________________
264
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(DECEMBER, 1914.
surmise is correct, we can assert that Narahari served Anaügabbîma as his minister and later on as regent to his son. The prince Pratâpa Vira-Narasimbadêva, whom we know and the son of Anangabhîma, assumed sovereignty in the year S. 1197, and hence the regency of Narahari must necessarily have come to a close that very year. The same year Narahari returned to Udipi with the images of Rama and Sita and made them over for půja to his master, Ananda Tirtha, who, as we have already seen, worshipped them for a period of eighty days and finally retired to Badari (i. e. died).25 It means that Ananda Tirtha died in the year S. 1197.
Now, the year 8. 1197 must according to the Narahari-yati-stôtra must be the twelfth year of the regency of Narahari; the regency therefore must have begun in the year S. 1105. As a matter of fact we find records mentioning Narahari only from the year S. 1186 and not earlier. We consider this evidence corroborates well the statement of the stôtra that he reigr. over Kalióga a regent for twelve years. After the demise of the great Dvaita leader in S. 1197, Padmanabha Tirtha ruled as the pontiff of the Madhvas, according to the matha lists, for 6 years, 9 months and 20 days. The same list gives 9 years, 1 month and
The followers of Ananda Tirtha believe that their great teacher still lives in the jungles of Badari on the Himalayas. He is considered to be an am sa of V&yu in the latter's third incarnation (avatar), the three avatars of V4yu being Hanuman, Bhima and Ananda Tirtha. It appears that something like the following is the probable explanation of the phrase that a man is the artsa of a particular deity: e.g., Kumarila Bhatta is considered to be the incarnation of Kumara (Subrahmanya), who heralded the advent of his father Sankara (Siva) on this earth as ankaracharya; Bankaracharya is similarly believed to be the atij ta of Sivs or Seokara. People seem to have wondered at the prodigious intellect of this remarkable man and in their admiration they began to attribute such extraordinary powers to something supernatural. The name indicates of whom he might be an arisa: "Verily he must be another Sankara (Niva) that has come down upon the earth for the purpose of reclaiming humanity." The feeling that Sankara might be Siva grows stronger as the mist of ages thicken round such a faith, till in the long run the analogy is forgotten and identity is established between the object of oomparison and the object compared to it.
The great Vaishnava reformer Ramanuja, is asserted to be an avatar of Adisesha. Ramanuja was called Lakshmana (Ilaiyalvår) by his father. When he took the sanyasásrama he came to be known by the name of Ramanuja (the brother of Rama, i.e. Lakshmana). When Vishnu desired to be born on the earth as Ráma, he made Lakshmi, Adibênha, the sankha, the chakra, etc. be born also as Sita, Lakshmana, etc. A disesha was represented by Lakshmana. Hence R&mánuja of vast learning must be as wise as Adilsha (Lakshmana, i. e., Rama's anuja in this case).
An exactly similar reasoning has been applied by the Madhvas in identifying Ananda Tirtha with Bhimasena and Hanuman. Like the former, he has also performed ceveral gastronomic feats (see pp. 176, 177. and 36 of Mr. C. M. Padmanabhacharya's book), He lifted a huge boulder like Hanuman and throw it in the river Tungabhadra ( Kp. Carn. Vol. VI, Mg. No. 89). That the Acharya possessed an uncommonly strong digestive faculty and consequently a very healthy frame of body has to be inferred from these facts. He was not like many intellectual giants weak in health. Having posited that Madhvacharya was & strong man and resembled Hanuman and Bhima, in course of time he passed to be avaianas of these Pauranic heroes. This supposition being granted, it follows as a logical consequence that Madhvacharya must also be as immortal as these heroes. Hence he could not or did not die. He lives like the othery in a manner we ordinary mortals cannot see or know.
It is extremely repulsive to the mind of the Madhva to be told that his AchArya died. He is said to have gone to Badari, whereas all other Acharyas are distinctly mentioned as dead. If their Acharya also had actually died, aurely his biographers would have also written "died " instead of 'gone to Badari.' In this connection we should refer our readers to the euphimistic way in which the death of a person is referred to among the Srivaishnavas, which is "Sodmi tiru-ndt/ uklou elundarulinar," meaning that he went away to Svarga (lit. to the sacred land).
