Thirumangai Alwar - History vs. Traditional Account

[Guest guest]

Recently I was reading a book "Materials for the Study of the Early History of

the Vaishnava Sect" by Raychaudhuri. At several places, the author combats the

Western view of our history. Here is an example:

 

Writing about Thirumangai Alwar, historians like Bishop Caldwell held that

Thirumangai Alwar was a disciple of Ramanujacharya!. This fact was accepted by

some Indian historians too, (For eg. Gopinath) as it was not without any

basis. However, the conclusion was proved to be entirely wrong. It was one of

those instances where the secondary evidence was allowed to preponderate over

the primary. It appears to me that while scientific approach to historical

research could be very useful in unveiling the truth, the tools used are still

subject to interpretation (which is highly subjective) and therefore there is

nothing definite or conclusive about most of these findings. Thus, there

appears to be as much uncertainty in the modern findings, as we would assume in

the traditional account.

 

I always reconcile the differences between the traditional account and the

"scientific" account in the following way: For a long time in India,

information was transmitted orally. At some point in time these facts

(possibly distorted and further amalgamated with fiction) got recorded in

writing or entered into some kind of inscriptions. Modern historians may be

able to reckon only the recorded event. I do not think they are able to get to

the bottom of things which alone can give a satisfactory answer to the two

fundamental questions: What actually happened and when did it really happen.

Notwithstanding the uncertainty in either accounts (traditional vs. modern), I

think our purpose is better served if we focus on the spirit behind those

scriptural texts which alone can elevate us to a higher order of living.

 

 

Vijayaraghavan Srinivasan