You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Oct 2002

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00063 Oct 2002

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


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/




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