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
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |