You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Apr 2002

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00109 Apr 2002

 
Apr 2002 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear Varadhan/Mani
I just want list few of my views in the "hear say" of nAlaraya Divya
Prabhandam..
Adiyen can not think of corruption can occur due to "hear say"..All we think
is that we should believe in any scriptures /kalvettus our poorvacharyas
would have left to us, we have totally forgotten the theme that the whole
Prabhandam is meant for Him and how can He keep mum if there is any such
corruption in our PoorvAcharyas practice.

I have seen few examples in Divya Desams that if some people wants to start
any new practice unless otherwise it falls in line with His Thiruvullam,
it will not prolong for a long time (around 1000 yrs of Prabhanda Sevai)..

Also I feel finding "corruptions" in Divya Prabhandam is beyond our scope
and we should abstain from such thinking ( I feel this is paramount to
discuss about the Varunam of Alwars , which we should never do)

I dont want to comment about Vedas , for which I dont have any authority to
discuss (comparing to Prabhandam , which I love more as it is the "eera
chorkal " of our loved Alwars)

BTW- I have put Guna1.bmp(sorry for file name, and Orientation of pages)
which I scanned from Dr.VVR swamy's Yadindra Pravana Prabhavam , portion of
Jeeyar Niyamanam by SriRamanuja and SriManavala Mamunigal., check whether
this caters your needs..

Best Regards

Guna
Ph 408 588 6672 (W)
guna_venkat@xxxx

----- Original Message -----
From: "mani2" <mani@xxxx>
To: <ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:10 PM
Subject: [ramanuja] Re: hearsay etc..


> Varadhan,
>
> It's not as easy to tar the Vedas or Prabandham with the
> same brush, for many reasons. For the Vedas, there is a
> relatively uniform text across all Sruti paramparAs all across
> the country, and what differences exist are honestly
> recognized as different SAkhas or acceptable pAtha-bhedas.
> With regard to the Prabandham, yes, we do not know if there
> has been any corruption over the years -- there very well may
> have been, given how many pAtha-bhedas there are for so many
> verses, but the very structure of most of the poems makes it
> unlikely that anyone made radical changes (sets of 10 with an
> 11th signature verse, andAdi style, etc.) However, one can make
> an argument for corruption even here, I admit.
>
> I don't think it's appropriate to conflate this discussion
> with the Vadagalai/Thengalai temple disputes; that's pretty
> inflammatory and unnecessary.
>
> Back to the issue at hand.
> The fact is that there *is* a lot of prestige gained when a lineage
> propounds the belief that it was started originally by Emberumaanaar
> or one of his sishyas. There are many Mandyam Iyengars,
> for example, who voice the opinion that the Yadugiri Yatiraja Jeeyar
> Matha was the first SV matha, and that it was founded by
> Emberumaanaar in its present form. However, critical
> scholarship shows that this is simply not tenable. There
> is no epigraphy even in Melkote which attests to this. This
> is just an example, but the same can be said for the Pedda
> Jeeyar Matha, from what I understand. Merely citing an
> unbroken lineage does not ipso facto make it true. We all
> know about the convenient histories invented by the Kanchi
> Sankara Matha in favor of its priority among Advaita
> institutions. The purported history of the Kanchi Matha
> placed Sri Sankaracharya c.500 B.C., and the Buddha hundreds
> of years before that! Clearly such things do not stand
> historical scrutiny.
>
> I don't think there's anything diabolical in the origins
> of the story that Anandalvan was the impetus behind the
> Emberumaanaar sannidhi, or that Emberumaanaar himself started
> the Pedda Jeeyar Matha. They very well may be true. But
> they very well may not be true as well, and it appears that
> there is no solid evidence indicating that it is fact.
>
> Normally, there are many inscriptions which indicate endowments
> by or for a Matha, usually named, to help in the temple services,
> to help with making garlands, providing prasaadam for bhAgavatas,
> providing for pArAyana and adhyApana, etc. I think it is
> reasonable to ask why there is no such evidence placing
> the Emberumaanaar sannidhi in that time period, or the Pedda
> Jeeyar Matha in that time, if that is what is held to be
> true.
>
> For example, there are many inscriptions placing Emberumaanaar,
> Anandalvan, Vaduga Nambi, and other sishyas in and around
> Melkote, Tondanur, Saligrama, and other Karnataka kshetras.
> There is also much evidence that Emberumaanaar was present
> several times at Tirupati, etc. But even according to the
> ArAyirappadi Guru ParamparA, which itself is heavily interpolated
> by much later hands, I don't think there is a mention of
> Anandalvan building a sannidhi to Emberumaanaar at Tirupati,
> or of Emberumaanaar establishing a Pedda Jeeyar Matha on the
> malai.
>
> If anyone can provide information on this topic, I would be
> much obliged.
>
> aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,
> Mani
>
>
>
>
>
> azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list