Was Vedanta Desika a disciple of a Kanchi Sankaracharya?

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

While I was surfing the Net recently, I came across an odd

article on the Web site of the Kanchi Kamakoti Matha. The

page purports to be a history of the peetha, but I noticed

several glaring factual errors, including the date of

Adi Sankaracharya himself (they are off by nearly 1000 years).

This aside, what really surprised me was the following paragraph:

 

The 51st preceptor, Sri Vidyateertha (1247 - 1297 A.D) was

an erudite scholar. Saayana, commentator of the Vedas,

Madhavacharya (Vidyaranya after becoming an ascetic),

Bharati Krishna Teertha (of Sringeri Math), Vedanta Desika

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

and Sankarananda of Kanchi Sankara Math were prominent among

Vidya Teeertha's disciples.

 

(see http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/aboutpeetham.html)

 

The strange thing is that the undisputed records of the

*Sringeri* matha in Karnataka have Vidyatirtha as its

presiding acharya, making it highly unlikely that this

Swami was resident in Kanchi during Desika's youth,

which is when the Advaita Swami was alive. Purely out of

geographical considerations this should rule out any

possibility that Desika would have learnt from this Advaita

scholar.

 

Even otherwise, it is unlikely Sri Desika would have ever

have been a disciple in any real sense of Sri Vidyatirtha

or any other Advaita sannyasi. Desika never mentions

an association with such a person, and I do not know of

any third-party record which documents a teacher-student

relationship between the two. Desika writes very clearly

that he learnt everything from his maternal uncle

Sri Atreya Ramanujacharya. Sri Desika also felt strongly

about certain issues of achara and anushthaana (conduct

and practice) which in all likelihood would preclude

his learning from an Advaita sannyasi.

 

With all this in mind, I wrote a polite note to the

authors of the Kanchi Kamakoti Web site in the hope

that they would correct this error:

 

August 21, 2001

Mani Varadarajan

 

Dear Sirs,

 

On one of your web pages it has been written that

Sri Vedanta Desika, the great scholar of the 14th

century, was a disciple of one Vidyateertha Swami,

who is said to have adorned the Kanchi Peetham.

 

This has no historical evidence and could not be

further from the truth. Sri Vedanta Desika was a devout

follower of Bhagavad Ramanuja and had no need to

study anything at the feet of an Advaita sannyasi.

In fact, Sri Desika criticizes the achara and anushthaana

of the ekadandi Advaiti sannyasis as being against the

smritis (see the Satadushani of Swami Desika). This should

make it clear that Sri Desika would not have studied

shastras with an Advaita pandita.

 

Please make this correction as soon as possible as it

spreads misinformation among unassuming visitors.

 

Thanking you,

ramanuja dasa,

Mani

 

-0-0-0-

 

I did not receive a reply for over a month so I had forgotten

I had sent this email. To my surprise, this morning I received

a caustic reply to my request which I have appended below.

I know that the current Kanchi Kamakoti matha and acharyas are

no friends of the Vaishnava community -- indeed, even the most

softspoken of Sri Vaishnava acharyas speak with sadness about how

some of the higher-ups in the matha abuse Perumaal Himself -- but

this sort of reply to my note was really unexpected:

 

KANCHI MUTT <skmkanci

mani, venkatesh

Cc: nsubra

Re: Feedback from kamakoti.org, from Ramanuja Dasan Mani

Varadarajan

Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:57:11 +0500

 

Sri. Mani,

Your email was placed at the divine feet of the Acharyas.

At the outset it be noted that there is no hard and fast rules such as

that Vaishnava Scholars should not study under an Advaita Preceptor. Nor is

it anywhere stated or observed that an Advaiata Scholar should not study

under Vaishnavite Preceptor.

Please note that the very propounder and first preceptor of the Vaishnava

faith, Sri Ramanujacharya, studied under a famous Advaita Preceptor known

as Yagav Prakasa at Kancheepuram. To give examples regarding that even

Advaita Acharayas have had preceptors belonging to Vaishava sampradayam, I

would like to give you some examples.

There lived one reputed Vaishnava Scholar by name Koti Kannika Danam Sri

Rajagopala Tathachariar in Kumbakonam. His ancestors had intimate

connection with the Sankar Mutt, Kancheepuram. Sri Rajagopala Tathachariar

was adept in Srautam and Vaishnava Agamas. When the 68th Acharya, PujyaSri

Chandrasekarendra Saraswathi Swamigal had learnt the intricacies of the

Agamas and Divya Prapandam also from Sri Rajagopala Tathachariar (1908-1910

A.D)

In the first half of the last century, many youngsters of Advaita

Sampradaya studied Kavyas under Mahamahopadyaya R.V.Krishnamachariar,

Professor of Sanskrit in the Government College, Kumbakonam. Further it may

be noted that the above said Sri Krishnamachariar has edited and published

small portions from the manuscripts of a biography of Sri Adi Sankara,

known as 'Sankarabhyudayam'. The parts of this biography appeared in prints

in the Sahradya Journal published by Vani Vilas press at Srirengam, near

Trichi.

The above examples clearly show that your attacking the preceptor- student

relationship between Srividya Teertha and Sri Vedanta Desika is totally a

bit of ignorance and rigid bigotary.

 

Regarding Satadushani: At first it must be noted that the works with the

title Stadoshani- there are only 66 doshas have been dealt with. Perhaps

the work was written in the late years of Sri Desikar who might have made

wrong calculations.

 

The late Mahamhopadyaya Sri N.S. Ananthakrishna Sastrigal, formerly,

Professor of Calcutta University had written answering and condomning the

doshas enumeragted by Sri Vedanta Desika. Sri Sastrigal's work is known as

'Satabhooshani'.

 

About 50 years ago, the 'Statabhushani' written by Mahamahopadyaya

Ananthakrishna Sastrigal was released at a special function at Vishnu

Kanchi, a function having been attended by a good number of Vaishnava

Scholars and large number of Advaitis.

 

In fine, your discriminatory observations are only likely to kindle

differences amongst the different sampradayas or only aiming at unity and

protecting the one common vedic religion of our country.

 

Regards,

R.Seshadri

Srimatam

 

 

Aside from several glaring historical errors in the reply,

please observe the absolute lack of respect for Sri Desika.

Mr. Seshadri even makes the ad hominem argument that a

feeble-minded, aged Desika miscounted the number of vaadas

out of in his own work and therefore mistitled the Satadushani!

 

I am not denying the fact that the Advaita tradition has an

illustrious tradition of its own. However, as I am sure you will

all agree, praise of this tradition should not come at the

expense of historical accuracy and at the expense of respect for

other acharyas' and other sampradaya's opinions. In fact, I

suspect that the real reason for the paragraph is to make a

veiled insult at Swami Desika and Vaishnavas in general.

 

I also object to the accusation that disputing historical

facts seeds dissension in "one vedic community". Certainly

we all need to protect the sanatana dharma together, despite

differences in tradition and interpretation. However, our

common defense and enjoyment of the Vedic tradition should

never come in the way of intellectual honesty and fidelity

to the path of the great acharyas who preceded us. Being

part of the greater Vedic community does not mean that we

should obliterate valid and logically derived distinctions

in doctrine and practice.

 

 

It is clear from the Kanchi Kamakoti matha's reply that the

propagation of this misinformation comes from the very top.

My reason for writing to you all is this. If any of you has

connections with the Kanchi matha, please go visit the acharyas

and ask them what documentation they have for this account.

Please also request them, if they cannot verify this, to remove what

is clearly a historical and sAmpradAyika inaccuracy

 

In the mean time, I urge all of you who are interested in this

issue to send *respectful* email to skmkanci, the

address of the Kanchi Kamakoti Web master, requesting them to

remove this paragraph pending historical verification.

 

With regards,

adiyen ramanuja dasan,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

Concerning this topic I had originally asked that

people send email to the Kanchi Matha requesting

the historical inaccuracy to be removed. A few

people have mentioned that bombarding them with

email will be counterproductive and will not serve

the purpose at hand.

 

So please hold off on your emails until I get further

clarifications from some senior people and from the

Kanchi matha itself.

 

Thanks, and sorry for the interruption,

Mani

[Guest guest]

Dear Friends,

 

I echo Sriman Mani's statements. We should have a

reverential/respectful approach towards the senior officials of the

Kanchi Matham. I am sure they will be understanding on a higher

scale.

 

Sriman Seshadri had mentioned in his reply to Sriman Mani that NS

Anatha Krishnasastrigal had composed Sata-bhUshani as a rejoinder to

Vedanta Desikar's Satadhushani.

 

Many of us are not aware of the dialectical works of present day

acharyas, like U.Ve.Uttamoor Veeraraghavachar who brilliantly wrote

"Paramaartha Bhushanam".

 

To this hallowed list is Abhinava Ranganatha Jeer who composed a

rejoinder to Madhusudhana Saraswathi's Advaita Siddhi in professional

navIna-tarka style. Not to forget are the Brilliant Works of

U.Ve.K.S.Narayanachar, aasthana vidwan of parakala matham.

 

Last but not least, i would like to point out that diversity is the

hallmark of sanatana dharma. BrahmajnAnam is not the private property

of any sampradayam, every jiiva is free to follow any of the

darshanas he/she feels comfortable with.

 

Great Souls have discussed these issues during their sadhana. It is

wise that we respect their view, if not wholly accept them. As Sriman

K Sadananda pointed out in an earlier email "accepting contradictory

interpretations represents a confused mind, but accepting one and

respecting the other represents one's culture."

 

sarvebhyo acharyo namo namaha:

 

yo nityam achutha-padambuja yugma-rukma

vyamohatas taditarani trinayamenae

asmad guror bhagavatosya dayaikasindho

ramanujasya charano charanam prapaddye

 

shruthi smruthi purananaam alayam karunalayam

namami bhagavadpaada shankaram loka shankaram

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Daasan,

 

Malolan Cadambi

 

__________

 

Get your free @.co.uk address at http://mail..co.uk

or your free @.ie address at http://mail..ie