitude to Sri Madhavakkannan for demonstrating great patience and charity in this regard. He has once again revealed the spirit of a true Vaishnava by not getting angry in the midst of this discussion. I am also glad that we can all discuss and come to a conclusion about the accuracy of Swamy emberumAnAr's mUrti without dissension and conflict. AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh Enjoy being an Indyan at http://www.indya.com -------------------------------------------------------------- - 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: damodara svarup: "(unknown)"
- Previous message: Venkates: "(no subject)"
- Maybe in reply to: km.narayanan_at_averydennison.com: "Thiruman Issue"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]