Varadhan, Thanks for the info. That's exactly the kind of historical evidence I was looking for. I am not sure I agree with some of your conclusions (TKT seems to be more on the mark) but I'll leave it at that. Suffice it to say that the Bhashyakarar Sannidhi we have *now* dates from a much later period, and whatever sannidhi was constructed earlier, even if by Anantazhvan, is not the same one was what we see today. This is clear from the facts as presented by Varadhan. The only comment I would like to make is that the conventionally accepted year of 1137 for Bhashyakarar's ascent to paramapada is probably also not correct. For one, the Ramanujarya Divya Charitai (by Pillai Lokam Jeeyar?) has a very different date, probably 20 or 30 years later, if I recall correctly. Also, the inscriptional evidence from Bhashykarar's Karnataka sojourn indicates a slightly later date than 1137. Finally, I don't know about the rest of you, but I really resent innocent questions being twisted into Vadagalai/Thengalai debates, or used as excuses to bring up Vadagalai/Thengalai controversies. There's really no need for that. I know Varadhan is saying that he meant no harm, but there's no doubt it's inflammatory. Let's leave those debates aside and concentrate on the issues at hand. aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan Mani P.S. Guna -- I agree with you that the Alvars' Sri Suktis are divine and should not be considered corrupt in their original. However, the Sri Suktis have been transmitted over time by humans, who are very much prone to error, and therefore we have to be vigilant in ensuring that corruptions do not propagate. Sri Kanchi PBA Swami was among the forefront of those who insisted on pristine transmission of the Sri Suktis as we have them. This is why I am pained when I attend some casual goshti gatherings, no doubt inspired by devotion, but where the devotees simply mechanically read difficult texts such as Ramanuja Nurrandadi without any prior practice or preparation. The diligence with with our pUrvAcharyas protected the text is missing. The cacophony that results is indeed a disservice to both Amudanaar and Sri Ramanuja, since the resultant recitation bears little resemblance to the words of the original. I hear many of our goshtis even unable to recite Tiruppavai properly together. I wish our no doubt sincere and devout brethren would take more care in this regard.
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |