Return of namperumAL to Srirangam

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Members,

 

For the benefit of those who are not members in SV-General I am

posting my rebuttal which I have posted in SV-General for the above

subject.

 

======Original Message==========

 

Dear Sri Krishnamachari swamy,

 

You wrote:

=========Quote 1================

Reference 1:

 

>From the Foreward to "SrI vedAnta deSika stotras": SrI vedAnta

deSika – A short biographical note" by R. Rangachari.

 

SrI venkaTanAtha (venkaTeSa) was born in 1268 A.D. on the day

specially sacred to the Lord of the venkaTa Hills (BhAdrapada

SravaNa) in the village of tUppul. It was the year vibhava. The

gOtra of viSvAmitra gained new luster by being associated with this

propagator of the ancient and yet new philosophy – SrI rAmAnuja

deSika darSana.

 

After a measure of peace had been re-established at SrIra'ngam and

the Deity returned to the temple, about 1358 A.D., SrI deSika also

returned to SrIra'ngam and lived there for a few more years. He

passed away in 1369 A.D. on the birth-day of his beloved tiruma'ngai

AzhvAr (kArtikai kRttikA).

=======Unquote 1================

 

I do not know who is Sri R.Rangachari. But how can you say that his

observation is authentic. Is there any evidence with which he has

substantiated his claim for the return of namperumAL in 1358 A.D

 

I believe, the inscription on the walls of Srirangam are much more

irrefutable. However if one starts questioning the authenticity of

these inscriptions, which were made to be chiseled out by those great

kings who won the war and reinstated namperumAL, what is the degree

of authenticity one can attach to the later day writers?

 

You say that by the above mentioned article it is proved that

namperumAL returned to Srirangam in 1358. But look at the

inscription. Atleast the inscription gives the date of return as

clearly Vaikasi 17th in the year of 'parIdhApi'. Now we are in

the 'chitrabhAnu' year in 2002. VaikAsi has just passed. Now let us

back calculate as to which of the Julian-calendar year in the past

are the tamizh year 'parIdhApi' with the month of 'vaikAsi'. I just

did this backworking. The last 'parIdhApi-vaikAsi' was in the year

1972-1973. So going back exactly 600 years, it would have been during

1372-1373. As the inscription cleary says that the return is

in "vaikAsi-parIdhApi", this should have been in the year 1372 and

not even 1371. So one more year ahead.

 

As we are all aware from undistorted historical evidences, the

muhammedan invasion of Srirangam took place in the year 1311 and

1331. The 1311 was by Malik Kafur and the 1331 was by Ulugh Khan

(Mohammed-bin-Thuglak). The year as referred by you as 1358

is 'viLambi', 1359 - 'vikAri', 1360-'chArvari'. Where is 'parIdhApi'

in this?

 

So this should have taken place either in 1372 or 1312. Now everyone

knows that, when namperumAL went out(of Srirangam) during the 1311

invasion, his return was not due to GopaNNa udayAr but due to the

temple servants themselves. This is clearly indicated in 'Koil

Ozhugu'. Again, even if the 'Koil Ozhugu' can be discarded as not

authentic due to some inconsistencies which are quite evident, every

one is sure that the Vijayanagar kingdom was not even established

during that period. All historians have uniformly accepted this. When

this invasion took place, the Hoysalas were the major power in the

South India.

 

Now the Vijayanagar Kingdom was found by Harihara and Bukka in the

year 1336 only. They started as a king of a small province and slowly

expanded their boundaries. Surely by logic, 35 years would have been

passed before they establish a massive empire, massive enough to

defeat the muslims who were very mighty at that time. Let us even

ignore this. What I wanted to convey is that the return of namperumAL

for sure is in 'parIdhApi-vaikAsi'. If this is not 1312, undoubtedly

it should be ONLY 1372. Certainly it could not be 1432. I am sure

every one would agree to this.

 

Again based on the above it could not be 1358 or 1359 or 1360. So how

could Swamy dEsikan have been present in Srirangam when namperumAL

returned in 1372, as he attained paramapadham in 1369.

 

================Quote 2====================

Kampana's (KOppANArya's) wife, who was a poetess who accompanied

Kampana in his successful efforts to drive out the muslims from

SrIrangam, madurai and other places, describes the desolate state of

the SrIrangam temple as of 1360.

 

My own note: Kampana's wife is unlikely to have visited the temple

compound and premises and written a description of the sad state of

the temple complex while it was under muslim occupation. It is

reasonable to assume that she visited the temple complex after

SrIrangam was conquered, and she had free access to the temple

premises. This does not necessarily say that napmperumAL returned to

the temple by this date, but it does suggest that SrIrangam was

restored back to Kampana's control on or before the year 1360.

============Unquote 2=================

 

Based on the above facts, the authenticity of even Sri M.R.

Sampathkumaran's account is debatable. Again please note that KambaNa

and GOpaNNa are two different personalities. Yes, KambaNa was the son

of Bukka II and was the crowned prince of the Vijayangar kingdom.

GOpaNNa was the Prime Minister of the kingdom at that time. KambaNA's

wife is Ganga Devi who wrote the historic kAvyam "madhurA vijayam",

in which he gives clear account that GOpaNNa headed the army which

fought the muslims at Srirangam and her husband KambaNa headed the

army which fought the muslims at Madhurai. Hence the title "madhurA

vijayam".

 

Though your own account regarding Ganga devi visiting Srirangam

temple sounds logic, it really begs verification based on the above

facts.

 

Dear Sri Mani, you have indicated in one of your mails that the year

inscribed as "bandhupriya" could actually be in error and it could

actually be "bahupriya" and hence namperumAL would have been restored

back in Srirangam much earlier than 1372 (1371) in 1360. Surprisingly

I find no such year (both 'bandhupriya' and 'bahupriya') amongst any

of the 60 years that are in vogue in the Sri Vaishnava panchAngams.

Also while the inscriptions clearly indicate the year as 'parIdhApi',

where from you got these two years? Are they the aliases for the

years 'parIdhApi' and 'chArvari' respectively?

 

Now I repose the same question that Sri SA Narasimhan has posed in

his message. Why to go into unwarranted conclusions, when there is a

clear evidence that namperumAL was restored in 1371(1372). This is

like having butter in hand and searching for ghee. What is the

purpose of this deliberate distortion of the historical facts?

 

Dear Sri Malolan Cadambi,

I went through your account. Atleast you seem to accept the date of

return of namperumAL as 1371. But what is the basis of the work

referred by you, in which it is stated that Swamy dEsikan came back

to Srirangam and that namperumAL was restored much after Srirangam

was liberated. I understood from the "MadhurA Vijayam" that

namperumAL accompanied the entire army along with GOpaNNa and KambaNa

and that he was immediately restored once Srirangam was liberated.

One cannot discard this "MadhurA vijayam" as just a poem as all

historians have a uniform acceptance that it was only this Ganga Devi

who was the first to have any sense of recording history.

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh