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 |