Varadhan, It's not as easy to tar the Vedas or Prabandham with the same brush, for many reasons. For the Vedas, there is a relatively uniform text across all Sruti paramparAs all across the country, and what differences exist are honestly recognized as different SAkhas or acceptable pAtha-bhedas. With regard to the Prabandham, yes, we do not know if there has been any corruption over the years -- there very well may have been, given how many pAtha-bhedas there are for so many verses, but the very structure of most of the poems makes it unlikely that anyone made radical changes (sets of 10 with an 11th signature verse, andAdi style, etc.) However, one can make an argument for corruption even here, I admit. I don't think it's appropriate to conflate this discussion with the Vadagalai/Thengalai temple disputes; that's pretty inflammatory and unnecessary. Back to the issue at hand. The fact is that there *is* a lot of prestige gained when a lineage propounds the belief that it was started originally by Emberumaanaar or one of his sishyas. There are many Mandyam Iyengars, for example, who voice the opinion that the Yadugiri Yatiraja Jeeyar Matha was the first SV matha, and that it was founded by Emberumaanaar in its present form. However, critical scholarship shows that this is simply not tenable. There is no epigraphy even in Melkote which attests to this. This is just an example, but the same can be said for the Pedda Jeeyar Matha, from what I understand. Merely citing an unbroken lineage does not ipso facto make it true. We all know about the convenient histories invented by the Kanchi Sankara Matha in favor of its priority among Advaita institutions. The purported history of the Kanchi Matha placed Sri Sankaracharya c.500 B.C., and the Buddha hundreds of years before that! Clearly such things do not stand historical scrutiny. I don't think there's anything diabolical in the origins of the story that Anandalvan was the impetus behind the Emberumaanaar sannidhi, or that Emberumaanaar himself started the Pedda Jeeyar Matha. They very well may be true. But they very well may not be true as well, and it appears that there is no solid evidence indicating that it is fact. Normally, there are many inscriptions which indicate endowments by or for a Matha, usually named, to help in the temple services, to help with making garlands, providing prasaadam for bhAgavatas, providing for pArAyana and adhyApana, etc. I think it is reasonable to ask why there is no such evidence placing the Emberumaanaar sannidhi in that time period, or the Pedda Jeeyar Matha in that time, if that is what is held to be true. For example, there are many inscriptions placing Emberumaanaar, Anandalvan, Vaduga Nambi, and other sishyas in and around Melkote, Tondanur, Saligrama, and other Karnataka kshetras. There is also much evidence that Emberumaanaar was present several times at Tirupati, etc. But even according to the ArAyirappadi Guru ParamparA, which itself is heavily interpolated by much later hands, I don't think there is a mention of Anandalvan building a sannidhi to Emberumaanaar at Tirupati, or of Emberumaanaar establishing a Pedda Jeeyar Matha on the malai. If anyone can provide information on this topic, I would be much obliged. aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan, Mani
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia |
ramanuja-subscribe@yahoogroups.com To subscribe to the list |