2026 04 13 - aitihyas

Source: TW

00:00 - mangalam 00:30 - Intro 01:45 - Good wishes, intent 02:12 - Challenge 1 - manavALa mAmuni vs parAshara-bhaTTa on vyAsa 03:30 - tattva-traya quote 04:26 - alasinga-bhaTTa’s commentary on sAttvata-saMhitA chapter 9 05:26 - mUla 05:56 - commentary 07:22 - saumya-jAmAtR - sAxAd-avatAra-s 08:42 - veda-vit = vyAsa as per parAshara bhaTTa 10:10 - viShNu-purANa on kRShNa-dvaipAyana 10:30 - mAmuni on kRShNa-dvaipAyana 11:20 - mAmuni agrees that other vyAsa-s are AveshAvatAra-s. 12:10 - Challenge conclusion 13:10 - “Spreading misinformation”? No. Trustworthy. 14:10 - Challenge 2 - rAmAnuja rahasya-broadcast 15:50 - GV Iyer rAmAnuja 1989 movie - tower scene 17:40 - Comments on the movie, credits. Lakshmitatachar of melukote plays the lead. 18:20 - Myth propagated by tenkalai AchAryas 19:25 - Alkondaville Govindacharya’s 1906 book, propagted by Chinna Jeeyar’s JET trust (Jeeyar education trust) 20:00 - Betrayal story narrated there 21:45 - Proof of prevelence and propagation 23:00 - Join me in countering such! 24:00 - Challenge Conclusion 24:40 - guru-paramparA-prabhAva-aitihyas not proper pramANa. 26:00 - “rAmAnuja held a shUdra after bath” myth 26:30 - “shUdra-bhAgavata touch after cooking” myth (correction - i’m told it’s a nampillai story) 27:00 - Our attitude to aitihya-s.

Swami i find it very hard to accept devareers stance on Guruparampara prabhavam and Aithiyas which devareer stated at 25:12. Adiyen wants to clarify that adiyen is not a vidhwan like devareer nor am i a scholar..Adiyen has learnt about sampradaya from upanyasas by valid and authentic vidhwans and upanyasakas … i can say with a lot of confidence devareers stance on aithihyas and guruparamapra prabhavam is not accpeted by a large majority of vadakalai scholars.

(1).Aithiyas are incidents or snippets of the life of our purvacharyas be it Ramanuja,Desika,Bhattar,Nampillai etc. and are very very frequently quoted and mentioned in DivyaPrabandha vyakhyanas.By devareers logic then our vyakhyanas by Periyavachan pillai(who many vadakalairs accept) and other purvacharyas are verily false and questionable .. Isnt this odd.?How did you study prabandham and vyakhyanams withought Aithihyas?

(2)FYI the guruparampara prabhavams stated in the video are the 6000padi and 3000padi.The 6000padi was written by Pinbazhagaram perumal jeeyar a desciple of Nampillai (this was around say 200 years or so after emperumanar attained paramapadam) and has the life and history of all the azhwars and acharyas mentioned in it up to Nampillai(who is in the acharya parampara of ahobilam matha which is vadakalai btw) and this is genrally considered authenitc by pretty much everyone(frankly devareer is the first i hv seen to discard this work or question its auhtenitcity) .The other grantham is the 3000padi guruparampara prabhavam by the 3rd Bramhatantra swatantra jeeyar of Parakala mutt and it even contians many details of vedanta desika who we repsect .By devareers view even this must be discarded. if so then pls tell me ..what was vedanta desikas time like ..how did he live his life,what abt ramanuja ..what is the history of Sampradayam? Or do you feel that the history of sampradayam is not important?

(3) If im not mistaken in the Rahasya traya saaram(At least adiyen has heard this is in it) Vedanta desika himself cites an Aithihya of ramanuja doing nithya karma like sandhyavandham despite his old age and frail body and uses this as one of his reason to explain (or maybe justify) nithya karmas ..Vedanta Desika himself has quoted aihtihyas and im pretty sure he might hv quoted others as well .

(4) regarding the incident in Goshtipuram , (1)Swami a movie is not a pramana and are always exaggerated . (2) Emperumanar went to seek thirukoshtiyur nambi (on the instructions of Alavandar) to learn the thirumantra arthams and charam shloka arthams from him.Goshiti purna (which is thirukoshtiur nambis alias) 18 times as nambi would refuse for no reason telling him to come again later..it was only on teh 18th time that emperumanar was accepted by him and ramanuja learnt the arthams..There is a significance behind the no. of times he was sent back (the removal of ahankara mamakara,to gain athma jnanajam,to get rid of moham in aishwarya and kaivalaya ,to gain ruchi in bhagavat vishayam etc these are called Ashtadasha rahasyam) .Then he was instructed to only test shisyas in a similar way and then give them upadesham..but emeprumanar took avataram for ujjivanam of the world (thats why there is a saying sathyam sathyam punah sathyam yahtiriraja jagadgurum) and desired the upliftment of all samsaris and then climbed high up and shouted " Asai udaiyOrkkellAm AriyargAL kURum enRu" in front of therkazhwan sannidhi . And he gave upadeshams to those with Asai and interest PRIVATELTY and didnt shout out any mantra or any such .The rest of the incidents happened as you hv shown ….goshtipurna got angry and told ramanuja he will go to narakam etc which ramanuja said its fine if the one person (himself) goes to narakam and everyone else goes to swargam ..looking at his karuna goshitpura nambi says " Emperumanraro?(are you emperumanar?)" ..thus Ramanjua got the name Emperumanar. this is in guru parmapara prabhavam…..Why did i type this story? the reason is two fold (i)This story is proof of how ramanuja got this name ..if you believe it to be false then why do we call ramanuja as emperumanar? (ii)I feel you hv misunderstood this ..Ramnuaja never revealed, or shouted any mantram in public..no one accepts this be it vadakalai or thenkalai … as vedanta desika himself says (“aprakasha prakashabhyam ksheeyathe sampath ayushi”).

Adiyen is not trying to pick a fight or any such with devareer but i cant help but ask this as based on what adiyen has come across and learnt this stance is very odd and adiyen feels it contradicts the core of the sampradaya in a way..then why do we accept the azhwars charithram?their place of birth? etc … so i request that devareer doesnt take this in a negative way . If Adiyen has misunderstood devareers stand on the matter Devareer Adiyenai maniththuarula vendum 🙏🙏 ..Adiyen dasan

Adiyen.Dhanyosmi for taking the time to read adiyens comment and not taking my comment in the negative light.

it looks to me that devareers opinions on GPP,divyasuri charitram are similar to that of scholars of indology and history rather than sampradaya which is fine . such a stance is not unprecedented …some even feel the dates of the mudal azhwars are 5th century rather than dwapara yuga( needless to say many sampradaya vidhwans reject this and are more conservative choosing to go with what GPP says and say it was in dwapara yuga) ..be that as it may…like how as devareer opines that there were 2 VAMJ there are also said to be 2 vaduga nambis(Andhra poornar) and some opine that the 2nd Vaduga nambi(who was of some period after ramanujacharya) is the author of yatiraja vaibhavam ..so in a way even the authenticity of this can be put to question .(Ofc the official sampradaya view is that it is authentic could say the same for divyasuri charithram or even GPP maybe).

ok ..lets say it is authentic .In yatiraja vaibhavam the 58th and 59th sloka clearly describes the incident i previously mentioned abt emperumanar and thirukoshtiyur nambi ..ofc its just 2 slokas so it isnt as detailed as GPP but the gist is there .

it looks like there is some abhipraya bedham between vadakalai vidhwans on the authenticity of GPP and aithiyas (at least thats what adiyen feels or infers from devareers comment ).

6000 padi doesnt even mention vedanta desika afaik..it ends with the life of nampillai(this was around maybe 60 or so years before desikas birth)..perhaps devareer meant 3000GPP. coz adiyen has heard that it is mentioned there in that grantham that VD conversed with PVP which as devareer rightly pointed out is an anachronism (if it is there in 6000padi pls do put in chat as to where)..Adiyen will admit that the life history of manavala mamunigal(1370-1450) at the end of GPP3000 being written is odd as mamunigal outlived the 3rd bramhatantra swatantra jeeyar(1394-1406 as per parakala mutt website) this seems like an anachronism

devareer mentioned kulashekara azhwar isnt form kerala… how?.. doesnt his thirunakshatra thaniyan mention his birthplace as kerala and vedanta desika himself in his prabandha saaram mentions the birth place as thiruvanjikalam in the 8th verse .I know the work mukundamala being written by him is generally disputed by vidhwans but his birthplace afaik is agreed upon.

pls forgive any errors …… Adiyen dasan 🙏

Just like you believe in your paramparā, we believe in ours. Jagadguru Srí Vidyaranya, who stands in the direct lineage of Jagadguru Srímad Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, has himself included in the Śaṅkarācārya Aṣṭottara the nāma “सौन्दर्यलहरीमुख्यबहुस्तोत्रविधायकाय नमः”, clearly acknowledging works like Soundarya Lahari. Many stotras not exclusively centered on Viṣṇu have indeed been composed by Bhagavadpāda. “तापनीय-रहस्यानां सारः कामासिकाहरिः” by Vedanta Desika is accepted within your tradition, while the Nrisimha Tapaniya Upanishad itself uses names such as nīlalohita and pinākahasta, attributed to Parameśvara, pointing toward Hari Hara abheda.

If questioning stotras that have come down through a paramparā is taken as a basis to retrofit and challenge my entire belief system, which I hold to be true, then by the same logic one could claim that Yamunacharya never composed Stotra Ratna, Kulasekhara Alvar never composed Mukunda Mala, or that Vedanta Desika did not compose Paduka Sahasram after all, how could someone compose a thousand verses in just a few hours? You would not accept such claims even for a moment, because you trust your paramparā and your ācāryas.

Therefore, stotras like Śivānanda Lahari or Soundarya Lahari cannot be rejected merely because they do not align with a particular narrative, while expecting your own tradition’s accounts to be accepted without question. Either paramparā is a valid pramāṇa, or everything becomes selectively negotiable. When there is apparent confusion in śāstra, we follow “महाजनो येन गतः स पन्थाः”, taking śiṣṭācāra as pramāṇa.

As Advaitins, we do not discriminate between Parameśvara and Viṣṇu. When we respond strongly in favor of Parameśvara, it is only to establish firm ground and clarity, not to diminish Viṣṇu in any way. Śālagrāma ārādhana itself is part of pañcāyatana pūjā. Bhagavadpāda has composed stotras on Raṅganātha, Rāma, and Kṛṣṇa. Saints like Ramakrishna Paramahamsa and Tyagaraja have repeatedly emphasized that there should be no discrimination between devatās. “वृथा कण्ठक्षोभः” this is merely a futile agitation of the throat.

Especially at a time like this, when followers of Sanātana Dharma need to remain organized and united, finding fault with another siddhānta in an attempt to establish one’s own superiority particularly on public platforms where it can be exploited by those who seek to divide us is something that ought not to be done.