kanchi Shankara Mutt

Wed Sep 6 20:37:38 UTC 2000

Dear Sri Ganapathi/sivabgs

>I read the article written by Sri Vidyasankar “Real History Of Kanchi Math
>(Re:Former President Inaugurates
)Celebrations” in the alt.hindu Newsgroup.
>This article was written on the major issues covered in  “The weekly cover
>story” of the Illustrated weekly Of India (Sept.13,1987) –K.P.Sunil.
>

Just to clarify who said what, where, and when -

1. This mailing list is Indology. It is not the alt.hindu newsgroup.

2. Your response is dated 4 Sep. 2000. The posting that you quote from
the archives of alt.hindu was sent on 3 Aug. 1994, more than six years ago.
Perhaps you might care to also respond to the points I have raised in the
following posts on Indology, posted between 1994 and 2000. This would make
this thread relevant to this list -

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE?A2=ind9905&L=indology&P=R27362
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE?A2=ind9912&L=indology&P=R13134
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE?A2=ind0006&L=indology&P=R3995
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE?A2=ind0006&L=indology&P=R4228
http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE?A2=ind0006&L=indology&P=R4367

3. A lot of the material that you have quoted is from the old magazine
article by Mr. K. P. Sunil. Those are his findings and statements, which I
had simply quoted then, and which I had used as a basis for forming my own
conclusions. Particularly, the statement, "Historians, however, hold that
the Kumbhakonam math was in verity a branch of the Sringeri math established
in 1821 AD..." is a verbatim quotation from Sunil's article in The
Illustrated Weekly of India, issue dated 13 September 1987.

Thank you for correcting a few dates re: Tanjavur Maratha history, about
which I was mistaken. For whatever it is worth, I hereby go on record, and
agree that in 1994, I was misinformed about the name of the Maratha king who
ruled Tanjavur in the year 1821 AD. Still, I fail to see how this
particularly settles the 150 year old controversy over the origins of the
Kanchi Matha.

>
>1.The  inscriptions relating to 1800 AD clearly mention the name of the
>Math as the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam and the modi documents of 18th and 19th
>century also do refer the institution as the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam and the
>Peetadhipathi as the Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam.  Therefore
>the existence of Kanchi Shankara Math at Kumbakonam  during this period is
>proved beyond doubt.

Maybe so, but it does not prove that there was a Matha at Kanchipuram in the
year 1700, or even in the year 1750 or 1760. This is the period when an
institution came into being in Kumbhakonam, according to your dating. One
still has to reconcile your findings with the following -

1. Distinction between a "Matha" and a "Peetha". Every old reference to a
"kAmapITha" or "kAmakoTikA" refers to the Sricakra associated with the
Kamakshi temple in Kanchipuram. This is different from a Matha, which is a
monastery for ascetics.

2. Kanchipuram is not listed in any of the old Dasanami lists as the
location of a Sankara Matha. These lists name such minor institutions as
Sivaganga, Sankarankoil, Tirthahalli and Talakad in south India. Why not
Kanchipuram, if there was indeed a premier institution there?

3. It was the British Collector of Chingleput who appointed the
Sankaracharya of Kumbhakonam as the sole trustee of the Kanchi Kamakshi
temple, in the year 1842.

4. The hereditary priests of the Kamakshi temple protested against this
appointment, and complained to the British authorities that the "Kumbhakonam
Sankaracharya was a stranger to the country, and a professor of a different
creed." The Kumbhakonam Sankaracharyas were all from the well-connected and
powerful family of Govinda Dikshita. The priestly family of the Kamakshi
temple had already been dispossessed by the British. These petitions and
counter-petitions are available too, and indicate something contrary to the
standard history claimed by the Kanchi Matha. At the very least, it shows
that the claim of this Sankaracharya to the title of "Kanchi Kamakoti
Peethadhipati" was not universally accepted then. Moreover, even more than a
hundred years later, the priests of the Bangaru Kamakshi temple in Tanjavur
tried to legally block the Kanchi Matha and its Sankaracharya(s) from taking
over the administration and worship procedures of that temple. That they
failed is more a testament to the contemporary influence of the Kanchi Matha
than a consequence of its supposed antiquity.

5. All the heads of this institution, whether in Kumbhakonam or in
Kanchipuram, have been of the Sarasvati order. All the Dasanami traditions
unanimously assign this name suffix to the Sringeri Matha. It is only in
this nominal sense that it is said to be a "branch" of the Sringeri Matha.
The claim that Indra Sarasvati is the eleventh (and a special) suffix
assigned to Kanchi Matha has no traditional support. See
<listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE?A2=ind0004&L=indology&P=R12608> for
details. After all, the name of the monastic order is "daSanAmI", not
"ekAdaSanAmI".

6. A. Singaravelu Mudaliar's Tamil encyclopedia (apitAna cintAmaNi, Asian
Educational Services, Delhi, 1981 [reprint of 1890's edition], page 1604)
says - "Aticankarar ... nAnku maTankaL tApittanar. .... pinnirintavarkaLAl
kumpakoNam, amanI, civakankai, kAkarla maTankaL uNTAyina." Again, no mention
of Kanchipuram, but as you can see, Kumbhakonam is mentioned.

7. An 1896 issue of the periodical "Brahma Vidya", published by the Advaita
Sabha in Kumbhakonam, mentions - "inta maTAtInam toTanki nAnku-aintu
paTTankaLAka ...", but says nothing about a prior history at Kanchipuram.
Note that this Advaita Sabha was a trust run by the Kumbhakonam Matha
itself.

As a result of all these contra-indications, a doubt arises, and I have to
ask the following question. When was the inscription made in the
Kumbheswarar temple? It relates an event from around 1800 AD, but was the
inscription put in there in the same year? Or did the inscription come into
being a few decades later? Does it prove anything more than the fact that
the Kumbhakonam Sankaracharya was already claiming the Kanchi Kamakoti
Peethadhipati title, something that we all know to have been a subject of
dispute?

>3.The date of this marathi  inscription was the 10th Feb.1822. According to
>this inscription Raja Sri Chathrapathi Serfoji Maharaja built the Temple of
>Chandramouleeswara (Chandramouleeswara Griham) in the Math.

Does *this* inscription use the term "Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham", or even a
general reference to Kanchipuram? Is there a reference to the supposed move
from Kanchipuram to Kumbhakonam just a few decades ago? That Serfoji gave a
grant to build a temple in Kumbhakonam does not say anything about
Kanchipuram, unless the contents of this inscription refer to the
Kumbhakonam Matha in terms of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham.

.........

>essential to take into account all the material available during this
>period. Therefore, the Kumbakonam inscriptions and Modi Documents (which
>cover a period of more than hundred years) shall not be rejected with out
>assigning any reasons.

"Shall" not be rejected?? Whoever rejected them? The issue I raise is, which
100 years do they cover? Mostly the 19th century. My question to you is, is
there concrete information in your sources about a crucial period in the
18th century?

And again, to clarify, if you go back to the alt.hindu article from which
you have quoted, I have clearly indicated the statements that are due to the
journalist, Mr. K. P. Sunil, whom I have only quoted. As for myself, I am
willing to revise my opinion of the earliest date that is attested for a
Sankaracharya at Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, but only after personally going
through the primary sources. If your intention is that I should revise my
earlier statements on this issue, I need time to get hold of these texts and
examine them myself.

>5.The Letter written to SivajiII contains information about the

Letter written by whom? And when? According to your list, Sivaji II ruled
from 1832-1855, in which period falls the year 1842. This was the very
period when the Kumbhakonam Matha was acquiring and merging with the
Kamakshi temple, to become the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham. This is the very
period that is the subject of dispute. That this letter claims a past
history at Kanchipuram does not really make it so, without independent
sources to corroborate it. I can write a letter today to the Prime Minister
of India, making certain claims, but the mere existence of such a letter
would not prove the validity of its contents.

shifting of
>Kanchi Math head quarters from Kanchipuram to Kumbakonam during the period
>of Raja Prathapa Simhan. There are also records in connction with the Vyasa
>pooja Offerings made to the kanchi Kamakoti Peetadhipathi during the

I have no doubt that details of Vyasa Pooja in various places are available
after 1800, but I have not seen much detail about the documents from the
1760s. Let me ask you some specific questions about the only pre-19th
century documents you have quoted. On 22 August 200, you had written -

>01. Doc.No.21-6,20-38,3-45and 4-286
>
>“..H.H.Sankarachary was paid annually large sums of money for the
>conduct of worship of Chandramouleeswar and of the Vyasa Pooja in the >
>solar month of Ashada.This grant continued perhaps upto 1798AD”

Who is the author of this statement? What is the original source being
quoted? Who paid the large sums of money annually? What was the name of this
Sankarachary? Is he referred to as the head of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham in
the *original* manuscripts? Or is this something that is being read into the
manuscript by the author of the book you quote? Is there an original
manuscript here, or is the reference only from secondary sources that were
written in the mid-19th century, the period of dispute? And why the
"perhaps" in the last sentence?

>03.Doc.No.4-74 to 85
>
>“
During the reign of  Prathapa Simha (1739-1763AD) the head of Kanchi
>Peetam, while he was camping at Udayar Palayam, was induced to go to
>Thanjavur.The Pontiff, who wanted to reside at some place on the
>banks of the Kaveri, preferred to reside at Kumbhakonam.Thereupon the >
>Rajah built a mutt for him at the Dabir Agraharam, gifted him with
>inam lands,utensils of silver and gold,jewels,horses and elephants.”

Who is the author of this statement in English? What is the wording of the
original grant of inam, utensils, horses and elephants? What are the name
and institutional affiliations of the donee? What was the date of the grant?
Where was the grant executed - in Udayarpalayam or in Tanjavur or in
Kanchipuram? Are specific details like year, month, tithi etc. available? Is
the original grant available, or is this information extracted from a
secondary reference in a manuscript or letter dating from the mid-19th
century?

>1760s.(Sri VidyaSankar might have the curiosity of  discovering more
info.
>from the 1700s. But  this can not reduce the importance of the

Pardon me, but I certainly have the curiosity to find out who was where in
the 1700s, and for a very specific reason. The Kanchi Matha's official list
is reliable only after this period. The dates given in this list for
Gangadharendra Sarasvati, Paramasivendra Sarasvati and Sadasiva Brahmendra
are all quite jumbled up. All these people should have lived between 1675
and 1740 AD.

documents
>shown in support of my contention that the Kanchi Math had come to
>Kumbhakonam during the period of Raja Prathapa simhan only as an
>independent Kanchi Math and it is highly ridiculous to claim it as a sub
>math of  Sringeri).

Given that the said affiliation to Sringeri derives from the Sarasvati
suffix, which is admittedly nominal, and given all the earlier sources that
do not mention Kanchipuram at all, this is not so ridiculous a claim after
all. It is also not a hundredth as ridiculous as the Kanchi Matha's claims -

a) that Sringeri is a sub-Matha of the Kudali Matha,
b) that Vidyatirtha was the head of Kanchi Matha in the 14th century, &
c) that Vidyaranya was deputized from Kanchipuram, to "revive" a Sringeri
Matha that had already become "extinct", prior to the 14th century.

It may be that a Kumbhakonam Matha came into being quite independently, some
time in the 18th century. As it is, even institutions that were originally
established as branches of a main institution eventually became independent
institutions with independent lineages and administrations. However, the
argument that it was a Kanchi Matha that first moved to Kumbhakonam and then
returned to Kanchipuram needs stronger support than anything I have seen
hitherto. I would be willing to revise my opinion only if well attested
primary sources from the 18th century specifically refer to a Sankaracharya
of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetha, or at least a Sankaracharya of a Kanchi
Matha, if not the Kamakoti Peetha. If such sources exist, one would still
have to square their contents with those of the petitions submitted by the
Kamakshi temple priests in the mid-19th century. If the only solid
references to the 18th century period are from manuscripts and letters
written in the mid-19th century, do pardon my inclination to take them with
a pinch of salt.

Yours,
Vidyasankar

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.