|You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : January 1996|
From: Sampath Rengarajan (srengara_at_ford.com)
Date: Tue Jan 09 1996 - 05:31:11 PST
Sri Oppiliappan Sri Boomi dEvi thiruvadikaLE saraNam Thanks to Mr. Mani for clarifying the roles of the group to the new members and alike, and thus maintaining the decorum of this forum. I am convinced by Mr. Mani and It is on his and Mr. Dileepan Parthasarathy's insistance that I want to get back and actively involve in the discussions in this group. I am convinced that "thondar kuzhaam" and projects such as the 108 DD needs volunteers who are dedicated and as a thondar one must need to help other thondars understand the importance of this organisation. The word "Thondar" as explained by Mr. Dileepan Parthasarahthy, cannot be any better explained in the context of the proposed organisation. Thanks to Dr. Sadagopan for the timely reminder of the "Vedu pari" episode and subsequent glossary of references to thondar in aazhwaar's paasurams. I want to touch pace with two aspects of the word thondar as felt by the aazhwaar who is in no doubt, can be a role model for "prapanna". The vedu pari episode and the subsequent manthraabadEsam, for thirumangai aazhwaar took place in thiruk kaNNa puram. OF the 108 DD's referred in 4000 songs this one of the "Top Tens" of the temple in terms of "number of songs on any single temple". To be precise, this is the third shekthram and with 128 paasurams, next only to thirupapathi (the first is obviuosly srirangam). This shekthram is also knwon as "Srimath ashtaakshara mahaa manthrasidhdhi shekthram". Thiru mangai aazhwaar, sung in praise of this "kaNNapuram perumal" in periya thirumozhi as, maRRum Or theyvam uLathenRu iruppaarOdu uRRilEn uRRathaum unnadiyaarkku adimai maRRellam pEsilum nin thriuvettezhuththum kaRRu naan kaNNapuraththurai yammaanE (8-10-3) "1. As a prapanna, I will not associate with those who think that besides you there are other worshipable archaamorthis. I desired and accepted my role as a thondar of your bakthaas only." (leave alone worshipping or talking, or diluting the prapannaas roles in the modern society, aazhwaar says that he will not join hands even if one thinks the validity of other moorthis as worshipable) . Secondly he desires to be a thoNdar for bakthaas. Some of the core srivaishnavass derive that service to such non thondars as a disservice to sriman narrayaana in the context that when there are so many thondars of sriman naaraayanaa out there needing assitance how can one do their "thondar service" in terms of time, energy and resource for those, who are not even convinced fully with Sriman naaraayanaa as the only param purushaa and would want to dilute the very "mahaa vishvaasam" that stand as the first step of the saraNaghathi ladder. In this context I want to add a "suggestion" that every member of the new entity "thondar kuzhaam" as thondar (described by aazhwaar) and as seeker will not want to compromise our principles in any way and dilute our resolve either in the name of individual ego or in the context of finding ways to co-exist with other faiths, both in our discussions and as well as in the service to temples and thondars. I strongly feel that we cannot live in isolation but at the same time have to maintain our identity in a private forum like this and all discussions and "activities" and comparisons on other faiths should only be academic. This is way beyond the scope of the discussion started by Mr. Dileepan Parthasarathy. However since he stated in his request that he wants some discussion also, I took the liberty to start a discussion on these fundamental basis and minimum roles of the kuzhaam. I repeat his E-mail requesting for discussions. Sampath Rengi On Jan 8, 11:53am, Parthasarati Dileepan wrote: > Subject: Whats in the name... > > On January 16, 1996 (Thai 1st) I am planning to file the > charter for Sri Vaishnava Thondar Kuzhaam. Once filed, > we cannot make changes to the name or the charter. The > by-laws may be amended by the members as laid down in > the charter. > > In this note I wish to submit to the group some of the > thinking that went into the selection of the name. I also > would like to request some discussion.