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

Ramanuja List Archive: Message 00058 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, 

For the benefit of those who are not members in SV-General I am 
posting my rebuttal which I have posted in SV-General for the above 
subject. 

======Original Message==========

Dear Sri Krishnamachari swamy,

You wrote:
=========Quote 1================
Reference 1:

>From the Foreward to "SrI vedAnta deSika stotras": SrI vedAnta 
deSika ? A short biographical note" by R. Rangachari.

SrI venkaTanAtha (venkaTeSa) was born in 1268 A.D. on the day 
specially sacred to the Lord of the venkaTa Hills (BhAdrapada 
SravaNa) in the village of tUppul. It was the year vibhava. The 
gOtra of viSvAmitra gained new luster by being associated with this 
propagator of the ancient and yet new philosophy ? SrI rAmAnuja 
deSika darSana. 

After a measure of peace had been re-established at SrIra'ngam and 
the Deity returned to the temple, about 1358 A.D., SrI deSika also 
returned to SrIra'ngam and lived there for a few more years. He 
passed away in 1369 A.D. on the birth-day of his beloved tiruma'ngai 
AzhvAr (kArtikai kRttikA). 
=======Unquote 1================

I do not know who is Sri R.Rangachari. But how can you say that his 
observation is authentic. Is there any evidence with which he has 
substantiated his claim for the return of namperumAL in 1358 A.D

I believe, the inscription on the walls of Srirangam are much more 
irrefutable. However if one starts questioning the authenticity of 
these inscriptions, which were made to be chiseled out by those great 
kings who won the war and reinstated namperumAL, what is the degree 
of authenticity one can attach to the later day writers?

You say that by the above mentioned article it is proved that 
namperumAL returned to Srirangam in 1358. But look at the 
inscription. Atleast the inscription gives the date of return as 
clearly Vaikasi 17th in the year of 'parIdhApi'. Now we are in 
the 'chitrabhAnu' year in 2002. VaikAsi has just passed. Now let us 
back calculate as to which of the Julian-calendar year in the past 
are the tamizh year 'parIdhApi' with the month of 'vaikAsi'. I just 
did this backworking. The last 'parIdhApi-vaikAsi' was in the year 
1972-1973. So going back exactly 600 years, it would have been during 
1372-1373. As the inscription cleary says that the return is 
in "vaikAsi-parIdhApi", this should have been in the year 1372 and 
not even 1371. So one more year ahead.

As we are all aware from undistorted historical evidences, the 
muhammedan invasion of Srirangam took place in the year 1311 and 
1331. The 1311 was by Malik Kafur and the 1331 was by Ulugh Khan 
(Mohammed-bin-Thuglak). The year as referred by you as 1358 
is 'viLambi', 1359 - 'vikAri', 1360-'chArvari'. Where is 'parIdhApi' 
in this? 

So this should have taken place either in 1372 or 1312. Now everyone 
knows that, when namperumAL went out(of Srirangam) during the 1311 
invasion, his return was not due to GopaNNa udayAr but due to the 
temple servants themselves. This is clearly indicated in 'Koil 
Ozhugu'. Again, even if the 'Koil Ozhugu' can be discarded as not 
authentic due to some inconsistencies which are quite evident, every 
one is sure that the Vijayanagar kingdom was not even established 
during that period. All historians have uniformly accepted this. When 
this invasion took place, the Hoysalas were the major power in the 
South India.

Now the Vijayanagar Kingdom was found by Harihara and Bukka in the 
year 1336 only. They started as a king of a small province and slowly 
expanded their boundaries. Surely by logic, 35 years would have been 
passed before they establish a massive empire, massive enough to 
defeat the muslims who were very mighty at that time. Let us even 
ignore this. What I wanted to convey is that the return of namperumAL 
for sure is in 'parIdhApi-vaikAsi'. If this is not 1312, undoubtedly 
it should be ONLY 1372. Certainly it could not be 1432. I am sure 
every one would agree to this.

Again based on the above it could not be 1358 or 1359 or 1360. So how 
could Swamy dEsikan have been present in Srirangam when namperumAL 
returned in 1372, as he attained paramapadham in 1369. 

================Quote 2====================
Kampana's (KOppANArya's) wife, who was a poetess who accompanied 
Kampana in his successful efforts to drive out the muslims from 
SrIrangam, madurai and other places, describes the desolate state of 
the SrIrangam temple as of 1360. 

My own note: Kampana's wife is unlikely to have visited the temple 
compound and premises and written a description of the sad state of 
the temple complex while it was under muslim occupation. It is 
reasonable to assume that she visited the temple complex after 
SrIrangam was conquered, and she had free access to the temple 
premises. This does not necessarily say that napmperumAL returned to 
the temple by this date, but it does suggest that SrIrangam was 
restored back to Kampana's control on or before the year 1360.
============Unquote 2=================

Based on the above facts, the authenticity of even Sri M.R. 
Sampathkumaran's account is debatable. Again please note that KambaNa 
and GOpaNNa are two different personalities. Yes, KambaNa was the son 
of Bukka II and was the crowned prince of the Vijayangar kingdom. 
GOpaNNa was the Prime Minister of the kingdom at that time. KambaNA's 
wife is Ganga Devi who wrote the historic kAvyam "madhurA vijayam", 
in which he gives clear account that GOpaNNa headed the army which 
fought the muslims at Srirangam and her husband KambaNa headed the 
army which fought the muslims at Madhurai. Hence the title "madhurA 
vijayam". 

Though your own account regarding Ganga devi visiting Srirangam 
temple sounds logic, it really begs verification based on the above 
facts.

Dear Sri Mani, you have indicated in one of your mails that the year 
inscribed as "bandhupriya" could actually be in error and it could 
actually be "bahupriya" and hence namperumAL would have been restored 
back in Srirangam much earlier than 1372 (1371) in 1360. Surprisingly 
I find no such year (both 'bandhupriya' and 'bahupriya') amongst any 
of the 60 years that are in vogue in the Sri Vaishnava panchAngams. 
Also while the inscriptions clearly indicate the year as 'parIdhApi', 
where from you got these two years? Are they the aliases for the 
years 'parIdhApi' and 'chArvari' respectively?

Now I repose the same question that Sri SA Narasimhan has posed in 
his message. Why to go into unwarranted conclusions, when there is a 
clear evidence that namperumAL was restored in 1371(1372). This is 
like having butter in hand and searching for ghee. What is the 
purpose of this deliberate distortion of the historical facts?

Dear Sri Malolan Cadambi,
I went through your account. Atleast you seem to accept the date of 
return of namperumAL as 1371. But what is the basis of the work 
referred by you, in which it is stated that Swamy dEsikan came back 
to Srirangam and that namperumAL was restored much after Srirangam 
was liberated. I understood from the "MadhurA Vijayam" that 
namperumAL accompanied the entire army along with GOpaNNa and KambaNa 
and that he was immediately restored once Srirangam was liberated. 
One cannot discard this "MadhurA vijayam" as just a poem as all 
historians have a uniform acceptance that it was only this Ganga Devi 
who was the first to have any sense of recording history.

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