You are here: Sri Vaishnava Home Page : Bhakti List : Archives : May 1996

Re; Vidyaranya

Date: Wed May 01 1996 - 19:33:27 PDT

Mani writes

*** Sumanth, it seems you are arguing for the sake of
*** arguing in this post. Vidyasankar has presented rather
*** substantial evidence that Vidyaranya the mathadhipati
*** of Sringeri Matha could not have been a mere court 
*** official of the Vijayanagara empire.  Adumbrations
*** about Vasishta and others aside, the practice of
*** sannyasis during this time period was to live by
*** themselves or in a matham, certainly not to actively
*** involve themselves in the day to day administration of a
*** kingdom.

I am sorry you thik I am arguing for the sake of argument.
But you are enttitled to your opinion. I remain unconvinced at
the "weight of evidence."

You dismiss Kanchi acharya's views quite easily. I am far more

Additionally, your argument that muttadhipathis are confined exclusively
to the Mutts is needless and unsubstantiated. I have my own doubts
about this. There are far too many "stories" I have heard about
Muttadipatis of various denominations to be believe this. But there is
not need to go into this wanton speculation here.

There is nothing to have prevented the Vijayanagara kinds from
referring and even bestowing the title of Minister to Vidyaranya,
without expecting much inthe form of routine Ministerial duties.
However, it is quitte possible that Vidyaranaya spent substantial time
away from the Mutt. There is absolutely no reason (at least I am not
convinced my any evidence prsented so far) to believe that he did not
spend tubstantial portionof his time away from the Mutt.

*** At any rate, Vidyasankar is surmising that Madhava
*** (the author of the Sankara Vijayam) is different from
*** Vidyaranya the sannyasi.

I don't think this was the issue. This is a different subject and to
be debated by you and others more interested in a different forum.

*** With no disrespect to Kanchi Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati
*** intended, I would put a great deal more faith in the Sringeri
*** Matha historical tradition based upon their own historical
*** records than the oral tradition of a rival mutt.

I prefer to be more charitable. The tone of the discourse, as I saw it
was quite charitable to Vidyaranya. I saw no deep politics.

In any case, there appears not much to be gained by further discussion
on this matter.  Your original e-mail prsented this as a fact that all
modern and traditional scholars agree upn. I don't see it that way
given that  Kanchi acharya himself saw it different.  I see yours (and
Vidyasankar's) opinion as an alternate theory. 

Let's leave this discussion at this. It is clear that you and I will
not agree on the "incontrovertibility" of the data presented.