srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha srImadh varavara munayE namaha Dear Sri Guna, Thanks for the understanding. You are right. By just discussing the controversial matters, one need not feel offended unless, the words are unpolite and unparliamentary and highly egoistic. However, as Sri Mani and Sri Venkatesh elayavalli felt it is unwarranted in the current context and was a potential spark for the unpleasantries to start, I tendered my sincere apologies. I still hold it good and I did it truly. However, I am sure, if one would understand the motive behind the posting (of-course not all can read the author's mind from just a few words), there will be no heated arguments or controversies. You may think, why I have not said this in my previous mail. Had I done it, it will only look like I am covering up for a deliberate intention to start an argument. My intention was never to start an argument there. That is why, I said, it is just one of the examples for the 'hearsay' and how serious it could be for different people with different followings from just one correct/incorrect hearsay account. Also I was only trying to prove like this. Again, please read this with open mind. For the vadagalais, this hearsay may be a good and desirable one, while for the Thenkalais, this may be offending. So, I was only trying to prove, that the 'belief' on the hearsay is upto the individual and cannot be construed as completely correct by one or completely incorrect by the other. That is why I said in my earlier posting that - If it is Shri Mani's belief it has to be left there and no further discussion is required. I do agree that on a cursory note, the mention about this particular hearsay is unwarranted. But I hope I have clarified about my position in the above para. Please rest assured that there was nothing intentional to offend the vadagalais by giving that account of the hearsay. And I tendered my sincere apologies, in case it has hurt anybody's feelings. I thank Sri Guna for giving me a chance to bring out the true purport of my earlier posting and thereby clear any doubts in anybody's mind about the intentions of posting. Having said all the above, one question that I threw in my earlier posting, still stands. What is the objective, behind this effort to find out whether the sannidhi is old, or was established by Sri ananthAzhwAr, or was it a later day inclusion. Are we going to stop praying to our dear emberumAnAr if the sannidhi was not consecrated by Sri anathAzhwAr or if it is not a very old one. If it is so, what is the sanctity one can attach to the new temples that are being built everywhere. Are we still not praying to the emberumAnAr sannidhis or for that sake any sannidhis even if it is brand new. perumAL in any form, new or old is perumAL and so are our dear pirAtti, AzhwArs and AchAryAs. Remember the incident of our dear emberumAnAr taking the sand in the banks of thirukkAvEri as the prasAdam of perumAL from the young kids. He did not even question the authenticity of the claims of those kids when they asked him to prostrate before the perumAL that they have created using the sand. "thamarugandhadhu evvuruvam avvuruvam thAnE....". Why emberumAnAr for that sake, see our own people doing pradakshiNams for a perumAL or siRiya thiruvadi or sri chakkarathhAzwAr on a pillar in a temple ( I don't know about other temples, but this is a common sight in thiruvallikkENi) while the same perumAL is consecrated in the sannidhis in the same temple, strictly according to the AgamAs and other rituals. A pillar is a pillar. Can we say that an image of a perumAL on a pillar that is not consecrated is not having any divinity and hence indulge in committing any sacrilege to it? I am sure your answer is a big no for this. This is the same intention behind my question - what are we trying to achieve, talking about the origin of the emberumAnAr sannidhi in thirumalai, when we are all convinced that in any form we are going to worship him. For that sake, we will certainly worship that 'idol'(sorry I have to use this word) even if it not emberumAnAr but any of our other SrivaishNavite poorvAchAryA. Isn't it true? AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh "Guna Venkat" <guna_venkat@el To: .nec.com>< > <ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> cc: 30/04/2002 Subject: Re: [ramanuja] 03:41 AM Re: hearsay etc., Please respond to ramanuja Dear Sri .Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh Your mail came at the correct time for me in the line of discussion about kalai diffs, Adiyen of the view that just by discussing some thing controversial we are not hurting any feeling , also only by discussion we will come to know the truth and by keeping the views within ourselves. Sure this will never create any hatred(thVesham) upon others.. (e.g) The upanyasam of Sri.M.A.VenkataKrishnan swamy, he has been talking about all minute details to the core without affecting any Bhagavada's feeling (received appreciation from both sects), so discussion per say is not catastrophic. Reg the Emberumanar's sannidhi , I also heard from some groups that it was Swamy Desikan's sannidhi and was converted later to Bhasyakarar Sannidhi, So hearsay always play a role, Adiyen also not clear about the root of this gossip and its better if we know further details/background about this, This list is not a controversial list and everyone knows what other Bhagavada's feeling is and so I feel if any one specially SriVaishnavas closely connected with Thirumalai can enlighten the list on this reg, and I am sure this will not create any heated arguments/feelings, its only getting ourselves aware. Best Regards Gunaseelan Venkatachary Ph - 408 588 6672 (W) guna_venkat@xxxx ----- Original Message ----- From: "vinjamoor_venkatesh" <vinjamoorvenkat@xxxx> To: <ramanuja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 10:21 AM Subject: [ramanuja] Re: hearsay etc., > srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha > srImadh varavara munayE namaha > > Dear Sri Mani, Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli and all, > > I agree to your views and I sincerely apologize for this piece of > posting. After reading through, I realised that this para was > unwarranted and should not have been included. Sorry for the offense > from my end. I assure you that I will be more careful in future. > > AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam > adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan > Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh > > > > --- In ramanuja@xxxx, "elayavalli" <elayavalli@xxxx> wrote: > > Sri: > > SrimathE Ramanujaya Namaha: > > AzhwAr EmperumAnAr Jeeyar thiruvadigalE Saranam, > > > > Dear Sri Venkatesh > > > > With due respects I have to come to Mani's defence here. There is > no > > reason to bringing in a different hearsay to a discussion that is > not > > related to the initial question. As you and others believe, mani's > > question was not intended to counter a traditional belief under > some > > ulterior motive. Given that it is not fair to bring up a tangential > > topic and then apologising for bringing it up. Please, let us not > > fall into this trap of he said, she said issues, which will only > make > > things worse. > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Venkatesh Elayavilli > > > > > On the other hand, I came to know a disturbing hearsay, that, as > > Sri > > > emberumAnAr in Thirumalai is not wearing a kAshAya vasthram and > > also > > > since he has a vyAkhyA mudhrai, this is actually Swamy dEsikan > and > > > only the thenkalais, later converted this to Sri emberumAnAr. > > Please > > > do not say that none of you heard this. This is a very very > popular > > > rumour. Any clues on this? I am sorry to have dragged this > argument > > > into another potential thread. But I did this to let you all know > > how > > > the hearsays, can be true and false both to either of the sect or > > > people. But what I am surprised in this is that the question is > on > > > Sri emberumAnAr's sannidhi, who is undisputedly the greatest > > AchArya > > > for both the sects. This is not on a sannidhi of Sri maNavALa > > > mAmunigaL or Sri dEsikar. So what are we going to gain with this > > and > > > what is the clarification one is expecting. I am sure nobody, who > > is > > > rational, will say Sri Mani was wrong when he initiated this. > While > > > Sri Mani's view is one possible view, the other view is also > > another > > > possibility. I think this has to be left just here. > > > > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The information contained in this message is legally privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the addressed individual or entity indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person). It must not be read, copied, disclosed, distributed or used by any person other than the addressee. Unauthorised use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Opinions, conclusions and other information on this message that do not relate to the official business of any of the constituent companies of the SANMAR GROUP shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the Group. If you have received this message in error, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by e-mail. Thank you. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |