The Temple of Lord Varadaraja Kanchi
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IK IM 01NM VJUUOiMM, KMKHI (A critical Survey of Dr. K. V. RAMAN’S “Sri Varadarajaswami Temple, Kanchi”) By R. VAR ADA TATACHARYA, b.a., Foreword by Dr. V. VARADACHARYA, m.a., Ph.D., Retired Reader in Sanskrit, S. V. University College, Tirupati. PUBLISHED BY SRI TATADESIKA TIRUVAMSASTAR SABHA KANCHI. T.C.SHRINIVAASAN. M.A.B.L. ADVOCATE 7/16, Second Main Road, A.V.M.Avenue, Virugambakkam, Chennai • 600 092. The Chief Deity (Mulavar), Utsavar & Other Beras In the Main Shrine (Garbagraham) Sri Perundevi Tayar (Mulavar & Utsavar) THE TEMPLE Of LORD V1R1IMIUM, MM. (A critical Survey of Dr. K. V. RAMAN’S “Sri Varadarajaswami Temple, Kanchi”) By R. VARADA TATACHARYA, b.a., Foreword by Dr. V. VARADACHARYA, m.a., Ph.D., Retired Reader in Sanskrit, S. V. University College, Tirupati. T.C.SHRINIVAASAN. M.A.B.L. ADVOCATE 7/16, Second Main Road, A.V.M.Avenue, Virugambakkam, Chennai • 600 092. PUBLISHED BY SRI TATADESIKA TIRUVAMSASTAR SABHA KANCHI. First Edition — 1978 Price: Rs. 40/- Printed at Super Power Press, Madras-600 001 ^l(!5U>a>(6$ib $0ai0®rcQ#6fr«rjiSlft)ib ^0^DU>u96OlT61DlDlL|(ipjD61Jlb ^|6TTUUlfluJ 6U ly.SU q* Srlb a&0iDU>jPuu6Tf)uuCT)iouL|ib «60aatflsoir«i!OT)« ifilrinp ^|06tr6U9^nr rSia50uSl60«rflA^|ibQu6OTr5rr6crifflipi56^<S6W. DEDICATION Invoking the Blessings of Lord Varadaraja and His Consort, this work is dedicated to our eminent Acharya Sri Lakshmi Kumara Tatadesika, the Sri Karya-durandara of Temples and the Royal-preceptor of the Vijayanagar monarchs, who is deified in the Temple along with his Consort• CONTENTS Page 1. “ Foreword ” — by Dr. V. Varadacharya i 2. Publisher’s Note — Sri Tatadesika Tiruvamsaslar, Saba, Kanchi ... xiv 3. Preface — by R. Varada Tatacharya XV 4. Introductory — ... 1 5. Chapter I (Part I) 4 6. II »» ••• 12 7. „ HI »9 23 8. ,, IV )> 30 9. „ V >> 33 10. l (Part II) 42 11. „ 11 49 12. „ III 1) ... 53 13. IV ... 65 14. V 89 15. » VI 96 104 16. VII >9 *** 17. VIII ») •** 107 18. IX 5> ... 111 19. X »> **• 116 20. Conclusion n ••• 120 21. Appendix—A-l to A-5 (Bibliography) 124 22. Appendix—B (Inscriptions) 131 23. C-l to C-16 (Historical Extracts) 159 24. „ D*A delineation of Sri Tuppul Desika’s Mangalasasanam ... 188 25. E The services of Tatacharyas in the Temple with their significance 192 26. F The genealogy of Tatacharyas 195 27. Abbreviations ... 196 28. Index ... 197 FOREWORD I have great pleasure in writing the Foreword to the “Critical Survey” written by my esteemed friend Sri R. Varada Tatacharya who undertakes a critical study of Dr. K. V. Raman’s book “Sri Varadarajaswami Temple, Kanchi”. The author throws much light on the crucial issues raised and discussed by Dr. K. V. Raman. Dr. K. V. Raman has made an orginal contribution on the history and management of this temple. He deserves credit for collecting the required data from various sources and presenting them in this book. Among the ten chapters, which this con¬ tains, special mention must be made of Ch. II VIII, IX & X for the valuable information they contain. At the same time, it must be said that the book abounds in conclusions arrived at hypo¬ thetically, assumptions based on predilections and hastily drawn observations. As a diligent and hard worker in the field of re¬ search, he could have avoided much of these. His purpose in writing the Thesis on the subject treated in this book, is not merely to provide relevant information as found in the four chapters noted above but also, or rather to suggest, on the basis of available evidence, that the^Tenkalai traits are predominantly noticed in this temple. In this book “Critical Survey”, Sri R. Varada Tatacharya has ably brought to light the shortcomings and defects found in Dr. K.V. Raman’s book and after a critical examination of them, has advanced sound arguments while refuting them. In this, he proves himself to be free from bias and has pinned his faith on authentic evidence for drawing his conclusions. He has avoided the narratives and anecdotes that are irrelevant and so his work is mainly a Critical Survey of Dr. K. V. Raman’s book. Of the several ways adopted by man to convey his feelings and intentions to another, writing occupies a more prominent position than others. The written records endure as long as the materials in which they are presented last. They are to serve Vlll their purpose by educating the people and guiding them on ■ right lines. The historian has a significant role to play as a writer. He has to present the past occurrences as they happened then without idealising them with his personal views and avoid¬ ing speculations. Loose statements and expressions that serve no purpose shall not find room in his writings. Otherwise, he will be arousing confusion among the unlearned who have more faith in it than in their understanding of it. The Lord’s utterance “na buddhibhedam janayet” (Gita 3.26) “The wise man shall not disturb the minds, (of the unlearned) ” must be respected. Posterity shall not be drawn astray to wrong thinking developed by careless writing. Dr. K. V. Raman’s writing is uniformly good but expres¬ sions like‘probably’, ‘it appears’, ‘it seems’ and others are found used without adequate justification. The word ‘probably’shall be used when something could not be affirmed as ‘is’ or * is not’. There is room for indecision here. If there is scope here for taking a position in between ‘is’ and ‘is not’ and if this position has a leaning on probability without detriment to improbability, then expressions like these could be used. Predilection for a dogma and intentional advocacy for a creed shall not be the ground for using them particularly when their use could not be substantiated. Dr. K. V. Raman’s use of them is likely to lead casual readers to treating his writing as having veracity which it does not possess. The second point that requires consideration here is the author’s attempt to prove Alakiya Manavala Jiyar as responsible for the building of some structures in the temple and that he wielded influence over the administration of the temple. This is far from true. In Jhe present case, the Jiyar is mentioned in two inscriptions as doing Srikaryam service in the temple. He is not mentioned there with any honorific such as Srimadvedamargapratishtapanacarya indicating his status as Guru of the then rulers, who were the Kings at Vijayanagaram. On whose authority, did he take up the work of building the structures in the temple ? What was he before the dates of these inscriptions and what happened to him after this period, when IX according to the inscriptions, there were others doing the Sri- karyam work ? He had no hand in the building of the hundred- pillared mandapam and the figure of the ascetic fcarved there is certainly not his. Besides, the inscription in the temple <3f Sri Dipaprakasa mention one Alakiya Manavala Jiyar as well studied in both the Vedantas and as an authority in the Sri- bashya. As the dates are not mentioned here, it is not possible to identify the ascetic. In one other respect, the author has erred. Kandadai Ramanuja Aiyangar is stated by him as the first person to hold the post of Srikaryam in this temple. Nextly, it must be said that there is no substance in using the word Prabandhaic predominance with reference to this temple. To whichever sect the temple could belong, every shrine of the major kind has smaller shrines for the Alvars and Acharyas. Annual, birthday festivals for these are performed with the recitation of the Vedas and Divyaprabandham. Likewise, the rituals in the temple are conducted in strict accordance to the Vaikhanasa or Pancharatra Agama. The recitation of the Vedas or the Prabandhams do not form part of the ritual. Where then does.the question arise about the relative importance of the Prabandham ? It is idle to argue that the character of the sub-shrines should determine the original nature of the main shrine. It must also be borne in mind that the deities of the central shrines alone get daily puja elaborately. This is proof to admit that the nature of the sub-shrines should be in accordance with that of the central shrines and not vice—versa. Sri R. Varada Tatacharya has done well by drawing atten¬ tion to many of these shortcomings such as non—mention of the Vedaparayana and its attractiveness, Tatadesikan’s Tiruna- ksatra festival and of the Vadakalai marks which are promi¬ nently displayed in the temple. Again, it will be appropriate to refer to Dr. K. V. Raman’s remarks on the Tatacharyas and their position in this temple. In his view, there is no evidence from the inscriptions that they were at Kanchi before the middle of the 16th century. With the downfall of the Vijaya- nagaram rule, they left Kanchi to seek their fortunes elsewhere. They returned to Kanchi about the beginning of K X the 18th Century. That these are mere assumptions for which evidences are 'not available in well argued by Sri R. Varada Tatacharya. Some observations may be made here for clarifying the issues. It is known to everybody that 'Ramanuja received instructions of the Ramayana from Srisailapurna and taught them to his pupils. Pillan his spiritual son inherited this traditional doctrine from his Guru and taught them to his pupils and descendants. The Ettur brothers had inherited the secret doctrines of the Ramayana from their ancestors who descended from Srisaila Puma and Pillan.