RE:

[Guest guest]

Dear BhakthAs : There was a question about

the Upanishad portion quoted in adiyEn's

earlier posting on " NenjamE " .

 

Here is the full Upanishadic text and

some additional comments for perspective.

 

Daasan, V.SatakOpan

Srimath Azhagiya Singar ThiruvadigaLE saraNam .

 

At 06:46 PM 6/22/00 +0530, Sri K.M.Narayanan wrote:

 

>Respected Swamin,

>You had referred in your mail,

>

> " AaathmAnam raThinam Viddhi "

>

> " Could you inform me where do we find this verse and

>what is the full verse ..Please help

>

>Dasan

>K.M.Narayanan

 

Dear Sriman Narayanan :

 

Thanks for your note. Other BhakthAs might be intersted

in this information as well .Hence I am copying the list.

 

This Sruthi (Upanishadic) passage is from

the third valli of kaThopanishad : Manthram 3.

The entire manthram is:

 

aathmAnam raThinam viddhi sarIram raThamEva cha

buddhim thu saaraThim viddhi Mana: pragrahamEva cha

 

AathmAnam is the Jeevan; RaThinam is the Lord of the chariot;

SarIram is the raTham (Chariot) ; Buddhi is the SaaraThi

(Charioteer);Mana: is the pragraham( reins).

 

The next manthram of the KaThopanishad takes

the analogy one step further:

 

indhriyANi hayAnAhur-vishayAmsthEshu gOcharAn

aathmEndhriya manOyuktham bhOthyAhur-manIshiNa:

 

The IndhriAs (5 sense organs & 5 karmEndhriyAs))

are the horses that draw the chariot of the body ;

VishayAn thEshu gOcharAn= for them (sense organs),

the roads are the sense objects; The Upanishad says that

the sense horses trot on the road of sense objects.

The wise sages (Rishis , who were the manthra dhrashtAs

for the Upanishads) call Him the enjoyer (when He is )

united with the body , senses and the mind.

 

Manas as reins plays a key role in controlling the route

of the horses (Sense organs and action organs) regarding

the travel of the chariot housing the Jeevan .

 

That is why , the appeals to " nenjamE " not to go

astray and to repeat the naamams of the Lord and

AchAryans are made by the AzhwArs in their

Paasurams in line with the path laid out by

the VedAs.

 

Additional references in the Rg Vedam, the oldest

of the Vedams , to the mind are many . One of them is

as follows:

 

ManO nvA huvAmahE nArasamsEna sOmEna

pithruNAm manmabhi: --Rg .vedam 10.57.3

 

The second part of the third Rk, " pithruNAm manmabhi:

(huvAmahE) " says: with lyrics praising the elders ( AchAryans ),

we invoke the mind . The context for this can be gleaned

from the first Rk of Rg Vedam 10.57.

 

The first Rk of 10.57 addresses the Lord for control

over the mind: " O Illustrious Lord! Let us not stray

from the righteous path (vishayAn thEshu gocharAn of

KaThopanishad ) , nor from the path of noble action

( of practising Bhakthi or Prapatthi Yogam ).

 

That is why the AzhwArs following the Vedic path

created the Tamizh MaRais and appealed to their

Nenjams (minds) to recite the names of the PrathamAchAryan

and instructed us to eulogize one's sadhAchAryan .

 

Srimath Azhagiya Singar ThiruvadigaLE SaraNam ,

Daasan, V.SatakOpan

[Guest guest]

 

sadagopan iyengar [sadagopaniyengar]

Sunday, October 01, 2000 6:37 AM

bhakti-list ; ; dileepan;

mshari

Subject:

 

> i request you to note the change in my email address

> and sewnd future mails to the new address only.thanks,

> sadagopan

 

 

 

namo narayana!

 

adiyEn would like to request members NOT to send requests

for change of e-mails to the entire list. Kindly direct

such requests only to dileepan. It is not fair

to burden the members of the list with e-mails they have

no use for.

 

-- adiyEn

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sudarshanan:

 

Thanks for your observation ( at the bottom of this response).

 

You are correct. These were very difficult times

for the Sri Matam . After the 27th pattam Srimath

Azhagiya Singar , there was a vaccum of 1 year and

11 Months ( Aug 17, 1831 to July 7, 1833).There was

no PeetAdhipathi during this time.

 

The time coverage for the 16 Azhagiya Singars from

28th to 43rd Jeeyars (1831-1953) was just 84 years.

As you pointed out , it was approximately three generations.

 

Except for the 33rd , 41 and 42nd Pattam Azhagiya Singars,

who reigned for 67 years between themselves , the rest of

the 12 jeeyars sat on thre throne for a total of

17 years. The 43rd Jeeyar occupied the SimhAsanam

in 1953 and reigned for 5 years and 10 months .

 

Fom the 28th Pattam Azhagiya Singar to 43rd Pattam,

(July 7 ,1833 to March 13 ,1953)the time periods from

AaasthAnam to Parama Padham are as follows:

 

1) 28th pattam : 3 years & 5 Months(1833-1836)

2) 29th pattam: 1 year and 1 Month(1836-37)

3) 30th Pattam: 5 yrars and 6 months ( 1837-1842)

4) 31st Pattam: 4 years and 4 Months( 1842-47)

5) 32nd pattam: 6 Years and 7 Months(1847-1853)

6) 33rd pattam: 26 Years (1853-1879)

7) 34th pattam: 3 Years and 1 Month ( 1879-1882)

Atthippattu Azhagiya Singar

 

8) 35th pattam: 5 years and 10 months ( 1882-1888)

KaLatthUr Azhagiya Singar

 

9) 36th pattam : 10 years and 4 Months( 1888-1898)

10) 37th pattam : Just Eleven Months (1898-1899)

 

MAJOR GAP AFTER THIS AZHAGIYA SINGAR: 5 YEARS & 7 MONTHS:

THERE WERE NO PEETAADHIPATHIS. SRI MATAM WAS IN RECEIVERSHIP

AND AARAADHANAM WAS AT NRUSIMHAPURAM FROM SANNIDHI

PARICHAARAGAALS( 1899-1905).

 

DURING THIS PERIOD (1901 C.E) , THE FUTURE43RD PATTAM

AZHAGIYA SINGAR WAS BORN AT DEVANAAR VILAAGAM.

 

11) 38th pattam : 3 years and 11 Months ( 1905-1909)

12) 39th pattam : 6 years ( 1909-15)

13) 40th pattam : 9 years and 9 months ( 1915-1923)

Pancha samskAram with this Jeeyar for DevanAr ViLAgam

Lakshmi Narsimhan and started the KaalkshEpam , but

could not complete it due to the ascent to Parama Padham

of the 40th pattam Jeeyar in 1923.

 

14) 41st pattam : 18 years and 9 months ( 1923-1941)

Devanaar Vilaagam Lakshmi NarasimhAcchAr Swamy was

fourty years old and completed his Grantha Chathushtya

KaalkshEpam under the 41st Jeeyar ( Kaarukkurichi

Azhagiya Singar).

 

15) 42nd pattam : 23 years an 10 months (1929-1953).

 

16) 43rd Pattam Jeeyar: 5 years and 10 months ( 1953-1957)

 

Thus , SriMatam SishyAs and AbhimAnis had a lot of

difficult times due to the facts that you highlighted

below.

 

Thanks very much for your insightful question.

 

Srimath Azhagiya Singar Thiruvadi , V.Sadagopan

 

 

 

At 07:34 PM 8/21/01 +0800, you wrote:

>Sri Raamajayam

>SrimathE GopAla DEsika MahA DEsikAya Namaha

>

>Dear Maama,

> Relating to Swamins nice write-up, it caught AdiyEn by surprise.

" Now , coming back to HH The 27th pattam Jeeyar , He had in His

poorvAsramam a daughter by name SrirangammA .She had no issues

and adopted in her fifties Partthipattu ThiruvEnkatAcchAr ,

who would become the father of HH The 43rd Jeeyar later. "

>

>Looking at the above, it looks as though there were 43-27=16 Acharya Swamis

in a matter of 3 generations(ie.27th Jeer in Poorvasramam ->

SrirangammAl(50) -> Partthipattu ThiruvEnkatAcchAr -> 43rd Azhagiya

Singhar)ca.100 years. Should have been difficult times for Sri Vaishnava

Sishya KOti of Sri Ahobila Mutt(and other Sri Vaishnavites alike).

>

>AdiyEn

>

>

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrImathE Gopaladesika mahadesikaya namah:

 

Dear Sri Satakopan mama,

 

Thanks for your detailed information.

 

you wrote:

>>

10) 37th pattam : Just Eleven Months (1898-1899)

 

MAJOR GAP AFTER THIS AZHAGIYA SINGAR: 5 YEARS & 7 MONTHS:

THERE WERE NO PEETAADHIPATHIS. SRI MATAM WAS IN RECEIVERSHIP

AND AARAADHANAM WAS AT NRUSIMHAPURAM FROM SANNIDHI

PARICHAARAGAALS( 1899-1905).

 

DURING THIS PERIOD (1901 C.E) , THE FUTURE43RD PATTAM

AZHAGIYA SINGAR WAS BORN AT DEVANAAR VILAAGAM.

 

11) 38th pattam : 3 years and 11 Months ( 1905-1909)

 

>>

 

I would just like to supplement (an extract from Dr SrI VN Vedantha

Desikan's Swamin's write up on SRimad Poundarikapuram Andavan Ashramam)

 

Dr. VNV Swamin writes:

 

quote:

 

A special kind of link between the Ahobila Mutt and Sri Poundarikapuram

Andavan Asramam deserves mention in this connection. Once a gap occurred

in the Ahobila Mutt; for some five years (1900-1905).

 

The Poundarikapuram Andavan His Holiness SrI Srinivasa Mahadesikan of this

Asramam had proudly helped in securing a deserving candidate and giving him

Sannyasa order and installing him as the Pontiff (the 38th). This happened

in 1905.

 

unquote:

 

Regards

Narayana Narayana

aDiyEn Narayana dAsan madhavakkannan

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr.Thiyagarajan

 

Welcome to this elite group of Vaideeham. I am personally benefitted by

this vaideeham fgroup.

 

 

 

" THIYAGARAJAN

RAMACHANDRAN "

<vaideekam >

<thiyagarajan@msn cc:

.com>

 

12/11/04 06:22 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My name is R.Thiyagarajan living in USA

 

I want to learn few aspects of our Hindu sampradayams and hence my interest

in joining this group.

I hoe to benefit from joining.

Thanks.

 

Yours truly

Thiyagarajan

 

 

[Guest guest]

photo photo2 photo3

[Guest guest]

photo photo2 photo3

[Guest guest]

DSC-00465.jpg

 

 

 

DSC-00466.jpg

 

DSC-00467.jpg

[Guest guest]

photo photo2 photo3

[Guest guest]

photo photo2 photo3

[Guest guest]

DSC-00465.jpg

 

 

 

DSC-00466.jpg

 

DSC-00467.jpg

[Guest guest]

DSC-00465.jpg

 

 

 

DSC-00466.jpg

 

DSC-00467.jpg

[Guest guest]

DSC-00465.jpg

 

 

 

DSC-00466.jpg

 

DSC-00467.jpg

[Guest guest]

DSC-00465.jpg

 

 

 

DSC-00466.jpg

 

DSC-00467.jpg

[Guest guest]

DSC-00465.jpg

 

 

 

DSC-00466.jpg

 

DSC-00467.jpg

[Guest guest]

Dear Ms Chandra I could not see the attachments in your email. Kindly save as a readable doc and resend. Regards Srikanth chandraparthasarathy <chandraparthasarathy wrote: DSC-00465.jpg DSC-00466.jpg DSC-00467.jpg

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Autos

[Guest guest]

photo photo2 photo3

[Guest guest]

DSC-00465.jpg

 

 

 

DSC-00466.jpg

 

DSC-00467.jpg

[Guest guest]

photo photo2 photo3

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Raman,

Nice to know of your interests. You can see www.ahobilam.com for all the informations you require.It is a website run by Sri Deevalur Srinivasan abt Vaishnavism,Vaideekam ,Anmeekam etc and details about 108 Divya desams are already there in Tamil. Now English version is being updated.

regards

T K Parthasarathy

with love and cheers T KParthasarathy

Chennai

 

 

raghu raman <ksr_raman To: Subject: IntroductionFri, 31 Aug 2007 06:32:18 +0100 (BST)

 

 

 

 

Namaskarams,

 

I thanks for joining me in this group. I am intrested in knowing about our Tradition & Culture and more about Vaishnavism. I am very ardent devotee of Sri Bhagavat Ramanujacharya. I am very keen to know about our 108 Divyadesams and also about Alwars & Aharyas.

 

 

 

Pranams to Elders,

Wishes to Yougers.

 

 

Raghu Raman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now

 

Real Estate classifieds on MSN - for free. www.yello.in

[Guest guest]

SrI:

 

Dear Viji :

 

The name comes from the first word of

this Prabhandham by a great AzhwAr , who had

looked into all Darsanams and concluded finally

without reservations that Sriman NaarAyaNan

is the Jagath KaaraNan , Jagath Rakshakan and

Moksha Daayakan . Naanmukhan was created

first by the Lord , who in turn created Sankara

in that hierarchy of creation . That is why Naanmukhan

is highlighted .

 

The Fist passuram asserts His convictions and

his intention to create an andhAthi about this

upadEsam :

 

Naanmukhanai NaarAyaNan padaitthAn ,

Naanmukhanum thAn mukhamAi SanakranaitthAn,-- PadaitthAn .

yaanmukhamAi andhAthi mElittaRivitthEn Aazh poruLai

chinthAmal koNNmineer thErnthu

 

This is an AzhwAr known for " straight talk".

Therefore he used the words : Aaazh PoruLai

chinthAmal koNNmimineer thErnthu ".

 

Thirumazhisai AzhwAr ThiruvadigaLE SaraNam ,

V.Sadagopan

 

-

Viji Jagan

Tuesday, April 08, 2008 6:31 AM

 

 

 

 

Dear Asthikas,

Nanmukan thiruvanthathi-------- why is it so named eventhough it does notpraise

about Nananmukan- thatis Brahma .

Is it because alwar starts the prabandam With nan mukan?

Pranms

Vijaya

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Padmanaban swami,Two things:1) Uthamoor swami mentions "Appullar and Desikan may be remembered here."2) Definitely Parakala Nayaki seeing SvAmy Desikan appears to be a bit too far and i stand by my objection for this. Kaliyan and Desikan is not there in Sri Uthamoor swami vyakyanam. But as I have mentioned in my previous email that Kaliyan seeing Desikan is not too far. When rishis can predict Nammazwar and acharyas, can't Kaliyan predict Desikan? Though Uthamoor swami does not mention this kaliyan-Desikan, I see no academic reason for any apacharam for such an anubhavam too. Kaliyan can very much predict desikan. And Madhavakannan swami clearly mentioned what Obeissance means - that is acharyan praising sishyan not worshipping. I see no reason why Kaliyan cannot predict Swami Desikan's avatharam and do praise(kataksham) to swami desikan? You may have your objection but it need not be valid.Further,We are talkign of

Uthamur svami on one hand and you are comparing Svami Desikan's with PVP's,. I think this is out of context.My words are NOT comparison, if you read them again. I only object that PVP swami's can't be the final word for ALL sishyas of ALL paramaparai. The reason being Swami Desikan had shown in many places his differences with PVP swami. Uthamoor swami is an exponent of swami Desikan's preachings and hence his vyakyanams need not revolve about PVP swami's - got it?. Further, if mere mention of Appullar and Desikan for an azhwar paasuram is to be condemned, just because PVP swami does not mention about Appullar and Desikan, then "Thulya-nyAyath" - NO OTHER ACHARYAN would also deserve to be alluded to any azhwar paasuram - not just Tirunedunthandakam. So am not comparing, but I am stressing and objecting that PVP swami's commentaries are NOT the final words for ALL sishyas.

There is no Svamy Desikan's vyaknAnam for ThirunedunthANdakam and there is no difference of opninion in this context. So let us settle at that.There is no difference of opinion in this context agreed but my point is since there are difference of opinions between Swami Desikan and PVP swami, PVP swami's cannot be the final word for ALL. Uthamoor swami, being an exponent of Desikan's works can very well be sought as a final word for Desikan's sishyas. So there is no question of revolving about PVP ' swami vyakyanam by ALL. As far as i am concrened. Sri PVP vyAkyanam is the only one for ThirunedunthANdakam and whenever there is a differences of opinion like above, i am constrained to point it so. That is what am saying PVP swami's vyakyanam on Thirunedunthandakam is the final word FOR YOU and not for EVERYONE. Further, you are talking about raising objections. There are two kinds of objections1) Objections pertaining to philosophy. That is, when someone distort Udaiyavar sidhantham then we object. But we know there are 2 philosophical interpretations in Udaiyavar sampradayam. So when such controversial philosophical interpretations are discussed it is apt to mention whose opinion it is. For eg, regarding Doshabhogyatvam one should mention that it is Pillai Lokacharyar's opinion else it would mislead Desikan's sishyas. So the objection in philosophical issues should be NOT be there for mentioning the philosophy(which may not be ur acharya's views) but the objection should be for

NOT mentioning which acharyan's philosophy it is.2) Objections pertaining to anubhavams: If someones pours out some anubhavam that hurts and does apacharam to one's own acharya or the sidhantham then that should be condemned, In the current case even the one kalyan-desikan, which is NOT mentioned by Uthamoor, does not come under the category of (a) apacharam to acharya (b) distortion of siddhantham. since we know rishis predict azhwars, anubhavams can come out as azhwar prediciting and praising Desikan.I can see only one reason behind objecting other's anubhavams that does not hurt acharya or distort philosophy. But I sincerely hope that is not the reason in your case.AravindalochanananI

 

If you still feel there is a bad taste, i cannot help it and let us stop at that.

 

Pls. clarify whether Sri UthamUr svAmy did say this ?

 

thanks

dasan

vanamamalai padmanabhan

 

 

 

-

Aravind Gopalan

Padmanabhan

Thursday, July 03, 2008 2:12 PM

Re:

 

 

 

 

Dear Swami,No. I did not think that you had scant respect fro swami Desikan since just one mail is not enough to judge a person.Coming to PVP swami commentry: I have done kalakshepams in the traditional way under my acharyan and I have learnt PVP's swami commentry for few things. All acharya commentries are to be respected. I dont buy the statement that all vyakyanams got to revolve about PVP swami's vyakyanams. But it is not correct to mention an anubhavam without mentioning the vyAkyAtha's name. Madhavakannan swami had mentioned that he always refers to Uthamoor swami. So people who would like to stick only to PVP swami can skip it and there is no chance for them to get mislead.Further I dont value the statement that PVP swami's commentry is the last authoratative word. There are many instances in chatusloki, Gadya vyakyanams where Swami Desikan and pointed his own difference of opinion with PVP swami. Since both the acharyas are udaiyavar thiruvadis it is not apt to say Swami Desikan's or PVP swami's words are the last. Respective sishyas would take their respective acharyan's vyakyanams. So all we need to do is mention the vyakyatha's name. Uthamoor swami seems to have merelt mentioned Appullar and Desikan may be remembered in this instant. Now who has the right to stop Appullar praising Desikan?When there is no apacharam committed to any acharyas it is not correct to unneccesarily break the following of anubhavams with posts with bad taste.regards,AG--- On Thu, 7/3/08, Padmanabhan <aazhwar wrote:

Padmanabhan <aazhwarRe:"balaji_gop" <balaji_gopThursday, July 3, 2008, 7:07 AMDear SvAmi,You are writing that as if that i dont have any respects to SvAmi Desikan and AppuLLAr.It is not so.The fact is that Sri PVP svAmi had given a vyAkyAnam and the fact remains what is quoted is not in vyAkyAnamUdayavar did not give vyakyanam-s and that is why emerged the five great commenatries for TiruvAimozhi. Agreed. However, this does not give us passport to interpret to our wishes and not along with Sri PVP vyAkyanam.I feel that Sri PVP svamy's commentary is the only one we have to revolve around but we can give simple explanations , we can translate into pure tamil, we can try to give lectures in colloquial language.If this goes on it will open floodgates for people go on say whatever they want to their desires.Neither you nor me can raise or reduce the greatness of SvAmi Desikan by doing like this.I dont agree

with your argument and let us stop at this.Think, tomorrow what will happen if I is start saying that vaykyanam says this and that and say that it should not just revolve around PVP vyAkyAnam. It would lead to chaos.Reg. UthamUr svAmi, i have got hihgest regards for him but i cannot agree that he can be a substitute for PVP.A need for refrreing to orignal vyAkyanam is need of the day and these explanations can at best be helping in understanding the original vyAkyanam-s,.The explanations cannot go to the extnet of overshooting the orignal ones.This is our opinion.If you have do not concur with this, you are entitled to do so.dasanvanamamalai padmanabhan- "balaji_gop" <balaji_gop"Padmanabhan" <aazhwarThursday, July 03, 2008 12:31 AMDear Padmanaban swamin,It is

well known that one of the reasons for Udaiyavar not giving avyakyanam for Azhwar srisookthis is that people usually dont commenton a moolam which Udaiyavar already had commented. Thus Udaiyavar didnot want to stop the divyanubhavams of his sishyas from pouring out asvyakyanams. If PVP swamin's commentary has to be the only commentaryand all anubhavams should be revolving about it then it would meanthat Swami Desikan had committed apacharam by writing Nigama Parimalam.Coming to the parrot episode. Swami Desikan in Sampradaya prakriyabhaagam of Srimad Rahasya Traya Saram mentions that he is a mereparrot who was taught to speak by Appullar. Appullar and Swami Desikanare Acharya purushaas belong to our Emperumaanaar Darsanam. So it isapt to mention the anubhavam of Uthamoor swami alluding to Desikan andAppullar. When Madhavakannan swami clearly mentions that he is givingus the divyanubhavams of

Uthamoor swami, there is no reason forconfusion. Those who feel that Uthamoor swami's vyakyanams aresaampradayic would relish others would skip it.Dasan,Aravindalochanadasanudasan

[Guest guest]

SrI:

Dear Smt. Gopalan :

 

This information has been posted a few days

back in Sri Ranga Sri and Oppiliappan

groups . Please do some google search or go

directly to the mail groups and use the search

options first .

 

It is interesting that same questions are

asked repeatedly , when a simple search will

connect one to already available informationin great detail .

 

V.Sadagopan

Moderator , Oppiliappan Group

 

 

-

ANURADHA Gopalan

Saturday, February 21, 2009 9:13 AM

 

 

 

Dear Sri Ranga Sri members,it would be great if anyone could post the sranavanam dates for the year 2009 for India and USAthanks

Anu & Suresh

 

Discover your phone style WIN a Windows Mobile phone. Your style! Try it now!

[Guest guest]

Dear Swamin,

Insistence on these rites, which nobody can follow, is retarded thinking. Does not make much sense. Nobody in the right mind should insist. If it feels good just do it, the best you can, with what you have and where you are. Don't expect any rewards, other than satisfaction that you did. Also for conformity with likewise foolish society. But don't feel guilty that you did not do it properly, because we are disqualified to do any such Vedic rites in the strict sense. There are no Iyengars in the Vedas- the source of last rites. No heritage to my knowledge has misunderstood varNa and embraced stupidity for such a long period, even in the face of texts like Bhagavad-Gita staring at us. Wake up!

 

Adhering to such rites rigidly will make Hinduism the MOST EVER CLUMSIEST of RELIGIONS!

Do you see what you are doing? Do you like that? Why embrace GaruDa purANam when you have Bhagavad-Gita?

With people who adhere to such rites as ultimate eternal truth, Hinduism does not need any enemies. Think till you get right attitude about rites. Let us as a community do a maanasika sAmoohika shraaddham for one last time that this vestigial rite (tail) never raise over head again.

 

I said mAnasika, don't go looking for dharbham and pavitram or a vAdhyAr.

 

dAsan

 

KST

 

 

 

 

SUDARSANAN <sudarsanan

 

Fri, Jun 19, 2009 7:51 am

 

 

Sir:

It is very much essential to do the last rites. It is good for the family.

But, one has to do properly and knowledgeable vadiyars are available. In north it is very difficult to get our iyengar vadiars and some times we may have to donote money to asarams to feed poor people on the particular day.

sudarsanan

---