Guest guest Posted May 14, 2000 Report Share Posted May 14, 2000 Dear Vaishnavas, Our tradition states that a ruler called Krimikantha persecuted Sri Ramanuja and his disciples. He is said to have got the eyes of Shri Kuresha plucked out. Are there any publications which identify this king conclusively? Is his bigotry attested from alternate sources? I ask because recently, I read an account which casts aspersions on the traditional understanding of these events. I am reproducing selected statements from the text (see reference at the end). Any help will be highly appreciated. I hope I am not offending anyone. Vishal _____________________ Persecution of Sri Vaisnavas by Krimikantha The very details of the incident are doubted by Rao [Ref. 1, pg. 59-61]. He says: "Though it is correct to say that the Chola monarchs were ardent patrons of Saivism, it need not be conlcuded from this, nor from the account of the persecution of Ramanuja that there was a general persecution of the Vaisnvavas and the Vaisnava temples in the Chola period. From the Chola inscriptions, we know that they extended their patrongage to both the Saiva and the Vaisnava temples". Rao identifies the king Krimikantha mentioned in Sri Vaisnava hagiographies as Kulottuga I (1070-1120 CE) and then states: "There are several inscriptions of Kulottunga I in the Srirangam temple". Rao then lists all these inscriptions, which make it clear that numerous generals of the king made lavish grants to the temple, which was the center of the Sri Vaisnava community, and then concludes: "It is significant that a number of generals and officers of Kulottuga I figure as the donors of the Srirangam temple. This is unlikely if the king had been a Saiva fanatic." Hari further says: "In the present state of our knowledge and with the tradition account of the Guruparamparai as the basis, we can only conclude that the persecutor of Ramanuja was not Adhirarajendra but Kulottunga I. It was the audacious statement of Kurattalvan, who made a joke of the dictum of the king, viz. 'Sivat parataram nasti' that was perhaps responsible for the blinding order. Ramanuja felt himself unsafe and so he left the Chola territory altogether. For aught we know even the blinding of Kuruttalvan might have been a hagiographical invention, for the Guruparamaparai tells us that Alvan regained his eyesight later through divine beneficence. There is a good reason to believe that the account of persecution is highly exaggerated." Reference: 1. V. N. Hari Rao; History of the Sritangam Temple; Sri Venkateswara Universtity; Tirupati; 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2000 Report Share Posted May 16, 2000 > bhakti-list , VAgarwalV@c... > wrote: I can not comment on the wisdom of engaging some of the Internet type trouble makers :-) for they show utter lack of faith for the traditional wisdom of all traditions except their own. In this case some textual support seem to have been enlisted ... for greater authenticity I suppose. Since this list itself is not confined to Srivaishnava's, one may look at the relevant data *as available upto now* and see what emerges. At the outset I'd like to say that Hari Rao's work on Koil Olugu etc is well known but it's clear he follows the school of thought that if the story's not to be found in epigraphical records, it is a fabrication. I am amazed that the same scholars do not look at *contemporary* textual sources and other interlocking pieces of data from other areas. Reverting to your post, there seem to be three issues here: 1. Was Sri Ramanuja really persecuted? So did he actually go to Mysore? 2. Was KurattALvAn really blinded? 3. Were the Cholas or a specific Chola pursue a policy of intolerance towards Srivaishnavam Q1. Was Sri Ramanuja really persecuted? So did he actually go to Mysore? It is interesting in this context what BR Gopal (Ramanuja in Karnataka - An Epigraphical Study, New Delhi, 1983) says about the kind of information provided by inscriptions themselves: "They make no reference to the religious and social conditions of the times, unless they are directly concerned with them, as in the case of the famous Sravanabelagola inscription ... Hence it would be too much to expect from these epigraphs any direct information about Sri Ramanuja. But whenever they do refer, they are the most authentic and contemporary evidences'. (p. 3) So did Sri Ramanuja visit Mysore? Yes, he did ... based on any number of inscriptions which refer to Srivaishnavas consecrating temples. Also, inscriptions tally with some crucial material in the hagiographies. For example, the sAligrAma inscription of the 12th cent which talks of "embArum, ALvAnum, AccAnum" of the maTha of Srirangam which has been identified as embAr (Govinda), AnantALvAn (AnantasUri) and kiDAmbi AccAn. cf. M.E.R, 1913, p. 36; also pp. 12, 13 of the Dynastic List of Inscriptions, E.C. vol XIV; VN Hari Rao admits that "this is the most important contemporary evidence that goes to prove the traditional account of Ramanuja's visit to Mysore". cf.VN Hari Rao's doctoral thesis , pp 167-168. So was his visit a regular tour (digvijayam) or was it undertaken under extraordinary circumstances? If it be argued that former were the case, "his return to Srirangam would have been certain. In this connection, it may noted that kUresa in one of his hymns (Sri SundarabAhustava, verse 130) prays that as in the past, he should be in the service of Sri Ramanuja at Srirangam. Thereby he prays to God that Sri Ramanuja should return to Srirangam. If Sri Ramanuja's (visit) were simply a tour, kUresa would not have made such a prayer. Hence, that there was considerable opposition and even threat to life at Srirangam which made the acharya abandon the place, appears almost certain?" (BR Gopal, ibid., pp 12-13) Q2. Was KUrattALvAn really blinded? An acharya like kUrattALvAn is not going to refer to his blindness in his works much. So it would be futile to look for direct evidence in his works for the blinding episode. There are nevertheless couple of references which may be utilized as pointers. For kUresa, "service is the ultimate aim but KUrattALvAn makes a mysterious further request: O Lord of unsurpassed compassion! O sea of patience! O source of everything! Since I am caught up in several attachments, I pray for something (yat kim api). Pray grant me this. (Varadarajastavam 90) Tradition says that in these verses kUrattALvAn is making a veiled request that the Lord return his eysight." (cf Vasudha Narayanan, The Way and the Goal,Washington DC, 1987, pp 103). Prof Narayanan adds, " More explicit is kUrattALvAn's request at the end of the SundarabAhustava (SbS): O Lord of the forested hills! You brought back to life those killed in the battle at Lanka. You revived the son of the twice born who died young. you recovered SandIpani's child and you gave life to the fetus that hailed from the race of Arjuna. You are constant. How can you not grant the desire of my guru and me?(SbS124) This stotra, written in tirumAlirumcOlai during kUrattALvAn's exile, confirms that kUrattALvAn was separated from Ramanuja. It is important because it is the earliest reference of its kind and comes from a nonhagiographical source. kUrattALvAn's requests to be reunited with his guru and his veiled request for "something" (eyesight?) are significant, for they come immediately after he takes refuge with the Lord." (ibid., p. 104) Q3. Were the Cholas or a specific Chola pursue a policy of intolerance towards Srivaishnavam? The answer is a resounding yes, at least to the second question. For various reasons, Hari Rao thinks the contemporary king is Kulottunga I and since his inscriptions involving grants are recorded in the Srirangam temple, he was not intolerant and ergo, the entire Srivaishnava tradition of persecution against their darsana is a fabrication. This is quite absurd as the whole thing hinges on some dating arrived at from conventional sources. If one were to assume a date 50 years later than hitherto accepted, one would arrive at Kulottunga II as the contemporary king. This king's record does show that he was a saiva partisan and quite possibly an anti Vaishnava bigot. The evidence comes from Chidambaram where it is well known that Govindaraja swamy sannidhi was right there by the Siva shrine. (cf Periya tirumozi 3.2.1 thru 3.2.10 and perumAL tirumozi 10.1 thru 10.11). It is equally well known that a famous court poet (oTTakUttar) boasted that the king he served had "thrown an image of Vishnu in to the sea at Chidambaram". He makes the claim three times once each in his KulOttungaccOLan ulA, rAjarAjaccOlan ulA and takkayAkapparaNi. These are cited in B. Natarajan, The city of the cosmic dance, New Delhi, 1974. It is equally well known that Sri Ramanuja was involved in reinstalling of Sri Govindaraja Swamy in Tirupati at the site of an existing Parthasarathy temple. For a complete chronology and narration of these episodes, plse refer TKT Viraraghavacharya, History of Tirupati, 3 vols, TTD, Tirupati, 1997, pp. 244-287. Hope this helps, LS Send instant messages & get email alerts with Messenger. http://im./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2000 Report Share Posted May 17, 2000 Sri: Dear Sri LAkshmi Naraishman Srinivas, Very good answer and authenticative. You wrote: Q3. Were the Cholas or a specific Chola pursue a policy of intolerance towards Srivaishnavam? The answer is a resounding yes, at least to the second question. For various reasons, Hari Rao thinks the contemporary king is Kulottunga I and since his inscriptions involving grants are recorded in the Srirangam temple, he was not intolerant and ergo, the entire Srivaishnava tradition of persecution against their darsana is a fabrication. This is quite absurd as the whole thing hinges on some dating arrived at from conventional sources. If one were to assume a date 50 years later than hitherto accepted, one would arrive at Kulottunga II as the contemporary king. This king's record does show that he was a saiva partisan and quite possibly an anti Vaishnava bigot. The evidence comes from Chidambaram where it is well known that Govindaraja swamy sannidhi was right there by the Siva shrine. (cf Periya tirumozi 3.2.1 thru 3.2.10 and perumAL tirumozi 10.1 thru 10.11). It is equally well known that a famous court poet (oTTakUttar) boasted that the king he served had "thrown an image of Vishnu in to the sea at Chidambaram". He makes the claim three times once each in his KulOttungaccOLan ulA, rAjarAjaccOlan ulA and takkayAkapparaNi. These are cited in B. Natarajan, The city of the cosmic dance, New Delhi, 1974. Hope this helps, LS ====== This also is referred to by the "MaRaimalai adigaLaar" in his works very explicitly and is referred to by Sri KrishnaPremi in his upanyasam series on Ramanuja. Regards Narayana Narayana adiyEn Send instant messages & get email alerts with Messenger. http://im./ ______________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.