Persecution of Ramanuja

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathas,

 

I read in the latest issue of Indian Economic and Social History Review

an article by A.Srvathsan about the persecution of Ramanuja by Kulottunga

Chola. On the basis of wider sociological connotations, he points out :

 

(a) that Ramanuja tried to introduce reforms in srirangam temple

specially a change from Vaikhansa to pancharatra and also to appoint

srivaishnava brahmins to some of the posts in temple administration which

were earlier held by others; Ramanuja also introduced involvement of

non-brahmins in temple administration which caused anger to local elites;

(b) the Kulottunga Chola was weakened due to external threats and hence

he was in need of keeping local elites and chieftains happy;

© in these circumstances, the only place that Ramanuja could go safely

was Hoysala kingdom; it is said the Bitti Hoysala king who later seems to

have been converted to vaishnavism by Ramanuja (from Jainism perhaps) and

hence his name was later changed;

(d) and later when Kulottunga and his son become stabilised they could

rescind their earlier order of persecuting Ramanuja and so he returns to

srirangam.

 

I would be grateful to hear from our learned Bhagavathas like Dileepan,

Sadagopan, Ramaswamy etc., some details about these incidents and their

views.

 

Adiyen, Anand

[Guest guest]

a. prathivadi-bhayankaram-a writes:

> I read in the latest issue of Indian Economic and Social History Review

> an article by A.Srvathsan about the persecution of Ramanuja by Kulottunga

> Chola. On the basis of wider sociological connotations, he points out :

> (b) the Kulottunga Chola was weakened due to external threats and hence

> he was in need of keeping local elites and chieftains happy;

 

This is plausible, as historians are uncertain as to which Chola

king persecuted Ramanuja. Kulottunga I is known to have equally

supported Saiva and Vaishnava temples, and given that the

traditional histories have the Chola king as an ardent devotee

of Siva, it is unlikely that the persecutor was this Kulottunga.

 

However, if his Saivism was not as fanatical as the biographies

suppose, any Kulottunga could be the persecutor. On the other

hand, by the time of Ramanuja's leaving Srirangam, he was

already well-established as the leader of the Sri Vaishnava

community, and his temple reforms had already taken root.

It is therefore surprising that the anti-Ramanuja animosity

among the elites could last so long as to allow the Chola

king to take advantage of it!

 

[...]

> © in these circumstances, the only place that Ramanuja could go safely

> was Hoysala kingdom; it is said the Bitti Hoysala king who later seems to

> have been converted to vaishnavism by Ramanuja (from Jainism perhaps) and

> hence his name was later changed;

 

It is said that after Ramanuja arrived in the Hoysala

kingdom, Kind Bittideva changed his name to Vishnu Vardhana

Raya, and he correspondingly became an adherent of Vaishnavism.

While he undoubtedly was influenced by Ramanuja, it is

questionable as to whether this was a wholescale conversion

from another religion. To begin with, Bittideva is simply

a Kannada form of Vittaladeva, which is already a name of

Vishnu. In addition, while his wife Shantala is well-known

to have been a devout Jain, Kind Bittideva's military

practices do not show him to be a practicant of ahimsa.

 

Incidentally, perhaps under the influence of Ramanuja,

King Bittideva constructed the marvellous Vishnu temples

at Belur and Halebid. These structures represent the

pinnacle of the Hoysala style of architecture.

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

Here are some dates from an excellent Tamil book I have

on Sri Ramanujar's life by pi. sri. The dates are accepted

as more or less accurate. I have given some of my own comments

in the end.

 

 

 

-----

1012 - 1044 : Gangai koNda chOzhan 1017 - Sri Ramanujar avatharam

1044 - 1064 : Second Rajendran 1049 - Sri Ramanujar

Sanyasam

1070 - 1070 : AthiRajendra chOzhan

1064 - 1070 : VeeraRajendran

1070 - 1118 : First KulOththungan 1096 - Sri Ramanujar fl

(kirimikaNda chOzhan) to Mysore; Periya nambi is

murdered and KUrEsar's

eyes are gauged out

1118 - 1135 : First Vikrama chOzhan 1118 - Sri Ramanujar

returns to Sri Rangam

1135 - 1150 : Second KulOththungan Started ruling as Crown

Prince in 1133; Responsible

for removing Sri Govindaraja

perumaaL from the Thillai

Nataraja temple;

Sri Ramanujar installs

Govindaraja shrine at

Thiruppathi.

 

1137 - Sri Ramanujar's ascension to paramapadham

-----

 

It is clear that the first and the second Kuloththunga

chOzhaas (K-I and K-II) were inimical to Sri

Vasihnavam. Independent evidence of this for K-II is

available in the words of Ottakakkooththan,

 

"thillaith thirumanRil munRil siRu dheyvath

thollaik kuRumbu tholaith theduththu ..."

 

(... he (K-II) eliminated the mischief of the

small god (i.e. Govindaraja) by dislodging

that god from the sacred hall of Thillai

temple,..)

 

There are some more passages along these lines. Citing

these, some wrongly claim that K-II, and not K-I, came

to be known as kirimikaNda chOzhan. They also cite

that K-I, his saivite faith not withstanding, was

supportive of Vaishnavam and even Jainism and

Buddhism. It is in K-I's reign that Mannarkudi

Rajagopala Swami temple was built. Therefore, they

claim, no force was used against Sri Ramanuja or any

other Sri vaishnavaas. Further, they claim, K-II removed

Lord Govindaraja for making space and therefore it is not

fair to criticise K-II.

 

Well, O's verse clearly shows K-II's aversion for Sri

Vaishnavam; no need for any further elaboraton. As for

K-I, his nominal tolerance for Vishnu temples could very

well have co-existed with his apprehension about Sri

Ramanujar and his authority over spiritual matters. The

detailed accounts provided by Sri Vaishnava guru

parambara prabhavam cannot all be active imaginations

of individuals with nothing better to do. What is to be

gained by creating another bogeyman in K-I? After all,

Vikrama chOzha has been praised in these accounts.

They could have very well praised K-I as well and

isolated K-II for all the indignation. Further, Sri

Ramanujar returned only after the death of K-I and

coronation of Vikarama chOzhan. This timing cannot

just coincidence.

 

At the very least K-I allowed himself to be manipulated

by the malcontents led by Nalooraan. These individuals

saw a spiritual revolution in the making and feared losing

their power and clout. It is likely that Nalooraan felt

betrayed when Amudhanar became a desciple of

Kooraththaazhvaar and turned over the temple

admisistration to Sri Ramanuja. Nalooraan found a

willing monarch in K-I and perpetrated the horrendous

crimes. Therefore, either by direct participation or due

to criminal neglect, K-I must bear historical responsibility

for the crimes committed against Sri Ramanuja, Sri Periya Nambi,

and Sri Kooraththaazhvaar (KA).

 

Later, Sri Ramanuja persuaded KA to pray to Lord

varadaraja to get his eye sight back. However, KA

prayed for "jnana" eyes with his Varadaraja Sthavam.

He also prayed for Nalooraan's redemption!

 

 

 

-- P. Dileepan

 

 

Source: "sri raamaanujar," pi. sri, sudhEsamiththiran, 1964