Shyenvi case

Early references

  • “In the copper plate of 1017 of Arikesari (Keshideva) of North Konkan, Rajaguru Tikka Pai to whom the village of Chanivara had been granted is described as Yajna yajanadhijayandi shatkarmanirata’.” - “The History of Dakshinatya Saraswats” by V N Kudva

brAhmaNatva disputes

Shivaji time

“The authority figure that emerges into prominence in resolving some of these disputes is the person of Viśveśvara Paṇḍita, more popularly known by the name of Gāgābhaṭṭa. As documented in the śyēnavi-jāti-dharma-nirṇaya, Gāgābhaṭṭa led a committee of scholars invited by Shivāji’s court around 1664 and to resolve a dispute over the full Brahminhood of the community of the śyēnavīs, later known as the Sārasvata Brahmins of the coastal regions of Maharashtra, including Goa.”

1788

The second edition also came with an appendix. It included a nirnay patra (judgement letter) from the Shankaracharya of Shringeri,15 signed in 1788 by the Resident of Benares, Jonathan Duncan, affirming the varna sankara origins of both the Shenvi and Palshe Brahmans, as well as a letter signed by both the secretary and the undersecretary of the Bombay presidency denying Brahman status to the Sonars of Bombay. The inclusion of this evidence, so to speak, made Padwal’s assertions about varna sankara more difficult to refute.

Reversed in 1859, it seems.

trikarmi vs ShaT-karmi dispute

  • “After the imprisonment of their priests during the Inquisition, the Saraswats had to resort to the services of Karhada Brahmans, till many years later, the Vaishnavas persuaded the guru of the Uttaradi Math to train their priests.”
  • The Karhada Brahmans still officiate in some of the Smartha temples at Goa and used to do so in some of the Chitrapur Saraswat temples in Kanara.
  • The first batch of Vaishnava priests, on of whom subsequently became Jivottama Tirtha, the third guru of Gokarn Math, was trained at Basraur in South Kanara was considerable opposition when their priests began to officiate as such as it was contended that the Saraswats were only trikarmis.

Decisions

shivappa nAyaka

  • When this question was referred to learned pandits, the Pandits of Kashi and Triambak, some of whom were Chitpavan Brahmans, always decided it in their favour.
  • “On one occasion when the Vaishnava Saraswat priest of their Mukhyaprana Temple was insulted by the local priests, he lay fasting before the idol in the temple. The ruler Shivappa Nayak (1645-1660), who was troubled by the God in a dream, sent Ramachandra Mallya to him offering to make amends. The priest refused to break his fast till the ruler agreed to hold a sabha and decide whether the Saraswats were shatkarmis.”
    • “The case of the Saraswats was opposed in person by the Gurus of the Sringeri and Udipi Maths who went all the way to attend the sabha. It was supported by the Guru of Kumbakonam Math who also attended it. It was strongly put forth by the well-known Saraswat scholar Ghatikashatake Ramachandra of Sagar, the author of Konkanabhyudaya, and his brother Lakshmanacharya. Shivappa Nayak then decided in favor Saraswats.”

Later marAThas

“In an appeal against the resumption of the imam of their Ganapati temple in Vadvadi, the Gaekwad went elaborately into this question; he observed that in the grant of fresh sanad for Mallavadi to the Khanapur Math in 1764 the Peshva Madhava Rao I called himself a shishya of the Ramananda Saraswati II and Purnananda Saraswati II of the Kavale Math and decided on the 6th December, 1883 that their case was supported by the smritis, which have not stated anywhere that any of the Brahmans were entitled to only three of the karmas as in the case of the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas: and that the poor Saraswats were entitled to receive danas of cows, dakshinas, etc., as was always the case in his territories.”

“A similar objection was raised so late as in 1907 in the territory of the Sindhias where they had settled down for generations and a decision had to be obtained from that Government on the 2nd of July 1908”

Fish disputes

“At the time of the ordination of Vittal Sheni Rangnekar as Satchidananda Saraswat in 1630, it was held that there was no objection to their eating fish as they originally came from Gauda Desha.”

“In 1865, the Pandits of Kashi held that there was nothing wrong with the practice of the Pancha Gauda Brahmans of eating fish and meat.”

“In 1859, the Jagadguru of Sringeri declared that the Saraswats were shatkarmis and directed the other Brahmans to assist them in the disposal of their dead bodies.”

“In the first decade of the nineteenth century Captain (later Sir Thomas) Munro, Collector of Kanara, had to decide on account of the opposition of the Gurus of the Udipi Maths, that the Guru of the Kashi Math was entitled to travel with the birudus (paraphernalia) granted to this Math by the Kumbakonam Math.”