Removing The Sheen From Buddhism

[Bharatvarsh2]

There are several instances of historical infighting, it is no revelation to Hindus. (There were also local-level skirmishes.) But at least one can happily say that the Acharya later returned from his exile after IIRC the tyrant who hounded him out got some disease and kicked the bucket (will need to confirm). The previous ruler and successor were normal Hindus, so yes, as anyone would know, it was "an exception and not the rule".

This is most likely hagiographical.



The ruler was Kulottunga wasn't he?



Here is some info about that in a post made by Kalavai Venkat:

<<< If you think, legends exaggerated his partiality to Saivite

institutions, you are hallucinating. I think you should refer to

original sources rather than Nilakanta Sastri (who have modern day

Sankara mutt/ Saivite prejudices) and the like. Next you will come

and say that Ramanuja was never persecuted by Chola kings.



Disappointed,

Lakshmi Srinivas>>>



I was most surprised by the tone of your post. I always take any

hagiography with a pinch of salt. There has been a lot of bravado on

the part of both Saiva and Vaishnava bhakti schools. It is imprudent

to take them all as historical facts despite gaping logical holes. I

have not cited K A N Sastri at all on this topic but you seem to

bring him up twice now. In fact, I cited references to original Tamil

sources and the secondary research publications, both of which I am

familiar with, on this subject in

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivi...sage/72292 but

surprisingly, you refused to discuss them stating out of personal

preference you prefer to believe that Tirukkural is post-Sangam:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivi...sage/72345. I

respect your decision but I would like to submit that I am not the

one shying away from discussing primary sources.



K A N Sastri continues to be the most reliable authority on Tamil

history. None can even hope to get a glimpse of the Chola era but for

his magnificent work on the Chola copper plate inscriptions. Like any

other scholar, his works would also require amendments with time and

new evidences but it is unfair to dismiss an impeccable scholar out

of sectarian considerations.



Now that you brought up the subject of the supposed persecution of

Ramanujacharya by Kulottunga Chola, let us get down to the facts. Of

course, starting with Prof. S Krishnaswamy Aiyengar, many have done

this and I am merely summarizing the arguments. There has been a lot

of historical controversy about the identity of the Krimikanta Chola.

The claimed contemporary of Ramanuja, when the latter took himself to

Melkote, would've been Kulottunga I. He was, no doubt more inclined

to Saivism, but was hardly a fanatic. Aiyengar points out (South

India Inscriptions, Vol. 3, pp. 148-152) in his "History of

Tirupati", Vol. 1, p. 274 that we have inscriptional evidence from

the reign of Kulottunga I that he made endowments for the worship of

Lord Ranganatha at Sri Rangam. His son, who succeeded him 1n 1118 CE,

Vikrama Chola, was himself a Vaishnava. So, Ramanuja's departure is

not attributable to any historically known sectarian conflict.



K A N Sastri ("The Cholas") and others are inclined to think, with

caution, that the Krimikanta Chola could've been Kulottunga II. The

narratives of Venkatachala Itihasamala find a corroborative echo in

Ottakkuttar's poem and are datable to 1135 CE. There is little doubt

that Kulottunga II was partial towards Saivism and might've neglected

Vaishnavism. But I am not at all convinced that he would've

persecuted the Vaishnavas, but even K A N Sastri (to my surprise)

accuses him of having started bitter sectarianism by removing the

deity of Govindaraja Perumal from the courtyard of the temple in

Chidambaram ("The Cholas," Vol. 2, Part 1, p. 74, fn. 62) entirely on

the assumption that Krimikanta Chola was Kulottunga II. If he removed

the deity of Govindaraja Perumal, it is unattested anywhere except in

the eulogies of Ottakuttar and in Divyasuricharita (which is repeated

in Prapannamritam).



Another reason that I find it hard to believe that Kulottunga II was

a fanatical persecutor is because, as epigraphy attests, he endowed

Vaishnava temples, albeit to a lesser degree with grants. His reign

was virtually free from vicious wars and was highly prosperous. To

compare him with Aurangazeb is travesty. For example, in prasastis #

27 to 32 of Kulottunga II (all continuation of endowments made by

Kulottunga I), is a record of gift to the temple of "Tiruvayppadi

Tirumalai Azhwar" or the "Lord of the cowherd village on the hill."



Per the Guruparampara, the date of Ramanuja's birth would be 1017 CE.

It is even questionable if he was alive when Kulottunga II ascended

to the throne. In all likelihood, one was not even born when the

other had died. There is always a danger in taking hagiography

literally and accuse Hindu kings of having been Aurangazebs.



There is a reason why UVS refers to the incident in "Rajarajan ula"

only obliquely during his discussions on "Kulottungacholan ula," if I

remember correctly. In the former, Kulottunga II is just eulogized

as "the one that got rid of the mischief of smaller deities from the

sacred site of Tillai – tillait tirumanrin mandrir siru deivat

tollaik kurumbu togutteduttu" while in the latter "kuyirrip purambir

kurumbanaitu mannir kadalgalil muzhguvitta." These could be merely

empty boasts of a fanatical Saiva poet and may have nothing to do

with the acts of Kulottunga II. Remember, for this to be true, one

must also accept the possibility of Ottakuttar having been the court

poet of 3 generations of Cholas ending with Kulottunga II. UVS being

a responsible scholar doesn't pander to sectarian jealousies and

treats bragging as such.



The Saivites and the Vaishnavites were both given to igniting

passions and provoking each other with verbal taunts. In Sadagopar

Andadi, attributed to Kambar, the writings of the Saivite saint

Manickavasagar are compared to the "malattu aa – infertile cow." It

is impossible for this Kambar to have been the same author of

Ramayana for the latter sings, "(H)aran adhiga ulagalandha (H)ari

adhigan ena uraikkum arivilarkku – those who dispute in ignorance

about who is greater, Hari or Haran." The interesting point is that

the author of Sadagopar Andadi quite likely lived in the reign of

Kulottunga II. Had the latter been a persecuting fanatic, such

compositions would've been unlikely. Have you seen anything like that

composed in the reign of Aurangazeb? The contemporary saints knew

which side of the bread was buttered and maintained a sensible

silence – oops; the heterodox variety instead blamed the Brahmins,

the victims of the Islamic sword!



Thanks.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivi...sage/72662