Guest guest Report post Posted February 20, 2001 SrIman! SrI Ranga Sriyam anubadravam anudhinam samvardhaya/ SrIman! SrI Ranga Sriyam anubadravam anudhinam samvardhaya// KAvEri VardhathAm kAlE, kAlE varshathu vAsava:/ SrI RanganAthO jayathu SrI Ranga SrIs cha VardhathAm// =========================================================== SRI RANGA SRI VOL. I / 022 DATED 20th February 2001 =========================================================== EDITORIAL: We are glad to present the 22nd Issue of "Sri Ranga Sri" IN THIS ISSUE: 1. "GREATNESS OF BHAGAVAD RAMANUJA DARSANAM" We present Part 4 of this Series containing a critical review of the Advaitiic concept of NIR GUNA, NIR AAKARA, NIR AVAYAVA, NIR VISESHA BRAHMAN (Brahman who has no attributes, no parts, no qualities, no form, no name) 2. "QUESTION BOX ANSWERS" You will remember that we had announced the opening of a new feature - "Question Box" to answer specific doubts, suggestions and questions relating to the philosophy and practices of our tradition received addressed to "Sri_Ranga_Sri". (and NOT to the "" address) With the steady increase in membership, we are receiving increasing number of queries almost daily. Every effort is made to answer them ASAP with appropriate authority. Where a ready answer cannot be provided immediately, we refer them to our AchAryas and Scholars back home to secure authoritative explanations. This, naturally, takes some more time. Some of the queries are too personal and / or are too general. There are, however, many others that might interest the other members. We collect these latter and publish our responses for the information of our readers in a special issue, say once in a month. This is the first of such special issues. Hope you will find them interesting. You may feel free to offer your inputs on the various questions but address them to Sri_Ranga_Sri and NOT to the " address. 3. "KNOW THIS ACHARYA" We celebrate the Tirunakshatram day of Sri MadhurAntakam Swami (Masi- Avittam) falling on on 22nd February 2001. A short write up on this AchAryan finds a place in this issue. Dasoham Anbil Ramaswamy Editor & Publisher "Sri Ranga Sri" =============================================================== 1. GREATNESS OF BHAGAVAD RAMANUJA DARSANAM (GRD 4) SECTION 3 (B) NIR GUNA, NIR AAKARA, NIR AVAYAVA, NIR VISESHA BRAHMAN (Brahman who has no attributes, no parts, no qualities, no form, no name) =============================================================== [Please read the note and request given while introducing the subject. if anything has been expressed forcefully, it is only to bring home the points more graphically and is not meant to hurt anyone's feelings.] Dasoham Anbil Ramaswamy =============================================================== The Advaitins hold that there is only one Brahman that was real- the Parabrahmam without qualities, without attributes, without form, without name, without any thing to denote it. All others simply did not exist (including the "Apara Brahman" or "Saguna Brahman"). In other words, the Nirguna Brahman is the nondescript ParamAtman - which is 'Bare existence' (SanmAtra). The "Saguna Brahman" which they identified with Sri Narayana was only a stepping stone to facilitate the realization of the "Nirguna Brahman". Thus, the "Nirguna Brahman" is the seat of 'Avidya' or 'AjnAna' (i.e.) Nescience or Ignorance - a negation of all the positive qualities attributed to the "Saguna Brahman" (i) The Advaitins draw inspiration from the Vedic statement 'Neti, Neti' which literally means 'Not this, Not this' to conclude that ParamAtma is indescribable. True, ParamAtma is indeed indescribable in the sense that He defies description. "The words 'Neti, Neti' only means that you cannot limit his infinite qualities as 'this or this' either in its nature, quality, time or place or otherwise quantify them. Any auspicious epithets employed suits it, but falls far short of the actual qualities and this is dramatically portrayed in the expression 'Neti, Neti'. Otherwise, the resulting nihilism would only be a logical incongruity. " (Sri R. Kesava Iyengar) Prof. Narayanachariar clarifies: "Brahma Sutra III-2-11to 29 comprising the "Ubhayalinga AdhikaraNa and AhikuNDala AdhikaraNa treat this topic in one continuous stretch. Sutra III-2-11 is a grand preamble to the entire Upanishad. It says "SthAnatOspi parasya ubhayalinga Sarvatra Hi." Here "SthAna" means position of God ensouling Jeevas, "Sarvatra" means everywhere and "Hi" means "This is well known, indeed". and confirms clearly that - (i) God possesses all the auspicious qualities. Sarva KAma, Sarva Gandha, Sarva Rasa, Sarvajna - fulfills all desires, all fragrances, all tastes, omniscient etc. and that (ii) God is free from all forms of imperfections - Niranjanah, Nishakalam, Niravadhyam etc. - free from all taints, free from all black marks, free from all evils, free from all imperfections etc. Since both aspects are mentioned by Sruti only, a reconciliation of them is truly binding on anyone who holds Sruti in respect". Thibaut observes- " None of the Sutra decidedly favors the interpretation proposed by Shankara" ..."I decidedly prefer, for instance, RamAnuja 's interpretation of Sutra 22 as far as the sense of the entire Sutra is concerned and more especially with regard to the term "prakriyA tattvam" whose proper form is brought out by RamAnuja's explanation only" (p.xcvi of his translation of Sankara Bashya-Vol.1 in the series "Sacred Books of the East" Volume 34) When the Upanishads say that he is without qualities, it only means that he is without any bad qualities. This has to be viewed in the light of other Vedic statements which confirm that the ParamAtma is the Lord, the protector.* If he has no qualities, what would he lord over and whom would he protect?* (ii) The Advaitins claim that the "Nirguna Brahman" is a mere witness to nescience during the continuance of samsAra. It is self-defeating to say that Nirguna Brahmam has no 'consciousness attribute' and to hold in the same breath that it is a 'witness'. *When it has no consciousness at all (in other words, it is unconscious) how can it 'witness' anything at all and worse still, when there is objectively 'nothing real' to witness* (iii) Also, all negatives are the opposites of positives and should have the characteristics of these opposites which are themselves positives. Otherwise, there can be no negatives at all. *So, the concept of "Nirguna Brahman" itself is Self-contradictory. The illumination of a 'Negative bare being' is a mere euphemism for blurred vision*(Sri R. Kesava Iyengar) (iv) The Upanishads lay down Bhakti (Devotion). This implies two entities that are real the lower one that offers devotion and the other, a higher one to which the devotion is directed. *Why would the scriptures prescribe Bhakti at all if there is only one real and the others are unreal and how can it expect a `nonentity' to take to devotion as enjoined by the Saastras?* (v) The Vedas describe in elaborate detail the process of PancheekaraNam while describing the creation of the worlds. *When the "Nirguna Brahman" has no qualities creative or otherwise, no attributes, nothing to claim to be causative of anything, - how can it create the worlds as described in the Vedas?* (vi) The Vedas declare Brahman as 'exalted and exalting'. How can a Nirvisesha Brahman be exalted since exaltation implies two entities of one that is exalted and the other being much lower than the exalted one (and perhaps requiring to be exalted). *When nothing else is there, where is the question of its being exalted and whom or what can it exalt? It is like asking one to stand in a line when one is alone and none else is there to stand next * As per Troy Wilson ORGAN (p.28 in Hinduism - Its historical Development-Barron's Educational Series Inc. N. Y 1970-74t : *"Every relationship have at least two relata, two things that partake of the relationship. If there are no two relata, there cannot be a relation"* Having propounded the Nirvisesha Brahman which practically could thus do nothing, they had to resort to what is called a 'Saguna Brahman' to create, sustain, and destroy the world when due, having a divine body with the capacity to take 'AvatArs'. And, not willing to accept the supreme position of the "Saguna Brahman" they had to qualify the "Saguna Brahman" as subservient to their favorite "Nirguna Brahman" which alone they maintained was 'real'. The only real thing was the creation of TWO (Dvaita) in Brahman Himself, demolishing in the process the ONE (Advaita) Brahman they sought to establish, for negating the existence of two entities of ParamAtma and JeevAtma!. Nowhere does Sruti hold two kinds of Brahman, like "Suddha Brahman" (the terminology is foreign to Upanishads) and an "Asuddha Brahman" In this context, we are left to guess which one of the two viz. "Saguna" or "Nirguna" is the "Suddham", the other being "Asuddham"! "NIRAKARA" and "NIRAVAYAVA" BRAHMAN Prof. NarayanAchArya: "In Sri Bashyam 2-1-14, Bhagavad RamAnuja clearly explains how the SutrakAra holds that God *does* have a body, but that is very much unlike the soul's possessing one due to its earning of `karma' - sin and merit. For that matter, it is not the very idea of possessing a body that drives even the Jeeva to happiness or misery as a rule. Only if such body is the result of sin and merit it becomes a potential source of joy or misery. Otherwise, bodies taken of will, as in the state of emancipation, are all instruments of permanent bliss only as Sruti states: He possesses a single body, nay, three or multiple ones (sa ekadhA bhavathi, tridhA bhavathi- cha Chand.up. VII- 26)" =============================================================== GRD 5: SECTION3© Concept of MAya Or Illusion - will follow. ============================================================== 2. "QUESTION BOX ANSWERS" Part 1 =============================================================== (1) HOW TO PERFORM SRADDHA WHEN WIFE OF THE KARTHA IS "OUT OF DOORS" (BAHISTAI) Question : Sri Ramanujam Raghavan Answer by: Sri D. Soundararajan Swami ========================================== When the wife is "out of doors", she will not be available for apportioning rice (amindri) for offering to fire (agnisanthAnam). Also, it is not possible to perform ceremony with cooked food (annasrAddham) and the SAstras prohibit doing it by gifting rice, plantains, jaggery, colocosia (Seppan kizhangu), green dhall etc called "Sankalpa" or "Aama-srAddham" (nor can any of these be done on the 5th day after her ceremonial bath, as some hold). But, it can and must be done only with cooked food (annasrAddham) on the day of the next "thithi" (Vide page 53 of "KELvi- Badil" by Sri U.Ve. MahAvidwAn Melpakkam NarasimhAchAriar Swami published by Sri Nrisimhapriya trust, 1996 ============================================================== (2) DO THE VEDAS APPROVE OF SUICIDE? Question: Sri Krishna Kalale Answer by: Anbil Ramaswamy ================================== There is no reference in the Vedas approving of suicide. Even abortion is prohibited as "Sisuhatya" and suicide definitely cannot carry any approval. On the other hand, suicide is discouraged as a means to end problems in this life. When Sri Sita wanted to commit suicide in AsoOa Vana, AnjanEya appeared before her with the happy tidings of Lord's arrival. Similarly, when Bharata was about to self immolate himself he appeared with the happy tidings again. Whether it is mundane or spiritual, one's problems can hope to be solved, if only one lives, not when one is dead. The only way out in any circumstance is to offer prayers to the Lord. Indeed," More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of" and where do we meet God except in prayer? ============================================================== (3). IS THERE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR SRI RAMA'S ABANDONMENT OF SRI SITA WITHOUT A TRIAL? Question: Sri Krishna Kalale. {This question raised on26th December 2000 was answered by me on 2nd January 2001 based on the reply of H.H. Srimad ANDavan of PounDarikapuram Ashramam. The following answer is a supplement by Sri M.K. Ramaswamy Swamin, (Retd. Secretary, Govt. of India) He is giving a 2 part series in answer to this question. Here is the first part. The 2nd will appear as soon as it is received -- Editor} ======================================== "This is an important question. When Sri Rama took the decision to desert Sri Sita, was he acting like a God or was He acting like a man? The answer is clear. He was acting as a human being. Throughout this AvatAr, He acted with this consciousness.(VI.120.11). If Sri Rama was acting like a human being, how do we go about to understand Him? In inter-personal relationships, we try to under stand another person, his statements or actions by grappling with them with the aid of our intellect. Thus, we try to understand by (a) arriving at a conclusion or a judgment (b) treating the person with sympathy and © treating the person with empathy (the power of projecting one's personality into and so fully comprehending the object of contemplation) (a) To arrive at a judgment would amount to a show of gumption where one had not been called upon to venture either to express or act.; (b) To sympathize would show, quite erroneously that somehow we are all superior with greater command of our faculties. © To empathize and stay empathized is, perhaps, what might be appropriate here. But, even empathy might be inadequate. Sri Aurobindo would say that AvatArs is a dual phenomenon of divinity and humanity. There are at least two instances where Sri Rama looked unmistakably like a divine conscious being, more like such a one than a "DasrAtmaja". 1. In BAlakhANDam, ParasurAma identified Him as the Supreme Param purusha, Sri NArAYaNa. He said words to such an effect: "akshayyam madhuhanthAram jAnAmi tvAm surEswaramtvayA tralOkhya nAthEna" (I.17.76.17 and 19) Sri Rama who was just 13 listened without moving a muscle. He neither accepted ParasurAma's words nor did He reject them. He was also not puzzled! 2. His granting "mOksha" to JaTAyu. That was no ordinary event. That was also from the man, which Sri Rama was! It is not within the power of great Kshatriyas, even as great as Rama to grant a life in Svarga. It must be noted that Sri Rama was not praying for JaTAyu's Svarga; He was actually dispatching him there (III.68.27.30) Therefore, even if we empathized with Rama and proceeded on the basis that he was a manushya born in the manushya lOka (as said by Sri MahAVishNu Himself) "vatsyAmi mAnushE lOkE pAlayan prithveem imAm"(I.15.30), we cannot know Him completely. We would be clueless as to when He would act by resuming His contact with His divine consciousness. On the other hand, if we were to hold stubbornly to a premise that He was a divine being, we would remain clueless even then as to where was the divine door located and what went behind that door! What this would mean is that we cannot treat Sri Rama, Srimad RAmAyaNam, their words, values and the incidents strictly in a terrestrial and temporal sense. Sri Rama and Srimad RAmAyaNam are for the spirit to explore. God is realized through experience, not through sermons, books and annotations. Similarly, for a true realization one should aim to internalize. Srimad RAmAyaNam is NOT meant to be "known" or "understood"; It has to be "realized". For this purpose, it has to be approached with that unique tool – the indwelling consciousness. God likes to reveal Himself; God likes to deliver Himself. But, for that to happen, the seeker has to be a believer and an aspirant. With the giving up of one's whole consciousness into the divine, one would be able to perceive God and the rationale behind His actions" Sri M.K. Srinivasan Swamin adds- "Though Sri Rama had said "I consider myself as a mere human" (AathmAnam mAnusham manyE), WE should not judge Him by human standards and apply human laws of jurisprudence. It is just like understanding quantum mechanics and the latest string theory (of Stephen Hawking) through the elementary popular Newton's laws of motion". =============================================================== (4) WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ASWAMEDHA AND RAJASUYA YAGAS? Question: John Marshall / Jaya Tiirtha Charan Dasa Answer: Anbil Ramaswamy ============================================= "ASWAMEDHA" means "horse Sacrifice". In Vedic times, it was performed by Kings who desired offspring. At the end of the yAga, the horse was killed with certain ceremonies. In the time of MahAbhAratha, it was performed only by kings. This implied that he who instituted it was a conqueror and king of kings. It was believed that a 100 such yAgas performed could help an ordinary mortal king to overthrow the throne of Indra and to become the ruler of the universe and sovereign of the gods. A horse of a particular color was consecrated and was turned loose to wander at will for one year. The King or his men followed the horse with a battalion and when the animal entered a foreign territory, the ruler thereof was bound either to fight or submit. If the one who instituted returned triumphantly after the one- year period, the vanquished kings accompanied him as his tributaries; But, if he failed, he was disgraced and his pretensions exposed. At the end of the triumphant tour, the horse was sacrificed. ================================= "RAJASUYA" was performed at the time of installation of a King, religious in nature but political in its operation, because it implied that he who instituted the sacrifice was a supreme lord, a king over kings and his tributary princes were required to be present at his coronation. (Authority: "A Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and Religion, Geography and literature" by John Dowson Heritage Publishers, New Delhi,1992) ============================================================== (5) "IDOL" OR "ICON"- WHICH IS CORRECT? Question and Answer by: Sri Rami Sivan. {In the series "Sri Ranga Vijayam", references were made as to how the ArchA vigraha of Lord Sri RanganAtha came into the hands of IkshvAghu dynasty, then on to VibheeshaNa and how it came to be consecrated in Srirangam. A western member of "Sri Ranga Sri" from Sydney, Australia was upset over the use of the word "idol" with reference to the "ArchA vigraha" of the Lord. Please read our reply and his further comments thereon and favor us with your feedback to Sri_Ranga_Sri and NOT to the "" address. -- Editor} ============================================== He wrote:- "Dear Sir Adiyen dasanudasan I am a westerner who was given SamAsrayaNam by His Holiness Yatiraja Jiyar Swamigal of Sriperumbudur. Some years back I was appointed as AchArya of the Ten Sampradaya by His Holiness. Here in Sydney Australia we have established a branch of the Yatiraja Jiyar Matt with both Indian and western members, and are having regular programs, Bhagavad aradhanai, upanyasa and kAlakshEpams, utsavams etc. We have jokingly called ourselves "Metgalai" Sampradaya, because there are certain points of the Vadakalai Sam. which we consider as correct and some points of the Tengalai Same of which are more valid. The long -standing conflict between the two branches of the Sampradaya should be bridged, we feel, Swami Desikan was indeed one of the greatest luminaries that appeared post Bhashyakara, but Manavalamamuni was not without greatness and wisdom. We in Australia study the works of both the AchAryas with equal reverence. I have a great regard for your journal but there is one thing that disturbs me greatly being a westerner; - the use of the word IDOL. This is a horrible, pejorative term coined by missionaries to denigrate the practice of ArchA Aradhana - it is a term of colonialism, cultural oppression and religious imperialism that should never be used by us. The correct term to use is ICON, it is a neutral term in modern society and is also the name which the Catholics apply to their own ArchA. Yours humbly in the service of Srimannarayana and the prapannas. Sri Rama Ramanuja Acharya ================================================= Our Reply: Dear Swamin: I am so happy to learn about the unity efforts in Sydney and your multifaceted kainkaryams. I am also trying my best in this regard in the U.S.A. You have observed- "there is one thing that disturbs me greatly being a westerner; the use of the word IDOL. This is a horrible, pejorative term coined by missionaries to denigrate the practice of ArchA Aradhana - it is a term of colonialism, cultural oppression and religious imperialism that should never be used by us. The correct term to use is ICON, it is a neutral term in modern society and is also the name which the Catholics apply to their own ArchA". I appreciate the spirit in which you have advised the use of the word "Icon" in the place of "Idol". As per the standard dictionaries, both the words are synonymous and nothing pejorative about the word "idol" (Vide "Roget's Thesaurus of English words and phrases" pages 940-941) The meanings of the word "Idol" are as follows: Image, Exceller, Desired object, Person of repute, Loved one, Favorite, Good man, God, etc. The meanings of the word "Icon" are as follows: Copy, Image, Picture, Ritual object etc. You may kindly review with reference to the above and if you still feel that "Idol" may not be used, please feel free to inform me. ================================================== His further Comments: Dear Anbil Adiyen Dasanudasan! Thank you very much for replying to me in spite of your busy schedule. I refer to your dictionary definitions. The use of language is not only according to the literal dictionary definitions - but also culturally based. I know that in India alone it is very common for Hindus to refer to Archas as Idols. In the west the same Archas in churches and religious establishments are never referred to as idols but as icons. So although this usage is common amongst Hindus and perfectly acceptable - to westerners this is a very negative term used to denigrate, never to appreciate. So in my teaching I have always found it useful to use the culturally based language of the masses. I teach many westerners and whenever they hear this word idol they cringe. If you read the bible you will find this term used pejoratively against the gods of the pagan masses and it states quite clearly the God of the bible hates idol worship and idolaters. So, Western culture is informed by biblical ideas and concepts and hence the discomfort with this term. If your magazine and upadeshams are directed only at expatriate Srivaishnavas - there is no problem and my well-intentioned remarks are merely superfluous but if you anticipate reaching out to western readers and potential prapannas - then I think you should consider changing terms. For your interest I am including some quotes from the Bible. Thank you for your time Dasanudasan RamAnuja Dasan ============================================================== IDOLS AND THE BIBLE: Jehovah¹s views on idol worship Ex 20:3-5 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, Ex.17:7 They must no longer offer any of their sacrifices to the goat idols to whom they prostitute themselves. This is to be a lasting ordinance for them and for the generations to come.' Eze 23:49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and you shall bear the sins of your idols: and you shall know that I [am] the Lord GOD. Ex 20:23 Do not make any gods to be alongside me; do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold. Ex 23:24 Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces. Ex 32:31 So Moses went back to the LORD and said, "Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves idols of gold. De 32:16 They made him jealous with their foreign gods and angered him with their detestable idols. As you can see from the foregoing the term IDOL always has negative associations in the Judeo-Christian culture. Jehovah¹s views on other religious groups (Hindus, Buddhists, jains etc) Ex 23:33 Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you." Ex 34:15 "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. De 7:16 You must destroy all the peoples the LORD your God gives over to you. Do not look on them with pity and do not serve their gods, for that will be a snare to you. De 7:25 The images of their gods you are to burn in the fire. Do not covet the silver and gold on them, and do not take it for yourselves, or you will be ensnared by it, for it is detestable to the LORD your God. De 12:2 Destroy completely all the places on the high mountains and on the hills and under every spreading tree where the nations you are dispossessing worship their gods. De 12:3 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places. Jos 24:23 "Now then," said Joshua, "throw away the foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the LORD, the God of Israel." 1Sa 15:23 For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry. 1Co 10:14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. Jehovah on Non Judeo/Christian spiritual masters (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain etc.) De 18:20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death." Jehovah¹s views on Conversion to another religion De 13:6 -11 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no-one among you will do such an evil thing again. 12-16 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must enquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. Ga 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, ====================================================================== More Questions and Answers will follow in Part 2 ====================================================================== 3. "KNOW THIS ACHARYA"- MahAvidwAn MADURANTAKAM Tirumalai EechambADi Veera RAghava MahA Desikan SwAmi (VikAri -Masi- AviTTam) Anbil Ramaswamy ===================================================== He was born on 28th February 1900 in VasishTa KouNDinya GOtram. You will remember our celebrating his Centenary on 4th March 2000. Born in the family entitled to "first water" (agra-theertham) at the temple of "YEri kAtharAman" at MadurAnthakam, he obtained proficiency in Vedas and Prabandams through Adhyayanam, SAstrAbhyAsam etc. He learned `PrAmANya vAdam" under the great "Swachchandham SwAmi", an authority in "NyAya SAstra" and came out in flying colors in the very first attempt at the Colleges at PudukkoTTai and Tiruvananthapuram. He did kAlakshEpams in Ubhaya VedAntham and Bhara-samarpaNam at the feet of the great AchArya known as "GaruDapuram SwAmi". He worked as the Head of Department of NyAya at TiruvaiyAru College.. He was honored with several titles like "NyAyavisishTAdvaita SirOmaNi", "Tharka Rathnam" (AyOdhya Sabha), "NyAya VedAnta kEsari" (Tirupathi Sabha), and "Desika Darsana RatnAkaram" (Madurai Sabha). His works: 1. NyAya Parisuddhi VivaraNam 2. VyAkhyAtraya ParitrANam 3. GitA VyAkhyAnam 4. JitantA VyAkhyAnam 5. SampraDaya SudhA 6. RakshA Vimarsam 7. PoorvAchArya Darsanam 8. TirumaDal VivaraNam 9. Essays in bot languages (Sanskrit and Tamil) running to thousands of pages 10. Several poems on SampradAya ( Not come out in print) =============================================================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
