MH.com Home

Member Articles

This is 4th part in the series of the articles published in MadhvaHistory.com on exploring the historical anecdotes of the event connected to the conferment of 'Sripadaraya' title on Sri Lakshminarayana Tirtha of Mulbagal Matha.

In the previous articles, I have made an argument against a particular story propagated by some sections of Maadhvas that Sri Raghunatha Tirtha conferred the title of 'Sripadaraya' to Lakshminarayana Tirtha of Mulbagal Matha. In order to prove that this story is historically wrong, I have presented few inscriptions, archeological evidences, scriptural references (from contemporary sources of Sripadaraya) etc. and have established the fact that the title has been earned by Lakshminarayana Tirtha after being felicitated by Saluva Narasimha of Vijayanagara Empire and not through an appreciation passed by another Saint.

Subsequent to the publishing of these articles, I had received certain comments and responses which have raised additional questions about the verasity of the facts presented by me. Now, I am herewith producing fresh archeological and scriptural database that are either predates Sripadaraya or of post-date in nature.


When I wrote an article on “Who gave the title Sripadaraja to Sri Lakshmi Narayana Tirtha?”, I have got a mixed bag of reactions and responses. Some of them are noteworthy and some were driving the same old unsubstantiated rhetoric of “We gave the title!”

Soon after I have posted the link of this article in Madhva Yahoo groups in which I am a member, in one of the groups there came a response with a link to this article. The author of this article posed some 22 questions but most of which have been created to help the writer to run a script that has certain prejudged inputs.

As in the basic tenets of Law & Justice that allow every litigant to offer their version of the story, all the accounts including those faux pas myths must be attended to with equanimity.

Now, let me dissect the old rhetoric of “We gave the title!” and show its hollowness.


Truth builds Trust. Myth creates Mirage!


In the previous article, I have explained about the incidents of thefts in Tirumala temple, types and cadres of people involved and how to understand the hidden purport of Sripadaraya’s glory by reading between the lines of Krishnadevaraya’s inscription at Govindaraja Temple, Tirupati.

In this last and final part of this series, I wish to draw the attention of readers towards the following moot points:

  1. Was Sripadaraya unknown to the public at large and to Saluva Narasimharaya?
  2. If Sripadaraya was well known to the public and the emperor, what were the reasons?
  3. How Lakshminarayana Tirtha became ‘Sripadaraya’? And whether this title got to do something with our present pursuit of dismissing the doubts raised by Sadhu Subrahmanya Sastry on Maadhva narratives of Sripadaraya and Vyasaraya?

Let me tackle the questions in the same order of their appearance.

  1. Was Sripadaraya unknown & If popular on what grounds?

This is a pretty archetypal question that attracts different answers from different quarters. Dvaitins say “Oh! Yeah! He was pretty much known to everyone in the world!” and Advaitins say “He was oblivious to the public and royals as compared to our Gurus!”

So, instead of falling prey to any of these rhetoric let me first put forward the proof.


In the previous article, I have tried to bring forth an important aspect of “reading between the lines” of Krishnadevaraya’s inscription issued to Sri Vyasaraja Tirtha on 12/01/1524 AD (Inscription No. 157 – contents as published in Inscriptions of Krishnaraya 1509-1529 AD by TTD).

As part of the study, I have stated that the confiscation of lands from a Tirumala temple priest by Saluva Narasimharaya should not be treated as a minor incident because such extreme action of land confiscation is totally against the policy held by all the rulers of Vijayanagara Empire.

By continuing the trail of ‘reading-between-the-lines’ of Krishnadevaraya’s inscription, I wish to present the additional inputs on the same.


The peculiar instance of Nambi Sirrappayan’s crime must be investigated thoroughly as it can lead us to draw several useful inferences such as

  1. the influence of Shrivaishnavites in those days
  2. the status of Tirumala temple priests in the society
  3. their proximity to the powerful kings and nobles and
  4. the then material distractions to which the priests could succumb.

In order to study the case of Nambi Sirrappayan, the foremost step that I have taken is to check back the history of Tirumala temple and find the instances of any thefts or misdeeds occurred in the temple.

As part of this exploration, I have come across with a curious illustration of misuse of donor’s funds as early as 13th century. Hereunder are the details: