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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00105 Apr 2002

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


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






[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