You are here: SriPedia - Ramanuja - Archives - Jun 2002

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00076 Jun 2002

 
Jun 2002 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha
srImadh varavara munayE namaha

Dear Members,

Some days back I had posted a message regarding the above topic that 
came on SV-General for those who are not subscribed to that list. 
This thread is still continuing and I am presenting my latest reply 
to this for your additions and corrections.

Message as posted in SV-General:

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha
srImadh varavara munayE namaha

Dear Members,

I am giving my response to four or five messages in this thread. 
Please read through the following;

======1. Sri Mani's mail===========
TV Venktaesh had asked how the mnemonic 'bandhupriya' maps
to a particular year. He is correct that it does not occur
in the names of the years in the 60-year cycle. Rather, it
is based on the kaTapayAdi sankhyA. The name 'kaTapayAdi'
itself describes how this mnemonic works. Each 'varga' of
the Sanskritic alphabet, beginning with 'ka', 'Ta', 'pa'
or 'ya', can be used to encode the numerals 1, 2, 3, etc.
Hence ka = 1, kha = 2, ga = 3, gha = 4, ca = 6, cha = 7,
ja = 8, jha = 9, and as special cases, the nasals 'nga'
and 'nya' are denoted as 0. The same goes for the vargas
beginning with 'Ta', 'pa', and 'ya'. The following link
describes this system in some detail.

http://minchu.ee.iisc.ernet.in/mirror/icm/sang3.htm

Mani

=====End of Sri Mani's mail====================

adiyEn's reply:

I thank Sri Mani for pointing it out clearly. Actually he had done ii 
even before. But I overlooked it when I asked this question. I 
sincerely apologize for this. Indeed the Salivahana 1293 corresponds 
to 'bandhupriya' when decoded using the kaTapayAdhi sankhyA. 

But my question is, Sri Mani said that some historians believe that 
this 1293 is in error and should have been 1283 or 1282. Now since 
this entire thread is questioning the authenticity of one or another 
view, let me ask, what is the basis with which those historians tend 
to say that this may be in error. When some body questions the 
authenticity of some thing, I feel strongly, that he must be having 
some irrefutable evidences to prove his standpoint. If such evidence 
is not available, then those doubts are surely to be discarded. 


=====2. Mail From Sri Anand Karalapakkam (part 1)================

> SrI:
> SrImatE nigamAnta mahAdESikAya namaH
> 
> namO nArAyaNa!
> 
> Dear bhaktas,
> 
> In 3000 paDi guruparamparA prabhAvam,
> 3rd Bramhatantra svatantra jIyar has given
> the details about the return of SwAmi DESikan
> to SrIra~ngam.
> 
> Just citing two things from it :
> 
> 1. SwAmi DESikan composed the following verse
> for the permanent ma~ngaLAsAsanam :
> 
> " vidhi vihita saparyAm ....Samita vimatapakshAm
> SAsvatIm ra~ngalakshmeem" {available in DESika
> Stotra mUla Skt books as a separate section for
> ma~ngalAsAsana verses for the four DDs}.
======== end of part 1 of Sri Anand's mail================

adiyEn's reply

Well, I have not gone through the the 3000p padi completely. Is it 
very clearly stated in it that Sri dEsikar composed this 
mangaLAsAsanam AFTER returning to Srirangam, after namperumAL Himself 
returned? Please confirm this. I will post my actual question after 
your reply.

====Mail from Sri Anand (part 2)======================

> 2. SwAmi DESikan also composed the following verse :
> < In the footnotes, it is written that this verse is present
> as kalveTTu on the madIl-suvar near sEnai-mudaliyAr
> sannidhi> :
> 
> " aanIyAnIla-sRu~nga dyutirasita jagatran~janA tan~janAtrES -
> san~jn~yAm aarAdhya kan~cit samayamata -
> nihatyOddhanushkAn turushkAn |
> lakshmIshmAbhyAm upAbhyAm saha nija nilayE svAbhayan -
> ra~nganAtham samyakcaryAm saparyAmakRuta bhuvi yaSaH-
> prApaNO gOpanAryaH ||"

=========End of part 2 of Sri Anand's mail.

adiyEn's reply

Dear Sri Anand, what is the basis of your claim that this was 
composed by Sri dEsikar. I do not want references to 3000p padi or 
prapannAmrutham etc, because in the inscription, nowhere it is 
mentioned that Sri dEsikar composed this. Also I read the "kOil 
ozhugu" in tandem with the inscription regarding the return of 
namperumAL and the "ozhugu" records this incident as follows:- (For 
those who are not aware, the "kOil ozhugu" is a historical recording 
of all the events that are associated with the Srirangam temple which 
in our Sri Vaishnava sampradhAyam is addressed as just 'kOil')

...... gOpaNNa uDayArum niravadhika balatthuDanE vandhu, thulukkarai 
nissEshamAga azhitthu; singapuratthilum 
sakAptham "AayirattirunooRRuth thonnuuRRumoonRil" (please note that 
the Salivahana year is clearly recorded in words and not numbers. 
Here the Inscription on the walls of Srirangam and the ozhugu, both 
uniformly records the year as 1293. So there is no basis for those 
historians referred by Sri Mani, to have doubted the year of return 
as inscribed on the walls) sellA ninRa parIthApi varusham (Again, the 
inscription gives only the Salivahana year 1293. It does not use the 
word parIthApi at all. But the ozhugu here clearly used the 
word 'parIthApi'. We have seen that both clearly indicate the 
Salivahana year as 1293 so it has to be only 'bandhupriya' 
or 'parIthApi' and not 'bahupriya' as quoted by Sri Mani) vaikAsi 
mAdham padhinEzhAm thEdhi thiruvarangam thiruppathiyilE perumALai 
nAchiyAruDanE ezhundharuLap paNNi, kOil thirukkAppai neekki, periya 
perumALuDan sErthu prathishTippitthu, thiruvArAdhanamum paNNuvitthu, 
dharmavarmAvin thirumadhiLil keezhaNDai veLippuRatthilE avarukkuth 
(here this avarukku is referring to gOpaNNA) thaniyan koDuttha 
vrutthAnthatthai veLiyiTTaruLinAr.
"AnIyAnIla srungadhyuthirachitha.....saparyAm 
guruthanijayasOdharappaNO" enRu silAlikitham paNNuvitthAn.


This is what is available in the kOil ozhugu. It is to be noted that 
neither the inscriptions nor the ozhugu, talks anywhere about the 
presence of Sri dEsikar. Again, accepting that Sri dEsikar would have 
composed the slOka, it actually praises gOpaNNA for his wonderful 
kainkaryam of restoring namperumAL to his grand home. If it is so, 
surely this gOpaNNA, who was blessed by Sri dEsikar himself 
(according to the claims made), would certainly have made Sri 
dEsikar's name also to be chiseled on the walls for the great 
kainkaryam that he had done. There is no such thing that is found. 

Also according to Sri A. Krishnamachari swamy of Sri Vaishnava Sri, 
the meters or the style of this slOkA are so very simple that it does 
not require a "kavithArkika simham" like Sri dEsikar to compose such 
thing. On the other hand, if one credits Sri dEsikar with this 
slOka , it only brings disrepute to his very title, "kavithArkika 
simham". So by all means, it is sure that Sri dEsikar could not have 
composed this slOkam. It is also proved further, after having proved 
clearly that namperumAL returned to Srirangam only in 1371 or 1372, 
and accepting the fact that Sri dEsikar attained paramapadham in 
1369, Sri dEsikar could not have composed this slOkam at all.


But I see nobody answering Sri SA Narasimhan's very simple 
question. "If Sri dEsikar was in Srirangam after namperumAL's return, 
would he not have composed great slOkAs out of utmost joy as he was 
the one who did great mangaLAsAsanam to namperumAL through 
his 'abheethisthavam' when He (namperumAL) was in exile?". If one 
says that the above slOka ("AnIyAnIla..") was the one composed by 
him, does it mean that, a person, who made more than one slOka out of 
his utmost concern, would make only one, just one, when his joy would 
know no bounds, after safe return of namperumAL. And his other 
question is also not answered. When Sri dEsikar himself was there, 
why need to go for a blind washerman to prove the identity of 
namperumAL. Will there be a person more qualified that Sri dEsikar 
himself to identify namperumAL. Sorry, this is 
logically "iDichifying".

=====3. Mail from Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli============= 

5. in 1335 harihara declares independence from Delhi Sultanate, thus 
starting the glorious period of Vijayanagara kings (1336 - 1565).
he establishes the kingdom with his brother, Bukka - I. The vijay
nagara kingdom starts war with the neighbouring muslim kingdoms.

6. The Madurai sultanate (now under tremendous stress) is liberated
by Kampana Udaiyar, a prince of the Vijayanagar kingdom, in 1365. 


It is possible that Srirangam was liberated in 1365 about the same 
time as Madurai, giving some time for restoration. The return of 
Namperumal in 1371 appears to be solid. However, that does not mean
that the temple fucntions did not happen prior to namperumal's 
arrival. 

It is also possible that the restoration porcess might have started 
prior to 1365 even while under the rule of Muslim sultanate of 
Madurai due to constant stress from Vijayanagra army. 

the vijayanagra army was always fighting some war or other during 
their 200 years of existance. 

It is possible that Swami Desikar was able to go back to Srirangam
after 1365, and witness some of the restoration effort. There is 
evidence that restoration continued during Sri Manavala Maamuni's
time frame, and past his time as well. 

adiyen
Venkatesh Elayavalli

===== End of Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli's mail=============

adiyEn's reply:

Upto your point no. 5 is okay. But you say that it is possible for 
gOpaNNA to have defeated the muslims in the year 1365. Again what is 
the basis with which you are saying this. In this regard one can view 
the following URL http://www.intamm.com/history/kamban.htm

In this A.Krishnaswamy (Actually written in tamizh as kiruTTinaswAmy, 
not the A.Krishnamachari of SriVaishnavaSri fame) has written an 
article with title "tamizhnADum kambaNa uDayArum". In this articles 
he refers to many other authors who have claimed different dates for 
kambaNa's victory over muslims and has clearly refuted them proving 
the year of victory as 1371. He clearly states that so far there are 
132 inscriptions found on the victory of KambaNA. He gives the 
account that KambaNA entered Tamizh Nadu from Virinchipuram and 
defeated the sambuvarAyar, a small king who ruled from Kanchipuram in 
the year 1361 and goes on to prove that the correct year in which the 
Sultan of Madurai was defeated is in 1371 AD based on the 
inscriptions available from the temples in Trichy (Srirangam), 
ThiruppullANi etc. (These articles are only in Tamizh).

So the correct date of victory over the sultan of Madurai is only 
1371. And also since the inscriptions and Ozhugu as referred above 
clearly indicates the return of namperumAL as 1371 (Salivahana 1293), 
vaikAsi, the delay between the victory over sultan and return of 
namperumAL would be only in months (certainly not 12 months) or weeks 
and not years as indicated by you.


======4. Sri Krishnamachari's mail (part 1)=================
Dear SrI Venkatesh Elayavalli:

I sincerely appreciate your posting. This is the kind of spirit of 
approach I was hoping all of us can have in discussing this topic. I 
am glad to note that you are approaching the issue so that it 
converges to a position that does not have to prove "one side right 
and the other side wrong". Based on the facts I have so far, I 
believe that the truth is along the lines that you suggest. 

========end of part 1 of Sri Krishnamachari's mail)===========

adiyEn's reply:

Dear Sri Krishnamachari swamy, do you still mean to say after so much 
proofs that one side should not be proven wrong? For what reason you 
want to say so. We are discussing about the return of namperumAL and 
Sri dEsikar's presence in Srirangam AFTER namperumAL's return. It is 
clearly proved ( even Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli says that the return 
of namperumAL in 1371 is solid) that 
namperumAL returned in 1371. Everyone agrees that Sri dEsikar 
attained paramapadham in 1369. Do you mean to say that still one 
should say that after return of namperumAL to Srirangam, Sri dEsikar 
lived in Srirangam inspite of attaining paramapadham in 1369 itself. 
The logic is begging.

========Sri Krishnamachari's mail (part II)=============
SrI Vinjamoor Venkatesh: 


I am still hoping that the actual wording of the stone inscription 
can help in getting a better understanding of the history that it 
records. Before we at least clearly know what the inscription says, 
I am not prepared to conclude anything based on the inscriptions. 
There may be other stone inscriptions (such as the two Sloka-s in 
prise of goppaNa, and may be other inscriptions) which need to be 
reconciled with. After all, these are also stone inscriptions. A 
purely research-oriented analysis should look at all the stone 
inscriptions relevant to this period, to see what they all record, in 
addition to the one inscription that is being talked about. Then 
there are the recordings of other AcArya-s of that time period which 
some of us may not want to recognize. "History" is a collection of 
all the data available, not just one stone inscription. Until 
someone clearly establishes that there was one Kampana and a 
different "goppaNa" involved in the liberation of SrIrangam, for me 
this is an open issue also.
=======End of part II ==============

adiyEn's reply:

Swamy, I think I have fairly reconciled the other two inscriptions 
also. But remember, the other two inscriptions are only slOkas of 
praise on gOpaNNA and doesn't talk much about the historical dates. I 
think I have not let one go and catch only one to prove my point. 
Also as you said, I have referred all our members to an URL in which, 
not one but 132 such inscriptions are referred regarding the date of 
victory of KambaNA over the Muslims. In addition I have also referred 
to the kOil ozhugu. Remember, the sequence of happening may be 
jumbled in ozhugu, but the facts are recorded clearly. Even in that 
it is not said that Sir dEsikar composed the slOka "AnIyAnIla..". 

Regarding the identity of gOpaNNA with kambaNA doesn't help much in 
resolving this issue. However, I will clarify this once I get the 
copy of the Madhura Vijayam which I expect soon. However, be it they 
are same or are different personalilities, one would agree that this 
has no implication on resolving the dates of return of namperumAL and 
presence of Sri dEsikar at Srirangam at that time. I am even ready to 
agree, till I get the copy of Madhura Vijayam, that both KambaNA and 
gOpaNNA are one and the same. 

=======Sri Krishnamachari's message (part III)=======

Even though I am not suggesting that stone inscriptions are not 
reliable, I am reminded of the great controversy we went through just 
two years back about our dear vaksha-sthala mahA lakshmi, where there 
was a non-trivial chance that the decision could have been that there 
was no vaksha-sthala mahA lakshmi for Lord Ranganathan all along. I 
wonder what history would have been quoted 700 years from now if the 
decision had gone the other way two years back. So it does not hurt 
to give credence to other points of view on issues, including 
authenticity of stone inscriptions. An open-minded discussion should 
allow for all possibilities, so that the collection of different 
facts can be reconciled so that internally consistent conclusions can 
be arrived at based on all available information. 
=========End of part III=======================

Swamy, I believe for sure, that this quote is totally inappropriate 
for this thread. You are asking, as to what would be the source for 
proving that Sri Ranganatha had His vaksha-sthala-lakshmi, if it was 
decided, two years back that He did not have Her. You are expecting 
me to refer only to AzhwAr's works and other granthAs. I will not 
disappoint you! One should remember that there are no inscriptions in 
any temple saying that when a perumAL was consecrated for the first 
first time, He had a face with two eyes, a nose and two ears and four 
hands and two legs and a pooNal etc. It is absurd for one to expect 
so. Here are our AzhwArs who have clearly indicated that He indeed 
had vakshasthala lakshmi and this is the proof. The intention of this 
quotation by you is that, if I don't refer to any inscription, as 
there are none in this regard, you can very well question the 
authenticity of the inscription available today which proves that 
namperumAL returned in 1371. Please correct me if I am wrong in my 
study of the obective of this question. What I mean to say is that 
the inscriptions are one of the authentic resources and also had been 
made right at the time when the incident had happened. I also quoted 
the 'Olai chuvadis' and the copper plates as acceptable evidences for 
history. Now, this is what one should reconcile. The copper plates 
and Olai chuvadis are to be reconciled with the wall inscriptions (if 
any available)and arrive at a conclusion. Any method other than this 
is only defective.

I surely agree that an open-minded discussion is the best solution 
and strongly advocate the same. Also the credentials for the other 
points can be given only if it has some basis, a basis which is 
rooted in one these three proofs, the inscriptions, the Olai chuvadis 
or the copper plates. If some one just presents a view without a 
basis or a with a wrong basis, then sure it hurts giving credit to 
such thesis.

========5. Sri Malolan Cadambi's mail==========


Gathering from the above evidence, we should do complete justice to
both the literary sources such as Swami Desikan's grantham covering
the incident as well as the inscriptions in the walls of srirangam.

This approach would be the most professional approach we can take or
rather should take when we discuss history.

=========End of Sri Malolan Cadambi's mail=========

Agreed, Sri Malolan, now based on the above indicated irrefutable 
historic inscriptions and the kOil Ozhugu docuement can you please do 
this and prove your point that Sri dEsikar was present in Srirangam 
when namperumAL returned. Please remember that, as indicated above, 
the claim that Sri dEsikar composed the slOka "AnIyAnIla..." is 
begging for proof. I am sure that, if Sri dEsikar was alive, he would 
not have stopped with just one sloka. Instead he would have made one 
thousand like a pAdhukA sahasram which he did in one night rather. 
That much would have been his actual joy when he sees his beloved 
namperumAL back at Srirangam. Isn't it?

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam
adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan
Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh






[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list