Re: Persecution of Ramanuja
From the Bhakti List Archives
• April 4, 1996
Here are some dates from an excellent Tamil book I have on Sri Ramanujar's life by pi. sri. The dates are accepted as more or less accurate. I have given some of my own comments in the end. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1012 - 1044 : Gangai koNda chOzhan 1017 - Sri Ramanujar avatharam 1044 - 1064 : Second Rajendran 1049 - Sri Ramanujar Sanyasam 1070 - 1070 : AthiRajendra chOzhan 1064 - 1070 : VeeraRajendran 1070 - 1118 : First KulOththungan 1096 - Sri Ramanujar fl (kirimikaNda chOzhan) to Mysore; Periya nambi is murdered and KUrEsar's eyes are gauged out 1118 - 1135 : First Vikrama chOzhan 1118 - Sri Ramanujar returns to Sri Rangam 1135 - 1150 : Second KulOththungan Started ruling as Crown Prince in 1133; Responsible for removing Sri Govindaraja perumaaL from the Thillai Nataraja temple; Sri Ramanujar installs Govindaraja shrine at Thiruppathi. 1137 - Sri Ramanujar's ascension to paramapadham ----------------------------------------------------------------------- It is clear that the first and the second Kuloththunga chOzhaas (K-I and K-II) were inimical to Sri Vasihnavam. Independent evidence of this for K-II is available in the words of Ottakakkooththan, "thillaith thirumanRil munRil siRu dheyvath thollaik kuRumbu tholaith theduththu ..." (... he (K-II) eliminated the mischief of the small god (i.e. Govindaraja) by dislodging that god from the sacred hall of Thillai temple,..) There are some more passages along these lines. Citing these, some wrongly claim that K-II, and not K-I, came to be known as kirimikaNda chOzhan. They also cite that K-I, his saivite faith not withstanding, was supportive of Vaishnavam and even Jainism and Buddhism. It is in K-I's reign that Mannarkudi Rajagopala Swami temple was built. Therefore, they claim, no force was used against Sri Ramanuja or any other Sri vaishnavaas. Further, they claim, K-II removed Lord Govindaraja for making space and therefore it is not fair to criticise K-II. Well, O's verse clearly shows K-II's aversion for Sri Vaishnavam; no need for any further elaboraton. As for K-I, his nominal tolerance for Vishnu temples could very well have co-existed with his apprehension about Sri Ramanujar and his authority over spiritual matters. The detailed accounts provided by Sri Vaishnava guru parambara prabhavam cannot all be active imaginations of individuals with nothing better to do. What is to be gained by creating another bogeyman in K-I? After all, Vikrama chOzha has been praised in these accounts. They could have very well praised K-I as well and isolated K-II for all the indignation. Further, Sri Ramanujar returned only after the death of K-I and coronation of Vikarama chOzhan. This timing cannot just coincidence. At the very least K-I allowed himself to be manipulated by the malcontents led by Nalooraan. These individuals saw a spiritual revolution in the making and feared losing their power and clout. It is likely that Nalooraan felt betrayed when Amudhanar became a desciple of Kooraththaazhvaar and turned over the temple admisistration to Sri Ramanuja. Nalooraan found a willing monarch in K-I and perpetrated the horrendous crimes. Therefore, either by direct participation or due to criminal neglect, K-I must bear historical responsibility for the crimes committed against Sri Ramanuja, Sri Periya Nambi, and Sri Kooraththaazhvaar (KA). Later, Sri Ramanuja persuaded KA to pray to Lord varadaraja to get his eye sight back. However, KA prayed for "jnana" eyes with his Varadaraja Sthavam. He also prayed for Nalooraan's redemption! -- P. Dileepan Source: "sri raamaanujar," pi. sri, sudhEsamiththiran, 1964
- Next message: Rangarajan Sudarsan: "Sri.V.Sadagopan's comments on discussion. [B"
- Previous message: vidya_at_cco.caltech.edu: "Re: Intra Religious Distinctions - Section 7"
- In reply to: a.prathivadi-bhayankaram-a: "Persecution of Ramanuja"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]