Dear Bhagavatas:

In his book "Acharya Hridayam" of Azhagiya Manavala Perumal Nayanar,
Sri B.S.S. Iyengar Swami has quoted the following sloka from a work
called "Lokacharya Panchasat" attributed to Swami Vedanta Desikan,
under the title "A Homage from one genius to another"

"VaNee puNya sudhaapagaam sathagitah svairam vigaahyaadaraat
Aaneeyaamrutamatra chakraturubhaou paaNeeya saalaatmakam /
Yow vaagbooshaNa dEsikEndra hridaya abhikya prabandhadvayam
Tau vandE bhuvanaarya sundaravarau krishNaatmajou dEsikou //"

(Vedanta Desika – Lokacharya Panchasat – 10)

Meaning as given by Sri B.S.S. Iyengar Swami:

"I prostrate the two Acharyas, Lokacharya and Azhagiya MaNavaaLan,
the sons of KrishNapaadar, one of the two famed compositions composed
by them, the ornament of the sayings (Sri Vachana bhooshaNam) and the
inner core (Achaarya Hridayam) of the foremost Acharya (Nammazhwar),
as if nectar brought here like the cool drink in a stall (for the
weary traveler), from the flood of nectar called the sacred
utterances of SathagOpa, with the exhilaration of plunging in it with
abandon"

We have never heard of such a work by Swami Vedanta Desikan. If it
had been really written by Swami Desika, Scholars of SrivaishNava
Satsampradayam would have definitely commented on it or at least
referred to it in their numerous works in these 700+ years. There
seems to be a total absence of such references and this renders the
work susceptible to doubt its authorship.

Some have suggested that it was written by some latter day scholar
interested in projecting a kind of rejoinder to the now famous verse
of Pillai Lokacharya - praising Swami Desikan.

"Seeronru Thoopul Tiruvenkatamudaiyaan
Paar onrac chonna pazhamoziyul
Ore onru taanE amiyadO daaraNiyil Vaazhwaarkku
VaanErap pOmaLavum Vaazhvu"

If any comments / references to the work from Poorva Acharyas can be
quoted, it would help in confirming the claim.

I invite scholars to throw light on this with adequate PramaNams.

Dasoham
Anbil Ramaswamy

Dear Sri Venkatesan:

Thank you for pointing this out.

I have heard elders saying that the Tanian "Seeronru" was composed by
Lokacharyar.

You are right in asking a restatement in my post to the effect that - "the
thaniyan is "attributed by some" to Sri Pillai Lokacharya".

I will try to get the appropriate Pramanam for this and present.
Meanwhile, if you come across any Pramanam reg. "Lokacharya Panchasat" kindly
let me know. Let me hasten to assure you that there is no bias either way.

Both Swami Desika and Lokacharyar were great friends and it is probable that the
verses attributed to both of them may be rightly so.

Dasoham
Anbil Ramaswamy
================================================== =============
Sri:
Srimathe Ramanujaya Nama:

Dear Sri Anbil Ramaswamy Swamin,

It is only fair that you seek the authenticity of a
work that has been atrributed to Sri Vedanta Desika.
And I look forward to readers input into the same.

However, in your message you have clearly implied that
you believe that the "seeronRu" thanian for Sri Vedanta
Desika was written by Sri Pillai Lokacharya. As far
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. Otherwise, I would request you to change
your post to say that the thaniyan is "attributed by
some" to Sri Pillai Lokacharya.

AdiyEn does not mean to start a controversy with this
post. My intent only is that the coin should be held
equal on both sides. If pramaNams are requested for
one (as it should be) then the other side should be
equally convincing. I apologize if this post hurts
anyone's feelings as that is not my intent.

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan
TCA Venkatesan
http://www.acharya.org

--- ramanbil <Ramanbil@...> wrote:
> Dear Bhagavatas:
>
> In his book "Acharya Hridayam" of Azhagiya Manavala
> Perumal Nayanar,
> Sri B.S.S. Iyengar Swami has quoted the following sloka
> from a work
> called "Lokacharya Panchasat" attributed to Swami Vedanta
> Desikan,
> under the title "A Homage from one genius to another"
>
> ...
>
> Some have suggested that it was written by some latter
> day scholar
> interested in projecting a kind of rejoinder to the now
> famous verse
> of Pillai Lokacharya - praising Swami Desikan.
>
> "Seeronru Thoopul Tiruvenkatamudaiyaan
> Paar onrac chonna pazhamoziyul
> Ore onru taanE amiyadO daaraNiyil Vaazhwaarkku
> VaanErap pOmaLavum Vaazhvu"
>
> If any comments / references to the work from Poorva
> Acharyas can be
> quoted, it would help in confirming the claim.
>
> I invite scholars to throw light on this with adequate
> PramaNams.
>
> Dasoham
> Anbil Ramaswamy


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com

--- In SriRangaSri@y..., TCA Venkatesan <vtca@y...> 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

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@...> wrote:
> --- In SriRangaSri@y..., TCA Venkatesan <vtca@y...>
> 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/

Dear Sri TCA Venkatesan:

Your position is quite understandable and
not altogether unexpected. But, I think
claims of insertion in 3000 padi, etc. can
be viewed as motivated.

Let us just stick to facts. It is a fact
that recognized and traditional Vadakalai
vidwans unanimously affirm the authenticity
of the 3000 padi pramANam that was provided
in support of Swami Sri Pillai Lokacharya's
authorship of the Thaniyan. I know Thenkalais
do not accept this, but at least among
Vadakalai vidwans there is unanimity about
this. It is in this sense that I enquired
whether there was unanimity among Thenkalai
vidwans about Swami Sri Desikan's authorship
of the referred Pancasat. I have now received
private e-mails indicating that this is not so.
This claim is not universally accepted by all
the Thenkalai vidwans. Particularly, it has
not been accepted by a noted Thenkalai vidwan
who is well known for grantha publications.

IMHO, each side should respect the other's
considered opinions in these matters, and,
each side should also admit that their
view in these matters is just their position
and the other side may not accept it. They
must not then try to "prove" to the other
side why their view is more authentic, etc.
What would be the point of that? All the
proofs have been offerred and countered a
million times over. Neither side is going
to be persuaded by the other side. The best
thing for us to do is to live and let live.
The two kalais have much in common, but we
cannot start to celebrate this until we can
respect our differences and accept them as
they are. If we try to out do each other
(e.g. my acharya is better than yours), or
try to deny the legitimacy of the other side
(e.g. your acharya actually belongs to my
sampradayam, your sampradayam did not even
exit more then xxx years ago), we have a
bright future in acrimony.

-- dileepan

Dear Sri Dileepan:

I think you have misunderstood me. My point was not that
there have been insertions into 3000padi. My point was
that Thenkalai scholars believe (motivated or not) that
there have been insertions. With such a belief in hand,
how do you "prove with pramanams", when that pramanam is
a single quote from the said document. I do not question
the contents of 3000padi, but if it is offered as a
pramanam I have to point out the objections that are made
to it (right or wrong). AdiyEn is sticking to the facts
and these are the facts in the debate.

This is why I said that it is my belief that it cannot be
proved that Sri Pillai Lokacharya authored that thaniyan.
And my final recommendation which I made before as well,
is in tune with what you are saying - that each believe
what their acharyas have told them.

Regarding the authorship or agreement on the Panchasat
grantha, adiyEn is not aware of what all Thenkalai
scholars have to say and that is why I did not comment
on the same. However, I think I know who the Thenkalai
vidwan that you are pointing who does not believe that
the work was authored by Sri Desika. May I point out
that the said vidwan does not agree that the Desikar
thaniyan was authored by Sri Lokacharyar either.

The only reason this email debate started was the
statement that pramanams were required to prove the
authorship of Lokacharya Panchasat while the thaniyan
matter was stated as fact that Sri Lokacharyar wrote it
(when clearly it is not universally accepted). If the
original mail had simply left it as a query about
Lokacharya Panchasat there would have been no debate.
But when it is coupled with the thaniyan note then it
had to be challenged.

I agree with you that proofs should not be demanded for
what one sampradhayam believes in, but then that needs
to be a two way street.

AdiyEn hs nothing further to say other than that I agree
with you that both sampradhayams should learn to respect
and celebrate each other.

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan
TCA Venkatesan
http://www.acharya.org

--- dileepan <dileepan@...> wrote:
> Dear Sri TCA Venkatesan:
>
> Your position is quite understandable and
> not altogether unexpected. But, I think
> claims of insertion in 3000 padi, etc. can
> be viewed as motivated.
>
> Let us just stick to facts. It is a fact
> that recognized and traditional Vadakalai
> vidwans unanimously affirm the authenticity
> of the 3000 padi pramANam that was provided
> in support of Swami Sri Pillai Lokacharya's
> authorship of the Thaniyan. I know Thenkalais
> do not accept this, but at least among
> Vadakalai vidwans there is unanimity about
> this. It is in this sense that I enquired
> whether there was unanimity among Thenkalai
> vidwans about Swami Sri Desikan's authorship
> of the referred Pancasat. I have now received
> private e-mails indicating that this is not so.
> This claim is not universally accepted by all
> the Thenkalai vidwans. Particularly, it has
> not been accepted by a noted Thenkalai vidwan
> who is well known for grantha publications.
>
> IMHO, each side should respect the other's
> considered opinions in these matters, and,
> each side should also admit that their
> view in these matters is just their position
> and the other side may not accept it. They
> must not then try to "prove" to the other
> side why their view is more authentic, etc.
> What would be the point of that? All the
> proofs have been offerred and countered a
> million times over. Neither side is going
> to be persuaded by the other side. The best
> thing for us to do is to live and let live.
> The two kalais have much in common, but we
> cannot start to celebrate this until we can
> respect our differences and accept them as
> they are. If we try to out do each other
> (e.g. my acharya is better than yours), or
> try to deny the legitimacy of the other side
> (e.g. your acharya actually belongs to my
> sampradayam, your sampradayam did not even
> exit more then xxx years ago), we have a
> bright future in acrimony.
>
> -- dileepan
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/