(Fwd) Biographies of Sri Ramanuja

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 30 Apr 1996 11:27:11 -0400 Badri said:

>

>I pay my respects to all the vaishnavAs in this mailing list.

>

>

>======

>

>It appears like a few people in this mailing list find Mani's

>objections to certain postings from elder Bhakthas distasteful.

>I have myself found a few postings from Mani to be harsh,

>especially the ones in response to Sri Ramaswamy's postings. I

>respectfully submit that age of the poster be not considered in

>evaluating the merits of a posting. I only have to mention

>Bhattar and Nanjeeyar, in this connection.

 

 

I am reasonably sure that no one advocated a direct

relationship between age and merit of a posting.

Showing a little respect and deference for all postings,

at least to the posts of elders, is not an unreasonable

request I think.

 

>

>The lighthearted comments by Mani quoted above, in fact makes a

>very important point. It cautions us not to compare any of our

>AcharyAs with the traditional western view of the prophets,

>papacy etc. I myself do not like using the words 'Pontiff' to

>refer to the matAdhipathis in India.

 

 

I don't think Rengi intended any special significance

when he used the term "prophet". Many of us use these

terms without worrying too much, or more likely not even

realising, about the variety of possible interpretations

that an astute reader can ascribe to them.

Most people in this group write while on break at

work. A term here, or there, that is not precise

or not to the standard of scholars is to be expected.

 

 

>

>VedAntA does not ask us to believe something merely because it

>has been brought to us by the "claimed messengers" of IsvarA. Sri

>Ramanuja did not ask us to believe his words blindly nor did he

>ever claim that he was a prophet or even an avatArA of AdisEsha.

 

 

I think blind belief has a place. Not all can

and/or would like to research through the volumes

of theological works and arrive at an informed opinion.

As a matter of fact, one of Sri Ramanuja's dictates is

to have unflinching faith in ones' acharyaas.

>

>I find it disturbing that several hagiographies, and in

>particular the sectarian portions of the guruparampara

>prabhAvam(s) trying to upstage one another by projecting one

>person as an amsA of Parabrahman or one of His attendents, in a

>bid to legitimise one set of views over the other.

>

>In particular, the efforts to show Sri manNavaaLa maamuni as

>another avatArA of AdisEsha and hence his views as that of Sri

>RamAnujA himself - who is thought to be an avatArA of AdisEsha -

>and therefore the "right" one as opposed to that of, say,

>Desikar. Where is the pramANA for all this?

 

 

Swamy Sri Desikar is an avathara of saakshaath

thiruvEngadavan :-)

 

>

>If that may be the case, why would other jeevanmuktAs like the

>succeding AchAryAs wrote and claimed that the AzhvArs & AchAryAs

>before them were in fact nityasUris?

>

 

 

Were AchAryaas jeevanmukthaas?

 

Are AzhArs and AchAryAs considered NithyasUris?

 

>It has to be noted that beliefs of this kind stay only within a

>sampradAya. Naturally so! Because, the pramANA for all this does

>not come from texts that are commonly accepted by all the

>sampradAyAs, and hence only of spurious or limited value.

 

 

In my understanding no one has ever forced an universal

acceptance of any of these beliefs. I find nothing wrong

in celebrating the memory of ones own achaaryaas by

equating them to certain amsaas of the Lord. It may

of limited value when it comes to arguing an esoteric

point with another sampradaya, but within a sampradaya

it is hardly of limited value, let alone spurious value.

 

 

-- Dileepan

[Guest guest]

On Apr 29, 4:38pm, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

> Re: Biographies of Sri Ramanuja

>

> Sampath Rengarajan writes:

> * A saints life is full of events every day and historians

> * write or track only a few as they see it important in

> * their context. A prophet's life is

> * full of events every second (1/60 th of a minute).

> * Sri Ramanujaas life ...

>

> So now Ramanuja is a prophet? I wonder when Mutt

> Infallibility will be declared and the Inquisition

> started ... ;-)

>

> Mani

>-- End of excerpt from Mani Varadarajan

 

Dear Mani,

 

Your comments are good joke, though they are taken out of context and

*very* reactionary as similar to such sevral past instances from you.

The exhibition of inconsistancy by young persons in this

group are not new to me or

several learned members of the group. It only shows that they

are growing in their *interest* (not faith, because faith comes

later only)

and we welcome it. On the other hand,

If one may want to read between some lines and make their own please go

ahead and do so. I never meant to say that Sri Ramanuja was a mere prophet.

As per western norm Prophets are messengers of god.

Swami Desikan considered Balarama

as one of the top ten avathaaraa, popularly known as dasaavathaara, though

balarama is the incarnation of adisesha as similar to Sri Ramaanuja.

If you have forgotten this, you must read Swami Desikan's works fully

again before you even comment on it. It is also the western position that

anyone who had launched a religion is known as a prophet. But Sri

Raamanuja expanded our aazhwaars thamizh vEdam and re-empahsised

Sri Vishitaaddvaitham. There is a hidden message

in this (in my original post), and

I am sure it didnot get to *your* perception at present.

(it is my belief that it is very applicable to the

state of confusion expressed by young persons).

But few puNNiyavaans already understood it and replied

by private mail to me, their appreciation

of the same. I pray to the Lord that someday

everyone should be put on the correct path and made to

understand these messages.

 

Being more exposed to the Wetern society and *thinking*

on the western standards on apparent *equality*,

I understand one's sentiments to appease all

the minorities and outsiders while atleast paying *some*

limited attention to respecting our achaaryaaLs. Mere book

reading whatever book one may have done so far would only develop their

"Inquisition", and one will need an achaaryaaLs sEvai to respect elders

and the vaibavams of poorvaachaaryaaLS, prior to seeking information or

criticising them *as above* about them (elders here means achaaryaaLS).

No matter what historians (in saying historians I donot

mean Prof Vasudevan, or Sri KS, as I do respect

them as fellow srivaishnavaas)

will write on poorvaachaaryaaLS,

mere reading and commenting and inquisition without a faith and

devotion on what poorvaachaaryaaLS preach, will lead

one to the state of confusion shown as above in your comment.

 

My message was written for *many* who are *not confused*

but are hoping to learn from this. Many wrote saying that they got

*new* material *each time* from this and several other posts and that

tears rolled down their eyes (for many)

(expression of real inner sentiments as per both

eastern and western standards) and that their faith was strengthened more

due to my posts. while most of such credits goto

Sriman Naarayanaa only In a way some of these credits go to you

also because you run this cyber village that we all treat as an

inherited property. And I thank you and others for

all the positive remarks I have received so far on this.

 

SR

[Guest guest]

Sri Sampath Rengarajan wrote in response to Mani's remarks:

 

* On Apr 29, 4:38pm, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

* > Re: Biographies of Sri Ramanuja

* >

* > Sampath Rengarajan writes:

* > * A saints life is full of events every day and historians

* > * write or track only a few as they see it important in

* > * their context. A prophet's life is

* > * full of events every second (1/60 th of a minute).

* > * Sri Ramanujaas life ...

* >

* > So now Ramanuja is a prophet? I wonder when Mutt

* > Infallibility will be declared and the Inquisition

* > started ... ;-)

* >

* > Mani

* >-- End of excerpt from Mani Varadarajan

*

* Dear Mani,

*

* Your comments are good joke, though they are taken out of context and

* *very* reactionary as similar to such sevral past instances from you.

* The exhibition of inconsistancy by young persons in this

* group are not new to me or

* several learned members of the group. It only shows that they

* are growing in their *interest* (not faith, because faith comes

* later only)

* and we welcome it.

 

[much more deleted]

 

viRalmiku vizhuchcheer andhaNar kaakkum

aRanum, aarvalarkku aLiyum nee!

 

thiRanilOr thiruththiya theedhutheer siRappin

maRanum; maaRRalarkku aNangum nee!

 

angaN_Er vaanaththu aNin^ilaath thikazhtharum

thingaLum, theRukathirk kanaliyum nee!

 

aindhalai uyariya aNangudai arundhiRal

maindhudai oruvanum, madangalum nee!

 

nalamuzhuthu aLai_iya pukaraRu kaatchip

pulamum, poovanum, naaRRamum nee!

 

valanuyar ezhiliyum, maaka visumbum,

nilanum, neediya imayamum nee!

 

-- paripAdal 1.40-51

 

I pay my respects to Sriman NArAyanA, and his divine consort Sri.

I pay my respects to SadagOpA, Naathamuni, YamunA, and Ramanuja.

I pay my respects to all the vaishnavAs in this mailing list.

 

 

======

 

It appears like a few people in this mailing list find Mani's

objections to certain postings from elder Bhakthas distasteful.

I have myself found a few postings from Mani to be harsh,

especially the ones in response to Sri Ramaswamy's postings. I

respectfully submit that age of the poster be not considered in

evaluating the merits of a posting. I only have to mention

Bhattar and Nanjeeyar, in this connection.

 

The lighthearted comments by Mani quoted above, in fact makes a

very important point. It cautions us not to compare any of our

AcharyAs with the traditional western view of the prophets,

papacy etc. I myself do not like using the words 'Pontiff' to

refer to the matAdhipathis in India.

 

VedAntA does not ask us to believe something merely because it

has been brought to us by the "claimed messengers" of IsvarA. Sri

Ramanuja did not ask us to believe his words blindly nor did he

ever claim that he was a prophet or even an avatArA of AdisEsha.

 

I find it disturbing that several hagiographies, and in

particular the sectarian portions of the guruparampara

prabhAvam(s) trying to upstage one another by projecting one

person as an amsA of Parabrahman or one of His attendents, in a

bid to legitimise one set of views over the other.

 

In particular, the efforts to show Sri manNavaaLa maamuni as

another avatArA of AdisEsha and hence his views as that of Sri

RamAnujA himself - who is thought to be an avatArA of AdisEsha -

and therefore the "right" one as opposed to that of, say,

Desikar. Where is the pramANA for all this?

 

It is perfectly possible that all the AzhvAr and AchAryA were

mere jeevAtmA like us who through the grace of IsvarA and

brahmagyAnA attained their mukti. If they all were one or the

other amsA of the Brahman Himself, and only such people attained

mukti, is there any point at all in us, mere mortals, in trying

to understand vedAntA and aspire to attain mukti?

 

If that may be the case, why would other jeevanmuktAs like the

succeding AchAryAs wrote and claimed that the AzhvArs & AchAryAs

before them were in fact nityasUris?

 

It has to be noted that beliefs of this kind stay only within a

sampradAya. Naturally so! Because, the pramANA for all this does

not come from texts that are commonly accepted by all the

sampradAyAs, and hence only of spurious or limited value.

 

=======

 

perumaiyin vallaay! yaamivaN mozhibavai

melliya enaa_a veRaa_adhu, alliyam

thirumaRu maarba! nee! aruLal vENdum!

 

-- paripAdal 1.31-39

 

--badri

 

-----------------

Badri Seshadri

Graduate Student

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Cornell University

-----------------