प्रमाणानि

यतिराजवैभवम्

Among the hagiographical/biographical texts which may be considered as possibly written by someone who was a contemporary of Sri Ramanuja, only Yatiraja Vaibhavam by Andhra Purna seems to pass the test.

Divyasuri Caritam is a much later work - last chapter makes it clear. Venkatachala Itihasa Mala is also a later work. The appointment of Satakopa Jiyars in Tirumala is attributed to Sri Ramanuja in the work. But the Jiyars and mathams were established only in 14th century as is clear from inscriptions. VIM and DSC mentioned above have to be discarded as primary texts of evidence. Yatiraja Vaibhavam alone should be taken seriously by those interested in history.

kRmikaNTha vs govindarAja-remover

From Kulottunga Colan ula, we come to know that Kulottunga II desecrated Govindaraja shrine before starting his major renovation work in Chidambaram. his inscriptions show that his renovations were begun by 1333-36 CE. Venkatesa Itihasa Mala places it very early in Ramanuja’s life. This is another piece of evidence against the text being a contemporary work. OTOH, Yatiraja Vaibhavam alone places it towards the end of Ramanuja’s life - as an act made much after his return from Karnataka.

Earliest acharyas did not connect Krimikantha with Kulottunga II - So, claiming that Krimikantha who blinded Kuresa was same as Kulottunga II is also baseless. Rather, former seems to be some local rebel who tried to become emperor before Kulottunga I but lost. This Kulottunga’s grandson is the one who removed Govindaraja. While early acharyas refused to say his name (instead using term avyapadesa - ‘he who shall not be named’ :)), they did not call him krimikantha either - which was the title used for the person who blinded Kuresa and Nambi. Hence, the two are different. This is made clear only by one hagiography - Yatiraja Vaibhavam of Vaduga nambi aka Andhra Purna.

Delhi statue revovery

Back to Yatiraja Vaibhavam. The only anachronistic thing that can be claimed abt it - is that it refers to Ramanuja bringing from Ramapriya murti from Delhi. These days, it is said that he brought the murti back from a Sultan’s palace & that his daughter merged with the Lord. There was no sultan in Delhi at that time. And despite what some may want to argue, there is no evidence for any M incursion into Karnataka from Islamic states during the 11th century. But once again, YV proves to be very different compared to other texts. YV doesn’t say that the ruler of Delhi was a Muslim or a Mleccha. It simply says ruler of Delhi. None of the other early texts claim that the ruler was a Muslim either. This opinion seems to have cropped up in later era when Delhi became Sultanate iconoclasts’ capital

Earliest inscriptions

Earliest clear reference to Sri Ramanuja in an epigraph comes from inscription dated 19th Nov 1156 CE in Srirangam temple. A Southern Kerala ruler, Kodai Ravivarman had offered lamp and camphor to the Lord as per orders of Emperumanar (a title of Sri Ramanuja). Per tradition, Ramanuja attained paramapada in 1137 CE. While the inscription says that the offering is as per Ramanuja’s orders, it doesnt necessarily refer to him as alive during that year. Rather the words seem to indicate past order being given effect. Quite interesting fact is that this offering was made by Venad (Southern Kerala) ruler whose descendants are the current Travancore Royal family.

The only possible earlier reference to Ramanuja is from Tondanur (Kere Tonnur) in Karnataka. The epigraphy is in 12th century characters and refers to the donee being a sishya of Ilaiyazhvaan (a Tamil Sri Vaishnava word for Ramanuja/Lakshmana). Name of the year is lost due to time but we can read that the tithi was amavasya with Anuradha star on Thursday. Amavasya in Anuradha can happen in Tamil months of Karthigai-Margazhi-Thai.

There is another inscription of 1135 CE referring to a Tamil couple offering donations in Tonnur in Margazhi month. It is seen that Amavasya of Margazhi in that year does match the inscription. 5th Dec 1135 - Margazhi Amavasya with Anuradha star and Thursday. If this is indeed the date of the inscription, then it might be the earliest datable reference to Sri Ramanuja in an epigraph. But the lack of year name or number is a problem.

On Nagaswamy’s work

Nagasamy has made many omissions and commissions in his life. His work on Ramanuja is a combo of both. That Kulottunga II removed Govindaraja from Srirangam is attested by his court poet. Kuresa confirms persecution of Ramanuja in his work. As for Nagasamy’s lack of objectivity one just has to see how he treats the requirements of epigraphs wrt Ramanuja vis a vis Sankara.

Of course, he had also stated that Ramanuja was alive in 1156 CE based on a Srirangam epigraph. If accepted, then one can argue that Kulottunga II & Krimikanta are one. I don’t agree with such a view either.

Vishnuvardhana was in Srirangam in 1111CE (12 yrs after Ramanuja entered Melkote) - which coincides with Ramanuja’s return to the holy town. So Kulottunga II & Krimikantha are not one.

Finally, some persecution of Vaishnavas by Kulottunga II is indirectly confirmed by his son whose meikeerthi says that he uplifted the Vaishnava faith which had fallen. Said son was also a Shaiva by faith. But he stopped persecution of Vaishnavas as per near contemporary texts which is confirmed by this meikeerthi as well.

Ramanuja and viShNuvardhana

As per tradition, Ramanuja’s disciple Mudaliyandan/Dasarathi was appointed by the Acharya to consecrate the Panchanarayanas established by Vishnuvardhana. Belur Chennakesava was consecrated on 10th Mar 1117 CE - on caitra sukla pancami tithi. Date is given in an inscription of Vishnuvardhana - see Epigraphia Carnatica Vol 5 Page 134 (Belur inscription no.58). Vishnuvardhana’s inscription is found in Srirangam temple dated to 1111CE (12 years after Ramanuja’s entry into Melukote) as per tradition.

We know that Ramanuja most probably left Srirangam ca.1070 CE. The belief that he spent 12 yrs in Hoysala kingdom seems to be based on the Melukote period of stay mentioned above. A 12 yr stint in Melukote being wrongly considered as entire period of stay in later texts. Some try to shift the entire period of Ramanuja’s visit to Karnataka by several decades later (post 1135 CE) to match it with Kulottunga II’s reign in Chola desha. But such attempts miss the clear indications given by Vishnuvardhana’s inscriptions.

Srirangam inscription also holds 1111 CE as 15th year of Vishnuvardhana’s reign. So, he must have been co-ruler or heir apparent or at least ruler of a portion of the Hoysala territory from 1096 CE. This confirms story about VV being ruler when Ramanuja reached Melkote. Presuming that VV accompanied Ramanuja on his trip back to Srirangam in 1111CE after 12 yrs in Melkote - Ramanuja seems to have visited Karnataka again in 1117CE for the consecration of Pancanarayana temples. Perhaps a short visit - Yatiraja Vaibhavam is silent about this visit.

pANDyan connection

The Pandyas are known to have conquered Mangalore in the 8th century. The Alupas from that period seem to have been descended from the Pandyas who were placed to govern that place. Their descendants even proclaimed their connection to Madurai in their inscriptions.
The Pandya-Alupa Dynasty also has an interesting connection with Ramanuja’s date. It is known that a Pandya Manabharana was a sishya of Nanjiyar - a Sri Vaishnava acharya who lived in later half of 12th century. That there was a Jatavarma Srivallabha who ruled from Madurai in the 12th century and he had a son named Manabharana - is known from Rajasingamangalam inscription (South Indian inscriptions Vol 14 no.225). Some consider this Manabharana as the father in law of Kavi Alupendra.
But it is known that there was a Manabharana who was elder brother of a Srivallabha. This Manabharana was son of a Sinhala princess Matti and he also married his uncle’s daughter, another Sinhala princess. Matti was sister of Vijayabahu who ruled during 1055-1110 CE. Matti’s son Manabharana married a daughter of Kulottunga I. It is also seen that the Jatavarman Srivallabha mentioned above reconfirmed a donation from 31st year of Kulottunga’s reign during his own 10th year of reign (SII Vol 14, no.226). The Srirangam inscription of Vira Kavi Alupendra refers to his father in law Manabharana as Chozhakulantaka and Madhuradhisvara. This Manabharana cannot be son of Srivallabha. Rather he must be the elder brother of Srivallabha - who married Kulottunga’s daughter.