Sri: Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama: Dear BhAgavatas, Thanks to Sri Anbil Swami and Sri Dileepan Swami for taking a balanced approach to this topic - which is to approach it with academic interest. In a similar vein, I request everyone who reads this to be aware that whatever points that I am making is made from an objective sense. I am personally not aware of any refutations to the quote from Muvayirappadi from Mamunigal's time. But then my knowledge is severely limited on this topic and as such I will let others address it. However, let us take the statement itself. Based on interaction with Thenkalai scholars, I can state that it is their belief that not everything that is said in Muvayirappadi is correct. Lest someone mistake that their acharya's words are being doubted, let me hasten to add that the belief is that the work has been tampered with over the years in order to foster certain lines of thought. Needless to say it is likely that Vadakalai sampradhayins also harbor similar doubts about some of the contents of the Arayirappadi work. Certainly the statement that Namperumal Himself uttered the Srisailesa dayapatram thaniyan (archaka kumAranAy, not archaka kumAran) in the Arayirappadi is not being accepted at face value. So, even if no one from Mamunigal's time or immediately thereafter refuted this claim, it still does not prove much, as the thought is that this statement could have been introduced at a much later time. Note that Thenkalai scholars state that the kalai split occured at a time much after Mamunigal's time (some put it around the mid 1600s). So, a single pramANam such as this is found lacking. The only way to "prove" is to have several independent works by scholars from both sampradhayams that state the same thing. Based on that, it is adiyEn's opinion that it will be next to impossible to prove that this thaniyan was written by Sri Pillai Lokacharya. So, all we will have is that we believe what our acharyas have told us and leave it at that. This is why I requested Sri Anbil Swami that he should change his statement (only because he required proof for the other while stating this one as accepted truth) to "attributed by some". On the other hand there is a better chance of proving a whole grantha was written by a specific acharya. In that sense it is appropriate to seek pramANams for the Lokacharya Panchasat authorship. I will wait to see what others have to post on that subject. Finally a note which is somewhat subjective but not intended with any malice. There were recently notes on some yahoo groups claiming a couple of new works were authored by Sri Vedanta Desika. While some replies followed wondering about the claim, I saw none which requested the author to prove with pramANams that the works were indeed authored by Sri Desika. I would request everyone to show the same zeal in asking such questions whether it is one work or the other. The contents of the work alone should not be the reason to question a claim. Considering the prolific and prodigious capabilities of Sri Desika it is for sure that many of his works have been lost. But sufficient proof should be required for all claims - this is for the glory of the acharya himself. Once again, adiyEn's apologies, if inadvertently, I have hurt any bhAgavata's feelings. adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan TCA Venkatesan http://www.acharya.org --- dileepan <dileepan@xxxx> wrote: > --- In SriRangaSri@xxxx, TCA Venkatesan <vtca@xxxx> > wrote: > > as I know, this is not accepted by everyone. As such, > > I would request you to "prove with pramanams" that > > this thaniyan was indeed written by Sri Pillai > > Lokacharya. > > > Please refer to page 180 of the LIFCO publication (1968) > of the Grantham titled, "MuvAyirappadi Guru Parampara > PrabAvam" written by Srimad Thrutheeya Brahmatantra > Svatantra Swami, the third Jeeyar of Sri Parakala Matam. > Here is the relevant sentence, > > "... piLLai lOkAchAryArum sri bAshyaththai > athikariththu > rahasyArththangaLaiyum pala kAlam kEttu andha > prabAvatthai, > > "sIronru thUppil ...... > ... > ... > .........pOmaLavum vAzhvu." > > enRu aruLichcheydhAr." > > Please note that this text was written about the time > of Sri Manavala Mamunigal. > > Couple of questions come to mind. > > [1] Is there an authentic refutation of the above > reference in any Thenkalai text by either a contemporary > of the Third Jeeyar of Sri Parakala Matam, or someone > close to that time frame? Please note, I am not implying > that Thenkalais must accept the given reference as > authentic if such a formal refutation was not made; > just that it would be interesting to know whether this > was actually refuted formally in written form by anyone. > > [2] With respect to Swami Sri Desikan being the author > for Lokacharya Pancasat, what is the source reference > Sri B.S.S. Iyengar quotes in support of his claim? > Is that widely accepted as authentic by Thenkalais > in the same way Vadakalais accept the mUvAyirappadi > text as authentic source for the authorship of > Sri Pillai Lokacharyar for the "sIronRu thUppil.. " > thaniyan. > > I appreciate Sri TCA Venkatesan's caveat about not > intending any controversy. The same goes for my > post as well. Let us keep this academic and not > get emotional. > > -- adiyEn __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |