Sri Ramanuja Journal Volume 3 Issue 5

[Guest guest]

* *

 

* SrimathE rAmAnujAya

namaH*

 

* SrimathE

varavaramunaye namaH*

 

* *

 

*Margazhi, Vyaya

Azhvar 3, Acharya 5*

 

* *

 

* *

 

*azhagiyamaNavALapperumAL nAyanAr*

 

*thirunakshathram : mArgazhi aviTTam*

 

 

 

*dhanur jyEshTha samudbhUtham lOkAchArya padASritham*

 

*vandE varaguNAvAsam varajAmAthr dESikam*

 

* *

 

*drAviDAmnAya hridayam guruparvakramAgatham*

 

*ramyajAmAthru dEvEna darSitham krishNasUnunA*

 

* *

 

*AchArya swAntha vakthAram abhirAmavarAditham*

 

*SrIkrishNa thanayam vandE jagadguruvarAnujam*

 

* *

 

*In the divine year 1205 CE swami piLLai lokacharyar took birth in aippasi

thiruvonam nakshthram, to sri vadakkuth thiruvIthi piLLai. During the first

birthday of swami piLLai lokacharyar, the child was taken to periyaperumal

sannidhi for mangaLASasanam. When all the maryadais (honors) were given to

piLLai lokacharyar, namperumal through the archaka (archaka mukhEna) said to

nampillai " ummai pOlE oru piLLai kodutthIrE ini nammai pOlE oru piLLai

kodum" (you gave a child to vadakkuthiruvithi piLLai who is like you, now

give him a child who is like me). So it has to be counted that swami took

his birth in 1207 CE. *

 

*In accordance to that swami azhagiya maNavALapperumAL nAyanar took his

divine birth on margazhi aviTTam. nAyanAr had his panchasamskAram from his

father Sri vaDakkuthiruvithipiLLai, Sribhashyam from swami nampiLLai and

thiruvAymozhi and rahasyas from swami piLLai lOkAchAryar. Both stayed as

naishTika brahmacharis throughout their life. *

 

*It is well known that swami ulagAriyar composed 18 rahasya granthas. Among

the 18th granthas mamunikal says in upadESarathnamAlai *

 

*yAr vachanabhUshaNatthin AzhpoRuLellAm arivAr*

 

*yAr athu sonnErilanuTTippAr OruruvaruNdAkil….*

 

*Sri vachanabhUshana divyasAsathram became an unparalleled work. Also known

as vakuLabhUshaNa sAsthra sAram. It is said in yathIndrapravanaprabhAvam

that at that time some people out of jealousy went to namperumAL and

complained thus. *

 

*"perumALE! piLLai lOkAcharyar through composing srivachanabhUshanam is

going against the darSanam". lOkAcharyar was summoned but since he was away

from his thirumaLigai nAyanar represented instead. When questioned by

namperumAL, nAyanAr gave an appropriate answer to namperumAL. It is said

that this was done during a veedhi puRappAdu (divine procession around the

streets), and as namperumAL was moving in procession, nAyanAr kept on

lecturing. Hence was born the immaculate AchAryahridayam. In

AchAryahridayam nAyanAr expressed that swAmi piLLai lOkAchAryar did nothing

wrong but only wrote what he imbibed faithfully from the traditional

succession of preceptors, that thiruvAymozhi has more sanctity than vedas

and it contained what is taught in geetha itself and it unparallels bhagavad

geetha also. *

 

 

 

*swAmi dEsikan in lOkAcharya panchASath pays homage like this*

 

*vANI puNya sudhApagAm SaThajithaH savairam vigAhyAdarAth*

 

*AnIyAmrithamathra chakrathurubhau pAnIyaSAlAthmakam*

 

*Yau vAgbhUshaNa dESikEndra hridayAbhikya prabandha dwayam*

 

*Thau vandE bhuvanArya sundaravarau krishNAthmajau dESikavu *

 

*10 lOkAchArya panchASath*

 

*I Prostrate to two AchAryas piLLai lOkAcharyar and azhagiyamaNavALapperumAL

nAyanAr the sons of Krishna padar for the two famed compositions by them,

the ornament of sri sukthis (SrIvachanabhUshaNam) and the heart of the fore

most AchArya (AchArya hridayam), as if the nectar brought here like the cool

drink in a stall from the flood of nectar called the sacred utterances of

SaThakOpa with exhilaration of plunging in it with abandon. (The authorship

of lokacharyapanchasath is reportedly swami desikan Courtesy BSS Iyengar's

English translation of Acharyahridayam)*

 

* *

 

*Works of swami AMP nAyanAr can be divided in to two types, Esoteric works

and Commentaries. *

 

*Esoteric works*

 

1. *AchArya hridayam*

2. *aruLicheyal rahasyam*

 

*Commentaries *

 

1. *Thiruppavai 6000ppaDi*

2. *amalanAdipirAn*

3. *kaNNinun chirutthAmbu*

 

*swAmi nAyanAr instructed AchAryahridayam to thirunArAyaNapuram Ayee

jananyAcharyar which was later helpful to swami mamunikal's commentary.

Without mamunikal's commentary one would not have dared to open this

wonderful rahasya grantha. As the author of the English translation of

acharya hridayam states, one's understanding of thiruvAymozhi is incomplete

with out the study of AchAryahridayam. aRuLicheyal rahasyam is a less

studied work, in which swami nAyanAr uses words from aruLicheyals its self

to explain the meaning of rahasya thrayam. It has three prakaranams and it

is a very complicated work as well. *

 

*The commentaries of nAyanAr are unparalleled. ThiruppAvai 6000ppaDi

commentary is a wonderful one and is a gem when compared to the

2000ppaDi/4000ppaDi of Ayee swami, and 3000ppaDi of periyav AchAnpiLLai. So

is the commentary to amalanAdipirAn. *

 

*"Tham sIrAr vayya guruvin thambi mannu maNavALamuni seyyum avaithAnum sila"

says swami mAmunikaL in upadESarathnamAlai *

 

*AchArya hridayam: its style and commentary*

 

*After the times of emperumanar there was a hike in the number of

commentaries for divyaprabandham, even though emperumAnAr did not comment

personally for a single prabandham. nAyanAr states in AchArya hridyaam

chUrnai 65 *

 

*bhAshyakArar idhukoNdu sUthrangaL orungaviDuvar *

 

*only with the help of thiruvAymozhi in mind, emperumAnAr could explain the

brahmasUthrAs and write the sArIrika mImAmsAbhAshyam called SrIbhAshyam.

Hence the foundations of vishishTAdwaitha sampradAyam was made on the basis

of wonderful aruLicheyals but what was left was to comment on

aruLicheyalkals itself. Hence five generations of AchAryas from

thirukkuRukai pirAn piLLan, namjIyar, nampiLLai, peiryavAcchAn piLLai and

piLLailOkAcharyar and azhagiyamaNavALapperumAl nAyanAr did compensate for

this by their commentaries and rahasya granthas. AchArya hridayam is the

crowing glory which substantiates both vaDakalai (sanskrit) and thenkalai

(Tamil) together. *

 

*chenthiRattha thamizh engayAlE Agasthyamum AnAdi (AchArya hridayam)*

 

* *

 

*AchArya hridayam is a sUthra grantham, with four prakaraNas akin to

brahamasUthras, with 234 suthrams all together. The beauty of the suthram

lies in the play of his words, the way of taking Tamil words from

aruLicheyalkaL and Sanskrit words from Upanishads, ithihasas and purAnAs

combining them with his own words like 'ikk', 'ichhu' , 'ennum' etc. swami

thirunArAyaNapuram Ayee jananyAchArya swami wrote the first commentary which

was the torch for periyajeeyar for writing the commentary on it. *

 

*In the next issue we shall continue about nAyanAr's works.*

 

*

 

*

 

*Varavarmuni dAsargaL*

[Guest guest]

Dear swamin,

 

It is a very good journal. Looking wonderful with the pictures when

hosted in the Vedics website.

 

I have a few obseravtions, which I hope will be taken positively:

 

1. upadESarathnamAlai to be written/uttered as ubathESarathhinamAlai.

2. When written/uttered in pure Thamizh, we need to

say "vaSanaboodaNatthin" and not vachanabhUshaNam.

 

dAsan

Vishnu

 

>

> *It is well known that swami ulagAriyar composed 18 rahasya

granthas. Among

> the 18th granthas mamunikal says in upadESarathnamAlai *

>

> *yAr vachanabhUshaNatthin AzhpoRuLellAm arivAr*

>

> *yAr athu sonnErilanuTTippAr OruruvaruNdAkil….*

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sri:

 

adiyen beg to differ in the pronunciation for "ubathESarathhinamAlai". It is "upadEsaraththinamAlai" not 'uba'. In fact, the correct pronunciation is neither 'pa' nor 'ba'. It is a gentle stress of 'pa' leading to 'ba'. Only a context sensitive diction and definitely cannot be replaced by 'ba'. http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/fabricius/ provides some help in this regard.

 

adiyen

dasan

 

 

Vishnu <vsmvishnu (AT) (DOT) co.in>

ramanuja

Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:58:06 AM

[sri ramanuja] Re: Sri Ramanuja Journal Volume 3 Issue 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear swamin,

 

 

 

It is a very good journal. Looking wonderful with the pictures when

 

hosted in the Vedics website.

 

 

 

I have a few obseravtions, which I hope will be taken positively:

 

 

 

1. upadESarathnamAlai to be written/uttered as ubathESarathhinamAl ai.

 

2. When written/uttered in pure Thamizh, we need to

 

say "vaSanaboodaNatthin " and not vachanabhUshaNam.

 

 

 

dAsan

 

Vishnu

 

 

 

>

 

> *It is well known that swami ulagAriyar composed 18 rahasya

 

granthas. Among

 

> the 18th granthas mamunikal says in upadESarathnamAlai *

 

>

 

> *yAr vachanabhUshaNatthi n AzhpoRuLellAm arivAr*

 

>

 

> *yAr athu sonnErilanuTTippAr OruruvaruNdAkil… .*

 

>

 

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<!--

 

#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}

#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}

#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}

#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}

#ygrp-text{

font-family:Georgia;

}

#ygrp-text p{

margin:0 0 1em 0;

}

#ygrp-tpmsgs{

font-family:Arial;

clear:both;

}

#ygrp-vitnav{

padding-top:10px;

font-family:Verdana;

font-size:77%;

margin:0;

}

#ygrp-vitnav a{

padding:0 1px;

}

#ygrp-actbar{

clear:both;

margin:25px 0;

white-space:nowrap;

color:#666;

text-align:right;

}

#ygrp-actbar .left{

float:left;

white-space:nowrap;

}

..bld{font-weight:bold;}

#ygrp-grft{

font-family:Verdana;

font-size:77%;

padding:15px 0;

}

#ygrp-ft{

font-family:verdana;

font-size:77%;

border-top:1px solid #666;

padding:5px 0;

}

#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{

padding-bottom:10px;

}

 

#ygrp-vital{

background-color:#e0ecee;

margin-bottom:20px;

padding:2px 0 8px 8px;

}

#ygrp-vital #vithd{

font-size:77%;

font-family:Verdana;

font-weight:bold;

color:#333;

text-transform:uppercase;

}

#ygrp-vital ul{

padding:0;

margin:2px 0;

}

#ygrp-vital ul li{

list-style-type:none;

clear:both;

border:1px solid #e0ecee;

}

#ygrp-vital ul li .ct{

font-weight:bold;

color:#ff7900;

float:right;

width:2em;

text-align:right;

padding-right:.5em;

}

#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{

font-weight:bold;

}

#ygrp-vital a {

text-decoration:none;

}

 

#ygrp-vital a:hover{

text-decoration:underline;

}

 

#ygrp-sponsor #hd{

color:#999;

font-size:77%;

}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov{

padding:6px 13px;

background-color:#e0ecee;

margin-bottom:20px;

}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{

padding:0 0 0 8px;

margin:0;

}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{

list-style-type:square;

padding:6px 0;

font-size:77%;

}

#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{

text-decoration:none;

font-size:130%;

}

#ygrp-sponsor #nc {

background-color:#eee;

margin-bottom:20px;

padding:0 8px;

}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad{

padding:8px 0;

}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{

font-family:Arial;

font-weight:bold;

color:#628c2a;

font-size:100%;

line-height:122%;

}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{

text-decoration:none;

}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{

text-decoration:underline;

}

#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{

margin:0;

}

o {font-size:0;}

..MsoNormal {

margin:0 0 0 0;

}

#ygrp-text tt{

font-size:120%;

}

blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}

..replbq {margin:4;}

-->

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Padmanabhan,

 

I stand corrected. I checked with Dr. M.S.Rangacharya swami of

Tirplicane and it is to be pronounced as "ubadhESaratthinamAlai".

The sanskrit "pa" becomes fully modified to "ba" and "dhE" still

remains as it is, since it is coming in between. This is how it is

taught in traditional santhai classes. Mistakes are occurring due to

some over-enthusiastic taking up classes and poor printing in

Telugu/Kannada script, with only ritualistic reverence for the divya

prabandham.

 

adiyen

Vishnu

ramanuja, Sampath Kumar Padmanaban

<janasampath wrote:

>

> Sri:

>

> adiyen beg to differ in the pronunciation

for "ubathESarathhinamAlai". It is "upadEsaraththinamAlai"

not 'uba'. In fact, the correct pronunciation is neither 'pa'

nor 'ba'. It is a gentle stress of 'pa' leading to 'ba'. Only a

context sensitive diction and definitely cannot be replaced by 'ba'.

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/fabricius/ provides some help

in this regard.

>

> adiyen

> dasan

>

[Guest guest]

Swamin.

I have a question. The way pa becomes fully modifed to ba in Tamil, Does Poo also becomes

boo. does it mean that when writing Poorvacharyargal should we write Boorvacharyargal. Adiyen does not know Tamil grammar. One more question is in tradional santhai classes does Poorvacharyargal is taught as Boorvacharyargal. Adiyen is igonrant of divya prabhandam and apologies for my ignorance.

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

Sreenivasan Ramanujam

 

Vishnu <vsmvishnu (AT) (DOT) co.in> wrote:

Dear Sriman Padmanabhan,

 

I stand corrected. I checked with Dr. M.S.Rangacharya swami of

Tirplicane and it is to be pronounced as "ubadhESaratthinamAlai".

The sanskrit "pa" becomes fully modified to "ba" and "dhE" still

remains as it is, since it is coming in between. This is how it is

taught in traditional santhai classes. Mistakes are occurring due to

some over-enthusiastic taking up classes and poor printing in

Telugu/Kannada script, with only ritualistic reverence for the divya

prabandham.

 

adiyen

Vishnu

ramanuja, Sampath Kumar Padmanaban

<janasampath wrote:

>

> Sri:

>

> adiyen beg to differ in the pronunciation

for "ubathESarathhinamAlai". It is "upadEsaraththinamAlai"

not 'uba'. In fact, the correct pronunciation is neither 'pa'

nor 'ba'. It is a gentle stress of 'pa' leading to 'ba'. Only a

context sensitive diction and definitely cannot be replaced by 'ba'.

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/fabricius/ provides some help

in this regard.

>

> adiyen

> dasan

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Ramanujam,

 

No! It remains "poo" and is to be chanted as "pUruvASAriyarhaL",

where "SA" is the same as in "SAradhA". Normally the things which

begin with "ka" (e.g. karuNai), "ta", "tha" (e.g. thavam) and "pa"

will remain as they are. In case of "ubadhESarathhinamAlai", the

consonant "pa" is preceded by the vowel "u". In case of "cha",

and "ja", they get modified to "Sa" e.g. "pUruvASAriyarhaL"

(URM), "irAmAnuSa" (nUtthandhAdhi).

 

Like "prakriti" and "vikriti" in Telugu grammar, it is a similar

reversal of consonants when imported into the local language. To say

something beyond, I too don't know Tamil grammar:)

 

When you are quoting from ManipravALa texts, you should not distort

the original sanskrit words. There is a special script

called "grantha" used by Purvacharyas to write the sanskrit things.

 

This means, it is "SrIvachana BhooshaNam" when you read a

maNipravALa/sanskrit/telugu work, and it is "SIr vaSana bUdaNam"

when you read ubadhESaratthinamAlai.

 

Do all these matter? One may say. The tradition of accurate chanting

is waning, hence needs to be preserved.

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan

Vishnu

 

ramanuja, Sreenivasan Ramanujam

<sreenivasan wrote:

>

> Swamin.

>

> I have a question. The way pa becomes fully modifed to ba in

Tamil, Does Poo also becomes

> boo. does it mean that when writing Poorvacharyargal should we

write Boorvacharyargal. Adiyen does not know Tamil grammar. One

more question is in tradional santhai classes does Poorvacharyargal

is taught as Boorvacharyargal. Adiyen is igonrant of divya

prabhandam and apologies for my ignorance.

>

> Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

> Sreenivasan Ramanujam

>

>

>

> Vishnu <vsmvishnu wrote:

> Dear Sriman Padmanabhan,

>

> I stand corrected. I checked with Dr. M.S.Rangacharya swami of

> Tirplicane and it is to be pronounced as "ubadhESaratthinamAlai".

> The sanskrit "pa" becomes fully modified to "ba" and "dhE" still

> remains as it is, since it is coming in between. This is how it is

> taught in traditional santhai classes. Mistakes are occurring due

to

> some over-enthusiastic taking up classes and poor printing in

> Telugu/Kannada script, with only ritualistic reverence for the

divya

> prabandham.

>

> adiyen

> Vishnu

> ramanuja, Sampath Kumar Padmanaban

> <janasampath@> wrote:

> >

> > Sri:

> >

> > adiyen beg to differ in the pronunciation

> for "ubathESarathhinamAlai". It is "upadEsaraththinamAlai"

> not 'uba'. In fact, the correct pronunciation is neither 'pa'

> nor 'ba'. It is a gentle stress of 'pa' leading to 'ba'. Only a

> context sensitive diction and definitely cannot be replaced

by 'ba'.

> http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/fabricius/ provides some

help

> in this regard.

> >

> > adiyen

> > dasan

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Srimathe ramanujaya Namaha

 

Dear Sri Vishnu,

 

You have written "pUruvASAriyarhal" Which should actually be

pUruvAchAryarkal since 'SA' is not a tamil word we have only 'cha' in

tamil. And it is not 'hal'but 'kal' again 'ha' is a sanskrit letter

and in tamil we have only 'ka'. Again it is not 'uba' it is only

'upa' as again in tamil there is only pa and not ba. some letters like

sa,sha,ha,ksha etc have been added to tamil to help easy understanding

of transliterations from sanskrit. Though adiyen does accept the fact

that our acharyas have stressed the point of chanting appropriately

the tamil and sanskrit arulicheyals and stotras, that is restricted to

chanting and when it comes to discussion of the meanings of the same

it doesnt make much difference since we should know the root of the

word to know the exact meaning. Since in these groups we are more

concerned about discussing the wonderful meanings of our sampradayam

such discussions of language and how to pronounce can be ignored as

long as the meaning is not distorted.

 

Adiyen ramanuja dAsee

Sumithra Varadarajan

 

ramanuja, "Vishnu" <vsmvishnu wrote:

>

> Dear Sriman Ramanujam,

>

> No! It remains "poo" and is to be chanted as "pUruvASAriyarhaL",

> where "SA" is the same as in "SAradhA". Normally the things which

> begin with "ka" (e.g. karuNai), "ta", "tha" (e.g. thavam) and "pa"

> will remain as they are. In case of "ubadhESarathhinamAlai", the

> consonant "pa" is preceded by the vowel "u". In case of "cha",

> and "ja", they get modified to "Sa" e.g. "pUruvASAriyarhaL"

> (URM), "irAmAnuSa" (nUtthandhAdhi).

>

> Like "prakriti" and "vikriti" in Telugu grammar, it is a similar

> reversal of consonants when imported into the local language. To say

> something beyond, I too don't know Tamil grammar:)

>

> When you are quoting from ManipravALa texts, you should not distort

> the original sanskrit words. There is a special script

> called "grantha" used by Purvacharyas to write the sanskrit things.

>

> This means, it is "SrIvachana BhooshaNam" when you read a

> maNipravALa/sanskrit/telugu work, and it is "SIr vaSana bUdaNam"

> when you read ubadhESaratthinamAlai.

>

> Do all these matter? One may say. The tradition of accurate chanting

> is waning, hence needs to be preserved.

>

> adiyen ramanuja dasan

> Vishnu

>

> ramanuja, Sreenivasan Ramanujam

> <sreenivasan@> wrote:

> >

> > Swamin.

> >

> > I have a question. The way pa becomes fully modifed to ba in

> Tamil, Does Poo also becomes

> > boo. does it mean that when writing Poorvacharyargal should we

> write Boorvacharyargal. Adiyen does not know Tamil grammar. One

> more question is in tradional santhai classes does Poorvacharyargal

> is taught as Boorvacharyargal. Adiyen is igonrant of divya

> prabhandam and apologies for my ignorance.

> >

> > Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

> > Sreenivasan Ramanujam

> >

> >

> >

> > Vishnu <vsmvishnu@> wrote:

> > Dear Sriman Padmanabhan,

> >

> > I stand corrected. I checked with Dr. M.S.Rangacharya swami of

> > Tirplicane and it is to be pronounced as "ubadhESaratthinamAlai".

> > The sanskrit "pa" becomes fully modified to "ba" and "dhE" still

> > remains as it is, since it is coming in between. This is how it is

> > taught in traditional santhai classes. Mistakes are occurring due

> to

> > some over-enthusiastic taking up classes and poor printing in

> > Telugu/Kannada script, with only ritualistic reverence for the

> divya

> > prabandham.

> >

> > adiyen

> > Vishnu

> > ramanuja, Sampath Kumar Padmanaban

> > <janasampath@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Sri:

> > >

> > > adiyen beg to differ in the pronunciation

> > for "ubathESarathhinamAlai". It is "upadEsaraththinamAlai"

> > not 'uba'. In fact, the correct pronunciation is neither 'pa'

> > nor 'ba'. It is a gentle stress of 'pa' leading to 'ba'. Only a

> > context sensitive diction and definitely cannot be replaced

> by 'ba'.

> > http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/fabricius/ provides some

> help

> > in this regard.

> > >

> > > adiyen

> > > dasan

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Smt Sumithra,

 

I was talking only about chanting, which I am sure is chanted

as "pUruvASAriyarhaL" in all traditional santhai schools. I dont

know Tamil script, to comment on how it is written.

 

Your intentions may be good when writing "pUrvAchAryarkaL" instead

of "pUruvASAriyarhaL". I suggest these standards be maintained when

transliterating sanskrit:) I was able to see things

like "bhaktAngrunEham" in Ramanuja journal.

 

But many people when chanting also commit similar mistakes, like

saying "gOvindhA" instead of "kOvindhA" etc..Hence I felt like

creating some awareness. Hope you agree that there is no difference

between "gO" and "kO" in Tamil script.

 

In Hindi script, it is written as "rA ma". But people pronounce and

transliterate as "rAm" only!

 

Distortion of sanskrit words is there in all Indian languages

including Hindi. For example trayOdaSI is called "tEras" and

chaturdaSI "chaudhas" in Hindi. Vishnu is called "vennudu" when

distorted in Telugu. So one need not shy away from using distorted

sanskrit words, particularly when they are used by our Azhwars. At

least in Sri thennacharya sampradayam, we don't believe in sanskrit

supremacy or the supremacy of any language for that matter.

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan

Vishnu

 

 

ramanuja, "sumithra varadarajan"

<sumivaradan wrote:

>

> Srimathe ramanujaya Namaha

>

> Dear Sri Vishnu,

>

> You have written "pUruvASAriyarhal" Which should actually be

> pUruvAchAryarkal since 'SA' is not a tamil word we have only 'cha'

in

> tamil. And it is not 'hal'but 'kal' again 'ha' is a sanskrit

letter

> and in tamil we have only 'ka'. Again it is not 'uba' it is only

> 'upa' as again in tamil there is only pa and not ba. some letters

like

> sa,sha,ha,ksha etc have been added to tamil to help easy

understanding

> of transliterations from sanskrit. Though adiyen does accept the

fact

> that our acharyas have stressed the point of chanting appropriately

> the tamil and sanskrit arulicheyals and stotras, that is

restricted to

> chanting and when it comes to discussion of the meanings of the

same

> it doesnt make much difference since we should know the root of the

> word to know the exact meaning. Since in these groups we are more

> concerned about discussing the wonderful meanings of our

sampradayam

> such discussions of language and how to pronounce can be ignored as

> long as the meaning is not distorted.

>

> Adiyen ramanuja dAsee

> Sumithra Varadarajan

[Guest guest]

Dear Vishnu,

 

2. When written/uttered in pure Thamizh, we need to

say "vaSanaboodaNatthin " and not vachanabhUshaNam.

 

Regarding "vaSanaboodaNatthin", I think "cha" is very much

allowed. "cha" is the third consonant in tamil(ka, nga, cha) and

hence during translation, the "cha" of sanskrit need not morph itself

to "Sa" and could be retained as "cha" of tamil as it exists in the

destination language (similar to "AchAryan", for which we don't

say "AsAryan"). Since "sh" is not there in tamil, "bhUshaNam"

became "bUdaNam". So, I think it is correct to pronounce it

as "vachanabhUdaNam" and have heard many people pronounce thus.

Comments and corrections are welcome.

 

adiyEn,

dAsan.

 

 

ramanuja, Sampath Kumar Padmanaban

<janasampath wrote:

>

> Sri:

>

> adiyen beg to differ in the pronunciation

for "ubathESarathhinamAlai". It is "upadEsaraththinamAlai" not 'uba'.

In fact, the correct pronunciation is neither 'pa' nor 'ba'. It is a

gentle stress of 'pa' leading to 'ba'. Only a context sensitive

diction and definitely cannot be replaced by 'ba'.

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/fabricius/ provides some help

in this regard.

>

> adiyen

> dasan

>

>

> Vishnu <vsmvishnu

> ramanuja

> Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:58:06 AM

> [sri ramanuja] Re: Sri Ramanuja Journal Volume 3 Issue 5

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Dear swamin,

>

>

>

> It is a very good journal. Looking wonderful with the pictures when

>

> hosted in the Vedics website.

>

>

>

> I have a few obseravtions, which I hope will be taken positively:

>

>

>

> 1. upadESarathnamAlai to be written/uttered as ubathESarathhinamAl

ai.

>

> 2. When written/uttered in pure Thamizh, we need to

>

> say "vaSanaboodaNatthin " and not vachanabhUshaNam.

>

>

>

> dAsan

>

> Vishnu

>

>

>

> >

>

> > *It is well known that swami ulagAriyar composed 18 rahasya

>

> granthas. Among

>

> > the 18th granthas mamunikal says in upadESarathnamAlai *

>

> >

>

> > *yAr vachanabhUshaNatthi n AzhpoRuLellAm arivAr*

>

> >

>

> > *yAr athu sonnErilanuTTippAr OruruvaruNdAkil… .*

>

> >

>

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> <!--

>

> #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-

serif;}

> #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

> #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99%

arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}

> #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}

> #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}

> #ygrp-text{

> font-family:Georgia;

> }

> #ygrp-text p{

> margin:0 0 1em 0;

> }

> #ygrp-tpmsgs{

> font-family:Arial;

> clear:both;

> }

> #ygrp-vitnav{

> padding-top:10px;

> font-family:Verdana;

> font-size:77%;

> margin:0;

> }

> #ygrp-vitnav a{

> padding:0 1px;

> }

> #ygrp-actbar{

> clear:both;

> margin:25px 0;

> white-space:nowrap;

> color:#666;

> text-align:right;

> }

> #ygrp-actbar .left{

> float:left;

> white-space:nowrap;

> }

> .bld{font-weight:bold;}

> #ygrp-grft{

> font-family:Verdana;

> font-size:77%;

> padding:15px 0;

> }

> #ygrp-ft{

> font-family:verdana;

> font-size:77%;

> border-top:1px solid #666;

> padding:5px 0;

> }

> #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{

> padding-bottom:10px;

> }

>

> #ygrp-vital{

> background-color:#e0ecee;

> margin-bottom:20px;

> padding:2px 0 8px 8px;

> }

> #ygrp-vital #vithd{

> font-size:77%;

> font-family:Verdana;

> font-weight:bold;

> color:#333;

> text-transform:uppercase;

> }

> #ygrp-vital ul{

> padding:0;

> margin:2px 0;

> }

> #ygrp-vital ul li{

> list-style-type:none;

> clear:both;

> border:1px solid #e0ecee;

> }

> #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{

> font-weight:bold;

> color:#ff7900;

> float:right;

> width:2em;

> text-align:right;

> padding-right:.5em;

> }

> #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{

> font-weight:bold;

> }

> #ygrp-vital a {

> text-decoration:none;

> }

>

> #ygrp-vital a:hover{

> text-decoration:underline;

> }

>

> #ygrp-sponsor #hd{

> color:#999;

> font-size:77%;

> }

> #ygrp-sponsor #ov{

> padding:6px 13px;

> background-color:#e0ecee;

> margin-bottom:20px;

> }

> #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{

> padding:0 0 0 8px;

> margin:0;

> }

> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{

> list-style-type:square;

> padding:6px 0;

> font-size:77%;

> }

> #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{

> text-decoration:none;

> font-size:130%;

> }

> #ygrp-sponsor #nc {

> background-color:#eee;

> margin-bottom:20px;

> padding:0 8px;

> }

> #ygrp-sponsor .ad{

> padding:8px 0;

> }

> #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{

> font-family:Arial;

> font-weight:bold;

> color:#628c2a;

> font-size:100%;

> line-height:122%;

> }

> #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{

> text-decoration:none;

> }

> #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{

> text-decoration:underline;

> }

> #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{

> margin:0;

> }

> o {font-size:0;}

> .MsoNormal {

> margin:0 0 0 0;

> }

> #ygrp-text tt{

> font-size:120%;

> }

> blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}

> .replbq {margin:4;}

> -->

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriman Lakshmi Narasimhan,

 

When we say "Acharyan", "Narasimhan", "vishNu" etc., we are talking

pure sanskrit words in thamizh, of course with a thamizh suffix at

end. But when we say, "vaSana" in a pure thamizh work like URM, it

is by some rules of phonetics, which only learned scholars know. I

explained it to some devotees including moderators, and can't say

more, due to my own limitations.

 

General goshti chantings are not a pramANam, particularly I know abt

the sanskrit chantings:)

 

People learn from scholars, but their own slips of tongue get added.

In addition, over-enthusiastically they take up santhais.

 

WISH YOU ALL A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR 2007.

 

adiyen ramanuja dasan

Vishnu

 

ramanuja, "Lakshmi Narasimhan"

<nrusimhann wrote:

>

> Dear Vishnu,

>

> 2. When written/uttered in pure Thamizh, we need to

> say "vaSanaboodaNatthin " and not vachanabhUshaNam.

>

> Regarding "vaSanaboodaNatthin", I think "cha" is very much

> allowed. "cha" is the third consonant in tamil(ka, nga, cha) and

> hence during translation, the "cha" of sanskrit need not morph

itself

> to "Sa" and could be retained as "cha" of tamil as it exists in

the

> destination language (similar to "AchAryan", for which we don't

> say "AsAryan"). Since "sh" is not there in tamil, "bhUshaNam"

> became "bUdaNam". So, I think it is correct to pronounce it

> as "vachanabhUdaNam" and have heard many people pronounce thus.

> Comments and corrections are welcome.

>

> adiyEn,

> dAsan.

>

>

> ramanuja, Sampath Kumar Padmanaban

> <janasampath@> wrote:

> >

> > Sri:

> >

> > adiyen beg to differ in the pronunciation

> for "ubathESarathhinamAlai". It is "upadEsaraththinamAlai"

not 'uba'.

> In fact, the correct pronunciation is neither 'pa' nor 'ba'. It is

a

> gentle stress of 'pa' leading to 'ba'. Only a context sensitive

> diction and definitely cannot be replaced by 'ba'.

> http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/fabricius/ provides some

help

> in this regard.

> >

> > adiyen

> > dasan

> >

> >

> > Vishnu <vsmvishnu@>

> > ramanuja

> > Wednesday, December 27, 2006 12:58:06 AM

> > [sri ramanuja] Re: Sri Ramanuja Journal Volume 3 Issue 5

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Dear swamin,

> >

> >

> >

> > It is a very good journal. Looking wonderful with the pictures

when

> >

> > hosted in the Vedics website.

> >

> >

> >

> > I have a few obseravtions, which I hope will be taken positively:

> >

> >

> >

> > 1. upadESarathnamAlai to be written/uttered as

ubathESarathhinamAl

> ai.

> >

> > 2. When written/uttered in pure Thamizh, we need to

> >

> > say "vaSanaboodaNatthin " and not vachanabhUshaNam.

> >

> >

> >

> > dAsan

> >

> > Vishnu

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> >

> > > *It is well known that swami ulagAriyar composed 18 rahasya

> >

> > granthas. Among

> >

> > > the 18th granthas mamunikal says in upadESarathnamAlai *

> >

> > >

> >

> > > *yAr vachanabhUshaNatthi n AzhpoRuLellAm arivAr*

> >

> > >

> >

> > > *yAr athu sonnErilanuTTippAr OruruvaruNdAkil… .*

> >

> > >

> >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > <!--

> >

> > #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-

family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-

> serif;}

> > #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}

> > #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99%

> arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}

> > #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}

> > #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}

> > #ygrp-text{

> > font-family:Georgia;

> > }

> > #ygrp-text p{

> > margin:0 0 1em 0;

> > }

> > #ygrp-tpmsgs{

> > font-family:Arial;

> > clear:both;

> > }

> > #ygrp-vitnav{

> > padding-top:10px;

> > font-family:Verdana;

> > font-size:77%;

> > margin:0;

> > }

> > #ygrp-vitnav a{

> > padding:0 1px;

> > }

> > #ygrp-actbar{

> > clear:both;

> > margin:25px 0;

> > white-space:nowrap;

> > color:#666;

> > text-align:right;

> > }

> > #ygrp-actbar .left{

> > float:left;

> > white-space:nowrap;

> > }

> > .bld{font-weight:bold;}

> > #ygrp-grft{

> > font-family:Verdana;

> > font-size:77%;

> > padding:15px 0;

> > }

> > #ygrp-ft{

> > font-family:verdana;

> > font-size:77%;

> > border-top:1px solid #666;

> > padding:5px 0;

> > }

> > #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{

> > padding-bottom:10px;

> > }

> >

> > #ygrp-vital{

> > background-color:#e0ecee;

> > margin-bottom:20px;

> > padding:2px 0 8px 8px;

> > }

> > #ygrp-vital #vithd{

> > font-size:77%;

> > font-family:Verdana;

> > font-weight:bold;

> > color:#333;

> > text-transform:uppercase;

> > }

> > #ygrp-vital ul{

> > padding:0;

> > margin:2px 0;

> > }

> > #ygrp-vital ul li{

> > list-style-type:none;

> > clear:both;

> > border:1px solid #e0ecee;

> > }

> > #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{

> > font-weight:bold;

> > color:#ff7900;

> > float:right;

> > width:2em;

> > text-align:right;

> > padding-right:.5em;

> > }

> > #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{

> > font-weight:bold;

> > }

> > #ygrp-vital a {

> > text-decoration:none;

> > }

> >

> > #ygrp-vital a:hover{

> > text-decoration:underline;

> > }

> >

> > #ygrp-sponsor #hd{

> > color:#999;

> > font-size:77%;

> > }

> > #ygrp-sponsor #ov{

> > padding:6px 13px;

> > background-color:#e0ecee;

> > margin-bottom:20px;

> > }

> > #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{

> > padding:0 0 0 8px;

> > margin:0;

> > }

> > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{

> > list-style-type:square;

> > padding:6px 0;

> > font-size:77%;

> > }

> > #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{

> > text-decoration:none;

> > font-size:130%;

> > }

> > #ygrp-sponsor #nc {

> > background-color:#eee;

> > margin-bottom:20px;

> > padding:0 8px;

> > }

> > #ygrp-sponsor .ad{

> > padding:8px 0;

> > }

> > #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{

> > font-family:Arial;

> > font-weight:bold;

> > color:#628c2a;

> > font-size:100%;

> > line-height:122%;

> > }

> > #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{

> > text-decoration:none;

> > }

> > #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{

> > text-decoration:underline;

> > }

> > #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{

> > margin:0;

> > }

> > o {font-size:0;}

> > .MsoNormal {

> > margin:0 0 0 0;

> > }

> > #ygrp-text tt{

> > font-size:120%;

> > }

> > blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}

> > .replbq {margin:4;}

> > -->

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>