Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Sri Agnihotram swamy and Srivaishnavism- by sri Dileepan

From the Bhakti List Archives

Mani Varadarajan • January 6, 1999 


Before we continue this discussion, I think we should pause 
for a moment.  Sri Agnihotram Ramanuja Tatachariar (ART) Swami's 
words of blessing (srimukham) were sent to a different forum,
and were reposted here merely for the sake of disagreeing with 
them. Do we want to publicly argue with the Swami, when he is 
not here to defend himself?

Furthermore, several respected members of this List have 
vociferously argued in the past that an Acharya's words should
be given utmost respect, especially in a forum for Sri Vaishnavism.
Sri Agnihotram Ramanuja Tatachariar is an outstanding Vedic
scholar with impeccable credentials. Even more important,
Sri ART comes from a distinguished acharya-purusha lineage
that can be traced back to Sri Ramanujacharya's uncle, and has
several disciples among Bhakti List members. Sri ART continues
to administer the sacraments of panca-samskAram and bhara-nyAsam
to his disciples today, and lives a very pure, orthodox lifestyle.

I have personally no problem with anyone taking issue with what
an acharya says.  But those who are presently arguing publicly
with what Sri ART has written have severely criticized anyone
who has publicly disagreed with their own acharya in the past.
I want to make sure that they are adhering to the same standard.

Now, I don't agree with most of what Sri ART says; but I also 
think it is okay to disagree now and then with what an acharya
says on some issues, whether that acharya be Sri ART, Srimad
Azhagiya Singar, or Sri Kanchi P.B. Annangarachariar Swami. 

Are those who are presently arguing with Sri ART Swami prepared
to set such a precedent? 

Mani

P.S. There is also no need for us to rehash what is already
part of the public record. For those interested in the controversy
over Sri ART Swami's opinions, they should read his book
"varalaaRRil piRandha vaiNavam", published in the early 1970s,
and the response of Puttur S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar, published
almost immediately after it as "agnihotramum vaiNavamum".