Indian Antiquary Vol 47

SR No.: 032539
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 386
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 104

100
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
APRIL, 1918
According to the Vedantadéšika Vaibhavaprakašika of Doddayacharya of Chôlasingapuram, Vedantadêsika, the great Visish tâdvaita Acharya, the founder of the Vadagalai sect of the Srivaishṇavas, is said to have had a philosophical wrangle with a Diņdima-Sárvabhauma Kavi.? This Dindima-Sarvabhauma Kavi is herein said to be the author of a work called Raghavábhyudayam and that to excel this composition Vedantadêsika is said to have written Yadavábhyudayam. We know from other sources that Védântadêśika lived for over a hundred years from S. 1191-1293 (=A.D. 1269-1371). Therefore the opponent of the Srivaishnavacharya must be an ancestor of Aruņagirinatha (in his mother's side).
Again, Nainarâchârya, the son of Vêdântadêśika, a contemporary, like his father, of Sarvajñasimha Nayaka, is reported to have defeated in a philosophical discussion a poet of the court of the prince abovenamed, known by the appellation of Sakalya-Malla. This must be the Kavimalla who was overcome by Dindimakavi Aruņagirinátha, as evidenced by one of his titles, Kavimalla-galla-tâdana-patu.
The Vivékapatramáld contains an absurd statement that Aruņagirinåtha, incensed by the conduct of the keeper of the queen's garden near Mettaippadi, complained against him to the king Praudhadêvarîya and requested him to present him with the garden, so that he might construct there an agrahara, that Praurhadêvarêya refused to give it and that thereupon Aruragiri went to the Sultan of Delhi and got an order from the latter to Praudhadêvarêya to cede the garden in favour of the poet. Even supposing that the Sultan of Delhi is a mistake for the Sultan of one of the five kingdoms into which the Bahmani kingdom broke, we fail to understand what right the Sultan had to issue an order to be obeyed by Prauchadêvarêya and how the Vijaya iagara king endured the conduct of this most disloyal and dangerous poet and settled him down in the midst of his loyal subjects. But the village of Mullandram is actually called Praudhadevarayapuram, a fact which clearly bears out the fact that it was made an agrahara by Praudhadêvarêya. Perhaps it might be argued that after all, it might be that the king first felt some difficulty in conferring his queen's garden to the Brâhman poet, but later on was pleased by his conduct and his learning to grant it to Arunagirinâtba. But this supposition cannot be upheld, because the age of Arunagiri is far behind that of Praudhadevaraya and therefore the one cannot be the donee and the other the donor.
From all these petty contradictions and absurdities contained in the Vivé kupatramála we can assert without fear of contradiction that the work is not one written in the life-time of Arunagirinatha but long after it, the chief source of information being the traditions current in the village of Mullandram at the time of its composition.
A number of places, etc., occur in the Vivékapatramála; they are Rajanathapura, otherwise known as Talpagiri, the Talpagiri hill near the agarhára of that name, Audumbarapura and Navagrahara (N. grâma). These are absurd literal translations of the Tamil names Mettaippândi, Attiyûr and Puttur all three of which are in the Arni division of the North Arcot District. Mullandram is also there.
(To be continued.)
जिस्वा कर्षि डिण्डिमसार्वभौमं कृत्वा च कृष्णाम्बुदवं मनोशं । स्तुतस्तदा तेन गुरुत्तमो बस्तमाश्रय सवकला