20a1bb2bfc0d937856a867bcf67ba17e

Akshobhya Tirtha & Vidyaranya Debate : Final Part

Nearly two months ago, I have written two articles about the polemical argument purportedly held between Sri Akshobhya and Sri Vidyaranya in Mulabagal town. These two articles have attempted to fact-check the said event and have tried to analyse whether such event ever took place?

After reading considerable amount of literature with for and against arguments and by undertaking an independent study of the inscriptions and scriptures, I have understood that there is no room for such event to happen and the said Vidyaranya is not the Madhava Vidyaranya of Shringeri Peetha. Interested readers may please read the articles by clicking the following links:

  1. Akshobhya - Vidyaranya Debate - Myths & Facts (As understood by me)
  2. Akshobhya Vidyaranya Debate - Further Inputs

The present one is the 3rd in the series and probably the last one as well. Should I get some clues and evidences, I may add couple of more articles to this series but as of now this would be the final one.

New Evidence:

In order to come to a logical conclusion about the truth in Akshobhya-Vidyaranya debate, I have extensively used various Archeological and Epigraphic records and the books written for and against the purported debate.

Later, I have tried to look for some clues from Dasa Sahitya as it has been the most widely used tool by the Dvaita School to spread its message in the masses. In this connection, I have referred to the kritis on Sri Jayatirtha written by the following:

  1. Sri Vadiraja Tirtha
  2. Sri Purandara Dasa
  3. Sri Kanada Dasa

 

 

The reason for which I have chosen the above is that they were the most popular and prolific kritikaras in Kannada language and have been known for their accuracy and eye-for-things.

It has been found that Purandara and Kanaka have not written much about Jayatirtha but Vadiraja wrote two kirtanas.

In these two kirtanas one was a regular kriti written with traditional fervor and eulogizes Jayatirtha with all adjectives that befit his accomplishments. But the following kirtana is the crucial one which spills beans about Akshobhya – Vidyaranya debate. Hereunder is the reproduction of the kriti from Sri Vadirajara Kritigalu, published by the Mysore University under the editorship of Dr. Nagaratna.

Vadiraja kriti on Jayatirtha

A rough English translation of the underlined text is as under:

 

“[with your] skillful works you have infatuated Vidyaranya who came [to you] with empty words.”

 

 

The editorial team of this compilation has given the following meaning to this stanza:

Editors note on Vadirajas Jayatirtha kriti

Thus the last stanza says it all!

It is Jayatirtha with whom Vidyaranya interacted and got becharmed by the authorship of the former. Sri Vadiraja did not mince his words and nor concealed the incident but made it clear….crystal clear to the next generations. If the debate between Akshobhya and Vidyaranya had been a truth, Vadiraja would not have refrained from mentioning the same. Instead, he gave the credit to Jayatirtha alone!

Possibilities of Interaction/Debate between Jayatirtha & Vidyaranya:

Sri Vadiraja was kind enough to record the event and its outcome but has not specified the period during which this enticing act by Jayatirtha had happened. But, this kriti of Vadiraja has confirmed that there was an argument between Advaitha & Dvaitha during 14th century and the participants were Vidyaranya and Jayatirtha respectively (and not Sri Akshobhya as propagated)

Now, it takes quite an effort to fix a specific date & timeline for this event. Hereunder is the chronological summary that I have prepared while reviewing Sri V. Prabhanjanacharya’s “Jayatirthara Mula Brindavana – Malkheda” book. In this review the possible time slot of the purported disputation between Jayatirtha & Vidyaranya as stated by Vadiraja has been touched up on.

NOTE: I do not say that this is the ultimate truth and so request the scholars to do more research on this.

  1. [….]ವಿದ್ಯಾರಣ್ಯರು ತಮ್ಮ ದಿಗ್ವಿಜಯಯಾತ್ರೆಯ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಯರಗೋಳವನ್ನು ಸಂದರ್ಶಿಸಿದ[…]ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ ಆ ಸ್ಥಳವು ಗಜಗಹ್ವರರಾಜ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇರಿದ್ದಿತು ಎಂಬುದಕ್ಕೆ ಮತ್ತೊಂದಿ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಗಮಕವೆನ್ನುವಂತಿದೆ[….]ವಿದ್ಯಾರಣ್ಯರು ತಮ್ಮ ಸಂಚಾರಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಯರಗೋಳವನ್ನು ಸಂದರ್ಶಿಸಿ ಶ್ರೀಜಯತೀರ್ಥರ ಪ್ರತಿಭಗೆ ಮಣಿದ ಐತಿಹಾಸಿಕ ಸಂಗತಿಯು[….]ಆಗಿನ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಪರರಾಜ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಚಾರ ಅಷ್ಟು ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬುದು ಇತಿಹಾಸದಿಂದ ತಿಳಿಯುವುದು. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ವಿದ್ಯಾರಣ್ಯರ ಸಂಚಾರಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಯರಗೋಳ ಪ್ರಾಂತವು ಆನೆಗೊಂದಿ ಸಂಸ್ಥಾನಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇರಿತ್ತುಎಂದುಸ್ಫುಟಪಡುವುದು. [Page 130 & 131]

If I have to be critical here, the alleged Gajagahvara Rajya that Sri Acharya built up in Page 129 got reduced to a mere Samsthana in Page 130 & 131. (Samsthana is not a kingdom but a splinter state that pops up when a major kingdom disintegrates).  Is this an error or oversight or the misuse of vocabulary – is best known to the author alone!

The statement “ವಿದ್ಯಾರಣ್ಯರಸಂಚಾರಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿಯರಗೋಳಪ್ರಾಂತವುಆನೆಗೊಂದಿಸಂಸ್ಥಾನಕ್ಕೆಸೇರಿತ್ತುಎಂದುಸ್ಫುಟಪಡುವುದು“ has already been refuted fully in the previous sections of this write-up. Please refer Map 01 & 02 for visual confirmation of dominions of the then kingdoms.

Let me make a submission now on the other important aspect i.e. Sri Vidyaranya’s travel and his meeting with Sri Jayatirtha.

Mr. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar, in his work “Sources of Vijayanagara”, puts out the timelines of Vidyaranya as c.1302 0 1387. See the below extract from the said book:

vidyaranya timelines

[Page 3, Introduction – A History of the Empire of Vijayanagara from original Sources by Krishnaswamy Aiyangar; 1919 Edition]

At the time of Sri Jayatirtha’s birth, Vidyaranya was 43 years old and by c.1365 i.e. Sri Jayatirtha’s ascendency to the Peetha, he was 63 years old. I could not get any reliable historical account that points towards the time-stamp of Jayatirtha-Vidyaranya meet. Hence, I have assumed that Vidyaranya could have met Sri Jayatirtha prior to c.1365 as Yaragola slipped in to Bahamanis’ hands in c.1365.

Between c.1326 to 1365, Yaragola was under the rule of Hindu Kings of Warangal (Musunuri Nayakas) who were friendly with Vijayanagara and have formed a formidable alliance with them to fight Bahamanis. During this period any commoner in general and a great personality like Vidyaranya in particular who was a mentor to the then Vijayanagara king would not have faced any problems to travel from Vijayanagara to Warangal dominions. Hence the assertion made by Sri V.P. Acharya “ಆಗಿನ ಕಾಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಪರರಾಜ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಚಾರ ಅಷ್ಟು ಸುಲಭವಾಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂಬುದು ಇತಿಹಾಸದಿಂದತಿ ಳಿಯುವುದುcontradicts with the true historical fact of friendly relationship between Vijayanagara and Warangal kingdoms.

This assumption of Sri Acharya holds water only when Sri Vidyaranya happened to meet Sri Jayatirtha between c.1365 – 1387 of which I am doubtful under given political situations. During this period, Yaragola went under Bahamanis fold after the defeat of Musunuri Nayakas.

Vidyaranya ascended the Sringeri peetha in c.1380 and remained on the peetha till his demise in c.1387. Some historians say that during this period Sri Vidyaranya took retirement from active politics and spent his time in deep meditation in Hampi. Read the following statement from Bangalore Suryanarayana Row on this version:

vidyaranya ashram in hampi

Further support to the above contention can be found from the official website of Sringeri Peetha. An extract of that webpage is presented hereunder:

 vidyaranya built ashram in hampi

Narahari Sumadhwa of Sumadhwaseva.com opines that Vidyaranya must have met Jayatirtha after c.1365 but strangely contradicts by offering another opinion that the said meeting might have happened during early years of Jayatirtha’s ascendence during which Yaragola has gone in to Bahamanis!narahari sumadhwa on jayatirtha vidyaranya

In lieu of such contradictions, I have tried to build a simulation for this Jayatirtha-Vidyaranya meet which is as under:

In the biography of Sri Vidyaranya posted in Sringeri Peetha’s official website, it is said that Sri Vidyaranya has undertaken a pilgrimage to Kashi but rushed back to Sringeri as the then pontiff Sri Bharati Tirtha has sensed his death and wanted Vidyaranya to come back forthwith. This is the only travel of Vidyranya that is cited in the short biography. With this alone one may not be able to make an assertion but I have tried to build the simulation with this fractured info:

  • The time line of Bharati Tirtha is c.1333-1380.
  • Vidyaranya ascended Sringeri Peetha in c.1380.
  • Assuming that Vidyaranya might have undertaken pilgrimage a year or so before c.1380 then his journey would have began in c.1379.
  • By making a wild assumption that he would have undertaken pilgrimage to North 05 years prior to his ascendency for all sorts of ‘Vadaas’ & ‘Digvijayas’ then the year would be c.1375.
  • The purported meeting of Vidyaranya and Jayatirtha might have occurred during this travel.
  • The political situation says that by c.1375 Yaragola was under Bahamani Sultanate. (which can negate the possibility of Sri Jayatirtha staying in Yaragola at this time)
  • Muhammad Shah Bahamani died in c.1375 and Mujahid Shah (c.1375-78) sat on the throne and his reign was full of pitched battles with Vijayanagara particularly in Telangana areas (again ruling out the possibility of Sri Jayatirtha staying in Yaragola).
  • After Mujahid’s murder in c.1378 Mahamood Shah I ascended and ruled the sultanate till c.1397. (Vidyaranya would not have undertaken any major travel between c.1380 – 87 i.e. till his demise. Thus ruling out the meeting with Sri Jayatirtha during this period.)
  • On the other hand, Jayatirtha would have been in Hampi or Anegondi between c.1370-87/88 if at all he has moved there owing to the political insecurity and religious proselytization in Yaragola & Malkheda areas by Muslims.
  • It has been witnessed in above paras that Vidyaranya spent his last years in Hampi by building an Ashram for himself.
  • So, in this period i.e. between c.1370-87 only there are some chances for both of them coming face-to-face.
  • If this becomes true then the presence of Sri Jayatirtha in Hampi or Anegondi during the closing years of his life areas gets confirmed.

All said and done the purported meeting of Vidyaranya and Jayatirtha is another confusion that needs thorough probe and an impartial inquiry might throw light on the Brindavana of Sri Jayatirtha too!

For now, it can be summerised that :

  • Yaragola has not been under Vijayanagara Empire even during Krishnadevaraya’s regime.
  • Sri Vidyaranya would have not faced any hardships only if he travelled before c.1365 to Yaragola and met with Jayatirtha. This seems impractical.
  • In post c.1365 scenario, the supposed meeting of Jayatirtha-Vidyaranya would have taken place in Hampi or Anegondi itself.
    • If this could be established with further proofs, then we can get a vital lead towards the identification of Mula Brindavana of Jayatirtha within the vicinities of Hampi or Anegondi.
 

The above assumption was my mock-up trial only but with the vital input given by Sri Vadiraja that it was Jayatirtha who actually ‘defeated’ Vidyaranya emboldens me to convert the ‘assumption’ in to strong evidence. I feel that this is a crucial evidence that sets aside the story of Akshobhya-Vidyaranya debate!

Here there is a need for us to study and scrutinize the words used by Vadiraja to describe the incident.

Rajaru says that Vidyaranya ‘came’ to Jayatirtha by self-motivation (ಬಂದ ವಿದ್ಯಾರಣ್ಯನ) which clearly implies that Vidyaranya wanted to hold a debate/discussion with Jayatirtha and not the other-way as stated by some vehement elements from Advaitha camp.

Vadiraja also says that Jayatirtha bewitched Vidyaranya with his wonderful works (ಗ್ರಂಥಕರಣದಿಂದ). This is an important understatement that needs to be understood fully.  The word “Grantha Karana” must be meaning “Nyaya Sudha” – the collective name given to all the works by Jayatirtha. The wholesome appeal of Nyaya Sudha only can cast a spell on Vidyaranya but not the bits & pieces of it. Thus the word “ಗ್ರಂಥಕರಣ” led me to make the following flow of the developments of the event:

  • If we have to assume that Vidyaranya met with Jayatirtha at Yaragola then it must have happened before c.1365 (Ref. to the historical chronology listed above). If this is true then this assumption creates a major trouble w.r.t. the completion of Nyaya Sudha by Jayatirtha.
  • I do not think Jayatirtha would have completed all his works by c.1365! He would have taken 10-15 years of time in writing them. This puts the year of completion of Nyaya Sudha anytime from c.1375 to c.1380. By this time, Yaragola and Malkheda were under Muslim hegemony which might have caused Jayatirtha to move to a much safer and highly peaceful location.
  • Anegondi being the shelter for the Brindavanas of Sri Padmanabha and Sri Narahari and also being under the control of Hindu kings of Vijayanagara, Jayatirtha might have moved to this place and have completed the remaining portions of Nyaya Sudha.
  • By c.1380, Vidyaranya assumed Shrigenti Peetha and had retired from active laukika businesses. He built an Ashram in Hampi (as per B. Suryanarayana Rao) and continued his spiritual journey.
  • Thus, Vidyaranya and Jayatirtha could have met personally between c.1380 – 87 at Hampi and Vidyaranya himself would have visited Jayatirtha and got engaged in a debate/discussion.

Now, I will present the reasons that could have caused Vidyaranya to meet Jayatirtha.

  • It is well known that Vidyaranya authored a compilation of Indian philosophies titled as “Sarva Darshana Sangraha.”
  • In this book, he introduces Dvaita under a title – “Purnaprajna Darshana.”
  • This book is not an outright criticism or rejection of Dvaita or other philosophies mentioned therein but an introductory work that familirises the readers with each ‘Darshana.'
  • Many scholars have opined that this Sarva Darshana Sangraha by Vidyaranya has been compiled and composed much before Jayatirtha wrote his wonderful commentaries on Madhva’s works.
  • As Sarva Darshana Sangra does not mention Jayatirtha’s name or his interpretations of Madhva’s critical teachings has been cited as a crucial reason for coming to the above conclusion.
  • If we can accept this as a trustworthy reason then it helps us to understand why Vidyaranya came to Jayatirtha.
  • As an erudite scholar of Advaitha and having compiled a book on various philosophies it becomes natural for Vidyaranya to interact with an young man who took up the responsibility of commenting on the works of a great Acharya such as Madhva.
  • This is why Vadiraja used the word “ಬಂದ” to hint that Vidyaranya came on his own to meet Jayatirtha and this is in perfect sync with the ground realities.
  • It is an irrefutable fact that the Dvaitha made a rapid progress in post-Jayatirtha period on the sheer insights offered by Nyaya Sudha.
  • Hence though Vidyaranya came to meet Jayatirtha it may not be for offering a compliment but also for having a polemical debate as well as his sharp brain might have predicted the strength of young Jayatirtha in emboldening Dvaita onslaught in future.
  • The phrase “ಬರಿದೆ ಮಾತುಗಳಿಂದ ಬಂದ ವಿದ್ಯಾರಣ್ಯನ” – is a clear indication that Vidyaranya came to Jayatirtha not only to give a compliment but also to offer a counter to his commentaries.
  • But the young Jayatirtha had been successful in impressing Vidyaranya beyond expectations and made him wonderstruck. The word “ಮರುಳು ಮಾಡಿದೆ” indicates that Vidyaranya had been left lurching for words to counter Jayatirtha further. This may not amount to the ‘defeat’ of Vidyaranya but definitely a symbol of victory of Dvaita theology.

Conclusion:

Sri Vadiraja’s kriti comes as a great respite in the pursuit of truth in the story of Akshobhya-Vidyaranya debate and offers an unquestionable proof against the said story. It upholds the fact that the said debate had happened between Jayatirtha and Vidyaranya at Hampi or Anegondi in which the works by the former have left the latter bewildered.

With this I rest my argument, for now, on this topic.

 

@@@@@@

Comments   

Sudheendra
0 #37 Sudheendra 2016-06-27 07:41
Now that we dont agree on this particular topic. I am not going to add more to this. Because thats what you say! and this is what I say!

So no need to write a comment to this telling that I have vanished :). No I am not.
We disagree. I dont have the intention of adding comment after comment.
Wish you Good Luck too.
Bye!
Quote
Sudheendra
0 #36 Sudheendra 2016-06-27 07:31
By the way you are giving sermons and you are back with self glorification(ennobling your evidences as solid), its left to readers. I would ask you now how on this earth do you think that you have the authority to call those who reject your self glorified research as blind believers and call those who like ur books on Facebook as Wise? Dont get upset if someone is not agreeing with you.
Quote
Sudheendra
0 #35 Sudheendra 2016-06-27 07:30
I am not vanishing dear author. You are telling my version as faulty logic. I would say your version has NO LOGIC.
You are simply putting your interpretations thats it. Again, there is no mandate for Rajaru to mention Akshobhya Munis name. Thats why he has not menioned.
I am not disrespecting acharyaru. Rather you are disrespecting Teekarayaru who has told 'Vidyaranya Vipinam....' When shishya(Teekarayaru) says about his guru(Shri Akshobhya Teertahru) is that authentic or someone with his own interpretaion says Akshobhya muni hasn't won over Vidyaranya is that authentic.
Quote
C. Raghothama Rao
-1 #34 C. Raghothama Rao 2016-06-26 09:19
Quoting Sudheendra:
Teekarayaru hasn't told avaidika vidyaranya, he has told Vidyaranya, which means original Vidyaranya. And please don't rewrite complete book as a reply to me.
That's all. Bye.


"Original Vidyaranya!" What do you mean by this?

If in this world there is one more person with your name i.e. Sudheendra, you mean to say that he is a 'duplicate' Sudheendra?

As you can't say so, both the Vidyaranyas who co-existed for sometime during 14th century and were contemporaries to Akshobhyaru are 'original' only.

You & I don't have any right or authority to brand them as 'original' or 'duplicate.'

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

Quoting Sudheendra:
Dear author,
Stop interpreting things the way you like. I have told you time and again, that Rajaru there is no mandate to mention Shri Akshobya Munis name. Yes I agree they are not narrow minded and please don't even compare me with them. How can you?? I am an extremely ordinary soul seeking their pada dhuli for my fortunes. I would say that you are narrow minded. With your narrow mind, narrow thinking you are expecting Rajaru to mention Shri Akshobya Teertharu. Believing in one's guru is not blind belief, rather you are blind towards facts. I strongly condemn you for attacking me with words like 'blind believer', narrow minded etc. Now I can judge what kind of book you would have written.


When I have shown the proofs of Akshobhyaru's name mentioned in kritis on Jayatirtharu you have rubbished it. But you are insisting me to buy your rubbish argument that Rajaru is not bound by the mandate of mentioning Akshobhya's achievement! Revisit your faulty logic.

On the other hand, Vijayeendra Tirtharu in his "Siddhanta Saaraasaara Vivechana" has classified the theological sects of India into 3 categories i.e. Vaidika, Avaidika and Vadikaavaidika.

Vaidika sects include Dvaita, Advaita & Vishistaadvaita theologies.

Hence your 'original' Vidyaranya can never be called as "Avaidika Vidyaranya", a term clearly mentioned in Maadhva narratives.

Avaidika sects include Charvaka, Bauddha, Jaina and Pashupata. As I said earlier, Kalamukha is a branch of Pashupata to which the Avaidika Vidyaranya i.e. Maadhva Mantri belonged to.

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

Let me tell you that you are committing a mistake of disrespecting the wisdom of Chalari Acharyaru & Narayanacharyaru out of your sheer exuberance of blind belief.

The insult meted out to Narayanacharyaru is nothing short of insulting Rayaru himself as 'Raghavendra Vijaya' kriti has been personally vetted by Rayaru himself.

If the usage "ಅವೈದಿಕಾಗ್ರ್ಯಂ" in the following shloka from Raghavendra Vijaya i.e.

ದೃಢಾಸಿನಾ ತತ್ತ್ವಮಸೀತಿ ವಾಚಾ ಸಾಮರ್ಥ್ಯಭಾಜಾ ಪರಜೀವಭೇದೇ।

ಅವೈದಿಕಾಗ್ರ್ಯಂ ಮುನಿರೇಷ ವಿದ್ಯಾರಣ್ಯಂ ಶರಣ್ಯಂ ಕುದೃಶಾಂ ಬಿಭೇದ"

is wrong, how come Rayaru approved it?

If Rayaru thought that Vidyaranya of Shringeri Peetha is "Avaidika" then is he not going against the classification made by his Parama Guru (Vijayeendraru)?

This is why I have told in previous comment that a complete analysis of contemporary and later-date literature/evidences alone will bring out the truth. A sincere effort that allows such rational analysis to happen is called a research. Alas! you hold scant regards for both research & analysis as you are overwhelmed by a blind belief.

By the way, what do you mean by this Quoting Sudheendra:
Dear author,
Stop interpreting things the way you like.
.

How on this earth you think that you have the authority to give such sermons to others who disagree with you by citing solid evidences? Haven't you started this discussion with a prejudiced and malicious idea of ridiculing me & my works? Is this what you think as the best manners to behave in public forums?

Think for yourself without self-loathing & ego-centricism.

Good luck.

PS: As I said at the very beginning, many have come to argue but have vanished by showering abuses on me than presenting sound facts. That list has got another entry today!
Quote
Sudheendra
0 #33 Sudheendra 2016-06-25 13:06
Dear author,
Stop interpreting things the way you like. I have told you time and again, that Rajaru there is no mandate to mention Shri Akshobya Munis name. Yes I agree they are not narrow minded and please don't even compare me with them. How can you?? I am an extremely ordinary soul seeking their pada dhuli for my fortunes. I would say that you are narrow minded. With your narrow mind, narrow thinking you are expecting Rajaru to mention Shri Akshobya Teertharu. Believing in one's guru is not blind belief, rather you are blind towards facts. I strongly condemn you for attacking me with words like 'blind believer', narrow minded etc. Now I can judge what kind of book you would have written.
Quote
Sudheendra
0 #32 Sudheendra 2016-06-25 12:37
Teekarayaru hasn't told avaidika vidyaranya, he has told Vidyaranya, which means original Vidyaranya. And please don't rewrite complete book as a reply to me.
That's all. Bye.
Quote
C. Raghothama Rao
-1 #31 C. Raghothama Rao 2016-06-25 10:27
Quoting Sudheendra:
Since I can put only 1000 words at go, I have to write multiple comments. You can write big comments, but I do not have privilege to do so hence splitting into parts.


Registered members don't have character limitation. Its only for the guests.

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


Quoting Sudheendra:
hello Author with refe to #26,

When such a great peethadipati whom aparoksha jnanis,dasas and Shri Jayateertha him self has given due credits, your comments simply defame the great personality.
What do you think, when Shrimat Teekakrutpadaru mentions in charama shloka 'yO vidyaaranya vipinam tattvamasyachinath |
shrImadakshObhyatIrthaarya hamsEna tam namaamyaham|'.. He refers to some third party???? how insensitive are your thoughts? When Mr.Obama talks about Modi, does he refer to neighbour Modi?, If someone tells , yes yes he referred to neighbour modi, because of certain commonality between himself and neighbor, then it can be either intentional misinterpretation or a serious thought gap.


"ಅವೈದಿಕ ವಿದ್ಯಾರಣ್ಯ" who has been mentioned by both Chalari Acharya in Jayatirtha Vijaya and Narayanacharya in Raghavendra Vijaya is not a mere "third party" as assumed by you. He had been a great house-minister of Vijayanagara Empire and had served under Harihara - I and Bukka - I of Sangama dynasty. His original name is Madhava Mantrin. He also earned the title "ಉಪನಿಷತ್ಪ್ರತಿಷ್ಠಾಪನಾಚಾರ್ಯ" which was conferred on to him by Vijayanagara royal family. He wrote a commentary for Suta Samhita titled as "Tatparya Chandrika." For sometime many believed that this Tatparya Chandrika is a book written by Vidyaranya of Shringeri Peetha but later learned that this book is a work by Madhava Mantri, the great house-minister of Vijayanagara court. This Madhava Mantri who called himself as "Maadhavachaarya" was a disciple of Kriyashakti Pandita, the then royal preceptor (Rajaguru) of Harihara - I & Bukka - I.

It was this Maadhavacharya alias Madhava Mantri credited with "Upanishat Pratishthapanacharya" title whom Akshobhyaru defeated. So, the victory of Akshobhyaru is not a small one but a greatest win over a great serving minister of Vijayanagara Empire.

This Madhva Mantrin was a Gauda Sarswata Brahman well versed with Vedas & Upanishads. But strangely he was following a Veerashaiva cult called Kalamukha (ಕಾಲಾಮುಖ) which was a branch stemmed from extreme Shaivite cult called Pashupata (ಪಾಶುಪತ). All Vedic cults including Advaita school have branded the Pashupatas, Kalamukhas & Kapalikas as "Avaidic cults" and kept them away from their activities.

The Sangama dynasty of Vijayanagara were the disciples of these Avadikc Kalamukhas but have shown great reverence to Vedic teachers such as Akshobhyaru, Vidyaranya and Vedanta Deshika etc. by way of issuing generous grants in their favour.

So, the achievement of Akshobhyaru i.e. defeating a Avadika scholar-minister of extreme influence over then then royal house of Vijayanagara who was indeed a learned Brahmin is much superior to the achievement of Jayatirtharu who defeated a revered guru of Shringeri lineage.

The reason why I say so is that there are scant historical evidences to accept the Rajaguru status of Vidyaranya but there are plenty of archeological and inscription-based evidences for the Rajaguru position of Avaidik Kalamukhas during the lifetimes of Akshobhyaru and Jayatirtharu.

In my book that I have repeatedly recommended to you, contains all these historical data.
It cites several archeological evidences, inscriptions, references from the 14th century literature that talk about the Kriyashakti Pandita (Kriyashakti Odeyar) and Madhava Mantri and the important observations made by learned historians.

My attempt was intended to show the grandiose of Akshobhyaru's victory which has been wrongly minimised by some faulty stories that gained wings in recent times.

If you wish to term it as "insensitive babble", well, that is left your conscience. I do not hold qualms over your ignorance in historical, archeological and scriptural evidences that magnify the facts than reducing them to dust!

-----------

Quoting Sudheendra:
I need not to write an essay and bring out clarity, rather in one word you are trying interpret very hard but no gains.. Its just your imaginatie thoughts.

No compulsion on Rajaru to mention about Shri Akshobhya Teertharu, even if you bring some more interpretatioin.


Fortunately for us, neither Vadirajaru not Varadesha Vithala Dasaru followed your type of narrow-thought process. Also, both Chalari Acharyaru and Narayanacharyaru have nver thought of reducing a powerful Avaidika Vidyaranya alias ಉಪನಿಷತ್-ಪ್ರತಿಷ್ಠಾಪನಾಚಾರ್ಯ into a mere "thirty party." They were accurate and bold enough to call the Vidyaranya Vipina cited by Jayatirtharu as "Avaidika Vidyaranya" thus passing on the unadulterated knowledge. They knew that in 21st century there will be some blind believers who in a jest to prove their misguided "loyalty" might pounce on a Vaidika Vidyaranya.

You have just proved that their usage "Avadika" was of farsightedness than being a mere "contemporary."
Quote
Sudheendra
+2 #30 Sudheendra 2016-06-25 07:35
And about #25...

I need not to write an essay and bring out clarity, rather in one word you are trying interpret very hard but no gains.. Its just your imaginatie thoughts.

No compulsion on Rajaru to mention about Shri Akshobhya Teertharu, even if you bring some more interpretatioin.
Quote
Sudheendra
+2 #29 Sudheendra 2016-06-25 07:33
With reference to #26

You say 'Analysis puts more facts'... All your analysis is pointing and indicating to everyone that Shrimadakshobhya Teertharu is such a divine personality that greatest of greatest dasaru, aparoksha jnanigalu have given due credits to him. You cannot even think of the yogyata of such a great guru who is guru of the greatest Jayateertharu. If Teekararu has given due credits, if someone try to snatch it away with mis-interpreted facts then I should say, 'well its Kaliyuga'
Quote
Sudheendra
+2 #28 Sudheendra 2016-06-25 07:25
hello Author with refe to #26,

When such a great peethadipati whom aparoksha jnanis,dasas and Shri Jayateertha him self has given due credits, your comments simply defame the great personality.
What do you think, when Shrimat Teekakrutpadaru mentions in charama shloka 'yO vidyaaranya vipinam tattvamasyachinath |
shrImadakshObhyatIrthaarya hamsEna tam namaamyaham|'.. He refers to some third party???? how insensitive are your thoughts? When Mr.Obama talks about Modi, does he refer to neighbour Modi?, If someone tells , yes yes he referred to neighbour modi, because of certain commonality between himself and neighbor, then it can be either intentional misinterpretation or a serious thought gap.
Quote

Add comment

* Don't make derogatory, abusive, racist, sexist and vulgar comments.
* Be polite and professional while responding to the authors and fellow commentators.
* Don't bring in irrelevant topics or comments nor debate on other topics/subjects/persons/institutions.
* Conduct yourself in a decent manner as you will be judged by your words.
* Comments are being moderated and hence shall be edited by the Web Admin at discretion and the changes incorporated may not be informed to the commentator/member who originally posted the comment.
* Any violation shall be treated seriously and suitable actions shall be taken which may include removal of the comment(s) without prior notice and blacklisting the membership.


Security code
Refresh