Search:
Bhakti List Archives

GREAT COMMENTARIES.

From the Bhakti List Archives

Padmanabhan • September 10, 2002 


DEAR BHAKTHI GROUP MEMBERS
I have just written a message regarding the greatness of the Commentaries and the Great knowledge of their authors/AchAryAs.
I would like to mention, in this regard that Great tamil scholars, just for the sake of interest in Tamil attended the discourses by SwAmi bhattar and nampillai. There were several occasions in which these tamil scholars gave a different interpretaions. These interpretations were not rejected in to-to, without application of mind. I give hereunder two interpretaions which have been accepted and two which have been rejected. I request the members to go through these in the original text of Edu vyAkyAnam and appreciate the Greatness.
INTERPRETAION OF TAMIL SCHOLARS WHICH HAVE BEEN REJECTED
1.
thiru voizh mozhi 1-4-4 "en nErmai kandu irangi" A tamil scholar interpreted this as keAttu irangi and addressed this to Sri Bhattar. The question was  the payalamai nOi- that is, the disease caused due to the separation of lovers is reflected by bleachness in the skin of the woman.  The tamil scholar questioned that " if the man sees the bleachness ,then it means that he is alongwith the woman and there is no separation and hence told that it should be" kEattu" that is on hearing the details of separation. On this Bhattar addressed the issue authoritiatively by quoting from Thirukkural and stated that even when both are together when the hand is removed from one place and touches another, the first place become white due to separation which can be seen by the man. Hence, Bhattar described that Azhwar s prabhandham can never be at fault.

2. thiru voizh mozhi 2-5-10 "AnallaN pennallaN allA aliyum allaN"
God is not male gender as seen in our world or feminine in character nor a mixture of both. For this, a tamilian interpreted that if he is neither of these then he should be a nothing _ sOnyam. 
Sri Bhattar mentioned that the tamil letter ending with N in AnallaN, pennallaN, aliyum allaN refers to the fact that the Lord in fact is Purushothaman.


INTERPRETAION OF TAMIL SCHOLARS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED
 
1. thiru voizh mozhi 3-9-2 in sonnAl virodham padhigam - "kannan kurungudi meymaiyea" The Thirukkurungudi which is belonging to Kannan. 
A tamil scholar interpreted this as Good Place Thirukkurungudi i.e " kan nal kurungudi"
This interpretation has been accepted and also mentioned in the commentary.
 
2.thriu voizh mozhi 3-9-7 " pArilOr patraiyai "
Patraiyay = A mateial/ person whch is neither useful to himself/itself nor to other from his birth/origin to death/destruction..
A tamil scholar interpreted this as - A person who grips what he has firmly in his hands and does not give out anything to anybody. This has been accepted.

I request the members again to go through the original text of the commentary to understand it fully well.


There are several such instances which goes to prove beyond doubt the greatness of the commentaries,their uprightness and knowledge. Hence, to belittle such commentaries and start interpreting ourselves will lead to utter chaos.
Padmanabhan














[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/