Another on return of namperumAL to Srirangam

[Guest guest]

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Members,

 

Some days back I had posted a message regarding the above topic that

came on SV-General for those who are not d to that list.

This thread is still continuing and I am presenting my latest reply

to this for your additions and corrections.

 

Message as posted in SV-General:

 

srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

srImadh varavara munayE namaha

 

Dear Members,

 

I am giving my response to four or five messages in this thread.

Please read through the following;

 

======1. Sri Mani's mail===========

TV Venktaesh had asked how the mnemonic 'bandhupriya' maps

to a particular year. He is correct that it does not occur

in the names of the years in the 60-year cycle. Rather, it

is based on the kaTapayAdi sankhyA. The name 'kaTapayAdi'

itself describes how this mnemonic works. Each 'varga' of

the Sanskritic alphabet, beginning with 'ka', 'Ta', 'pa'

or 'ya', can be used to encode the numerals 1, 2, 3, etc.

Hence ka = 1, kha = 2, ga = 3, gha = 4, ca = 6, cha = 7,

ja = 8, jha = 9, and as special cases, the nasals 'nga'

and 'nya' are denoted as 0. The same goes for the vargas

beginning with 'Ta', 'pa', and 'ya'. The following link

describes this system in some detail.

 

http://minchu.ee.iisc.ernet.in/mirror/icm/sang3.htm

 

Mani

 

=====End of Sri Mani's mail====================

 

adiyEn's reply:

 

I thank Sri Mani for pointing it out clearly. Actually he had done ii

even before. But I overlooked it when I asked this question. I

sincerely apologize for this. Indeed the Salivahana 1293 corresponds

to 'bandhupriya' when decoded using the kaTapayAdhi sankhyA.

 

But my question is, Sri Mani said that some historians believe that

this 1293 is in error and should have been 1283 or 1282. Now since

this entire thread is questioning the authenticity of one or another

view, let me ask, what is the basis with which those historians tend

to say that this may be in error. When some body questions the

authenticity of some thing, I feel strongly, that he must be having

some irrefutable evidences to prove his standpoint. If such evidence

is not available, then those doubts are surely to be discarded.

 

 

=====2. Mail From Sri Anand Karalapakkam (part 1)================

 

> SrI:

> SrImatE nigamAnta mahAdESikAya namaH

>

> namO nArAyaNa!

>

> Dear bhaktas,

>

> In 3000 paDi guruparamparA prabhAvam,

> 3rd Bramhatantra svatantra jIyar has given

> the details about the return of SwAmi DESikan

> to SrIra~ngam.

>

> Just citing two things from it :

>

> 1. SwAmi DESikan composed the following verse

> for the permanent ma~ngaLAsAsanam :

>

> " vidhi vihita saparyAm ....Samita vimatapakshAm

> SAsvatIm ra~ngalakshmeem" {available in DESika

> Stotra mUla Skt books as a separate section for

> ma~ngalAsAsana verses for the four DDs}.

======== end of part 1 of Sri Anand's mail================

 

adiyEn's reply

 

Well, I have not gone through the the 3000p padi completely. Is it

very clearly stated in it that Sri dEsikar composed this

mangaLAsAsanam AFTER returning to Srirangam, after namperumAL Himself

returned? Please confirm this. I will post my actual question after

your reply.

 

====Mail from Sri Anand (part 2)======================

 

> 2. SwAmi DESikan also composed the following verse :

> < In the footnotes, it is written that this verse is present

> as kalveTTu on the madIl-suvar near sEnai-mudaliyAr

> sannidhi> :

>

> " aanIyAnIla-sRu~nga dyutirasita jagatran~janA tan~janAtrES -

> san~jn~yAm aarAdhya kan~cit samayamata -

> nihatyOddhanushkAn turushkAn |

> lakshmIshmAbhyAm upAbhyAm saha nija nilayE svAbhayan -

> ra~nganAtham samyakcaryAm saparyAmakRuta bhuvi yaSaH-

> prApaNO gOpanAryaH ||"

 

=========End of part 2 of Sri Anand's mail.

 

adiyEn's reply

 

Dear Sri Anand, what is the basis of your claim that this was

composed by Sri dEsikar. I do not want references to 3000p padi or

prapannAmrutham etc, because in the inscription, nowhere it is

mentioned that Sri dEsikar composed this. Also I read the "kOil

ozhugu" in tandem with the inscription regarding the return of

namperumAL and the "ozhugu" records this incident as follows:- (For

those who are not aware, the "kOil ozhugu" is a historical recording

of all the events that are associated with the Srirangam temple which

in our Sri Vaishnava sampradhAyam is addressed as just 'kOil')

 

....... gOpaNNa uDayArum niravadhika balatthuDanE vandhu, thulukkarai

nissEshamAga azhitthu; singapuratthilum

sakAptham "AayirattirunooRRuth thonnuuRRumoonRil" (please note that

the Salivahana year is clearly recorded in words and not numbers.

Here the Inscription on the walls of Srirangam and the ozhugu, both

uniformly records the year as 1293. So there is no basis for those

historians referred by Sri Mani, to have doubted the year of return

as inscribed on the walls) sellA ninRa parIthApi varusham (Again, the

inscription gives only the Salivahana year 1293. It does not use the

word parIthApi at all. But the ozhugu here clearly used the

word 'parIthApi'. We have seen that both clearly indicate the

Salivahana year as 1293 so it has to be only 'bandhupriya'

or 'parIthApi' and not 'bahupriya' as quoted by Sri Mani) vaikAsi

mAdham padhinEzhAm thEdhi thiruvarangam thiruppathiyilE perumALai

nAchiyAruDanE ezhundharuLap paNNi, kOil thirukkAppai neekki, periya

perumALuDan sErthu prathishTippitthu, thiruvArAdhanamum paNNuvitthu,

dharmavarmAvin thirumadhiLil keezhaNDai veLippuRatthilE avarukkuth

(here this avarukku is referring to gOpaNNA) thaniyan koDuttha

vrutthAnthatthai veLiyiTTaruLinAr.

"AnIyAnIla srungadhyuthirachitha.....saparyAm

guruthanijayasOdharappaNO" enRu silAlikitham paNNuvitthAn.

 

 

This is what is available in the kOil ozhugu. It is to be noted that

neither the inscriptions nor the ozhugu, talks anywhere about the

presence of Sri dEsikar. Again, accepting that Sri dEsikar would have

composed the slOka, it actually praises gOpaNNA for his wonderful

kainkaryam of restoring namperumAL to his grand home. If it is so,

surely this gOpaNNA, who was blessed by Sri dEsikar himself

(according to the claims made), would certainly have made Sri

dEsikar's name also to be chiseled on the walls for the great

kainkaryam that he had done. There is no such thing that is found.

 

Also according to Sri A. Krishnamachari swamy of Sri Vaishnava Sri,

the meters or the style of this slOkA are so very simple that it does

not require a "kavithArkika simham" like Sri dEsikar to compose such

thing. On the other hand, if one credits Sri dEsikar with this

slOka , it only brings disrepute to his very title, "kavithArkika

simham". So by all means, it is sure that Sri dEsikar could not have

composed this slOkam. It is also proved further, after having proved

clearly that namperumAL returned to Srirangam only in 1371 or 1372,

and accepting the fact that Sri dEsikar attained paramapadham in

1369, Sri dEsikar could not have composed this slOkam at all.

 

 

But I see nobody answering Sri SA Narasimhan's very simple

question. "If Sri dEsikar was in Srirangam after namperumAL's return,

would he not have composed great slOkAs out of utmost joy as he was

the one who did great mangaLAsAsanam to namperumAL through

his 'abheethisthavam' when He (namperumAL) was in exile?". If one

says that the above slOka ("AnIyAnIla..") was the one composed by

him, does it mean that, a person, who made more than one slOka out of

his utmost concern, would make only one, just one, when his joy would

know no bounds, after safe return of namperumAL. And his other

question is also not answered. When Sri dEsikar himself was there,

why need to go for a blind washerman to prove the identity of

namperumAL. Will there be a person more qualified that Sri dEsikar

himself to identify namperumAL. Sorry, this is

logically "iDichifying".

 

=====3. Mail from Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli=============

 

5. in 1335 harihara declares independence from Delhi Sultanate, thus

starting the glorious period of Vijayanagara kings (1336 - 1565).

he establishes the kingdom with his brother, Bukka - I. The vijay

nagara kingdom starts war with the neighbouring muslim kingdoms.

 

6. The Madurai sultanate (now under tremendous stress) is liberated

by Kampana Udaiyar, a prince of the Vijayanagar kingdom, in 1365.

 

 

It is possible that Srirangam was liberated in 1365 about the same

time as Madurai, giving some time for restoration. The return of

Namperumal in 1371 appears to be solid. However, that does not mean

that the temple fucntions did not happen prior to namperumal's

arrival.

 

It is also possible that the restoration porcess might have started

prior to 1365 even while under the rule of Muslim sultanate of

Madurai due to constant stress from Vijayanagra army.

 

the vijayanagra army was always fighting some war or other during

their 200 years of existance.

 

It is possible that Swami Desikar was able to go back to Srirangam

after 1365, and witness some of the restoration effort. There is

evidence that restoration continued during Sri Manavala Maamuni's

time frame, and past his time as well.

 

adiyen

Venkatesh Elayavalli

 

===== End of Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli's mail=============

 

adiyEn's reply:

 

Upto your point no. 5 is okay. But you say that it is possible for

gOpaNNA to have defeated the muslims in the year 1365. Again what is

the basis with which you are saying this. In this regard one can view

the following URL http://www.intamm.com/history/kamban.htm

 

In this A.Krishnaswamy (Actually written in tamizh as kiruTTinaswAmy,

not the A.Krishnamachari of SriVaishnavaSri fame) has written an

article with title "tamizhnADum kambaNa uDayArum". In this articles

he refers to many other authors who have claimed different dates for

kambaNa's victory over muslims and has clearly refuted them proving

the year of victory as 1371. He clearly states that so far there are

132 inscriptions found on the victory of KambaNA. He gives the

account that KambaNA entered Tamizh Nadu from Virinchipuram and

defeated the sambuvarAyar, a small king who ruled from Kanchipuram in

the year 1361 and goes on to prove that the correct year in which the

Sultan of Madurai was defeated is in 1371 AD based on the

inscriptions available from the temples in Trichy (Srirangam),

ThiruppullANi etc. (These articles are only in Tamizh).

 

So the correct date of victory over the sultan of Madurai is only

1371. And also since the inscriptions and Ozhugu as referred above

clearly indicates the return of namperumAL as 1371 (Salivahana 1293),

vaikAsi, the delay between the victory over sultan and return of

namperumAL would be only in months (certainly not 12 months) or weeks

and not years as indicated by you.

 

 

======4. Sri Krishnamachari's mail (part 1)=================

Dear SrI Venkatesh Elayavalli:

 

I sincerely appreciate your posting. This is the kind of spirit of

approach I was hoping all of us can have in discussing this topic. I

am glad to note that you are approaching the issue so that it

converges to a position that does not have to prove "one side right

and the other side wrong". Based on the facts I have so far, I

believe that the truth is along the lines that you suggest.

 

========end of part 1 of Sri Krishnamachari's mail)===========

 

adiyEn's reply:

 

Dear Sri Krishnamachari swamy, do you still mean to say after so much

proofs that one side should not be proven wrong? For what reason you

want to say so. We are discussing about the return of namperumAL and

Sri dEsikar's presence in Srirangam AFTER namperumAL's return. It is

clearly proved ( even Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli says that the return

of namperumAL in 1371 is solid) that

namperumAL returned in 1371. Everyone agrees that Sri dEsikar

attained paramapadham in 1369. Do you mean to say that still one

should say that after return of namperumAL to Srirangam, Sri dEsikar

lived in Srirangam inspite of attaining paramapadham in 1369 itself.

The logic is begging.

 

========Sri Krishnamachari's mail (part II)=============

SrI Vinjamoor Venkatesh:

 

 

I am still hoping that the actual wording of the stone inscription

can help in getting a better understanding of the history that it

records. Before we at least clearly know what the inscription says,

I am not prepared to conclude anything based on the inscriptions.

There may be other stone inscriptions (such as the two Sloka-s in

prise of goppaNa, and may be other inscriptions) which need to be

reconciled with. After all, these are also stone inscriptions. A

purely research-oriented analysis should look at all the stone

inscriptions relevant to this period, to see what they all record, in

addition to the one inscription that is being talked about. Then

there are the recordings of other AcArya-s of that time period which

some of us may not want to recognize. "History" is a collection of

all the data available, not just one stone inscription. Until

someone clearly establishes that there was one Kampana and a

different "goppaNa" involved in the liberation of SrIrangam, for me

this is an open issue also.

=======End of part II ==============

 

adiyEn's reply:

 

Swamy, I think I have fairly reconciled the other two inscriptions

also. But remember, the other two inscriptions are only slOkas of

praise on gOpaNNA and doesn't talk much about the historical dates. I

think I have not let one go and catch only one to prove my point.

Also as you said, I have referred all our members to an URL in which,

not one but 132 such inscriptions are referred regarding the date of

victory of KambaNA over the Muslims. In addition I have also referred

to the kOil ozhugu. Remember, the sequence of happening may be

jumbled in ozhugu, but the facts are recorded clearly. Even in that

it is not said that Sir dEsikar composed the slOka "AnIyAnIla..".

 

Regarding the identity of gOpaNNA with kambaNA doesn't help much in

resolving this issue. However, I will clarify this once I get the

copy of the Madhura Vijayam which I expect soon. However, be it they

are same or are different personalilities, one would agree that this

has no implication on resolving the dates of return of namperumAL and

presence of Sri dEsikar at Srirangam at that time. I am even ready to

agree, till I get the copy of Madhura Vijayam, that both KambaNA and

gOpaNNA are one and the same.

 

=======Sri Krishnamachari's message (part III)=======

 

Even though I am not suggesting that stone inscriptions are not

reliable, I am reminded of the great controversy we went through just

two years back about our dear vaksha-sthala mahA lakshmi, where there

was a non-trivial chance that the decision could have been that there

was no vaksha-sthala mahA lakshmi for Lord Ranganathan all along. I

wonder what history would have been quoted 700 years from now if the

decision had gone the other way two years back. So it does not hurt

to give credence to other points of view on issues, including

authenticity of stone inscriptions. An open-minded discussion should

allow for all possibilities, so that the collection of different

facts can be reconciled so that internally consistent conclusions can

be arrived at based on all available information.

=========End of part III=======================

 

Swamy, I believe for sure, that this quote is totally inappropriate

for this thread. You are asking, as to what would be the source for

proving that Sri Ranganatha had His vaksha-sthala-lakshmi, if it was

decided, two years back that He did not have Her. You are expecting

me to refer only to AzhwAr's works and other granthAs. I will not

disappoint you! One should remember that there are no inscriptions in

any temple saying that when a perumAL was consecrated for the first

first time, He had a face with two eyes, a nose and two ears and four

hands and two legs and a pooNal etc. It is absurd for one to expect

so. Here are our AzhwArs who have clearly indicated that He indeed

had vakshasthala lakshmi and this is the proof. The intention of this

quotation by you is that, if I don't refer to any inscription, as

there are none in this regard, you can very well question the

authenticity of the inscription available today which proves that

namperumAL returned in 1371. Please correct me if I am wrong in my

study of the obective of this question. What I mean to say is that

the inscriptions are one of the authentic resources and also had been

made right at the time when the incident had happened. I also quoted

the 'Olai chuvadis' and the copper plates as acceptable evidences for

history. Now, this is what one should reconcile. The copper plates

and Olai chuvadis are to be reconciled with the wall inscriptions (if

any available)and arrive at a conclusion. Any method other than this

is only defective.

 

I surely agree that an open-minded discussion is the best solution

and strongly advocate the same. Also the credentials for the other

points can be given only if it has some basis, a basis which is

rooted in one these three proofs, the inscriptions, the Olai chuvadis

or the copper plates. If some one just presents a view without a

basis or a with a wrong basis, then sure it hurts giving credit to

such thesis.

 

========5. Sri Malolan Cadambi's mail==========

 

 

Gathering from the above evidence, we should do complete justice to

both the literary sources such as Swami Desikan's grantham covering

the incident as well as the inscriptions in the walls of srirangam.

 

This approach would be the most professional approach we can take or

rather should take when we discuss history.

 

=========End of Sri Malolan Cadambi's mail=========

 

Agreed, Sri Malolan, now based on the above indicated irrefutable

historic inscriptions and the kOil Ozhugu docuement can you please do

this and prove your point that Sri dEsikar was present in Srirangam

when namperumAL returned. Please remember that, as indicated above,

the claim that Sri dEsikar composed the slOka "AnIyAnIla..." is

begging for proof. I am sure that, if Sri dEsikar was alive, he would

not have stopped with just one sloka. Instead he would have made one

thousand like a pAdhukA sahasram which he did in one night rather.

That much would have been his actual joy when he sees his beloved

namperumAL back at Srirangam. Isn't it?

 

AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

APPAN THIRUVADIGALE SARANAM.

 

Dear Sri Venkatesh swamin,

 

 

Accept my pranam. Well done. you are proceeding in the correct

path. Proper investigation with reference to authentic records is

the correct approach. Mereconjecturesand assertions over them

reveal the biased attitdues.

 

It is clear that Namperumal returned to Srirangam in 1371 .The

presence of Sri VedanthA Desikar who attained Paramapadam

earlier,at that time is highly impropable. A great man who

waited ,deeply prayed for the Namperumal's return should have

sung in plenty to express his pleasure.

 

Another doubt is to be cleared.

 

The invasion of Islamic forces in south are on 2 occassions.

1311 and 1327.

 

Information on 1311 is confusing. It is contended that Namperumal

was taken out of Srirangamin 1327. and only valubles were looted

in the earlier invasion.. This invasion appear to be mainly

targetted toward Madurai. Malik Kafur died in 1318.

 

The second invasion was by Thuglak. in 1323/1327. Acceptance of

exit of Namperumal out of Srirangam in this time by Pillai

Lokachariar presents some difficulties.

 

Period of

 

Sri. Vadukku Thiru Veedhi Pillai. 1167 A.D. (+ 95).1262.

Sri. Pillai Lokacharier (son)... 1205..He should be 105/6 at the

time 1st invasion. Agreeable

He should be 12 /16 years older in 1323/1327. Does

this fit in? 105+12=127 years.

If his date of birth is taken as 1265...This also

presents difficulty.

 

Iy you have any information Kindly enlighten me.

 

 

Another interesting information.

 

The website on Parakala matam reveals this information.:

"'

The orders established by Bhagavan Sri Ramanuja were decaying

into dry ritualism and needless sectarian wrangles and

disputations internally. ( Does any body have authentic records

to establish this information ?)

 

Swamy Desika, as a foresighted sage towards the close of his

divine life realized that unless a new order of Holy Men was not

established, there was no way out of this all enveloping darkness.

He caused one of his disciples dearest to him to take to

asceticism, and established him as the first of a new series of

Swamy's and named him as Brahma Tantra Swatantra Jeer in the

year

Bahudhanya (corresponding to 1338) when rAmAnuja dayApAtraM

GYAnavaIrAgya bhUSHaNAm was consecrated. Swamy Desika himself

continued to give directions till 1370, when Swamy Desika attained

the Holy Feet of the Lord."

 

( After establishment of this order darkness went away and 2

Sampradhayams dawned and brightened Srivaishnava world ? People

went to Court of foreigners to settle religeous disputes !!!!? and

became laughing stalk of every body. Today in the common parlance

Namam = ' to cheat or get cheated" )

 

2. Another website maintained gives the Acharya paramabarai as

follows.

 

"The orders established by BhagavanACHARYA VAMSA VRIKSHAM

(written by Sri U.vE Anbil Ramaswamy, U.S.A)

 

 

PERIYA PERUMAL and PIRAATTI

|

SRI VISHWAKSENAR

|

SRI NAMMAZHWAR

|

SRI NATHA MUNIGAL

|

SRI UYYAKKONDAR

|

SRI MANAKKAL NAMBHI

|

SRI YAMUNAMUNI

|

SRI PERIYA NAMBHI

|

SRI RAMANUJACHARYA

|

SRI PRANATHARTHI HARAR SWAMI

(KIDAAMBHI AACHAAN)

|

SRI RAMANUJAPPILAAN SWAMI

(KIDAAMBHI)

|

SRI ATHREYA RAMANUJAR

(KIDAAMBHI APPULLAR)

|

SWAMI VEDANTA DESIKAN

|

............

please trace down to your present AchAryA

(for Srimad Poundarikapuram Andavan AchArya Paramparai, click

here)

 

 

 

 

Sri. Alavandar had 5 great stalwarts under him as

sishyas. Thirukoshtiyur Namabi etc.,

Yet, he appionted the Young (Lakshmanachar) Ramanuja to be his

successor to spread Srivaishanvism. His trustworty disciples,

with full heart and wish obeyed him and completed the Order.

Also, they entrusted their wards as sishyas under Sri.

Ramanuja.Further, Sri. Ramanuja appionted Sri. Bhattar ( son of

Great Kurathazhvan,) as his ward to spread Srivaishnavism.

 

From Bhattar, the Acharya Paramapara flows as

Nanjeeyar, Nampillai, Vadakkuthiruveedhi Pillai and Pillai

Lokacharyar. This was the Golden period in continuation of Sri

Ramanuja's. No body seems to have protested to this leadership.(

that is between 1137, Sri Ramanuja's demise and 1311/1323/7,

departure of Namperumal). @ TWo centuries of glorious period.

During Pillai Lokacharyar's time his contemporary Sri Vedhantha

Desikar, young and energitic man had some

differences of opinions in sampradhayic matters. Definitely NOT

on Sri Ramanuja Siddhantha.

 

Otherwise he would have made his own siddhantha.

 

Unfortunately, the Islamic invasion has caused a set back to

Srivaishnavism. Pillai Lokacharyar

departed with Namperumal to Unknown destination. Sri. Vedhantha

Desikar went westward to satyamangalam. That was either in 1311 or

1327. He did not return to Srirangam (as discussed in the begining

of this posting. )

Sudddenly it was found, (perhaps after Namperumal's departure

from Srirangam,) as per the view of Parakala Mutt description

mentioned above, situation has worsened and Sri Vedhantaha Desikar

decided to hijack the leadership ? Am Adiyen Correct? So he

nominated

Brhmathantra Swatantra Jeeyar to be his successor and directed the

movement. Did he instruct or order to erase the leaderships of

Bhattar to pillailokacharyar ? So that the Acharya Parambarai

should continue from Kidambi AAchan. Did he instruct to flout the

appointment of Sri. Bhattar by Sri. Ramanuja and take shelter

under the broad spectrum of 74 Simhasanathipathis and declare

independence ?. Perhaps, this view can be tolerated so far

SriBashyam is concerned, ; But, When Baghavat Vishyam is concerned

Are these Acharyas unacceptable?.

 

 

Sri. Manavala Mamunjgal. in his Upadesa ratnamalai has

given the Acharyas who are responsible for the preservation of

Thirvaimozhi.

 

Verse.38. "EmberumanarDharsanamenreitharku ( For

Ramanuja Siddhantham)

Namperumal perittu natti vaithar"

 

 

39. "Pillan Nanjeeyar Periyavachan pillai

Thellar Vadakkuthru veedhi pillai

Manavala yogi Thiruvaimozhiyaikathha

Gunavalar enru Nenje kooru"

 

Now, did Sri. Vedhantha desikar find those other than

Pillan are not "protectors of " of Thiruvaimozhi and they should

be deleted from that exalted position and a new lineage is

necessary ?

 

And also as per 3000 padi Guruparamapara, followed by

desika sampradhayam Sri. Manavala Mamunigal seems to have issued

instruction that his sishyas should follow desika sampradhaym.

 

How Fantastic Ideas are occupying the mind and

preaching the same to Younger generation ?

 

Sri. Manavala Mamunigal also points out that there were

people who ($) considered AZHVARS AND aRULICHEYALS AS inferior,

during his period. He adds such people will fall in hell and are

to be avoided.

 

This view ($) was in existence prior to him also and that was in

the period of Azhagiya Manavala perumal Nayanar,( as revealed in

ACHARYA HIRUDHYAM), contemporary of Sri. Vedantha Desika. But,

Sri. Desika did not rise in revolt against Acharya Paramparai or

Did he ?

 

Is there only one Manavala mamunigal ? or ONE following

DesikaSampradhya and another one following "Emperumanar

Dharsanam ?

 

.. Does any one will throw light on this ?

 

 

Adiyen Ramanuja dsan, T.Parthasarathy.

 

 

--\

-----------------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002 vinjamoor_venkatesh wrote :

>srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

>srImadh varavara munayE namaha

>

>Dear Members,

>

>Some days back I had posted a message regarding the above topic

>that

>came on SV-General for those who are not d to that

>list.

>This thread is still continuing and I am presenting my latest

>reply

>to this for your additions and corrections.

>

>Message as posted in SV-General:

>

>srImathE rAmAnujAya namaha

>srImadh varavara munayE namaha

>

>Dear Members,

>

>I am giving my response to four or five messages in this

>thread.

>Please read through the following;

>

>======1. Sri Mani's mail===========

>TV Venktaesh had asked how the mnemonic 'bandhupriya' maps

>to a particular year. He is correct that it does not occur

>in the names of the years in the 60-year cycle. Rather, it

>is based on the kaTapayAdi sankhyA. The name 'kaTapayAdi'

>itself describes how this mnemonic works. Each 'varga' of

>the Sanskritic alphabet, beginning with 'ka', 'Ta', 'pa'

>or 'ya', can be used to encode the numerals 1, 2, 3, etc.

>Hence ka = 1, kha = 2, ga = 3, gha = 4, ca = 6, cha = 7,

>ja = 8, jha = 9, and as special cases, the nasals 'nga'

>and 'nya' are denoted as 0. The same goes for the vargas

>beginning with 'Ta', 'pa', and 'ya'. The following link

>describes this system in some detail.

>

>http://minchu.ee.iisc.ernet.in/mirror/icm/sang3.htm

>

>Mani

>

>=====End of Sri Mani's mail====================

>

>adiyEn's reply:

>

>I thank Sri Mani for pointing it out clearly. Actually he had

>done ii

>even before. But I overlooked it when I asked this question. I

>sincerely apologize for this. Indeed the Salivahana 1293

>corresponds

>to 'bandhupriya' when decoded using the kaTapayAdhi sankhyA.

>

>But my question is, Sri Mani said that some historians believe

>that

>this 1293 is in error and should have been 1283 or 1282. Now

>since

>this entire thread is questioning the authenticity of one or

>another

>view, let me ask, what is the basis with which those historians

>tend

>to say that this may be in error. When some body questions the

>authenticity of some thing, I feel strongly, that he must be

>having

>some irrefutable evidences to prove his standpoint. If such

>evidence

>is not available, then those doubts are surely to be discarded.

>

>

>=====2. Mail From Sri Anand Karalapakkam (part

>1)================

>

> > SrI:

> > SrImatE nigamAnta mahAdESikAya namaH

> >

> > namO nArAyaNa!

> >

> > Dear bhaktas,

> >

> > In 3000 paDi guruparamparA prabhAvam,

> > 3rd Bramhatantra svatantra jIyar has given

> > the details about the return of SwAmi DESikan

> > to SrIra~ngam.

> >

> > Just citing two things from it :

> >

> > 1. SwAmi DESikan composed the following verse

> > for the permanent ma~ngaLAsAsanam :

> >

> > " vidhi vihita saparyAm ....Samita vimatapakshAm

> > SAsvatIm ra~ngalakshmeem" {available in DESika

> > Stotra mUla Skt books as a separate section for

> > ma~ngalAsAsana verses for the four DDs}.

>======== end of part 1 of Sri Anand's mail================

>

>adiyEn's reply

>

>Well, I have not gone through the the 3000p padi completely. Is

>it

>very clearly stated in it that Sri dEsikar composed this

>mangaLAsAsanam AFTER returning to Srirangam, after namperumAL

>Himself

>returned? Please confirm this. I will post my actual question

>after

>your reply.

>

>====Mail from Sri Anand (part 2)======================

>

> > 2. SwAmi DESikan also composed the following verse :

> > < In the footnotes, it is written that this verse is present

> > as kalveTTu on the madIl-suvar near sEnai-mudaliyAr

> > sannidhi> :

> >

> > " aanIyAnIla-sRu~nga dyutirasita jagatran~janA tan~janAtrES

>-

> > san~jn~yAm aarAdhya kan~cit samayamata -

> > nihatyOddhanushkAn turushkAn |

> > lakshmIshmAbhyAm upAbhyAm saha nija nilayE svAbhayan -

> > ra~nganAtham samyakcaryAm saparyAmakRuta bhuvi yaSaH-

> > prApaNO gOpanAryaH ||"

>

>=========End of part 2 of Sri Anand's mail.

>

>adiyEn's reply

>

>Dear Sri Anand, what is the basis of your claim that this was

>composed by Sri dEsikar. I do not want references to 3000p padi

>or

>prapannAmrutham etc, because in the inscription, nowhere it is

>mentioned that Sri dEsikar composed this. Also I read the "kOil

>ozhugu" in tandem with the inscription regarding the return of

>namperumAL and the "ozhugu" records this incident as follows:-

>(For

>those who are not aware, the "kOil ozhugu" is a historical

>recording

>of all the events that are associated with the Srirangam temple

>which

>in our Sri Vaishnava sampradhAyam is addressed as just 'kOil')

>

>...... gOpaNNa uDayArum niravadhika balatthuDanE vandhu,

>thulukkarai

>nissEshamAga azhitthu; singapuratthilum

>sakAptham "AayirattirunooRRuth thonnuuRRumoonRil" (please note

>that

>the Salivahana year is clearly recorded in words and not

>numbers.

>Here the Inscription on the walls of Srirangam and the ozhugu,

>both

>uniformly records the year as 1293. So there is no basis for

>those

>historians referred by Sri Mani, to have doubted the year of

>return

>as inscribed on the walls) sellA ninRa parIthApi varusham (Again,

>the

>inscription gives only the Salivahana year 1293. It does not use

>the

>word parIthApi at all. But the ozhugu here clearly used the

>word 'parIthApi'. We have seen that both clearly indicate the

>Salivahana year as 1293 so it has to be only 'bandhupriya'

>or 'parIthApi' and not 'bahupriya' as quoted by Sri Mani)

>vaikAsi

>mAdham padhinEzhAm thEdhi thiruvarangam thiruppathiyilE

>perumALai

>nAchiyAruDanE ezhundharuLap paNNi, kOil thirukkAppai neekki,

>periya

>perumALuDan sErthu prathishTippitthu, thiruvArAdhanamum

>paNNuvitthu,

>dharmavarmAvin thirumadhiLil keezhaNDai veLippuRatthilE

>avarukkuth

>(here this avarukku is referring to gOpaNNA) thaniyan koDuttha

>vrutthAnthatthai veLiyiTTaruLinAr.

>"AnIyAnIla srungadhyuthirachitha.....saparyAm

>guruthanijayasOdharappaNO" enRu silAlikitham paNNuvitthAn.

>

>

>This is what is available in the kOil ozhugu. It is to be noted

>that

>neither the inscriptions nor the ozhugu, talks anywhere about

>the

>presence of Sri dEsikar. Again, accepting that Sri dEsikar would

>have

>composed the slOka, it actually praises gOpaNNA for his

>wonderful

>kainkaryam of restoring namperumAL to his grand home. If it is

>so,

>surely this gOpaNNA, who was blessed by Sri dEsikar himself

>(according to the claims made), would certainly have made Sri

>dEsikar's name also to be chiseled on the walls for the great

>kainkaryam that he had done. There is no such thing that is

>found.

>

>Also according to Sri A. Krishnamachari swamy of Sri Vaishnava

>Sri,

>the meters or the style of this slOkA are so very simple that it

>does

>not require a "kavithArkika simham" like Sri dEsikar to compose

>such

>thing. On the other hand, if one credits Sri dEsikar with this

>slOka , it only brings disrepute to his very title,

>"kavithArkika

>simham". So by all means, it is sure that Sri dEsikar could not

>have

>composed this slOkam. It is also proved further, after having

>proved

>clearly that namperumAL returned to Srirangam only in 1371 or

>1372,

>and accepting the fact that Sri dEsikar attained paramapadham

>in

>1369, Sri dEsikar could not have composed this slOkam at all.

>

>

>But I see nobody answering Sri SA Narasimhan's very simple

>question. "If Sri dEsikar was in Srirangam after namperumAL's

>return,

>would he not have composed great slOkAs out of utmost joy as he

>was

>the one who did great mangaLAsAsanam to namperumAL through

>his 'abheethisthavam' when He (namperumAL) was in exile?". If

>one

>says that the above slOka ("AnIyAnIla..") was the one composed

>by

>him, does it mean that, a person, who made more than one slOka

>out of

>his utmost concern, would make only one, just one, when his joy

>would

>know no bounds, after safe return of namperumAL. And his other

>question is also not answered. When Sri dEsikar himself was

>there,

>why need to go for a blind washerman to prove the identity of

>namperumAL. Will there be a person more qualified that Sri

>dEsikar

>himself to identify namperumAL. Sorry, this is

>logically "iDichifying".

>

>=====3. Mail from Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli=============

>

>5. in 1335 harihara declares independence from Delhi Sultanate,

>thus

>starting the glorious period of Vijayanagara kings (1336 -

>1565).

>he establishes the kingdom with his brother, Bukka - I. The

>vijay

>nagara kingdom starts war with the neighbouring muslim

>kingdoms.

>

>6. The Madurai sultanate (now under tremendous stress) is

>liberated

>by Kampana Udaiyar, a prince of the Vijayanagar kingdom, in

>1365.

>

>

>It is possible that Srirangam was liberated in 1365 about the

>same

>time as Madurai, giving some time for restoration. The return

>of

>Namperumal in 1371 appears to be solid. However, that does not

>mean

>that the temple fucntions did not happen prior to namperumal's

>arrival.

>

>It is also possible that the restoration porcess might have

>started

>prior to 1365 even while under the rule of Muslim sultanate of

>Madurai due to constant stress from Vijayanagra army.

>

>the vijayanagra army was always fighting some war or other

>during

>their 200 years of existance.

>

>It is possible that Swami Desikar was able to go back to

>Srirangam

>after 1365, and witness some of the restoration effort. There

>is

>evidence that restoration continued during Sri Manavala

>Maamuni's

>time frame, and past his time as well.

>

>adiyen

>Venkatesh Elayavalli

>

>===== End of Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli's mail=============

>

>adiyEn's reply:

>

>Upto your point no. 5 is okay. But you say that it is possible

>for

>gOpaNNA to have defeated the muslims in the year 1365. Again what

>is

>the basis with which you are saying this. In this regard one can

>view

>the following URL http://www.intamm.com/history/kamban.htm

>

>In this A.Krishnaswamy (Actually written in tamizh as

>kiruTTinaswAmy,

>not the A.Krishnamachari of SriVaishnavaSri fame) has written

>an

>article with title "tamizhnADum kambaNa uDayArum". In this

>articles

>he refers to many other authors who have claimed different dates

>for

>kambaNa's victory over muslims and has clearly refuted them

>proving

>the year of victory as 1371. He clearly states that so far there

>are

>132 inscriptions found on the victory of KambaNA. He gives the

>account that KambaNA entered Tamizh Nadu from Virinchipuram and

>defeated the sambuvarAyar, a small king who ruled from

>Kanchipuram in

>the year 1361 and goes on to prove that the correct year in which

>the

>Sultan of Madurai was defeated is in 1371 AD based on the

>inscriptions available from the temples in Trichy (Srirangam),

>ThiruppullANi etc. (These articles are only in Tamizh).

>

>So the correct date of victory over the sultan of Madurai is

>only

>1371. And also since the inscriptions and Ozhugu as referred

>above

>clearly indicates the return of namperumAL as 1371 (Salivahana

>1293),

>vaikAsi, the delay between the victory over sultan and return

>of

>namperumAL would be only in months (certainly not 12 months) or

>weeks

>and not years as indicated by you.

>

>

>======4. Sri Krishnamachari's mail (part 1)=================

>Dear SrI Venkatesh Elayavalli:

>

>I sincerely appreciate your posting. This is the kind of spirit

>of

>approach I was hoping all of us can have in discussing this

>topic. I

>am glad to note that you are approaching the issue so that it

>converges to a position that does not have to prove "one side

>right

>and the other side wrong". Based on the facts I have so far, I

>believe that the truth is along the lines that you suggest.

>

>========end of part 1 of Sri Krishnamachari's mail)===========

>

>adiyEn's reply:

>

>Dear Sri Krishnamachari swamy, do you still mean to say after so

>much

>proofs that one side should not be proven wrong? For what reason

>you

>want to say so. We are discussing about the return of namperumAL

>and

>Sri dEsikar's presence in Srirangam AFTER namperumAL's return. It

>is

>clearly proved ( even Sri Venkatesh Elayavalli says that the

>return

>of namperumAL in 1371 is solid) that

>namperumAL returned in 1371. Everyone agrees that Sri dEsikar

>attained paramapadham in 1369. Do you mean to say that still

>one

>should say that after return of namperumAL to Srirangam, Sri

>dEsikar

>lived in Srirangam inspite of attaining paramapadham in 1369

>itself.

>The logic is begging.

>

>========Sri Krishnamachari's mail (part II)=============

>SrI Vinjamoor Venkatesh:

>

>

>I am still hoping that the actual wording of the stone

>inscription

>can help in getting a better understanding of the history that

>it

>records. Before we at least clearly know what the inscription

>says,

>I am not prepared to conclude anything based on the

>inscriptions.

>There may be other stone inscriptions (such as the two Sloka-s

>in

>prise of goppaNa, and may be other inscriptions) which need to

>be

>reconciled with. After all, these are also stone inscriptions.

>A

>purely research-oriented analysis should look at all the stone

>inscriptions relevant to this period, to see what they all

>record, in

>addition to the one inscription that is being talked about.

>Then

>there are the recordings of other AcArya-s of that time period

>which

>some of us may not want to recognize. "History" is a collection

>of

>all the data available, not just one stone inscription. Until

>someone clearly establishes that there was one Kampana and a

>different "goppaNa" involved in the liberation of SrIrangam, for

>me

>this is an open issue also.

>=======End of part II ==============

>

>adiyEn's reply:

>

>Swamy, I think I have fairly reconciled the other two

>inscriptions

>also. But remember, the other two inscriptions are only slOkas

>of

>praise on gOpaNNA and doesn't talk much about the historical

>dates. I

>think I have not let one go and catch only one to prove my

>point.

>Also as you said, I have referred all our members to an URL in

>which,

>not one but 132 such inscriptions are referred regarding the date

>of

>victory of KambaNA over the Muslims. In addition I have also

>referred

>to the kOil ozhugu. Remember, the sequence of happening may be

>jumbled in ozhugu, but the facts are recorded clearly. Even in

>that

>it is not said that Sir dEsikar composed the slOka

>"AnIyAnIla..".

>

>Regarding the identity of gOpaNNA with kambaNA doesn't help much

>in

>resolving this issue. However, I will clarify this once I get

>the

>copy of the Madhura Vijayam which I expect soon. However, be it

>they

>are same or are different personalilities, one would agree that

>this

>has no implication on resolving the dates of return of namperumAL

>and

>presence of Sri dEsikar at Srirangam at that time. I am even

>ready to

>agree, till I get the copy of Madhura Vijayam, that both KambaNA

>and

>gOpaNNA are one and the same.

>

>=======Sri Krishnamachari's message (part III)=======

>

>Even though I am not suggesting that stone inscriptions are not

>reliable, I am reminded of the great controversy we went through

>just

>two years back about our dear vaksha-sthala mahA lakshmi, where

>there

>was a non-trivial chance that the decision could have been that

>there

>was no vaksha-sthala mahA lakshmi for Lord Ranganathan all along.

>I

>wonder what history would have been quoted 700 years from now if

>the

>decision had gone the other way two years back. So it does not

>hurt

>to give credence to other points of view on issues, including

>authenticity of stone inscriptions. An open-minded discussion

>should

>allow for all possibilities, so that the collection of

>different

>facts can be reconciled so that internally consistent conclusions

>can

>be arrived at based on all available information.

>=========End of part III=======================

>

>Swamy, I believe for sure, that this quote is totally

>inappropriate

>for this thread. You are asking, as to what would be the source

>for

>proving that Sri Ranganatha had His vaksha-sthala-lakshmi, if it

>was

>decided, two years back that He did not have Her. You are

>expecting

>me to refer only to AzhwAr's works and other granthAs. I will

>not

>disappoint you! One should remember that there are no

>inscriptions in

>any temple saying that when a perumAL was consecrated for the

>first

>first time, He had a face with two eyes, a nose and two ears and

>four

>hands and two legs and a pooNal etc. It is absurd for one to

>expect

>so. Here are our AzhwArs who have clearly indicated that He

>indeed

>had vakshasthala lakshmi and this is the proof. The intention of

>this

>quotation by you is that, if I don't refer to any inscription,

>as

>there are none in this regard, you can very well question the

>authenticity of the inscription available today which proves

>that

>namperumAL returned in 1371. Please correct me if I am wrong in

>my

>study of the obective of this question. What I mean to say is

>that

>the inscriptions are one of the authentic resources and also had

>been

>made right at the time when the incident had happened. I also

>quoted

>the 'Olai chuvadis' and the copper plates as acceptable evidences

>for

>history. Now, this is what one should reconcile. The copper

>plates

>and Olai chuvadis are to be reconciled with the wall inscriptions

>(if

>any available)and arrive at a conclusion. Any method other than

>this

>is only defective.

>

>I surely agree that an open-minded discussion is the best

>solution

>and strongly advocate the same. Also the credentials for the

>other

>points can be given only if it has some basis, a basis which is

>rooted in one these three proofs, the inscriptions, the Olai

>chuvadis

>or the copper plates. If some one just presents a view without

>a

>basis or a with a wrong basis, then sure it hurts giving credit

>to

>such thesis.

>

>========5. Sri Malolan Cadambi's mail==========

>

>

>Gathering from the above evidence, we should do complete justice

>to

>both the literary sources such as Swami Desikan's grantham

>covering

>the incident as well as the inscriptions in the walls of

>srirangam.

>

>This approach would be the most professional approach we can take

>or

>rather should take when we discuss history.

>

>=========End of Sri Malolan Cadambi's mail=========

>

>Agreed, Sri Malolan, now based on the above indicated

>irrefutable

>historic inscriptions and the kOil Ozhugu docuement can you

>please do

>this and prove your point that Sri dEsikar was present in

>Srirangam

>when namperumAL returned. Please remember that, as indicated

>above,

>the claim that Sri dEsikar composed the slOka "AnIyAnIla..." is

>begging for proof. I am sure that, if Sri dEsikar was alive, he

>would

>not have stopped with just one sloka. Instead he would have made

>one

>thousand like a pAdhukA sahasram which he did in one night

>rather.

>That much would have been his actual joy when he sees his

>beloved

>namperumAL back at Srirangam. Isn't it?

>

>AzhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyar thiruvadigaLE saraNam

>adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

>Thirumalai Vinjamoor Venkatesh

>

>

>

>

>------------------------ Sponsor

>

>azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

 

_______

There is always a better job for you at Monsterindia.com.

Go now http://monsterindia.com/rediffin/