Tirupati History (Emberumanaar Sannidhi) and Jeeyar Matha

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas,

 

In reading the histories of Tirupati, I gather that there

is no solid evidence other than hearsay that the sannidhi

of Emberumaanaar was constructed by Tirumalai Anantanpillai.

In epigraphy the first reference to the shrine is in the

13th century or so, at least according to S.K. Ramachandra

Rao's excellent history of the temple. Does anyone have

any evidence to the contrary?

 

Varadhan has told me of the opinion that the periya (pedda)

jeeyar matha was started by Emberumaanaar and that the

chinna jeeyar matha was started by Maamunigal, but once

again I don't think there is any evidence for the former,

other than hearsay, and we know what that's worth.

 

regards,

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Mani

[Guest guest]

dear bhAgavathAs,

 

> is no solid evidence other than hearsay that the sannidhi

> of Emberumaanaar was constructed by Tirumalai Anantanpillai.

> In epigraphy the first reference to the shrine is in the

> 13th century or so, at least according to S.K. Ramachandra

> Rao's excellent history of the temple. Does anyone have

> any evidence to the contrary?

 

The only evidence about the emperumAnAr sannadhi we have is

circumstantial and words passed down through generations..

 

The cicumstantial evidence we have is as follows:

1. anantAzhvAn was the first AchAryA during/after rAmAnuja to

reside there.

2. periyathirumalainambi was an elder contemporary of rAmAnuja, and

hence chances are that he attained paramapadam earlier than

rAmAnuja - so, he could not have built it

3. there is mention in thirumalai ozhugu about rAmAnuja

establishing certain practices in thirumalai (i donot have a

copy with me.. will search and provide data if available) -

i.e. he was a venerated figure in thirumalai

4. given the above, and the general acceptance of srI anantAzhvAn's

regard for rAmAnuja, it is very plausible that he built the

sannadhi. In fact, the "satAri" in rAmAnujA's sannadhi is known

as anantAzhvAn in thirumalai.

 

The above does not, of course provide 100% evidence.. one may claim

that the sannadhi was built later on and all these hearsay has

been ascribed later... Sure, there is that possibility as well.

 

Re: the book mentioned by maNi, the book is based mostly on the

inscriptions present in the temple in its current state.. It is

well known that vijayanagara kings did do a lot of temple

building, and hence, the book may deal with only what is present

in the current form! - The sannadhi may have been established

inside the temple in a different form, and when the renovation/

building was done, it may have taken the current form - and hence,

inscriptions dating earlier than 13th century may not have

been found..So, even this book may not present the *complete*

history of thirumalai..

 

 

> Varadhan has told me of the opinion that the periya (pedda)

> jeeyar matha was started by Emberumaanaar and that the

> chinna jeeyar matha was started by Maamunigal, but once

> again I don't think there is any evidence for the former,

> other than hearsay, and we know what that's worth.

 

again, there is cirumstantial evidence.. there is a lineage of

jeeyars starting from emperumAnAr/anantAzhvAn (who established the

maTam on command from rAmAnuja and chose the first jIyar) present

in the jIyar maTam. In fact, there is a large painting inside

the maTam that one can see.. Of course, the painting is

fairly recent (early 1920s..).. One has to accept that there

was no vested interest in later days in "creating" such a

lineage to come to the "periya jIyar maTam was established by

rAmAnuja" conclusion.

 

One difficulty with our Indian tradition is that there has been

very little attention paid to "documenting" history like the

western civilization. So, most of conclusions, one has to draw

from cirumstantial evidence and "plausibility" of hearsay.

This leads to *any* situation being plausible. So, one has to have a

preponderance of circumstantial/hearsay evidence to conclude that

something is "strongly possible". Also, a modicum of commonsense

mighe be needed (e.g. the situation where "ALL the temples were

vadakalai and have been converted to thenkalai, and due to the

heroic efforts of some people a handful have been saved by

being converted again" is certainly a "plausible" scenario, but it

does not mesh with the data we have currently and is certainly

not possible to be supported if we apply commonsense). But either

way, anything, including rAmAnujA's life history as documented in

6000-p-padi cannot be *proven* by current standards..

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

varadhan

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Mani and Sri Varadhan,

 

SrIvEnkatAchalEtihAsamAlA of Sri AnanthALwAn says that Sri Ananthalwan prayed to

Srinivasa and established Ramanuja Sannidhi and recital of Ramanuja

Nootthandhaadhi in the temple. Actually that anubhavam is wonderful. Alwan does

not go to the temple. Lord Venkatesa makes him come and conveys to him "I am

more worried than you for having lost emberumAnAr."

 

Sri Ramanuja felt that a virakta bhAgavata who does not have a family should

look after the temple affairs and hence appointed a Jeeyar. Sri Manavala

Mamunigal also comes in the list of Jeeyars of the mutt. His disciple

Thiruvengada Jeeyar was the Periya Jeeyar according to Thirumalai Ozhugu. Chinna

Jeeyar is chosen by Pedda Jeeyar and ascends the throne after his Acharya

attains Paramapadham.

 

Dasanudasan

Vishnu

--

 

On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 15:27:06

Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>Dear Bhagavatas,

>

>In reading the histories of Tirupati, I gather that there

>is no solid evidence other than hearsay that the sannidhi

>of Emberumaanaar was constructed by Tirumalai Anantanpillai.

>In epigraphy the first reference to the shrine is in the

>13th century or so, at least according to S.K. Ramachandra

>Rao's excellent history of the temple. Does anyone have

>any evidence to the contrary?

>

>Varadhan has told me of the opinion that the periya (pedda)

>jeeyar matha was started by Emberumaanaar and that the

>chinna jeeyar matha was started by Maamunigal, but once

>again I don't think there is any evidence for the former,

>other than hearsay, and we know what that's worth.

>

>regards,

>aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

>Mani

>

>

>

 

 

See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar

http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/spl\

ash.asp

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Mani,

 

I think you walked into the realm of logic and

evidence here.

 

As I see it there are two ways to approach such

issues. One is to believe in what has been said

and discredit the issue only upon the supply of

incontrovertible evidence; the other is to

disbelieve what has been said until incontrovertible

evidence is supplied to prove the issue. It appears

that you have chosen the latter patth. Nothing

wrong with that except that you appear to be trying

to challenge the former method without reasonable

basis (notwithstanding your request for evidence,

I am basing my assessment of your stand, on your

statement "what hearsay is worth").

 

I will explain why I think your stand is

unreasonable.

 

I can see your viewpoint that independent sets

of documents can be accepted as validation of

an event. However, the lack of such "evidence"

does not constitute denial of the fact. Furthermore

even the existence of independent and timely works

cannot be 100% proof as there can and will be

challenges on the validity of the text (such

as add-ons and tamperings).

 

So, it really comes down to your starting value

system. If you chose disbelief as the starting

point then you are forced to question everything.

Surely, even statements such as Vedas being sabdha

pramanams are unacceptable under this system as

the evidence can be construed as being from a

biased party - or to be more correct, there is no

proof that the evidence itself is untouched and

unbiased.

 

The only time I see that such issues need to be

challenged are when they appear contradictory to

other facts/stories within the same belief system

or if they are used as evidence in denouncing

other philosphies or people.

 

The bigger problem I see is in the selective

acceptance of evidences and frankly I have been no

less guilty than any other in that matter.

 

The bottom line is how does it all fit in together.

We know that Sri Anandazhvar was a great disciple

of Sri Ramanujar. We know that he had phenomenal

respect for his teacher. Is it likely that he

built a sannidhi for his acharya - absolutely.

Is it possible that he did not and someone else

who had great respect for him added that into his

legend - yes it is. But do we have to doubt that

he actually did - no factual reason to doubt it,

in the absence of contrary evidence.

 

adiyEn madhurakavi dAsan

TCA Venkatesan