Mais ūru S ūryan ārayaṇabhaṭṭa Puṭṭaṇṇa
śubhamastu
Plate 34: DharmādhikāriKuṇigala Rāmaśāstri (1807–1860). Frontispiece from original biography.
Preface
Ibeginby doing reverence to Gaṇapati and Sarasvatī. I next prostrate myself at the lotus feet of the Jagadguruof the Śr̥ṇgēri *maṭha.*447
Many great personages, possessed of special endowments, have lived in the past. They have accomplished many great works. The fruits of their deeds are now ours to enjoy. By learning of those from whom these fruits have obtained, and how they lived their lives, we might learn to live our lives as they did. Their biographies therefore hold special value for us. Such biographies are rare, however, in the languages of our nation.
Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri was a scholar of extraordinary calibre. No one like him has been born since. New ways are now pervading the customs of our people, as old ways continue to disappear. Rāmaśāstri lived at a time when the old ways were drawing to an end. This biography allows us to draw comparisons between his times and our own.
We have not the means, however, to describe his exceptional accomplishments in all areas. Being a vaidika, he maintained no diaries or journals to document his daily routine. I was therefore led to collect a great deal of information on him from his many students, using one account to confiirm another. I took detailed notes. It has been 16 years since I began this effort.
Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri having been among the foremost of the scholars at Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III’s court, we have taken the opportunity to describe such matters, whenever they directly or indirectly relate to this biography, as the state of the royal court and its practices, the accomplishments and virtues of the vaidikasand laukikasat court, the manner of study at the time, the accomplishments of his scholarly peers, and the many virtues of the king himself, the pillar who sustained this enterprise. Our account would lack felicity were we to disregard the character of this royal r̥ṣi, whose dedication to scholars might eclipse that of Vikrama, Bhōja, and the Peśvas.
We have hence been led to provide accounts of court itself, even if briefly.
These matters are by no means irrelevant.
447This would be JagadguruSaccidānandaŚivābhinavaNr̥siṁhaBhāratī, whowasinfact, the son of Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri. See Plate 26b.
161
162
sons of sarasvatī
Rāmaśāstri was a strict Advaitin; on many occasions, he refuted the tenets of Dvaitaand Viśiṣṭādvaitain debates with their proponents. No dis-respect to Vaiṣṇavasor the followers of Rāmānuja should be inferred from my accounts of such episodes. I beg forgiveness for any lapses in my writing.
Many scholars of Saṁskr̥talook down upon books in our vernacular languages, as they contain few materials relevant to their interests. English scholars are already indifferent to these works. There are hence few readers for works in our regional languages. To understand the brilliance of the Śāstri, who authored many works on Nyāyaand Vēdānta, it is also essential to discuss such works of his. A discussion of such works, however, would make the biography very diffiicult reading, and lose most readers. Omitting these matters would not reveal the depth of the Śāstri’s abilities. Diffiiculties such as these arose repeatedly during my efforts. I have nevertheless perse-vered suffiiciently to fiinished what I started. Discerning readers must look upon my shortcomings with forgiveness, bearing in mind instead my enthusiasm for placing before them the biography of a great personage.
I am deeply grateful to many of the Śāstri’s students, including Vāsudēvaśāstri of Doḍḍabaḷḷāpura, Nārāyaṇaśāstri of Sāggere, Subraḥmaṇyaśāstri, Gaṇgādharaśāstri of Soṇḍekoppa, Śrīnivāsācārya of Dhāravāḍa, and DharmādhikāriKāśī Rāmaśāstri, who provided me with so much of the information I have needed. I cannot forget the assistance I received from Nārayaṇaśāstri of Doḍḍabele, who provided me with much essential information from Saṁskr̥tabooks. Always foremost in my mind is the special help I received from Śrīkaṇṭha Śāstri, the Sarvādhikāriof the Śr̥ṇgeri maṭhaand from DharmādhikāriRāmaśāstri, as well as the help throughout this en-deavor from B.C. Kr̥ṣṇaśāstri. Yet, if all these persons were weighed together and their worth multiplied by ten, ten times greater still would be the merit of the lotus feet of the Paramahaṁsa Parivrājakācārya, the Jagadguruof the Śr̥ṇgeri *maṭha,*which feet I salute at each of the three sandhyāseach day.
Mai. S ū. Pu.
Beṇgaḷūru
Saumya *saṁvatsara *∥ uttarāyaṇa
puṇyakālaPuṣya *śukla *∥ 3 Śukravāra
Śaka 1832448
448This date would be Friday, January 2, 1910 C.E.
śrī
śubhamastu
śrī lakṣmīnarasiṁha prasīda
Chapter 1: Preamble
Thereare stars in the sky. They shine brightly. They appear to all.
They shine, more or less, in all parts of the sky. Fewer stars are visible in cold regions, such as Europe, than in warm regions, such as India.
Westerners, the people of Europe, have used means such as telescopes to research stars both visible and invisible to them, to determine their nature, their distances from the Earth, the materials they comprise and their properties, the causes of their luminosity, and the thousands of years that it takes their light to reach our Earth. Despite the many stars visible only in our India, few among our people are acquainted with their nature. Were one to inquire “What are stars?”, it appears too much to expect even the response
“The lights that twinkle in the night sky!”
Thus also it is that if we make our populace our sky, we may witness the genius of the Westerners and the dullness of our own people. Whether they take a person endowed with the genius of Br̥haspati and the learning of Sarasvatī, or an ordinary person who might add three and four to get seven, one may count on Westerners to present splendid analyses of the abilities of such people, how they developed these abilities, and what benefiits accrued to mankind from their works. Yet, among our people, who consider it improper to display portraits or to praise oneself or others, and lean strongly towards asceticism, holding the sole purpose of life to be the search for salvation, few realize the benefiit to their intellectual progress of learning about the contributions of our own geniuses, such as Pāṇini, Āryabhaṭa, Śaṇkarācārya, Kāḷidāsa, and Vidyāraṇya, or that of viewing themselves in the context of the lives of such people. Owing to such indifference among our people, many of the great personages of India might as well have never existed, at least as far as outsiders and the uninformed are concerned. Foreign writers have gained prestige even as we have continued stroking our 163
164
sons of sarasvatī
beards in expression of amazement at their scholarship. To those familiar with both the traditional and modern approaches to learning, it will surely seem proper that we should document the lives of the luminaries about whom information may still be gathered, although we must inevitably set aside the many whose biographies it is no longer feasible to write.
Ten haridāriswest of Mais ūru is a place called Yeḍatore.449 The Kāvērī flows prodigiously near this town. A section of that stream is called *Arkapuṣkariṇī.*Nearby is the temple of Arkēśvara. According to local tradition, the rays of the sun fall upon the crown of the Arkēśvara idol in the sanc-tum sanctorum on the morning of the Rathasaptamifestival.450 Due to the Kāvērī’s influence, the land is green as far as meets the eye. Not only is bathing in the Arkapuṣkariṇīand worship of Arkēśvara conducive to fulfiilment in the next world, the richness of the soil and the abundance of water are conducive to fulfiilment in this world as well. This site being most fiitting as a habitation for brāhmaṇas, long has there existed a large settlement of brāhmaṇas in this place. These brāhmaṇas were largely teachers, scholars, and *agnihōtris,*deeply devoted to their daily observances, and unwearied by worldly matters.
A narrative exists, relating to the accomplishments of these very brāhmaṇas. A king once arrived at Yeḍatore. He set up camp there, and having found a suitable house among those available, lodged therein with the members of his family. After a day or two, while walking about in the courtyard in the morning, he noticed a small chamber with the sign ‘Agnihōtra *Chamber’*above the door.451 Upon inquiry, he learned from local offiicials 449A haridāriis about three miles. Yeḍatore is about 45 km northwest of Maisūru. This town had a population of 2,413 in 1876 C.E. [Rice 1897a, p. 316]. Also see page 95.
450The Archeological Department of Maisūru [1936] gives the following information:
“An undated inscription, No. 64 of Yedatore taluk, Mysore District Supplement, which is in Tamil and Grantha characters and belongs probably to the time of Kulōttunga Chōla I, mentions that a certain Ankakkāran, son of Ponnāndān, errected a temple named Ankakkārēśvara for the god Nāyarukilavar, lord of Aiyamapolil alias Uyyakkonda-Śolapattanam in Turainādu and granted lands to it. There is no doubt that Ankakkālēśvara is the same as Arkēśvara or the sun god (Nāyarukkilavar) for whom the temple is built in Yedatore.” Much of the current temple dates to the time of the Hoysaḷa kings. Rathasaptami is the seventh day of the śuklafortnight of the month of Māgha, the start of the northerly movement of the sun. Metaphorically, the sun turns his chariot ( ratha) northwards. Local tradition has it that the rays of the sun fall upon the head of the Arkēśvara idol on this day.
451The Agnihōtraritual, an ancient rite likely dating back to pre- Vēdictimes, is performed
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
165
that the house belonged to a sōmayājidevoted to the practice of *yajñas.*452
When the king called the sōmayājito his presence, and asked: “Why sir, is there a sign saying *‘Agnihōtra Chamber’*above the door of this small chamber?” the brāhmaṇa replied: “Your Highness, I have placed this sign to prevent this chamber from being used for any base purpose.” The king decided to honour this brāhmaṇa by giving him the gift that it was his practice to give daily. The sōmayājiextended his left hand to receive this gift. The king was greatly angered by this insulting gesture.453 He said angrily: “What impertinence to proffer your left hand to receive my gift!” The sōmayājire-at sunset and sunrise, and may be seen as establishing a ritual connection between Agni, the fiire here on the earth, and S ūrya, the sun, the fiire in the heavens. The epithet agnihotrican refer either to an observant brāhmaṇa who performs this ritual, or to one who maintains three sacred domestic fiires, namely the Gārhapatya, ¯
*Ahavaṉīya,*and Dakṣiṇāgni. An agni-
*hotri *(also, āhitāgni) who maintains these fiires all his life has acquired such special merit that his past sins are destroyed with his body when he is cremated upon his death. The chamber dedicated to maintaining these fiires is called the agnyāgāraor agniśāla, (“fiire-chamber”), or *agniśaraṇam *(“fiire-refuge”). See Kālidāsa’s Abhijñānaśākuntalam, Act 4 (Priyamvada):
*“agniśaraṇaṁ praviṣṭasya śarīraṁ vinā chandomayya vācayā |”*The term Agnihotrais also used as a synecdoche to refer to the seven *haviryajñās,*namely Agnyādheya, Agnihotra, *Darśap ūrṇamāsau, Caturmasyāni, Paśubandha, Sautrāmaṇī,*and Pākayajña. Thus, when the *Maitrāyaṇī Upaniṣad *(6:36) says *“agnihotraṁ juhuyāt svargakāmah.” *, meaning “let him, *who seeks the heavenly regions perform the Agnihotra” *, it is using the term Agnihotrain this sense.
452A sōmayājinis a person who conducts the sōmayāgaritual or partakes of the somalibation during this ritual. Yajñasare elaborate ancient Vēdicrituals that are by far the most complicated religious rituals found anywhere, the details of whose performance are specifiied in excruciating detail. Somayāgasare especially complex. The Agnicayanaritual, for instance, lasts twelve days, and as Converse [1974] explains:
The immediate practical purpose of the Agnicayana rite is to build up for the sacrifiicer an immortal body that is permanently beyond the reach of the transitoriness, suffering, and death that, according to this rite, characterize man’s mortal existence. The purpose is to be achieved by ritual analogy in the rebuilding of the ‘unstrung’ body of the god Prajapati. The rite includes a year’s preparation and then the placing of a minimum of 10,800 kiln-fiired bricks (a sizable brick-making operation) in minutely prescribed sequence and position, in fiive layers, with the sacrifiicial fiire placed on top.
At every point, with every brick, special mantras are to be recited, special actions carried out, and the religious meanings of each part of the rite carefully explained.”
Vēdic yajñasare also the most ancient religious rituals known. See Converse [1974] for strong evidence of the indigineous, pre- Vēdicorigins of the Agnicayana. Amazingly, an unbroken tradition of performance of this ritual exists in India, especially in Āndhra Pradeśa
(see Knipe [2015]) and among the Namb ūthiri brāhmaṇas of Kerala [Staal 2001a].
453The left hand being inauspicious, as in most cultures, one never gives or receives with this hand.
166
sons of sarasvatī
sponded: “Do not be angry Your Highness. The śāstrasdeclare that Agni resides in the brāhmaṇa’s right hand.454 I merely extended my left hand from fear that my right hand might scorch your gift.” When the king asked:
“Indeed, does Yajñēśvara reside in your hand even now?” the *sōmayāji,*saying that he was ready to be tested, had some dried cowdung sprinkled on his hand.455 The powder began to smoulder and smoke. The king was astonished at such powers. He arose, prostrated himself before the brāhmaṇa, and after doing him great honours and arranging for a monthly stipend, departed from the place.456 Such a tradition exists regarding Yeḍatore. Even if we choose to see this as hyperbole, there is little doubt that the residents of this place were suffiiciently pious to have inspired such a tale.
In this hallowed place lived contentedly a brāhmaṇa family belonging to the Telugu Mulukunāḍucommunity, the Kāśyapa gōtraand the *Āpastamba S ūtra,*and second to none in their scholarship, rigor of observance, or conduct. In this family there was a Yajñanārāyaṇa Śāstri, especially observant of ritual, maintaining the tradition of *agnihotra,*performing yajñas such as the Agniṣṭōmaand the *Atirātra,*and who, in his sixtieth year, left this province for a village called Sēramahādēvi near Tirunelvēli south of the valley, and giving up all attachments to his wife and family, lived ten years a *saṁnyāsi,*attaining siddhiin his seventieth year. Eight years after his death, a brāhmaṇa arriving in Yeḍatore from that region conveyed this information to Yajñanārāyaṇa Śāstri’s son Pāpaśāstri. All funerary rites were there-upon completed. Yajñanārāyaṇa Śāstri’s resolve and the asceticism it engendered were praiseworthy indeed.
454See Manusmr̥ti, Chapter 3, v.212: “agnyabhāve tu viprasya pāṇavevopapādayet | yo *hyagniḥsa dvijo viprairmantradarśabhiruccyate ∥”*meaning “But if no (sacred) fiire (is available), he shall place (the offerings) into the hand of a Brahmana; for Brahmanas who know the sacred texts declare, ‘What fiire is, even such is a Brahmana.’ ”
455Dried cowdung is widely used in India as kindling and fuel.
456This anecdote also appears in Vāsudevācārya [1962, p. 79]. In this version, Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III, being once beset by the evil influences of an inauspicious planetary confiiguration, was advised to counter them through the gift of a golden cow to a virtuous brāhmaṇa.
Nobody at court having the courage to come forward as deserving of such a gift, the king was informed that a certain pious sōmayājiliving in Yeḍatore was surely suffiiciently deserving.
When called to the palace and asked to accept the gift, the sōmayājiproffered his left hand, but upon being admonished, accepted the gift with his right hand. He then demonstrated the reason for his apparent impertinence, as described. The king, himself well versed in astrology, saw immediately that his gift would now not have the intended exculpatory effect.
The *sōmayāji,*too, begged the king’s forgiveness. Owing to this transgression, the king lost his kingdom to the British in due course (in 1831 C.E.).
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
167
His son Pāpaśāstri, or Nārāyaṇaśāstri, was learned in the *Vēdas,*knowledgeable in the śrautarituals, and also very devout. Not once did he forego his ritual morning bath, his recitation of a thousand Gāyatrīs, or other such observances. Even when his son died before his very eyes and his corpse lay before him did he show no undue emotion, having the corpse re-1822
moved only after completing his daily ritual of bathing in the river at early dawn.457 It is no ordinary person who can still his mind under such adverse circumstances and show such unwavering commitment to his observances. He lived for ninety-three years before he passed away. His son Narasiṁhaśāstri was learned in the Vēdasand was a literary scholar.458
He was reputed as an outstanding teacher of logic and *Vēdānta.*He was employed by the Mais ūru palace at a salary of fiive Varāhas. He died in his fiiftieth year, right before the eyes of his father Pāpaśāstri.
Narasiṁhaśāstri’s wife was from Śivagaṇge. Her family too, was learned to a fair degree; it appears that this family was originally from Kuṇigal.459
Narasiṁhaśāstri’s two eldest children were sons. The fiirst was named Narasiṁhaśāstri. He was an excellent *ghanapāṭhi.*460 We have learned that he 457A brāhmaṇa’s ritual duties fall into three categories: *nitya *(obligatory), naimittika (mandated for specifiic occasions) and *kāmya *(to achieve certain goals). With some variations, the dharmaśāstrasmandate that nityaduties, such as Sandhyāvandana, be performed under all circumstances, including the death of a close relative [Kane 1953a]. This absolute insistence on performing one’s ritual duties was an important traditional value in India, with ancient roots in the Vēdicnotions of r̥ta, the principle of natural order in the universe.
Everything and everyone has a role in this natural order. Performance of this role ensured harmony, and violations of it had adverse consequences. In subsequent periods, this notion gave rise to the concept of dharma, etymologically derived from the root *dhr. *, “to uphold”
(these roles). Dharmais upheld through an individual’s performance of karma, or actions.
Rituals, especially of the nityacategory, were an important part of the karmaenjoined upon brāhmaṇas. Uncompromising performance of these karmasensured harmony, and brought merit not merely upon the individual, but also upon the society that promoted these practices. This was a major reason for the support such rituals had from society and from kings and other notables despite the enormous cost associated with them. Vēdicrituals are easily the most elaborate and complex in the world. Also see footnotes 451 and 452.
458His name appears as Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri in what follows. It will become clear shortly that he died in 1822 C.E., at the age of fiifty, so he must have been born in 1772 C.E.
459Śivagaṇge is about 50 km northwest of Bengaḷūru, en route to Tumakūru. Kuṇigal is about 25 km southwest of Śivagaṇge.
460The oral tradition of Vēdicrecitation has preserved the Vēdaswith such fiidelity that variant readings are extremely rare, despite the intervening millennia. Such fiidelity is attained by learning the text not simply as it is, but also in numerous variant forms, each
168
sons of sarasvatī
left for Kāśī in the Saumya saṁvatsara, and attained siddhiin the Sādhāraṇa saṁvatsara.461
The second son was the great scholar Rāmaśāstri. Somehow, Kuṇigal, his maternal grandfather’s place of origin, became a sobriquet or surname, and he became known as Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri. He was well known in the Mais ūru region as Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri, in the Beṇgaḷūru region as Yeḍatore Rāmaśāstri, and in the regions south of the valley as Mais ūra Rāmaśāstri.462
following the original rules of Vēdicintonation and euphony. These patterns of recitation are called the saṁhitā, pada, krama, jaṭa, mālā, śikhā, rekhā, dhvaja, ratha, and the ghana pāṭhas, respectively. The simplest is the saṁhitā pāṭha, the original text recited directly, preserving the intonation and saṁdhistructure. The next is pada pāṭha, where the words are separated, and recited in sequence, as w 1 , w 2 , w 3 *, . . . , wN *. In jaṭā pāṭharecitation, we see the fiirst variant, with words permuted pairwise, as w 1 w 2 , w 2 w 1 , w 1 w 2 , w 2 w 3 , w 3 w 2 , w 2 w 3 *, . . .*In dhvaja pāṭhathe words are recited pairwise from each end, proceeding towards the middle, as w 1 w 2 , wN− 1 wN , w 2 w 3 , wN− 3 wN− 2 , . . . , wN− 1 wN , w 1 w 2.
Mentally most demanding is the ghana pāṭhamode, which requires recitation in the word order w 1 w 2 , w 2 w 1 , w 1 w 2 w 3 , w 3 w 2 w 1 , w 1 w 2 w 3 , w 2 w 3 , w 3 w 2 , w 2 w 3 w 4 , w 4 w 3 w 2 , w 2 w 3 w 4 *,*and so on. All recitation is purely from memory. Expert ghanapāṭhisare highly respected, and for good reason.
461These years correspond to 1849–1850 C.E., and 1850–1851 C.E., respectively.
462See footnote 444.
Chapter 2: Birth and Childhood
ThisRāmaśāstriwasbornininŚivagaṇgeinhismaternalgrandfa-
ther’s house, under the nakṣatraSvāti, on the third bahuḷaday of the Caitra month of the Prabhava saṁvatsara, the eighth year after the loss of Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa.463
Śivagaṇge is about 34 miles distant from Beṇgaḷūru. His mother used to say that the sound of a cannon fiired in Beṇgaḷūru on ac-April 25, 1807
count of some royal occasion was heard at the instant of this
infant’s birth. The belief is common to all nations and all
cultures that such auspicious omens accompany the births of great and virtuous benefactors of Humanity. It is not easy for us to analyse such events, and reject the possibility of there being a causal connection between them.
It appears to be beyond our present abilities to determine if such omens, whether at the births or deaths of such great persons, signify deep connections between the universe of intellect their minds naturally incline to and the external universe born of the fiive elements, or are mere coincidences.
Whatever these links may be, such omens occur invariably in conjunction with great events.
Even from childhood, Rāmaśāstri was healthy and robust. He was full of mischief as a child, and especially interested in play. Many are displeased when children are mischievous. A strong intellect does not, however, remain still; it occupies itself with all manner of work, engaging with big things if one is mature, and if still young and lacking in experience, it engages with smaller works, providing the right experience and learning from each activity. But children are only capable of learning from their activities; because they are not yet capable of leaving things as adults may have left them, it is often the practice to blindly regard this as idle mischief and punish them. Because the value gained from mischief does not accrue from inactivity, one must consider that the child has gained ten times more from engaging in mischief, even if it means a certain inconvenience. Play in children improves both their intellect as well as their physical well-being. It is 463This tithimatches Saturday, April 25, 1807 C.E. The corresponding nakṣatra, however, appears to have been Jyeṣṭhā, rather than Svātī.
169
170
sons of sarasvatī
important, therefore, to leave children to their play without undue interference, except to watch for excessive dangers.
Such playfulness and mischief were present in great measure in Rāmaśāstri. He would excel in any game he played, outdoing all his playmates.
If a conflict arose with any of his playmates, he would give them a thrashing. One DīvānS ūrappa, who was Amīlin the Beṇgaḷūru *tālluk,*and held the offiice of *Śirastedār,*had been soundly thrashed in childhood by this Rāma.464 After Rāmaśāstri attained renown, this offiicial would tease him, saying: “Śāstri! The marks of your handiwork are still visible on my head!”
and displaying the scar, would add: “In those days, you defeated all by pummelling them with your hands, you now defeat the world by pummelling it with your scholarship!” This pursuit of victory, then a mere germ, grew in strength over time. Rāma would repeatedly swim from one bank of the Kāvērī in Yeḍatore to the other. He was an enthusiastic swimmer. A woman once fell into the Kāvērī by accident, and was being swept away. Rāmaśāstri jumped into the river, seized the woman by her hair, and brought her to shore. He and the others around him rubbed her body with ash to expel the water she had swallowed. Ramā had thus saved her life. That he played in this manner in his childhood greatly benefiited his robustness in later life.
His father Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri was not unaware of his son’s precoc-ity. His upanayanaand other ceremonies proceeded in the prescribed manner. His grandfather Pāpaśāstri began to teach him the *Vēdas. *
1822
This was followed by the tradition of teaching him the Raghuvaṁśa and other poetic works, to develop his knowledge of Saṁskr̥ta. As soon as he had learned the language began his training in logic.465 At this 464A Śirastedāris the head of a revenue or judicial offiice. Sūrappa was appointed Huz ūr Head Śirastedārin 1838. See footnote 524 for details. There is a street even today in the Cikkapēṭe section of Beṇgaḷūru called Dewan Surappa Street. Also see Appendix III of Lakshminarasimhaiya *et al., *[1970] for a memorial dated October 27, 1840 C.E. by ‘Anneayah Sastree’ (actually Kāsī Śēṣa Śāstri, one of the fiinest scholars at the Maisūru court), to the Governor General of India, complaining of corruption in the administration of Colonel Cubbon, and specifiically naming a ‘Dewan Soorappa’ as a conduit of bribes to Cubbon.
This document indicates that this Soorappa had been so ill some two years prior as to have been unlikely to recover. ŚirastedārS ūrappa died in 1840 (see footnote 524).
465Presumably under the guidance of his father, whom we know to have been well versed in logic. The discussion to ensue refers to the Navya Nyāyadevelopment of Indian logic.
Indian logic has a long and rich history, its origins being independent of, but contemporaneous with that of logic in Greece. The Indian syllogism differs structurally from that of the
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
171
time, his father Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri passed away in Yeḍatore. Rāmaśāstri was fiifteen years old.
There were now obstacles to Rāmaśāstri’s continued education. This concern also arose in Rāmaśāstri’s mother’s mind. Although the modern practice of female education was not then current, it is clear that she was discriminating enough to grasp the acuity of her son’s intelligence, and realize that it would not flower without education and training. Yeḍatore was not suitable for the education of such a talented child. Although home to numerous devout individuals, this place was not able to support scholars.
Scholarship, as is well known, cannot be sustained without the support of a generous king or a person of affluence. Such support being substantially forthcoming in Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III’s court, many scholars from the towns around Mais ūru were at his court. It was hence diffiicult, except in Mais ūru, to fiind a teacher with the competence to instruct a student with Rāma’s abilities and eagerness. Rāma therefore left Yeḍatore and came to Maisūru.
An occasion arose that illuminated the extent of this young man’s abilities at the time he arrived in Mais ūru. Although he was young and had only studied a limited number of works, he never had the slightest hesitation in taking issue with even the greatest of scholars. When Rāma was still a student in Mais ūru, the Svāmiof the Śr̥ṇgēri maṭhaonce came to Maisūru with his retinue of scholars.466 In keeping with tradition, scholarly debates had been organized in the Śrī Maṭha. Students, too, were demon-1822
strating their learning and skills by participating in debates. The discussions centered around the concept of cause in *Nyāyaśāstra.*It is usual for logicians to fiirst illustrate cause-effect relationships using simple instances involving ordinary entities, before proceeding to more complex Greeks, having fiive components, rather than the three of the Aristotelian syllogism. Many independent schools of Indian logic existed as far back as 200 B.C.E., including multival-ued logic systems, such as the Syādvādasystem of the Jainas. The Navya Nyāyaschool is the most recent, and technically the most diffiicult. Bhattacharyya [1990] correctly calls it a logic of cognition, in contrast to the formal logic that has developed in the western world.
Navya Nyāyahas a rich technical vocabulary, and insists on extreme technical precision in describing cognitions and concepts. The Navya Nyāyavocabulary has been used widely in other fiields, including literature. See, for instance, footnote 85.
466This was SvāmiNr̥siṁha Bhāratī (1817–1879). It is recorded [in Narasimhachar 1913]
that the Svāmiwas invited to Mais ūru in 1822 C.E. by Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III, matching the information in this biography. Rāmaśāstri would have been fiifteen at the time.
172
sons of sarasvatī
examples. The example of a pot is often used. Such things as clay, the potter, his wheel, the stick used to turn the wheel, and so on, are the causal agents involved in the making of a pot. Although certain unusual entities may fiirst appear to be involved in the making of a pot, these are in fact irrelevant. For example, the clay used to make the pot may have been carried on a donkey. It does not follow that the donkey is among the causes of the pot. Such irrelevant entities are called anyathāsiddhasin logic.467 There are some additional details to be presented in this context.
There is a concise summary called the Tarkasaṇgraha. This work has given rise to a commentary called the Dīpikā.468 There exists a commentary called the Muktāvaḷion the Dīpikā.469 The Dīpikāstates that the anyathāsiddhasnumber only three.470 The Muktāvaligives the number of 467We are beginning an expedition into a technically diffiicult series of ideas. Following Sastri [1951], we begin by noting that anyathāmeans “otherwise”, and siddhameans “made out”. In this context, “otherwise” is to be taken as “otherwise than indispensable.” Hence, anyathāsiddhameans “made out to be otherwise than indispensable”, or “made out to be such as one can do without”.
468The Tarkasaṇgrahais a landmark work by Annambhaṭṭa, dating to the second half of the 17th century. It is essential reading for all students of Navya Nyāyalogic. The Dīpikā commentary that usually accompanies editions of the Tarkasaṇgrahais also by Annambhaṭṭa. Technical works in Saṁskr̥tacan be unintelligible without a commentary, since they are often written in the s ūtrastyle, which prizes extreme terseness, making s ūtrasanalogous to mathematical formulæ. The characteristics of a s ūtraare summarized in the Viṣṇudharmottara Purāṇaas follows: *“alpākṣaramasandigdham sāravadviṣvatomukham | astob-ham anavadyañca sūtram sūtravidoḥviduh. ∥”*meaning: “In the view of experts, a sūtra is terse yet unambiguous, concentrated in meaning yet comprehensive, unfragmented and leaving no cause for reproach”. The satisfaction obtained from a well-crafted and concise s ūtrais very similar to that resulting from a well-crafted mathematical theorem or formula.
Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa’s Paribhāṣenduśekharaends with the following memorable quote: *“ardhamātrālāghavena putrotsavaṁ manyante vaiy ākaraṇāh. ∥133∥” *, meaning: “for grammarians, the saving of even half a mora in a s ūtrais cause for as much celebration as the birth of a son.” Such brevity and precision makes s ūtrasinvaluable as mnemonic aids, but they can be impenetrably opaque by themselves. Opacity can even be a matter of pride, as in Bhat.-
ṭikāvyam, 22:34: *“vyākhyāgamyamidaṁ kāvyamutsavaḥsudhiyāmalaṁ | hatā durmedhas-cāsmin viduṣāṁ prītaye maya ∥” *, meaning: “With a commentary may this poem be understood, and for the profiicient it is a feast; the dull-witted are crushed by it, but I care only for the learned.”
469This Muktāvaliis the Siddhāntamuktāvali, which is a commentary not on the Dīpikā, but on the Bhāṣāpariccheda. The Paricchedaand the accompanying commentary Muktāvaliare both by Viṣvanātha NyayapañcānanaBhaṭṭācārya of the 17the century C.E.
470Footnote in original: “In the Dīpikā–(1) *daṇḍatva, *(2) *ākāśa, *(3) rūpaprāgabhāvarelating to gandha.”
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
173
anyathāsiddhasas fiive.471 Logicians have defiined the technical term avaśya, however, to refer specifiically to the fiifth anyathāsiddha, that is, to such things as the donkey, horse, or cart used to transport the clay. This terminol-ogy arises since the fiifth anyathāsiddhais seen as avaśya kl¸ptaniyatap ūrva-vr̥tti, that is, although these entities are not viewed as being the causes of the pot, their existence must be granted as essential precedents of the pot.472
Now, as a scholar by name Hosahaḷḷi Rāmaśāstri from the Śrī Maṭha was discoursing on these very anyathāsiddhas, Rāma, who was seated with a group of students, spontaneously asked: “Is the rāsabha, or donkey, an 471Footnote in original: “In the Muktāvali–(1) *daṇḍatva, *(2) *daṇḍarūpa, *(3) *ākāśa, *(4) kulāla’sfather, (5) such things as the donkey.”
472This paragraph, and footnotes 470 and 471 may appear rather obscure, the anyathāsiddhaslisted may appear odd, and the reference to the word avaśyaunclear. The technical diffiiculties of Navya Nyāyaare considerable, but we will attempt to clarify matters a little, albeit through recourse to much simplifiication. First, it must be understood that Nyāya advocates a very robust realism, and generally treats universals as real. Thus, in the case of a potter creating a pot on a wheel, which he spins by means of a stick ( daṇḍa), Nyāyawould regard this stick, *daṇḍatva *(“stick-ness”, the universal characterizing sticks), and daṇḍarūpa (color, shape, and other properties of the stick), as all real, and as potential causes of the pot.
Now, a cause is defiined as an invariable antecedent to the effect that is not also an *anyathāsiddha *( anyathāsiddhiś ūnyasya niyata p ūrvavartitā kāraṇatvaṁ bhavēt). The stick itself clearly meets this criterion. As in Sastri [1951] and Röer [1850], we note that an entity being considered as a cause is made out to be an invariable antecedent only as determined by a delimiting adjunct ( avacchedaka), which in the case of a stick is stick-ness ( daṇḍatva).
However, daṇḍatvadoes not participate in the creative process, and represents the fiirst class of anyathāsiddhas. The second class of anyathāsiddhascomprises such things as cannot be considered as causes for an effect, except via the intermediacy of some other real cause. Examples include the shape or colour of the stick ( daṇḍarūpa). We cannot say, for instance, that the pot is a given, once the colour of the stick is given, nor that the pot is not a given if this color is not given. The third class comprises things which arise as causes of an effect if they have already been applied to another effect. This class is represented by the ether ( ākāśa), which can only be seen as an invariable antecedent of the pot when perceived under the delimiting adjunct of ether-ness ( ākāśatva), which defiines it to be the intimate cause of sound. This delimiting adjunct now makes the ether primarily the cause of sound, and only secondarily the cause of the pot. The fourth category of anyathāsiddhais represented by the potter’s father, who is the cause of the cause (the potter), and not directly the cause of the pot. The fiifth category is represented by the donkey used to carry the clay. It may be that a certain donkey is an invariable antecedent for a particular pot. This pot, as all others, however, can also be produced without this donkey, as long as the other essential antecedents are present.
Annambhaṭṭa, following Gaṇgēśōpādhyāya, combines the fiirst two categories into one, and the last two into one, obtaining three categories. Viśvanātha lists all fiive in the Bhāṣāparicchēda.
174
sons of sarasvatī
avaśyaka anyathāsiddha?”473 Hosahaḷḷi Rāmaśāstri, interpreting the word avaśyain its ordinary, non-technical sense, replied: “Essential to you, perhaps, but surely not to us!” Rāmaśāstri immediately countered: “We fiind the donkey essential, indeed! For though the donkey is not a causal agent for the pot, and yet the good śāstriattached the meaning to the term that he did, we need the donkey so we can arrange for him to ride it!” Everyone was astonished at his skill and wit.
This event occurred six months after Rāma’s father’s death. The extent of Rāma’s accomplishments is clear from this episode. He had mastered Saṁskr̥taand achieved such a mastery of logic, even by the age of fiifteen.
He also had the judgment and discrimination to hold his own in public debates with adults on the topics he had studied. His ability to completely grasp what he had read, to internalize the ideas and make them his own, his situational understanding, and his ability to bring his knowledge to bear as the occasion required, were all clear evidence of his growing intellect and acumen. His supreme confiidence in his own understanding, and his willingness to take issue with opponents, regardless of their reputation, also showed his exceptional courage.
473Continuing the discussion in footnote 472, the Bhāṣāparicchēdareduces all fiive anyathāsiddhasinto the one represented by the donkey, declaring it to be the only avaśyaka (essential) anyathāsiddha: “ētē pañcānyathāsiddhāḥdaṇḍatvādikamādimaṁ | ghaṭādau daṇḍarūpādi dvitīyamapi darśitaṁ ∥21∥ tr̥tīyaṁ tu bhavēdvyōma kulālajanakō_paraḥ|
pañcamō rāsabhādiḥētēṣvāvaśyakatvasau ∥22∥” Here, the fiinal *“ētēṣu avaśyaka tu asau” *
means “of these (superfluities), only this (the donkey) is required”, that is, it subsumes the others. Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri has invoked the word avaśyakain this technical sense, while Hosahaḷḷi Rāmaśāstri is using it in its everyday sense, to mean essential, or non-superfluous.
Chapter 3: Study in Rāmadurga
ManygreatscholarshadfoundpatronagefromPeśvaBājirāv,ruling
from Puṇe, and adorned his court. Their number included such
luminaries as Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita, Nāgoji Dīkṣita, Puruṣottama Śāstri, Tryambaka Śāstri, and Trivikrama Śāstri.474 The Peśvas were brāhmaṇas by birth, and were themselves learned. They sponsored a scholarly conference called Śrāvaṇapāṭhievery year, during the month of Śrāvaṇa. Scholars from all over participated in this event, displayed their scholarship in the learned debates that took place, and returned with accolades and prizes.475 Many of these scholars remained in Puṇe, having found support from the Peśva.
A jewel among such scholars was Tryambaka Śāstri. Among his many works is a book on Advaitacalled the Bhāṣyabhānuprabhā, which stands out as a service to mankind.476
474There are signifiicant errors here. The dates of Peśva Bāji Rāv I are 1700–1740 C.E., and those of Bāji Rāv II are 1775–1851 C.E. Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita was a famous grammarian who flourished in Vāraṇāsi towards the end of the 16th century. Nāgōji Dīkṣita (Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa), Bhaṭṭoji Dīkṣita’s great-grandson, was active 1670–1750 C.E., and was patronized by Rāma-varman of Śr̥ṇgaverapura near Allahābād [Coward *et al.,*1990]. Clearly, neither could have been at Bāji Rāv’s court. Tryambaka Śāstri was active during Bāji Rāv’s time. It is unclear who Puruṣottama Śāstri is. Trivikrama Śāstri may be Tryambaka Śāstri’s grandson (footnote 495), but his dates may be too late for Bāji Rāv II, who was a British prisoner by 1818.
475See Deshpande [2001, p. 121] (based on Ranade [1992, p. 373]): “Each year, in the month of Śrāvaṇa, the Peshwas distributed Dakṣiṇā to a large number of Brahmins who gathered in Pune. . . The tradition of annually distributing Dakṣiṇā to Vaidikas and Shas-tris was initiated by the Maratha king Shahu’s commander Dābhāḍe… With the expansion of the power of the Peshwa, this amount increased by 1758 to Rupees 1,800,000. We are told that in the year 1770, the Peshwa distributed Dakṣiṇā in Pune to 39,912 Brahmins who had come from all parts of India, north and south. . . ”
476This work is a commentary on ¯
AdiŚaṇkarācārya’s *Śārirakabhāṣya *(often called the Śāṇkarabhāṣya), itself a commentary on Bādarāyaṇa’s *Brahmasūtra *[Roodermum 2002, p. 28]. Tryambaka Śāstri’s works include Advaitasiddhāntavaijayantī, Advaitavākyārtha, Avidyālakṣaṇopapatti, Bālāvabodha, Bhāṣyabhānuprabhāon Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahmasūtras, Dr̥gdr̥śya Praṇibandhanopapatti Prakāśa, Dr̥gdr̥śyasambandhānupapattiprakāśa, Jñānanivartyatvavicāra, Prakr̥tyadhikaraṇavicāra, Pramāṇatattva, Sāmānyaniruktikroḍapatra, *Śāstrārambhanasamarthana, Śrutimatānumānopapatti, Śrutimataprakāśikā, Śrutimatod-dyota, Tattvasaṁkhyānakhaṇḍana, Tryambakaśāstripatra, Upādhimaṇḍana,*and Vyākhyā on Saṇkara’s *Upadeśasahasrī *[Potter 2017, Saraswathi 1957, p. 24]. The Siddhāntavaijayantī is a critique of the Dvaitawork Vanamālamiśrīyaby Vanamālamiśra.
175
176
sons of sarasvatī
His fame had spread far and wide. He had originally been from Kalyā-ṇadurga in Baḷḷāri district, where he held substantial lands and property.477
His scholarship was unmatched. A great many students studied with him.
He would sit supporting himself with a pillow, paying no heed to whether it was day or night, engrossed in his books, and writing occasionally; if overcome by drowsiness, he would doze off for a bit, then awake and return to his reading and writing. When he came for the fiirst time to the court of Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III, it was decided that a debate should take place between him and the scholars then at court. Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri, who was a leading scholar at court, came forward to debate Tryambaka Śāstri.478
This Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri was apparently of boundless scholarship. He was a Smārtabrāhmaṇa of the Drāviḍatradition, from south of the valley.479
This scholar had migrated to Mais ūru, and had been awarded much in the 477Also see footnote 511. Lakshminarasimhaiya *et al., *[1970, p. 123] document a dispute involving this property. Lakṣmī Baī, daughter-in-law of Tryambaka Śāstri, submits a petition dated May 20, 1840 to the Governor General of India for the restoration of her property and personal freedom. The petition states that a certain Veṇkaṭaramaṇa, who had been purchased as a slave by her father-in-law Tryambaka Śāstri after the death of her husband (see footnote 495), had improperly established himself as heir to all her property through a decree of Mais ūru Commissioner Colonel Cubbon passed on October 17, 1838, and that she was no longer being paid the sum of 40 R ūpīsper month that the decree granted her, and further, that she was being kept under house arrest. Clearly, Tryambaka Śāstri’s son Bāpuśāstri had predeceased him, but both had passed away by 1838 C.E.
478The date of this debate remains unclear. Lakshminarasimhaiya *et al., *[1970] mention such a debate in 1815 C.E. on page 8, and around 1819 C.E. on page 24. On page 25, they claim that Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri was a judge at this debate, but that cannot be correct. He would have only been 12 years old in 1819. Besides, we know he moved to Mais ūru only in 1822.
479For an explanation of the expression “south of the valley”, see footnote 444. Lakshminarasimhaiya *et al., *[1970] have argued that the Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri alluded to here is the same as Kāśī Śēṣaśāstri. The case is defensible, but weakened by several factors. First, while the name Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri is used consistently in the pages immediately following, the name Kāśī Śēṣaśāstri also explicitly appears in the present work on pages 227 and 271, suggesting that these were different persons. Also, Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri and Kāśī Śēṣaśāstri both appear in the list of scholars in Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III’s court given by Arasu [1993, pp. 116–118], which is apparently based on a catalog in the Jaganmohana Palace in Mais ūru. The translator has not been able to consult the catalog to verify this information. One must recognize the possibility that these were different individuals, but that some of the stories pertaining to the one may have inadvertently been attributed to the other in the present work. Confusion on the part of Puṭṭaṇṇa’s sources for these stories, or on the part of the sources used by Lakshminarasimhaiya *et al., *[1970] is understandable, given the shared “śēṣa” in the two names. See footnotes 108, 110, and 604 for other inconsistencies in Lakshminarasimhaiya *et al., *[1970].
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
177
form of rewards and land.480 Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III had a great deal of regard for him. It appears that he was a worshipper of Ucchiṣṭa Gaṇapati, and of exceptional intellect.481 It appears that extreme intelligence is associated with unusual behaviours. There are accounts of him standing from 9 a.ṁtill 4 p.ṁin Mais ūru’s Kalyāṇī grounds, on his head a load of grass for his cow, in his hand ten seers of togari bēḷetied in a bundle, deeply engaged in a śāstricdiscussion with Ānavaṭṭi Śrīnivāsācār.482 The king, who
happened to be on the fiifth floor of the palace, looking through a pair of binoculars, observed these proceedings. He fiinally sent word through a palace guard, inquiring whether standing for so long wasn’t causing the legs to be fatigued. Once, on the occasion of the king’s birthday, he went to the palace carrying flowers and phalamantrākṣate.483 He was late; the darbār had ended, and the Royal Retinue had departed for Ambāvilāsa. The Śāstri went to the Ambāvilāsa entrance. The gate was closed, and the guard denied him admission. The Śāstri simply placed the garland he had around the neck of one of the soldiers, handed him the *phalamantrākṣate,*and departed. The king learned of this episode. The next day, when the Śāstri arrived at the palace, the king said to him, smiling: “I believe you came to the palace yesterday, but I was not available. I understand that you therefore garlanded the palace guard and gave him the phalamantrākṣate. To this, the Śāstri replied: “Your Highness, this is surely not objectionable! The guard bore your insignia and wore your uniform, so doing him respect, as your representative, is the same as doing you respect!” The king was silent.
Those seeking to slander the Śāstri were shamed.
On another occasion, as the Śāstri was leaving Ambāvilāsa, a guard with drawn sword asked him: “Good sir, would you please tell me my future?”
480This was the same Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri who gifted away his house and vr̥ttiin the Katvāḍipura Agrahāra to Veṇkaṭaramaṇa Śāstri, the father of Cāmarājanagara Śrīkaṇṭha Śāstri. See page 76.
481Ucchiṣṭa Gaṇapati is a tāntricform of Gaṇapati, whose worshippers follow the “left-hand” path of worship, forbidden to worshippers of other Gaṇapati forms. Tāntricpractices are associated with special powers.
482 Ānavaṭṭi Śrīnivāsācār is the author of the Kr̥ṣṇaprabhāvodaya. Togari beḷeis Cajanus cajan, or the pigeon pea, widely used in Karṇāṭaka. Foodgrains were sold by volume at the time. A pakkā seer, used for measuring dry goods such as grains, was 74.8125 cubic inches
[Rice 1897b, p. 810], so that ten seers would amount to about 12.26 litres, and likely weighed about 7–8 kg.
483See footnote 378 for an explanation of phalamantrākṣate.
178
sons of sarasvatī
The Śāstri replied: “Why do you ask me about such trifling things? I don’t know. Ask some astrologer, if one happens to come by.” The guard retorted: “What, sir! You are a great scholar! Can’t you even tell me this much?” The Śāstri left without responding. A few days later, as the same soldier stood guard with sword drawn, the Śāstri showed up with a towel wrapped around his head, his sacred thread around his ear, and carrying a flask of hot water. He went up to the guard and said: “You! Come here, and give me a shave!” The guard reacted: “Sir, you are a person of eminence. It is wrong to insult me in this fashion. Am I a barber?”484 The Śāstri responded: “When you desired me to tell your future the other day, and I directed you to an astrologer, you asked why I, though such a scholar, could not deal with such a simple matter. Now here you are, carrying such a big sword, yet unable to even give me a shave!” Reports of this incident reached the king. He arrived with his Retinue. Seeing what was going on, and amused by it, the king counseled the guard, and admonished him not to take issue with persons of substance.
For some time, Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III had performed the Aupāsanaritual regularly.485 During this time, one of his queens began her monthly period. The question arose whether it was proper to continue to perform the ritual. The king ordered that Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri be consulted. The Śāstri was at home, having leaves stitched together to make dinner plates, and sunning himself.486 The king’s messenger arrived and informed the Śāstri of the royal order. The Śāstri made no response. Another messenger arrived, saluted the Śāstri, and stood before him. The Śāstri remained silent. Then arrived a palace guard, and then another. The Śāstri made no response to any of them. Finally, they said together: “It is already past the king’s mealtime. What is your response, your bidding?” The Śāstri shouted in anger:
“Tell the king that permission to perform the Aupāsanawhen the queen has her period is granted in the same place that grants him permission to perform it when she does not have her period! It is all the same whether he performs it or not!” The king’s guards and messengers returned with this information. The king listened to their account, and expressing no anger, 484Barbers are from the lowest caste.
485See footnote 244.
486Leaves of the muttagatree *(Butea frondosa, Butea monosperma)*are stitched together with slivers of grass reed to make flat, rimless circular “plates” in Karṇāṭaka. These are used after being dried, unlike the leaves of the banana plant, which are used when still green.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
179
he accepted the Śāstri’s pronouncement as a blessing, and stopped observing the *Aupāsana. *
Another incident occurred that showed Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri’s exceptional abilities. He had once travelled to Tirucirapaḷḷi. It was his practice every day to bathe and perform his daily rituals in an isolated location. One day, he sat on the bank of a channel of the Kāvērī, engrossed in his *japa.*A small detachment of soldiers of the the East India Company had been stationed at Tirucirapaḷḷi. Two of these soldiers came to this channel, removed their clothes, jumped in the water, and as they swam, began an altercation. They shouted, pummelled, and soon bloodied each other. They lodged complaints against each other with their commanding offiicer, a colonel. When he asked for witnesses, they indicated that a brāhmaṇa covered in ash had been sitting some distance away, referring to Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri. The offiicer had him identifiied, and called and questioned him. The Śāstri replied: “I really know nothing. These two soldiers were shouting at each other in anger.
I do not speak their language, but I can repeat their words,” and then proceeded to repeat their words from beginning to end. The soldiers agreed to his account of their conversation. The offiicer was astonished at the Śāstri’s performance. He was unconvinced of the Śāstri’s professed ignorance of English. A small group gathered to test him. The Śāstri agreed to repeat everthing that he heard once. The District Collector retrieved two old books from a chest at home, one in English, and the other in Latin. As soon as a a page from either book was read, Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri would repeat the entire page without error. Everyone was truly astounded.487 There being no account of his extraordinary abilities anywhere, I have chosen to document them here.488
487The translator had seen this episode described in a contemporary British account, and recognized it immediately when reading this work. Unfortunately, he had not recorded the reference, and has been unable to trace it since.
488Continuing in the spirit of the author, we mention some other episodes concerning Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri, as recounted by Śāstri [1925b]. Once, a brother-in-law of the king’s was bothering passers-by, riding his horse near the fort entrance. When he ignored the Śāstri’s pleas to ride elsewhere, the Śāstri recited the following verse in rebuke: “caturaṁ turagaṁ pathi nartayataḥpathikā ˙n bahuśaḥparimardayataḥ| nahitē bhujavirya bhavo vibhavo *bhagini tava bhāgya bhavo vibhavah. ∥”*meaning “Oh rider, your equestrian antics make it clear that the might which you are here displaying derives not from your arms, but from your sister’s marriage to the king.” On another occasion, hurrying to the palace on the occasion of some ritual, the Śāstri slipped in some mud, staining his clothes. When the king re-
180
sons of sarasvatī
The anecdotes relating to His Highness Kr̥ṣṇarāja, too, illustrate his virtues well. He was not in the least arrogant, although he was very well informed from all that came to his notice. He would converse with everyone as the occasion required, without the slightest conceit. He had a special regard for scholars, and took great pains to support them, providing all they needed. O virtuous king! Why did Death have to make you his target!
It appears that this Rāmaśāstri, while debating Tryambaka Śāstri in the royal court, challenged him with a great many propositions concerning the very word “Tryambaka”.489 It also appears that Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III recognized the peerless scholarship of Tryambaka Śāstri with many awards.
Enthralled by accounts of the brilliance of Tryambaka Śāstri’s scholarship, and deciding that he could do no better than to study with him, Rāma left Mais ūru for Kalyāṇadurga, gained an audience with Tryambaka Śāstri, and became one of his students.
The means of learning in times past were very unlike those of today.
Institutions such as schools, colleges, and universities did not exist for the dissemination of knowledge. Titles such as Master or Professor were unheard of. The government did not include a Department of Education.
There were no regular government expenditures towards education. Instead, there were maṭhasestablished in villages, towns, and in the homes of the wealthy, where children would be taught, starting with the ¯
Onāma,490
to the extent of being able to read papers given to them, writing down what they were told, and performing simple and compound addition, as well as marked on his stained clothing, the Śāstri replied: “kṣuttr̥ḍāśā kuṭumbinyaḥmayi tiṣṭhanti *nānyagāḥ| tāsāmantyāti subhagā tasyāśśr̥ṇgāra cēṣṭitaṁ ∥”*meaning: “Oh king, my three wives hunger, thirst, and greed, never forsake me. Of these, the third is loveliest and dearest.
The stains on my clothes are just the marks of her loveplay.” (See Sternbach [1999, p. 3431]:
“kṣuttr̥ḍāśāḥkuṭumbinyo mayi jīvanti nānyagāḥ| tāsāmāśā mahāsādhvī kadācin māṁ na *muñcati ∥” *)
489This echoes the account of Kāśī Śēśa Śāstri’s great-grandson Kāśī Subraḥmaṇya Śāstri [Lakshminarasimhaiya *et al.,*1970, p. 145]. According to this account, Kāśī Śeśa Śāstri declared after Tryambaka Śāstri was formally introduced at the debate: “It is of no consequence whether his name is *Tryambaka *(Śiva), *Ambaka *(effeminate), or just *Baka *(a crane).
This is an occasion for śāstricdebate.” Surprisingly, their debate is said to have raged for three days on whether the word Nārāyaṇameans Viṣṇu or Śiva. This issue has often been joined by Smārtasand *Vaiṣṇavas *(see pages 253–254), but Tryambaka Śāstri and Kāśī Śeśa Śāstri, both being *Smārtas,*might have been expected to quickly agree that the word means Śiva.
490It was traditional to begin instruction with the auspicious words Om Namah. Śivāya, meaning “salutations to Śiva”. This sentence is colloquially referred to as the ¯
Onāma.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
181
subtraction. Instead of books, there were teachers; if a teacher could read Kannaḍa poetry and teach multiplication and division, he would be considered especially accomplished. Such was the manner of elementary education. The languages used in the maṭhaswas the local vernacular.491 These teachers were awarded annual or monthly allowances by the parents of their students. During the month of Āśvayuja, it was customary for the teachers
to provide entertainment by having these students visit the homes of the local leaders, well dressed and holding colourful sticks, and reciting Kannaḍa songs called caupadas. The students would be fed, and the teachers would receive monetary awards.
Students of Saṁskr̥taseeking instruction in subjects such as literature, grammar, logic, and Vēdāntawould approach the many great scholars who lived in those times. It was the practice to concentrate on, and achieve scholarly depth in one single fiield. Such scholars would receive support from the many kings at the time who held traditional learning in high regard. There were no examinations, other than the debates that took place in the royal courts. Not only did these kings support such scholars generously with monthly stipends and grants of lands and property, thereby safeguarding them from the gloom of penury, but also bestowed on them special honours and rewards as and when special aspects of their scholarship came to light.
Contented thereby, these scholars taught many students in their homes.
They expected nothing in return from their students. On the contrary, because they hosted these students in their homes, feeding them and treating them as their own children, students had a special reverence for their teachers, and served them with great devotion. Neither did the teachers accept compensation for their teaching from their royal patrons or from their students. They regarded it as sins equally heinous to accept money for learning, 491Needless to say, these languages garnered far less respect than did Saṁskr̥taor English.
Nonetheless, many of these languages, such as Kannaḍa and Tamiz., have rich traditions of literature going back thousands of years. Interestingly, it has been argued that the language spoken by an Indian character in the Charition Mime, from the Oxyrhynchus Papyri 443, is an archaic form of Kannaḍa (see, for example, Hultzsch [1904] and Sastri [1927]). Others, such as Rai [1985] and Salomon [1993], have made the case that the language spoken is Tuḷu, a language from the coastal region of Karṇāṭaka. The latter possibility is even more interesting, since Tuḷu is not a dominant language at the present time.
182
sons of sarasvatī
food, or for a damsel.492 Such was the mode of education until the government established schools and colleges. Every scholar’s home was a college for advanced learning.
I used the expression “in the past” above. This should not be taken to mean in ages past. This was the state of affairs even fiifty years ago.493 This system of education had come down to us through tradition. This tradition has now been upset by the current arrangements for education in various languages. We now see such deplorable developments as students paying for their learning, teachers accepting payment for imparting knowledge, a different teacher holding forth each hour on a topic familiar to him and then departing, teachers lacking the concern, patience, and time to address the questions and confusions of their students, students therefore losing their regard for teachers, teachers losing confiidence in their students, ultimately causing students to lose all respect for their teachers, and commit the sin of speaking of their teachers with contempt. There is now the artifiice of the government charging students for their education, but this practice has not raised the salary of a single scholar.494 Neither has the government seen a reduction in its expenses. What has diminished is the respect that students 492 Kanyāvikraya, the selling of a damsel, is treated in the śāstrasas a serious offense. See *Manusmr̥ti,*3:51: *“na kanyāyāḥpitā vidvān gr̥hṇīyācchulkamaṇvapi | gr̥hṇanhi śulkaṁ lob-hena syānnaropatyavikrayī ∥” *(“The well-informed father must never accept even the smallest sum as dowry for his daughter; for if driven by greed, he accepts a dowry, he becomes a seller of his own offspring.”) This proscription arises not because a low value is attached to this gift, but precisely because the great value attached to it makes it a meritorious gift, when given freely. This consideration also extends to food and learning. See Mahimabhaṭṭa’s *Vyaktiviveka,*1 *: “ayācitāni dēyāni sarvadravyāṇi bhārata | annaṁ vidyā kanyā anarthithab-hyo na dīyate ∥” *(“Oh Bhārata! It is proper to give away all things without being asked, but never food, learning, or a damsel, unless asked.”)
493That is, even in 1860 C.E. This work was published in 1910 C.E. See footnote 494.
494We use the word “scholar” here to denote a teacher or learned person, not a student.
The following excerpt from a memorandum in 1854 C.E. by G.ṆTaylor, Sub-Collector in charge of Rajahmundry, makes for very interesting reading here [Bourdillon 1859, p. 29]: It will be observed that the scheme I am now proposing, contemplates the improvement of the existing village schools. . . The schoolmaster in this case, being a resident in the village, and, as it were, one of themselves, needs but a small salary, but this salary which is now dependent on chance or charity, will be secured to him by the plan of fiixing an annual addition to the demand of the village. . . The sum of fiive rupees monthly, or 60 rupees a year, is perhaps the minimum upon which persons of this class could make a respectable appearance. . . , but I would give him an additional stimulus to exertion, by allowing him to receive a fiixed fee from every class of person who did not contribute to the fund assessed upon the land. . . and it would show the people that
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
183
have for their teachers. The traditions of seeing education as a gift to be given freely have also diminished. Shortcomings such as these are inherent in the Western method of education.
These new ways are not right for us. The great scholars of the past, in keeping with traditional ways, had made their homes sanctuaries where food and learning were given away. It was on this account that a great many students studied in Tryambaka Śāstri’s home.
Rāmaśāstri arrived in Rāyadurga, paid his respects to Tryambaka Śāstri, and appraised him of his purpose. Since he was still studying the ba-sics of logic, Tryambaka Śāstri sent him to his son Bāpuśāstri for instruction. Bāpuśāstri was himself a great scholar.495 He taught advanced works to many students who had come to his father for instruction, and helped them with their learning. Rāmaśāstri became a member of this group of students.
According to traditional observances, no instruction was imparted on three days of each half of the lunar month.496 On the thirteenth day of each half, the day of Pradōṣa, students would demonstrate their knowledge of the material they had learned by recitations, discussions, and debates. If any doubts or controversies arose, Bāpuśāstri would resolve them. Rāmaśāstri was still studying the elements of logic. Bāpuśāstri had an attitude of great indifference towards him. One Pradōṣa, however, provided an opportunity for Rāmaśāstri’s natural brilliance to become manifest.
There are many expository works on logic, such as the Muktāvaḷiand the *Dinakarī.*There is also a new work called the *Cintāmaṇi.*This work has been authored by Gaṇgeśvaramiśropādhyāya.497 It is traditional to speak the instruction was the more valuable because it must be paid for. Two annas a month would probably be a high enough fee. . .
495Bāpuśāstri’s real name seems to have been Bālamukunda. Raghavan [1968, v. iv, p.
104] notes that the Kāvyaprayogaratnāvaḻīwas written by Trivikrama Śāstri of Rāyadurga, the son of Bālamukunda and grandson of Bhaṭṭa Tryambaka, court poet of Maisūru.
496This corresponds to the Pradōṣa Vrata, an observance starting on the evening of the twelfth and continuing through the thirteenth day of each half of the lunar month. Śiva is worshipped.
497This work is the Tattvacintāmaṇiby Gaṇgēśa (Gaṇgēśvara Miśra Upādhyāya), dating to 1310 C.E. [Potter and Bhattacharya 2008]. It is a classic work, marking the beginning of Navya Nyāyalogic. It is a “new work” only in the sense that it is the point of departure for Navya Nyāya, or the New *Nyāya.*In matter of fact, the Tattvacintāmaṇi
184
sons of sarasvatī
of him with the greatest of respect, always using the plural form of address.
Raghunātha Bhaṭṭācārya has written a commentary called the *Dīdhiti,*or Śirōmaṇi,498 on the Cintāmaṇi. The Cintāmaṇiis composed on the topics pratyakṣa, anumāna, upamāna, śabda.499 The Dīdhitiis a commentary on this work. In this work are given fourteen defiinitions.500
Before proceeding further with this account, it is necessary to explain a few matters that may appear strange to today’s students. In those times, it was not the practice to carve letters on blocks, arrange them as desired, and print books thereby. We did not even have machines capable of this function. As a result, books were not common. To a large extent, scholars committed everything to memory, and when needed, reproduced the material verbally. They had committed to memory the entire corpus of the *Vēdas,*the *śastras,*the various commentaries on them, and so on. Native scholars could reproduce verbally, and without hesitation, the equivalent of the contents of many chestfuls of books. Every one of these scholars was a veritable library. Some English scholars poke fun at them, accusing them of merely parroting this material without understanding it, and contending that such recitation is pointless. On closer analysis, however, the ignorance of such detractors becomes clear.
Today, many seem to believe that an ability to respond to a given word with a synonym, or with several words strung together, demonstrates their understanding. They boast of their abilities as if they were limitless, just predates the other two works mentioned. The Siddhāntamuktāvaḻīis a commentary by Viśvanātha NyāyapañcānanaBhaṭṭācārya on his own work, the *Bhāṣāpariccheda *(also called the Kārikāvali), written around 1634 C.E. The Dinakarīis a commentary on the Muktāvaḻīby Mahādeva Bhaṭṭa, also known as Dinakara. The full title of the work is Nyāyasiddhāntamuktāvaḻīprakāśa, although it is better known as the Dinakarī.
498 Dīdhitimeans illumination, an apt title for a commentary. Śiromaṇior “crest-jewel”
was an appellation of Raghunātha, the author. He is by far the most original and brilliant of the modern Indian logicians. Śiromaṇiis used here as a metonym for the Dīdhiti.
499These are the four pramāṇasor the means to right knowledge recognized in Indian logic. Pratyakṣais perception, the knowledge that arises through the senses. Anumāna is inferential knowledge. Upamānais comparison (or identifiication). Śabdais knowledge through testimony.
500These are fourteen defiinitions of vyāpti, which translates into English as pervasion.
The equivalent concept in modern logic is *implication.*Thus, if sis true whenever his true, we would say himplies s, or, in Indian logic, that h pervades s. An enormous amount of effort is devoted in Indian logic to obtaining an accurate defiinition of pervasion. In this case, Raghunātha is commenting in his Dīdhition Book 2 of the Tattvacintāmaṇi, which is concerned with topic of inference. These defiinitions occur in Section 5 thereof.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
185
because they are able to respond with tokas the meaning of *tik.*501 This is wrong. The native scholar is able to expound on a word, starting with how the vowels and consonants in it come about, and continuing all the way through its proper application, utility, and all other relevant aspects.
Setting this aside, let us consider how many ancillary branches of learning have been developed just for the purpose of Vēdicinterpretation. There is also the entire fiield of Mīmāṁsādevoted just to the analysis of this meaning.502 Given that native scholars have developed such an elaborate appa-ratus to ensure deep understanding of just one aspect of their heritage, it is hardly proper to accuse them of rote memorization without understanding. Memorization is an essential tool to facilitate deeper understanding. It would be better for those who are ignorant of the sciences devoted to understanding, and do disservice to these sciences by making much of simple glosses written for monetary gain, to speak after due consideration.
While our scholars committed these texts to memory, many of them did also commit them to writing. Students approaching them for instruction would have possessed no books. All books would have been with the teacher. After each day’s lesson, the students would have borrowed the book from the teacher, copied out the parts required for the following lesson, and studied that material. This was the only way available to them for study and reflection. Printed books, as we now have, were not available.
Let us, however, continue with our story. Tryambaka Śāstri’s students happened to be engaged in debate on the occasion of a certain *Pradōṣa.*The discussion centred around the fourteen defiinitions. The current focus was the twelfth defiinition. Rāmaśāstri, who had been listening intently, said by way of refutation and rebuke, that the substance of the twelfth defiinition could be established in the manner of the thirteenth. He had not yet studied the thirteenth defiinition. Nevertheless, he defended his proposition with greater facility than did others who had studied and mastered the 501 Tikand tokare nonsense syllables, used pejoratively here to denote shallow learning.
502The six vēdāṇgasare *śikṣā *(phonetics, phonology, and morphophonology), vyākaraṇa (grammar), *kalpa *(ritual), *nirukta *(etymology), *chandas *(poetic metre), and *jyotiṣa *(astron-omy). The upāṇgasare the six systems of philosophical thought, namely Nyāya, Vaiśeśika, Saṇkhya, Yoga, P ūrva Mīmāṁsā, and Uttara Mīmāṁsā. Mīmāṁsāis Vēdichermeneutics.
P ūrva Mīmāṁsādeals with the karmakāṇḍa, the ritual or sacrifiicial aspects of the Vēdiccorpus, and the Uttara Mīmāṁsādeals with the jñānakāṇḍaor Vēdānta, the aspects dealing with the knowledge of the Braḥman, the ultimate truth.
186
sons of sarasvatī
thirteenth.503 The other students were unable to refute Rāmaśāstri’s thesis, which appeared novel to them. These students, who lacked a deep understanding of the material, were also indignant at Rāmaśāstri, who was junior to them both in age and in formal instruction. Such is the difference between natural talent and learning acquired through mere practice.
503Some sense of the technical diffiiculty of these debates is conveyed by the brief summaries of these defiinitions in Potter and Bhattacharya [2008, p. 555]. Below, srefers to the sādhya, or what is to be proved (the “major term”), hto the hetu, or cause (the “middle term”) and pto the pakṣa, or the locus where hresides (the “minor term”). The twelfth defiinition of vyāptiis summarized as follows:
Pervasion ish ’s being characterized by the absence of every existent which is an absence ofs *.*This defiinition has to be understood as requiring that each existent in question must be absent in the relation by which the his related to the p.
The thirteenth defiinition is summarized as follows:
Pervasion ish ’s being characterized by the absence of every existent locus of all absences ofs *.*Here the entire locus of the absence of sis what is to be taken as the counterpositive of the absence characterizing h. Again, the counterpositive must be limited by the relation in which the his related to p. And it should be understood that smust pervade the counterpositive of the absence ofs, and that the limitor of the counterpositive must pervade the s. Thus, there is no overex-tension to the invalid inference “it possesses earthness, because it had a universal property”.
The defiinitions above have the form they do because Navya Nyāyadoes not use quantifiiers, but uses negation instead to serve the same purpose. This aspect of *Navya Nyāya,*and its extreme insistence on precision is illustrated in Srinivas [1986] by the Navya Nyāyaformulation of the statement *“All that possesses smoke possesses fire” *, which would be written in modern Western formal notation as *∀x,*Smoky( x) →Fiery( x): Smokeness is not a limitor of occurrentness limited by relation of contact and described by locus of absence of fiire which absence describes a counterpositiveness limited by fiireness and contact.
A rather more spectacular illustration of the technical complexity of the language of Navya Nyāyaappears in the translation in Ingalls [1951, p. 117] of Mathurānātha’s *Vyāptipañcakarahasya *(64.1–4):
[Answer. The above objections should not be made] because what is meant is: a generic absence of occurrentness to a substratum of that unlimited locusness the [limiting] relation of which is the aforementioned one and which is described by [an entity] qualifiied by absence-ness of *sādhya,*absence of sādhyabeing as before mentioned; [to this absence of occurrentness the counterpositiveness] being limited by a particular qualifiication relation where the adjunct is a superstratum-ness limited by the limiting relation of hetutāand described by locusness to hetu, which locusness is limited by the limiting properties of hetutā.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
187
An interesting tradition had been in practice among the students. Any student unable to effectively contest the arguments of another student was required to copy out the next lesson from the teacher’s book, or perhaps even more, for the student who had prevailed. This was a punishment of sorts for the one who showed himself less capable. Since none of the students was able to deal with Rāma’s arguments, they all suffered embarass-ment. They were forced to copy out the lesson for this student from Mais ūru. This became cause for them to compete ever more fiiercely with Rāma.
The other students joined forces, and calling Rāma’s arguments arrogant, complained to the junior śāstriBāpuśāstri. When Rāma succeeded in defending his thesis with him as well, Bāpuśāstri took the matter to Tryambaka Śāstri, the senior *śāstri,*intending to break his perceived arrogance.
After listening to the controversy that had arisen, Tryambaka Śāstri desired to know how far Rāma’s own study had progressed. He learned that Rāma had not yet studied the thirteenth defiinition, which had been the subject of the controversy. He asked whether Rāma had been given the pages with the thirteenth defiinition to copy. Bāpuśāstri and the other students conceded that he had not been given those pages. Tryambaka Śāstri then snubbed them, saying: “It is extraordinary that this student from Mais ūru should have conceived of the substance of the thirteenth defiinition by himself, without studying or even having read the relevant topics. Indeed, what he has argued and established is just as has been stated by none other than the Dīdhiti’sauthor Raghunātha Bhaṭṭācārya himself. That he should have outperformed students who have studied this topic, without even being exposed to it demonstrates his brilliance. He has shown himself equal to the author of the Dīdhiti. Despite having studied advanced works such as the Gadādhari, none of you has seen this subtle point. This boy is surely more capable than you are.” From that day onward, Tryambaka Śāstri himself began to instruct Rāmaśāstri.
Tryambaka Śāstri had a very demanding method of teaching. Students were not permitted to ask questions. If a student did ask a question, it had to be relevant. Tryambaka Śāstri would be furious if it turned out to have been even slightly irrelevant. He would declare such a student unfiit to study with him, and send him away. This caused Rāmaśāstri much apprehension.
During one lesson, however, a certain doubt arose in Rāmaśāstri’s mind.
He did not raise the question, fearful of being sent away if his guru were
188
sons of sarasvatī
to become furious. He simply waited for a suitable opportunity to have his doubt clarifiied.
Let us recall that the students all lived with the guru in his home. The students were extremely devoted to the guru. As service to their guru, they performed all the household chores, such as drawing water from the well, washing clothes, cleaning up after meals, and applying gōmaya.504 Students were not yet accustomed to putting on airs and demeaning their gurus.
Now, an opportunity arose for Rāmaśāstri’s doubt to be clarifiied. One day, the Śāstri came to wash his hands after his meal. Rāma fiilled a pot with water and handed it to him. As he was washing his hands, Rāma summoned up his courage, and asked his question. The Śāstri said nothing at the time. The next day, however, he called out to Rāma at the time of his daily worship, and answered his question.
The conditions at Rāyadurga were not conducive to Rāma’s study. He had no proper place to sit and study. There was not enough light to study by. Yet, Rāma saw no obstacles to his study. He would gather twigs and branches during the day, set them alight in a fiield at night, and study by that light. Tryambaka Śāstri called him one day, and said: “Dear boy, you are still very young, and not strong enough to sustain yourself so far from home while you study. Return to your own town and fiind a suitable guru there to continue your study.”505 Rāmaśāstri replied: “Good sir, my goal 1823
was to further my learning in your presence. This ambition appears to have been shattered.” Tryambaka Śāstri said to him: “Dear boy, a Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya lives in Maisūru. He studied with Viṭhalōpādhyāya of Paṇḍharapura. I studied with Hanumantācārya of Nāgapura.506 I know 504 Gōmayais cowdung, which is mixed with water and smeared on the floors of dwellings as a ritual act of purifiication. The ground where meals are eaten is ritually impure or ucchiṣṭa, having come into contact with the plate, which is rendered impure when touched by the hand, which is impure, having touched the saliva in one’s mouth. This ground must be cleansed before it is fiit to be used for other activities. Also see footnote 658.
505We might speculate that symptoms of the seizure disorder alluded to in footnote 632
were responsible for Tryambaka Śāstri’s advice that Rāmaśāstri return to Mais ūru.
506The following information is available regarding the two great scholars being referenced here. The fiirst, Viṭṭhalēśa Upādhyāya, is the author of a commentary known as the Viṭṭhalēśōpādhyāyīon the Gauḍabrahmānandīby Brahmānanda. Viṭṭhalēśa Upādhyāya was a leading scholar of logic and *Vēdanta.*The Advaitasiddhiand several commentaries, including the Viṭṭhalēśōpādhyāyī, appear in Śāstri [1937]. The Saṁskr̥taintroduction in Śāstri [1937] yields the following information. He was the ninth or tenth child of Govinda-
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
189
Śrīnivāsācārya to be a great scholar. Approach him without any hesitation.”
Following Tryambaka Śāstri’s bidding, Rāmaśāstri came to Mais ūru, and studied all the works on logic and Vēdāntaunder Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya; he then completed his bhāṣyaśāntiunder Aṇṇāśāstri of Gargeśvarī.507
Another episode occurred during the time that Rāmaśāstri was studying with Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya. At this time, Tryambaka Śāstri visited the Mais ūru court for the second time. Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III welcomed him with special honours. The Śāstri visited the palace. All the palace scholars were in attendance. Nobody had the courage, however, to challenge Tryambaka Śāstri, who was seated as if here were Dakṣiṇāmūrti himself.508 Finally, the palace paṇḍitaKuṭṭiśāstri rose to the occasion, but had to ultimately hold his silence, being unable to prevail in the debate.509 Many scholars bhaṭṭa, who was of Gurjara (of modern-day Gujarāt) origins, but hailed from a village called Kaśaḷī near Rājāpur in the Ratnāgiri region of modern-day Mahārāśtra. Govindabhaṭṭa had the title of Paṭavardhan, and held a position of great honour and distinction as a scholar in the service of the prince of Panhāḷagaḍh in the Ratnāgiri region. Viṭṭhalēśa began his studies locally, and then proceeded to Kāśī for further study. His descendants were still in Kāśī in 1937 C.E. He subsequently came to Paṇḍharapura in the Śolāpura district of modern-day Mahārāśtra, where he taught. (Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya would have been among his students here.) Viṭṭhalēśa studied Nyāyawith Kr̥ṣṇabhaṭṭa Paṇḍita, who wrote the Kr̥ṣṇabhaṭṭi commentary on the Gādādharīand the Jāgadīśī, and grammar under a Mādhvaof Pan.-
ḍharapura called Kr̥ṣṇācārya Śarma. Footnote 680 gives further details on Kr̥ṣṇabhaṭṭa, who appears to have been in ´
Kāśī circa 1800 C.E. It is conjectured in Śāstri [1937] that Viṭṭhalēśa died at the end of the eighteenth century.
Regarding Hanumantācārya, the second scholar referenced here, we see in Ballantyne
[1851]: “. . . (refering to Annambhaṭṭa’s Tarkadīpikā)…This commentary has been elucidated by. . . The Hanumadīya, by Hanumadācārya, a follower of the Vaiṣṇava school of Madhwa Ācārya. The writer was a native of Karnāṭa, but spent the greater part of his life in the service of the Rāja of Nāgpur, at his capital. He is said to have died about a hundred years ago. The Hanumadīyaconsists of nearly 6000 ślokas.” The Hanumadīyais also recorded as item 1145 in the Nyāyasection of works by Rice [1884, p. 122], listing Nāgapuri Hanumantācārya as author. A “Hanumad Āchārya” is mentioned by Hall [1859, p. 38] as the author of the Vākyārtha Dīpikā, a commentary on the second section of Gaṇgēśa’a Tattvacintāmaṇi. He is stated to be the student of a Vīrarāghava, and son of Vyāsavarya of the Kāśyapa *gotra.*The likelihood of there being two different Hanumadācāryas, both with expertise in logic, seems low.
507The bhāśyaśāntiis a propitiatory rite, including a santarpaṇa, performed after a student has completed the study of the bhāṣyasof ĀdiŚaṇkarācārya under the guidance of a guru. Saṇkara’s bhāṣyascomprise his commentaries on the Brahmasūtras, the Bhagavadgītā, and ten Upaniṣads.
508The date of this debate remains unclear, but see footnote 478. Dakṣiṇāmūrti is Śiva, in his aspect as teacher. He has supreme awareness, as the god of wisdom.
509See footnote 588 for information on this scholar.
190
sons of sarasvatī
from the Southern kingdoms had travelled to Mais ūru, having learned that Tryambaka Śāstri would be visiting. A Śrīvaiṣṇavascholar called Kāñcīpura Śrīnivāsācārya had also come to Maisūru, and was at the assembly. He too began a debate with Tryambaka Śāstri, and fell silent, unable to hold his own. Rāmaśāstri, who was still a student, was also present at the gathering.
Let us keep this in mind as our story progresses.
Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya and Tryambaka Śāstri met each other on this occasion. Tryambaka Śāstri brought up Rāmaśāstri’s name, and praising his intellect greatly, said: “You will be assured of acclaim if you teach him well and turn him into a great scholar.”
Rāmaśāstri was about sixteen years of age when he returned to Mais ūru from Kalyāṇadurga.510 Although his travel to Kalyāṇadurga did not advance his education to any great extent, it brought his exceptional abilities to light. If one acquires a sound grasp of the principles underlying the opponent’s position, uses it to predict the arguments the opponent might make, determines the elements prejudicial to his position, unravels all their complexities, and thinking with a perfectly a clear mind, constructs a counter-argument that denies the opponent all recourse, it is possible to master even a subject that one is seeing for the fiirst time. One also needs the intellectual calibre and maturity to bring these abilities to bear as the occasion demands.
It is such an intellect that is called brilliant. It is the way of the world, however, that people who fiind themselves lacking the capacity to match such abilities give in to jealousy. This evil demon possessed even a scholar such as Bāpuśāstri. There is little doubt that Rāmaśāstri’s desire to study with such a great scholar as Tryambaka Śāstri went unfulfiilled mainly due to the low-mindedness of Bāpuśāstri and others like him.
Regardless, Rāmaśāstri continued to see Tryambaka Śāstri as his guru, holding him in the highest regard. Tryambaka Śāstri entered saṁnyāsain his later years, and attained *siddhi.*His samādhiis in a place called Raṇgasamudra near Kalyāṇadurga.511 Let us recall that Rāmaśāstri completed his bhāṣyaśāntiwith Aṇṇāśāstri of Gargēśvarī. Subsequently, Rāmaśāstri went to Raṇgasamudra, and seating himself near the *samādhi,*recited the entire 510Clearly, he spent only a few months as Tryambaka Śāstri’s student.
511Lakṣmībāī, the daughter-in-law of Tryambaka Śāstri alludes to Raṇgasamudra as her jāhgīrvillage in the petition referenced in footnote 477. Clearly, Raṇgasamudra would have been Tryambaka Śāstri’s jāhgīrvillage when he was alive.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
191
s ūtrabhāṣyafrom beginning to end, paid his respects at the *samādhi,*and returned. Today’s students may consider this a baseless tale. This is, however, a true story.
Chapter 4: Residence in Mais ūru: The State of the Darb ār
Rāmaśāstri,aswesaw,masteredmanyworksunderTirupatiŚrīni-
vāsācārya. The guru had special regard for his student. He was beyond observing the distinctions between Smārtaand Vaiṣṇava.512 Unlike the current day, where we see this distinction in excessive form, this distinction was signifiicant in those days only in matters relating to debate and scholarship.513 These differences are stronger among those who are not con-versant with the *śāstras.*The pride that Śrīnivāsācārya had in Rāmaśāstri exceeded even that which Drōṇācārya had in Arjuna.514 This will become clear presently. Out of affection, he always called him “our Rāmuḍu”, or
“Rāmuḍuśāstri”.515 The brilliance of Rāmaśāstri’s scholarship grew by the day. His father, who had been a scholar in the palace Sammukhada ¯
Uḷige
department, had received a salary of fiive Varāhas. This salary had stopped upon his death. Upon learning of Rāmaśāstri’s abilities, Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III arranged for Rāmaśāstri to receive the same salary. Some say that his father’s salary was three Varāhas, and that Rāmaśāstri received that amount.
After some time, Rāmaśāstri was married.516
At this time, Śrī Śrīnivāsa Brahmatantra Ghaṇṭāvatāra Svāmiwas the pontiff of the Parakāla Maṭha.517 He was himself a great scholar. He had 512 Smārtastend to be more identifiied with the Śaivatradition. There are long-standing differences between the *Śaiva *(Śiva-worship) and *Vaiṣṇava *(Viṣṇu-worship) traditions.
Technically, Smārtasare simply followers of the Smr̥tis, the corpus of religious literature seen as being of human origin, in contrast with the śruticorpus, believed to be divinely inspired. The Smr̥tisinclude the Dharmaśāstras, the Itihāsas, and the Purāṇas. Smārtas worship both Śiva and Viṣṇu. In contrast, the Vaiṣṇavatradition tends to focus solely on Viṣṇu.
513There is some merit to this assertion. In addition to what is said here, the Advaitin Tryambaka Śāstri studied with Hanumadācārya, a *Vaiṣṇava,*and Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya, a *Vaiṣṇava,*was a student of Viṭṭhalōpādhyāya, an *Advaitin.*Among Rāmaśāstri’s own students were Smārtas, Vaiṣṇavas, and *Śrīvaiṣṇavas.*Nonetheless, the followers of the various maṭhaswere not above petty squabbling. See Sastri [1932, pp. 66–67], for some instances of serious, sometimes violent, differences between the various maṭhas.
514In the *Mahābhārata,*Drōṇācārya was the teacher who taught the Pāṇḍavas and Kauravas archery. Arjuna was by far the most accomplished, and was Dr ōṇa’s favourite.
515Rāmuḍu would be an affectionate diminutive in the Telugu language.
516His wife’s name was Lakṣamma (from Lakṣmī+ amma). See page 264.
517Śrīnivāsa Brahmatantra Ghaṇṭāvatāra Svāmibecame pontiff of the Parakāla Maṭha on 192
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
193
debated such scholars as Tryambaka Śāstri, and won honours in the court of Pēśva Bājirāv. This *Svāmi,*greatly impressed by Rāmaśāstri’s abilities, appointed him a scholar at the maṭhaat a monthly salary of fiifteen *Rūpīs. *
Rāmaśāstri also received annual honoraria of twenty-fiive R ūpīseach from the Sumatēndra Maṭha at Nañjanagūḍu, and from the Vyāsarāya maṭhaat Sōsale.518
These svāmiswere followers of the Vaiṣṇavatradition, and Rāmaśāstri was a *Smārta.*I have not the words to describe the sheer caliber of the Śāstri’s scholarship, to have deserved this recognition from these maṭhasthat were such great centres of the Dvaitaand Viśiṣtādvaitatraditions. I am not fiit to praise the greatness of spirit of these most excellent ascetics, the svāmis of these *maṭhas,*who thereby demonstrated their esteem for scholarship alone, casting aside all sectarian considerations. On what pair of scales, indeed, might this caliber of scholarship and such greatness of spirit be measured? And where is the merchant competent enough to hold this pair of scales?
Behind Doḍḍakere in the southern part of Maisūru city is a place called the Old Agrahāra. In that section is an old sattracalled P ūrṇayya’s Chatra.
The street it is on is called Chatra Street. Rāmaśāstri bought a house on that street, and lived there.519
This house had belonged to the Nāyakaof Tañjāv ūru. The Marāṭha king then ruling Tañjāv ūru had no male heir. The British, who were acting as emperors of India even at that time, had usurped many of India’s kingdoms, and were intent on preventing the king of Tañjāv ūru from adopting an heir, and insistent that his kingdom should come under their control after the king’s demise.520 In keeping with tradition, the aforesaid Nāyaka June 28, 1836. He was born in 1790 C.E., and died on August 9, 1861 C.E. In his p ūrvāśrama, he had been known as Kr̥ṣṇamācārya.
518The Sumatīndra maṭhais a *Mādhva maṭha,*also called the Rāghavendra Svāmi *maṭha. *
It is common for the individual maṭhasof a sect to acquire the name of the founding guru, Sumatīndra Tīrtha (1692–1725 C.E.) in this case. See footnote 83 for information about the Sōsale *maṭha. *
519Most regrettably, Pūrṇayya’s Chatra has now been demolished. Despite protests from a large segment of the residents of Mais ūru, the administration shows little regard for the preservation of the rich heritage of the city. Commercial interests prevail in such situations, and are able to attain their objectives through all such means as required.
520Although the British ruled their possessions by proxy, through the East India Company, India was not formally part of the British empire till 1857 C.E., following the First War
194
sons of sarasvatī
had come to Mais ūru as ambassador. Having heard of Rāmaśāstri’s brilliance, he sold him the house for about four hundred *R ūpīs.*This house is next to the Uttarādi Maṭha.521
It appears that the son of the
c. 1831
daughter of the Śāstri’s elder brother had lived there recently. Subsequently, the house has been repaired and kept in good condition.
DharmādhikāriRāmaśāstri, the grandson of Rāmaśāstri, is apparently desirous of using the house for some charitable purpose.522
There appears to have been another reason for the Tañjāv ūru Nāyaka’s sale of this house. The East India Company took over the reins of power in Mais ūru in the Khara *saṁvatsara *(1830–1831 C.E.). Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III was given an allowance of around thirty-fiive thousand R ūpīsa month for his expenses.523 This sum was insuffiicient to maintain this monarch’s dignity and generosity, which were known the world over. Veṇkaṭē Arasu had been Dīvānat the time the king still retained control.524 Timmapparājē Arasu, the eldest of his younger brothers, was the Faujdārof Nandīdurga.
of Independence, otherwise known as the Sepoy Mutiny. Lord Dalhousie, the Governor General of India 1848–1856 C.E. was the architect of the Doctrine of Lapse, under which a kingdom passed into British hands if either its ruler were deemed manifestly incompetent by the British, or died without a direct heir. The region around Tañjāv ūru was ceded to the British in 1799 C.E., with the royal family retaining control only over the capital and a small region around it. The nominal rulers during the period were Serfōji II (1798–1822), and Śivāji II (1823–1855). Serfōji II had been educated by missionaries, was fluent in English, and was a great patron of the arts. Tañjāv ūru reached the height of its artistic glory during this period. Artists in the Tañjāv ūru court included the “Tanjore Quartet” who gave Bharatanāṭyamits modern form: the composer and singer Ponnayya, the composer and violinist Vaḍivēlu, the choreographer Cinnayya, and the percussionist Śivānandam [Weidman 2006]. Śivāji II continued this patronage of the arts, but died without an heir, and the kingdom “lapsed” into British hands. The British ended the expenditure on the arts as wasteful, causing many of the artists to emigrate to Mais ūru and Travancore. The Tañjāv ūru prince at the time being referenced was Śivāji II.
521This house has now been converted into the local branch of the Śr̥ṇgēri Śaṇkara Maṭha (see footnote 522). The Uttarādi Maṭha and the Śaṇkara Maṭha are adjacent to each other.
522Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri’s son Śivasvāmi later became Saccidānanda Śivābhinava Nr̥siṁha Bhāratī, the Jagadguruof the Śr̥ṇgēri Maṭha (see footnote 647). In 1924 C.E., during a visit to Mais ūru by his successor JagadguruCandraśēkhara Bhāratī III, this house was acquired by the Śr̥ṇgēri Maṭha, and a temple and maṭhaconsecrated there, under the name Abhinava *Śaṇkarālaya *(Plate 27). Footnote 671 gives further details on Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri’s family.
523Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III actually received 13 lakh Rūpīsa year, or just over 100,000 Rūpīs monthly. This included a fiifth of the state’s net revenues (as per the Subsidiary Treaty of 1799), and an allowance of one lakh *Star Pagodas *[Ikegame 2013, p. 18]. Row [1922, p. 98]
indicates that the additional allowance was 350,000 R ūpīs. See footnote 618.
524The Dīvānsof the kingdom are listed by Row [1916, pp. 100–114] as follows: Pūrṇayya
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
195
Dāsappāji, the next of his brothers, was Sarmokhtasarat the palace. All the palace deparments came under his purview. Since the expenses of the Mujarāyidepartment had become excessive, Dāsappāji took measures to reduce them. References are still made to Dāsappāji’s lavājamein the Mujarāyidepartment.525 Himself a scholar of Saṁskr̥taand Kannaḍa, he was patron to a large number of scholars. He had a reputation as an excellent administrator. Veṇkaṭē Arasu’s third brother Nārayaṇarājē Arasu occupied himself with attaching himself to the king, complaining constantly about his brothers to the king, informing his brothers about developments that they might disapprove of, and meddling in affairs both inside and outside the royal court.
These four brothers were becoming a great nuisance for the entire kingdom. Despite their royal heritage and their nationalism, they had very limited vision. Companions to these princes in their mischief were a number of dēśasthabrāhmaṇas from the Marāṭha regions who had established themselves in positions of power, with no intention other than to plunder the kingdom and return home with booty.526
( Sarmokhtasarfrom July 1, 1799–November, 1810, Dīvānfrom 1810–March 1811), Bārgīr BakṣiBāḷāji Rāya (April 1811–January 1812), Savār BakṣiRāma Rāya (February 1812–October 1812), Bābu Rāya (November 1817–April 1818), Siddharājē Arasu (May 1818–February 1820), Bābu Rāya (March 1820–August 1821), Liṇgarājē Arasu (September 1821–November 1822), Bābu Rāya (December 1822–November 1825), Veṇkaṭē Arasu (May 1827–October 1831), Veṇkaṭaramaṇayya (October 1831–May 1832, Bābu Rāya (May 1832–1834). Subsequently, the role of Dīvanwas moved into the offiices of the Commissioner and renamed as the offiice of the Huz ūr Head Śirastedār. A Veṇkaṭaramaṇayya was appointed to this offiice, but was not allowed to continue because he did not accomplish a sound accounting of ināmand revenue lands. Bābu Rāya was reappointed to this offiice in May 1832, but died in 1834. Kollam Veṇkaṭa Rāya was appointed to this offiice at a salary of *Rs.*800 per month. When he left to become Dīvānof Travancore in 1838, S ūrappa replaced him. Veṇkaṭa Rāya returned to this offiice when S ūrappa died in 1840. S ūrappa had been a childhood associate of Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri. See page 170.
525The terms used here have the following meanings [Rice 1897a]. *Faujdār:*military commander. *Diván:*Minister. *Mokhtesar:*head of a department. (The Sarmokhtasaroversaw all departments.) *Muzarái:*A department for the control of temple funds and other religious property. *Lavajame:*Establishment of a department drawing pay.
526We see in Rice [1897b]: “In 1830 symptoms of disaffection began to show themselves in the Nagar country. A Brahman named Rama Rao, from the Mahratta territory, who had served with credit under Haidar and Tipu as a commander of cavalry, had been appointed Faujdar of Nagar in 1799, and held that offiice till 1805. He afterwards became Bakshi of the Sowar Cutcherry, and was one of the Raja’s most intimate counsellors, and virtually
196
sons of sarasvatī
The depredations of these offiicials caused a number of faithless pāḷeyagārasin the kingdom to rise up in revolt. The farmers rose up as well. It appears that a number of offiicials actively fomented this rebellion, calculat-ing that if Mais ūru were to come under the control of the East India Company, outsiders from places such as Āndhra, Coimbatore, and Maharāṣtra
would be assured of high positions. Such were the reasons for the administration to pass into the hands of the Company.527
The four Arasus mentioned above had come to be seen as the incarnations of Karaṭaka and Damanaka of the *Pañcatantra.*528 Regardless, they the Dewan for a few years after Purnaiya’s retirement. By his influence almost every public situation of importance in Nagar down to 1828 was, with a slight interruption, fiilled up by his dependents or relatives. Though charged with flagrant frauds and embezzlements, their conduct was shielded from scrutiny; while some of them even enriched themselves by giving encouragement to robbers—for whose operations the wild nature of the country offers many facilities—and partaking of the plunder. The outstanding balances of revenue having accumulated to upwards of thirteen lakhs of rupees, the Bakshi contrived that he himself should be deputed to inquire into and settle the claims. He made large remissions to the extent of seven-and-a-half lakhs, and returned to the Darbar in 1828. The Raja being led to question the propriety of these proceedings, resolved to appoint a relative of his own, named Vira Raj Arasu, as Faujdar. The latter discovered that much fraud had been practised in the remissions, and re-imposed the claims, which naturally excited dissatisfaction in those affected. The Bakshi’s party, also, fearful of the consequences to themselves if the inquiries which Vira Raj Arasu was pursuing should expose the corruption and malversation they had practised during so many years, connived at the seditious proceedings of a pretender to the throne of Nagar. . .
“. . . But during the greater part of this time the principal authority had been left too much in the hands of one family. Every offiice was gradually fiilled with Deshasta Brahmans, who made themselves obnoxious to the Lingáyits. A system of secret plunder was connived at, of which they and their patrons reaped the benefiit. At the same time the mode of farming the revenue laid the people under burdens from which there was no redress. Matters grew to such a pitch that in 1830 the gauḍas and ryots assembled in kúṭas or indignation meetings at Basavapatna and Honnali. The discontent was fomented by a pretender to the Bednur throne, named Budi Basavappa, who formed insurgent bands; and these again were shortly joined by Rangappa Náyak, the head of the Tarikere family, and by numbers of Thugs, professional stranglers. The Raja’s troops failed to put down the now open revolt, and he was obliged to seek the aid of British force. . . ”
527A strong argument is made by Stein [1985] that the Nagar insurgency was triggered in large part by the extension of central control into previously semi-autonomous regions in Mysore, in response to British demands for revenue. Mysore was required to pay “subsidy”
revenues of 24.5 lakhs per annum (57% of the projected revenues of the region), for the maintenance of a subsidiary force of the British. For perspective, this sum was a staggering 50% of the total tribute collected by the British from the 198 princely states of India.
528In the story from the *Pañcatantra,*Karaṭaka and Damanaka are two jackals who are
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
197
were experts in the art of real-world politics. They continued to plot against Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III even after the loss of his kingdom. The righteousness of the king, however, caused all their schemes to go up in flames. A certain Veṇkaṭappāji, who was under the patronage of these brothers and was well informed of their activities, entered the king’s inner circle. He is believed to have known some English, and was therefore known as Iṇgrēji Veṇkaṭappāji. At this time, the king was in correspondence with the British, making the case that the allowance of twelve thousand Varāhaswas insuffiicient to meet expenses, and that he should be granted a fiifth of the revenue of the kingdom. For the benefiit of the king and his countrymen, Iṇgrēji Veṇkaṭappāji played a leading role in this matter.
Few restrictions had been placed by the Company on Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III while he was in power. It is true that there was a Resident, who ensured that the king took no measures prejudicial to the interests of the Company. This offiicial, however, operated more as if he were the ambassador of a foreign nation. The rulers of various kingdoms interacted and corresponded with each other freely, maintained mutual relations, and sent ambassadors to each other.529 The Tañjāv ūru Nāyakāhad come to Mais ūru as a lawyer, and in accordance with protocol, interacted with the king through Veṇkaṭappāji.
General Cubbon was then in charge of administration, as the Mysore Commissioner. During this period, there was constant warfare between the retainers to the lion king Piṇgalaka, and connive to break up the friendship between him and a bull named Sañjīvaka. They are held out as the archetypical faithless retainers.
529This statement may be correct in the sense that the king remained the nominal head of state, and performed the attendant functions in some pro formamanner. The king, however, had no power to communicate with other potentates on matters of State. The Subsidiary Treaty of 1799, which formally installed Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III as the nominal ruler of Mais ūru is explicit in this respect, as the following excerpt amply demonstrates: Article VI.
His Highness Maha Rajah Kistna Rajah Oodiyaver Behauder engages, that he will be guided by a sincere and cordial attention to the relations of peace and amity, now established between the English Company Behauder and their allies, and that he will carefully abstain from any interference in the affairs of any state in alliance with the said English Company Behauder, or of any state whatever. And for securing the object of this stipulation, it is further stipulated and agreed, that no communication or correspondence, with any foreign state whatever, shall be holden by his said Highness, without the previous knowledge and sanction of the said English Company Behauder.
198
sons of sarasvatī
British and the Afghāns, Marāṭhās, and Sīkhs.530 At such times, the Company was especially mindful of their subject states. It was in this context that the Company, suspecting Veṇkaṭappāji and the Tañjāvūru Nāyaka, among others, of being part of a plot against them, suddenly moved them to Beṇgal ūru and placed them under house arrest.531 The Tañjāv ūru Nāyaka having hurriedly sold his house around this time, Rāmaśāstri was able to purchase it from him.
One might wonder what connection might exist between Rāmaśāstri’s scholarship and the political goings-on in Mais ūru. The kingdom’s condition will have a bearing on the progress of our story. We have been brief in our summary of the reasons for the decline in the king’s income. Indeed, had there not been this shortfall in resources, the king, who had bestowed so much wealth and property on scholars such as Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri, Kuṭṭiśāstri, Ānavaṭṭi Śrīnivāsācārya, JulapiKr̥ṣṇācārya, and Rājēśvaraśāstri, would certainly have shown similar favour to Rāmaśāstri, who in a way, was an even greater scholar. Indeed, after he lost ruling powers, the king was prevented by the Company from granting jāhgīrs. On this account, the Śāstri did not receive rewards to the extent he deserved. It was for this reason that we felt it necessary to describe the political situation at the time.
Rāmaśāstri remained content with what he received, and lived happily, without ever craving for more.
530General Mark Cubbon was appointed Commissioner of Mysore State in 1834 C.E. The British, however, had largely overcome Marāṭha oppositon by 1818 C.E., when Pēśva Bāji Rāv II was exiled to Biṭhūr near present-day Kānpur, and granted a pension of 800,000
*R ūpīs. *(See footnote 568.) When Bāji Rāv died in 1851, his adopted son Dhōṇḍo Pant (Nānā Sāhib) was denied this pension, and became a leader of the 1857 uprising. Conflict with the Sīkhs continued till 1848, when Pañjāb was annexed. Conflict with the Afghāns lasted much longer, with the First Afghan War fought 1839–1842, the Second Afghan War fought 1878–1880, and the Third Afghan War in 1919.
531This note from Sastri [1932, p. 125] may be relevant here: “The maharaja, in his turn, was most cordial to the commission. . . But one important note should be added here. While he held Cubbon in high esteem as a man, he was jealous of him as a commissioner, and would not see eye to eye with him in public measures. Something of this attitude was due to the counsels of Stokes the resident, Arapoor Basappaji Urs, Seebiah, Venkatappaji Urs, and Vanderlowen (an English writer). Cubbon succeeded in separating the Maharaja from *them.”*The italics are by the translator.
Chapter 5: Residence in Mais ūru: A Wealth of Students
RāmaśāstriwasnowresidentinhishouseinMaisūru. Histutelage
under his guru was complete. Many students now came to him for instruction, on account of the excellence of his scholarship, his speech, and his capabilites as a teacher. As the Śāstri’s fame spread, students began to arrive from places far away. Though himself a Smārta, he was a student of the VaiṣṇaviteTirupati Śrīnivāsācārya, and a recipient of a monthly salary from the Parakālasvāmi, the crest-jewel of the Śrīvaiṣṇavitesect. Thus, Rāmaśāstri, respected by all faiths, was not partial to any sect. Adherents of all three faiths studied with him. Many students from far away having no means of sustenance, the Śāstri arranged for them to board twice daily in his own house, and gifted them a pañceset annually.532
In addition to scholars who themselves both boarded and taught students, many offiicials supported the advancement of learning by feeding hundreds of students in their homes twice a day. A great many students studied in Māgaḍi with the great scholar Mahādēva Śāstri. Their number grew year after year. These students all boarded twice a day in the home of Karaṇīka Kr̥ṣṇappa of Māgaḍi, who performed this meritorious service out of righteous devotion. If a student arrived late for the evening meal, Kr̥ṣṇappa himself would come bearing a torch, inquire after the student’s welfare, and ensure that he was fed.
A distinguished citizen of Mais ūru called Bhāgavata Subbarāv was also such a person of virtue.533 He had made available a large house of his own to serve as a school. Teachers lived in this house and taught the Vēdasto students. These students studied many other subjects from other scholars in Mais ūru. Bhāgavata Subbarāv boarded around a couple of hundred such students in his home, and also gifted them a pañceset each year. This Bhāgavata Subbarāv was most pious. He had built many *chatras,*temples, 532A pañceset includes a pañceworn around the waist, and an aṇgavastraworn on the upper body.
533See Plate 21, footnote 245, and page 87.
199
200
sons of sarasvatī
lakes, watering places for cattle, and *maṇṭapas.*534 He had also sponsored many *yāgas.*He was himself very observant of religious ritual. He would arise at the crack of dawn, complete his daily rituals and his pārthivap ūjā in a timely manner, attend to his duties at the palace, return around noon, and complete his afternoon rituals. He would eat with the students, seating himself among them. He never had a special place reserved for him, as might befiit a head of household. He would eat the same food that everyone ate. He followed this practice to prevent paṇktibhēda.535 On one occasion, his young son, seated nearby, ate some food that was too pungent for his tender palate, causing his mouth and nose to start watering copiously. Subbarāv called out to him to drink water, rather than favour him specially by asking for ghee to be brought to him to sooth his palate. Subbarāv never gave in to self-aggrandizement, always treating everyone as equals.
Bhāgavata Subbarāv belonged to the Bobb ūru Kammecommunity.536
He was a palace offiicial of the Khāsa Bokkasadepartment.537 The king had enormous regard for him. He supervised all the activities of the Zenānadepartment. He was exempt from goṣāin the queen’s quarters.538 The king was very pleased with the acts of charity and goodwill that Subbarāv engaged in. The palace discharged Subbarāv’s debts, whenever they happened 534For instance, Desikāchārya [1949, p. lxxvi] records that Bhāgavata Subbarāv built an agrahāracalled Subrahmaṇyapura as well as a temple to Śrī Narasiṁha near Kannambāḍi, and had the two inaugurated by His Holiness Ghaṇṭāvatāra Parakālasvāmi on April 22, 1839
C.E.
535 Paṇktibhēda, meaning “separate rows”, indicates different seating for different classes of people, reflecting differences of status. This is seen as a serious offense, as the following ślokafrom the Vyāsa Smr̥tiindicates: “paṇktibhedī pr̥thakpākī nitya ˙brāhmaṇanindakaḥ|
*ādeśī vedavikrīta pañcaite brahmaghātakāh. ∥” *, meaning that anyone who engages in paṇkti-bheda, has food cooked for himself separately, speaks ill of brāhmaṇas, asserts himself unduly, or teaches the Vēdasfor money, is no different from a killer of brāhmaṇas.
536This is a community of Kannaḍa-speaking Smārtabrāhmaṇas. The Kannaḍa-speaking brāhmaṇa communities include Aravattuvokkalu, Baḍaganāḍu, Havyaka, Hosalanāḍu, *Hoysaḷa, Hoisaṇige, Kamme (Bobbūru, Karna, Ulaca), Kandāvara, Kōṭa, Māraka, Sīr-nāḍu,*and *Śivaḷḷi.*See Rice [1877a, pp. 321–325] for more details on brāhmaṇa communities.
537See footnote 245.
538The word gōṣaor *gōśa *(sometimes ghōṣa, etc.) is generally used as a synonym for pardah ( pardehin Persian), meaning “veil”, and refers to the practice of requiring Muslim or upper-class Hindu women to wear veils in the presence of males who were not close relations.
Gośais just an alternate pronunciation of the Persian word g ūśeh, meaning “corner”, an allusion to the confiinement of women to a small room or apartment, appropriately called the
“corner”. Thus, gōṣais closer in meaning to the Persian word zanāneh, meaning “women’s quarters”, rather than to the word pardeh.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
201
to mount. Subbarāv, too, was extremely devoted to his king. Being like-minded, servant and master were close to each other. Other major offiicials, including MusāhibGaṇgādhararāv, also participated in providing food for students as well as to those who were destitute.539 There being many other ways for the wealthy to spend their money today, the charitable practies of old have now come to an end.
This would be an appropriate place to make another point. The ever-munifiicent Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III had provided for brāhmaṇa boys of the three sects to have their own spaces,540 the better for them to study both the books specifiic to their sects, as well as the various universally used *mantras. *
Smārtaswere taught in the temple of Triṇēśvara, Vaiṣṇavasin the temple of Kr̥ṣṇasvāmi, and Śrīvaiṣṇavasin the temple of Varāhāsvāmi.541 Many students, according to their abilities, were given stipends of one Muppāga (3 ¯
Aṇe, 6 Pai), one *Haṇa *(4 Āṇe, 8 Pai), or one *Haṇa Vaḍḍa *(7 Āṇe).542
These stipends were disbursed from the palace each month in the form of loose change. Thus, there was encouragement in Mais ūru for the continuance of the traditional ways of acquiring learning. The current prevalence of English education has caused both the minds of our people, as well as their wealth, to be committed to other matters. The ways of our people have indeed changed.
Be this as it might. Rāmaśāstri looked upon all his students fondly, no matter how dull, treating them all as his own children. It is unusual for a guru to have as much pride in his other students as he might have in his brightest. As a result, the bright students thrive on his encouragement and 539See footnote 250 for further details on this Gaṇgādhararāv.
540Boys from the *Smārta, Vaiṣṇava,*and Śrīvaiṣṇavasects, that is.
541These are three of the twelve temples within the Maisūru fort.
542The R ūpīwas divided into 16 ¯
Aṇe, and each Āṇewas divided into 12 Pai. The currency and coinage in use at the time was complicated. The larger denominations were the R ūpī, *Varāha,*and Pagōḍa, each coming in several variants, depending on the issuer. The smallest denomination was the *Kāsu *(whence we have the English cash), also referred to as the Pai.
Then there was the Haṇaor Paṇa, also referred to as the Fanam. A Fanamwas worth 4 Āṇe, 8 Kāsus, or at somewhat more than half a R ūpī. A *Pāga *(the derived or tadbhavaform of the Saṁskr̥taword pāda, or quarter) was a fourth of a Paṇa, or 1 Āṇe, 2 Kāsus. A Muppāga was three *Pāgas *(three-quarters of a Paṇa), or 3 Āṇe, 6 Kāsus. A Duḍḍuwas a copper coin worth a third of an ¯
Aṇe, or 4 Kāsus. An Aḍḍawas 7 Duḍḍus, or 2 Āṇe, 4 Kāsus. The Haṇa Vaḍḍaalluded to in the text, is of course, a Haṇa Aḍḍa; the source text is clearly using the terms Duḍḍuand Āṇeequivalently. Also see footnote 558.
202
sons of sarasvatī
excel, while students receiving less recognition from the guru lose confiidence, thereby magnifying their dullness, and are dismissed as dim-witted.
Because Rāmaśāstri treated all his students equally, however, and taught them himself, the talented among them became outstanding scholars, but even the dull were recognized as scholars.
We might also call attention to another reason for his students to be devoted to their guru. Many teachers do not follow the practice of teaching novice students themselves. It is usual to assign an advanced student to teach beginners. As a result, novice students gain no benefiit from having become students of the senior *śāstri.*They must be content with receiving instruction in the homes of advanced students. This practice often creates indifference in the minds of these students. Rāmaśāstri had himself faced this diffiiculty in Kalyāṇadurga. The indifference he had experienced in Kalyāṇadurga was half the reason why he came to Maisūru to study with Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya. Tryambaka Śāstri’s scholarship drew him to Kalyāṇadurga, but his experience there only served to remind him of the proverbial unfortunate who jumps into what looks like an ocean, only to fiind himself knee-deep in mud.
Determined to be on guard against such a failing, the Śāstri, after completing his morning rituals, would instruct one group of his advanced students from 9 a.ṁto noon, another group from 4 p.ṁto 6 p.m., and novice students in the evening. His advanced students Sāggere Nārāyaṇaśāstri and Kavi Varadācārya would help students review their lessons. A great many students were attracted by his insistence on teaching all his students himself. During Pradōṣatimes, he would review old lessons and organize debates, instead of teaching new material. As a result, the Śāstri was left with very little time. His renown spread far and wide because of this manner of structuring his teaching. The number of his students grew enormously.
If any of his students were taken ill, the Śāstri showed concern as if the illness were his own, and administered medication and other treatment by his own hand. His students were deeply devoted to the Śāstri, because he was a treasure house of such virtue, besides being such a great scholar.
Chatra Street, where Rāmaśāstri’s house was located, was in excellent order. Many eminent offiicials and public servants had built homes on this street. Rāmaśāstri’s students would rehearse their lessons, seated on the porches of each of these houses. Their voices could be heard for quite a
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
203
distance, according to senior people who were witnesses. Each year, on the fourth śukla tithiof Bhādrapada, the Śāstri would celebrate the festival of Gaṇēśa. Starting that day, there would be no lessons for twenty-one days.
During this time, there would be debates on the subject of Vēdāntaand logic every evening before the time of *maṇgaḷārati.*Students studying the same topic would be organized into two opposing groups, another student would serve as the debate moderator, and the Śāstri would be on hand to clarify doubts and confusions. Many vaidikasand offiicials would be invited for the *maṇgaḷārati.*543 Many would attend, because it was a distinction to be invited to the Śāstri’s home. The Śāstri himself would take part in these debates, if another distinguished scholar happened to be among the guests.
On such occasions, when the Śāstri himself participated, the maṇgaḷārati would occur as late as 2, 3, or even 4 a.m.
Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya, the Śāstri’s guru, often came to these Gaṇeśa maṇgalāratigatherings. He would always delight in his dearest student’s scholarship and his eloquence. On one such occasion, after watching the students debate each other, his own scholarly instincts got the better of him.
He felt impelled to take part in the debate himself. Nobody was capable of debating him but Rāmaśāstri himself. Teacher and student began their debate. Arguments and counter-arguments came in a cascade, one on top of the other. All the blustering from the ordinary students quickly died away. It was a battle as might have been between Drōṇa and Arjuna, or indeed a debate between Sarasvatī and Dakṣiṇāmūrti. Learning of these proceedings, all the notables in Mais ūru took themselves over to the Śāstri’s house. It was almost dawn. Rāmaśāstri challenged his guru with yet another argument. At that point, in full view of everyone, Śrīnivāsācārya declared: “Our Rāmuḍu Śāstri! Dakṣiṇāmūrti incarnate! Who indeed can counter your arguments!”, and with tears of joy in his eyes, embraced his student. Jubilant shouts of “*jaya! jaya! *” resounded among those gathered.
Even Dr ōṇācārya asked Ekalavya, who had the utmost regard for his guru, to cut off his thumb; infuriated by the blows of his long-cherished student Arjuna, he unleashed a fiierce flood of arrows, giving him no pause 543In this essential part of the worship ritual, a lamp or platter containing a light is waved (moved in circles) before the deity. The word is a compound of *maṇgala *(auspicious) and
ārati. The latter word is obtained from the Saṁskr̥taword ārātrikaby way of its Prākr̥ta form ārattiya, and could refer to either the plate holding the light, or the ceremony itself.
Also see footnote 272.
204
sons of sarasvatī
to recover.544 The arrows of the intellect inflict greater torment than do ordinary arrows. To bear them, and embrace his student, shedding tears of affection, surely places the nobility of Śrīnivāsācārya’s character a smidgen higher than even that of Drōṇācārya’s. That the student of such a teacher should possess boundless ability goes without saying. Who but the two themselves could even judge the abilities of such a teacher and such a student?
It appears necessary to give the names of some students of the Śāstri, who went on to become great scholars. Among them were:
-
rīma Raṇgācāraya, who was recently svāmiof the Parakāla Maṭha,545
-
Ānandāḷvār,546
-
Siṇgaḷācārya,
-
Raṇgaśrīnivāsācārya of the Sōsale Maṭha,
-
Rāmagiri Śāmācār,
-
Bānambaḷḷi Veṇkaṭaramaṇacārya,
-
Śēṣaśāstri of Gaddavāla,
-
Anantācārya,
-
Kavi Varadācārya,
-
Kuracci Raṇgācārya of Kumbhakōṇe,
-
Vijayarāghavācār of Śōbhattūr in Kāñcīpura district, 12. Raṇgappācārya of Kocci547
-
VidyānidhiVāsudēvā Śāstri of Doḍḍabaḷḷāpura, 544The battle between Drōṇa and Arjuna occurs in Canto 103 of the Bhīṣma Parvaof the *Mahābhārata,*on the eighth day of the eighteen-day war. Ekalavya is the paradigm of devotion to the guru. He seeks to learn archery from Drōṇa, who rejects him because he is from a low caste. Undeterred, he creates a clay image of Drōṇa, practices before it, and soon attains unmatched skill. When Dr ōṇa discovers this, he demands Ekalavya’s right thumb as his gurudakṣiṇā. Ekalavya unhesitatingly gives it to him.
545This appears to be Śrī Raṇganātha Brahmatantra Parakāla Svāmi, who was born in 1812
C.E., and was the head of the Parakāla maṭha from 1873–1885 C.E. [Desikāchārya 1949].
546See footnote 331.
547Kocci Raṇgappācārya (1820–1891 C.E.) is listed in [Sharma 1981] as a leading scholar of the age, and as a student of Śatak ōṭi Rāmaśāstri of Maisūru, that is, of Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
205
-
Paṇḍita Bhāṣyācārya,
-
Kupanayyaṇgār of Kumbhakōṇe,
-
Nārāyaṇaśāstri of Sāggere,
-
Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri, the eldest son of Rāmaśāstri, 18. VēdāntaRāmappa,
-
Kuppaśāstri,
-
Kuṭṭi Narasiṁhaśāstri,
-
J ōyisa Siṇgaḷācārya,
-
Tōgire Śrīkaṇṭhaśāstri,
-
Koyimatt ūr Bhīmācārya,
-
Niḍagallu Kr̥ṣṇaśāstri,
-
Tiramakuḍi Appaṇṇācārya,
-
Mutt ūru Rāmaśāstri,
-
Subrahmaṇyaśāstri,
-
Śrīnivāsācārya of Dhāravāḍa,
-
Kaṇagāla Śāmaśāstri,
-
Gaṇgādharaśāstri of Soṇḍekoppa.
All his students always accompanied Rāmaśāstri whenever he went for a scholarly debate, or on an excursion. Rāmaśāstri never ate his meals in anyone’s house, in the places he visited.548 Either Vāsudēvāśāstri of Doḍḍabaḷḷāpura or Nārāyaṇaśāstri of Sāggere always prepared the Śāstri’s meals.
548This was to maintain his ritual purity. He would have had no way of knowing whether the food in anyone else’s house met his strict standards of ritual purity. In South Indian brāhmaṇa households, the kitchen is an area of the highest ritual purity, and eating itself entails certain formal protocols and rituals. Also see footnote 335.
Chapter 6: Residence in Mais ūru: The
Śriyapp ācārya Episode
Rāmaśāstrimaintainedthepracticeofvisitingthepalaceeveryday.
He would arrive in the morning at the time of the king’s Śivap ūja, spend some time in the Ātmavilāsa or Nāmatīrtha courtyards, and return
after conferring his blessings on the king once the Śivap ūjawas complete.
Many scholars followed this practice. On days when the gatherings of scholars appeared interesting, the king would join them in the Ambāvilāsa, and enjoy some time in their company.
Those unfamiliar with the Mais ūru palace may wonder at the name Ambāvilāsa. This was a courtyard in the old palace. Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III would spend his time here, managing the affairs of the palace. Manōvilāsa,
Ātmavilāsa, and Rājēndravilāsa were some of the other courtyards. For the queens and their retinues, there were other courtyards with interesting names, such as the Lakṣmīvilāsa, Ramāvilāsa, Sītāvilāsa, Kr̥ṣṇavilāsa, Candravilāsa, Madanavilāsa, Kamāna Toṭṭi, Jantada Toṭṭi, Baṇṇada Toṭṭi, Sammukhada Toṭṭi, Karīkallu Toṭṭi, Kudurē Toṭṭi, and the Nāmatīrtha Toṭṭi. These toṭṭishave all been consumed in the recent conflagration in the palace.549
Some people, while nominally scholars in the Sammukhadepartment, do little more than display the trappings of the position, nurturing with care the habit of going to the palace once a month just to collect their salary.
They do visit the palace on special occasions, when there is the possibility of some special reward. Is there much chance indeed, of their foregoing attendance on such occasions? But I will refrain from singing their full praises here. There are only a few of this number who will content themselves with a dignifiied exit. I lack the space here to write at length of the others, who are given to such antics as marking their foreheads with marks designating their sect, dressing themsleves in fancy shawls, and declaiming loudly while standing in the middle of the street: “And oh, if anyone comes looking for me, be sure to let them know I have gone to the palace!” and if they meet some ordinary soul on their way, assaulting everyone’s ears by inserting ghastly mispronunciations of English words into their speech, and 549See footnote 380.
206
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
207
if they happen upon an acquaintance, saying, while detaining them in conversation on some frivolous topic: “A palace messenger and a guard both arrived yesterday; a kuhayōga śāntiis being observed today;550 we are sure to be called to the palace if we are absent,” and making their way slowly to the palace while constantly adjusting their garment to ensure that everyone gets a good look at its grand border.
Rāmaśāstri had a very different attitude. He knew well that any wealth he received from the king was ultimately debasing. Yet, without royal patronage, scholarship would neither be recognized nor fiind fulfiilment. Accepting the king’s wage was hence a necessity. The Śāstri believed, however, that the chief responsibility of a vaidikalike him being to advance scholarship and to bestow blessings on the king, the wage he received from the palace would be justifiied if he saw the king in person every day and prayed for his well-being.
We are already familiar with the depth of Tryambaka Śāstri’s scholarship. He had authored many works promoting Advaita. Scholars of many other persuasions tried to refute Tryambaka Śāstri’s arguments. A fellow-student of Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya called Hulagi Śriyappācārya arrived in Mais ūru from elsewhere, and claiming that he would refute Tryambaka Śāstri’s works, met with Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III.551
Having come to Mais ūru for the purpose of debate, it was necessary for Śriyappācārya to learn something about the local scholars. The scholarship 550 Kuhayōgarefers to a malevolent conjunction of planets, signifying doom for the king.
This appears to occur when *Ravi, Maṇgala, Śani,*and Rāhuare in the 12th place from lagna at the juncture of amāvāsyaand pratipāda. The śāntiis a rite intended to protect the king.
551This scholar appears to be none other than the Hulugi Śriyaḥpatyācārya mentioned in Sharma [1981]. Because this scholar fiigures so prominently in this biography, we excerpt the information in Sharma [1981] in its entirety:
“He is another celebrated writer of the early XIX century. His most important work is the Dvaita Dyumaṇi, which is supposed to be a refutation of the Brahmānandīya, but is in reality a very recondite commentary on the Tattvodyotaand its tīkāby Jayatīrtha. He is also credited with a commentary on the Bhedojjīvana, and another in defense of the Tarkatāṇḍava against certain contemporary criticisms. The Sattattvapeṭikāis mentioned as another of his works. He was a contemporary of the well-known Advaitic scholar Tryambaka Śāstri whom he is supposed to have encountered in several debates and whose Śrutimatodyotaand other tracts (containing adverse comments on certain of Madhva’s works) have been refuted by him in the course of his commentary on Tattvodyota. The commentary on the Pramāṇapaddhaticalled *Ādarśa *(published at Dharwar) is by one of his
208
sons of sarasvatī
and daring of Rāmaśāstri was suffiicient to be alarming to visiting scholars.
Having learnt something of these matters, Śriyappācārya said to his former fellow-student Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya: “Dear *Ācārya,*perhaps it would be best for you to speak with Rāmaśāstri, so his recklessness in debate does not cause harm to my dignity.” To this, Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya replied: “It is indeed true that Rāmaśāstri is my disciple, but he has a very independent mind, and is not likely to listen to what I might say in this regard. I would prefer to leave this matter alone.”
Later, Śrīnivāsācārya saw Rāmaśāstri and said to him: “Rāmuḍu, I had a conversation with Śriyappācārya. He desired me to ask you not to overwhelm him with your arguments and humiliate him in the debate set for tomorrow. This did not seem right to me. One should build a reputation on one’s competence and ability. Respect gained by pleading for mercy will never endure. Don’t spare him. Show him what you are capable of!”
Śriyappācārya, however, declined to debate Rāmaśāstri, proffering as excuse the fact that Rāmaśāstri was the equivalent of his own disciple, being a disciple of his fellow-student Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya.
This occurred in the Śubhakr̥tu saṁvatsara. At the time, Rāmaśāstri was thirty-six years of age. The exuberance and intensity of his scholarship was not about to acquiesce to Śriyappācārya’s appeals. He stood ready to debate him. A debate in writing was fiinally set to take place between Rāmaśāstri and Śriyappācārya, with Śrīnivāsa Brahmatantra Parakālasvāmi as moderator. The Parakālasvāmi, however, had to leave for Mēlukōṭe at that time.552
Śriyappācārya then sent the Parakālasvāmi several papers he had written, attempting to refute the propositions that Tryambaka Śāstri had established. This most excellent ascetic who adorned the Hayagrīva Pīṭha, and who was himself a great scholar, sent these papers to Rāma-Early 1843
śāstri, having great faith in his abilities to prevail. A disciple from the maṭhabrought these to Rāmaśāstri’s home. Rāmaśāstri was in bed, with the covers drawn over his face. He had the messenger disciples. Śriyaḥpatyācārya belonged to the village of Hulugi near Koppal on the Hubli-Guntakal section.”
552The Parakālasvāmi made frequent trips to Mēlukōṭe. Recordsindicatethathewasbeen in Mēlukōṭe on January 14, 1843 [Desikāchārya 1949, p. lxxxii].
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
209
who brought the papers read them to him just once, and asked him to return immediately with the papers. Śriyappācārya, upon learning that the Svāmihad left for Mēlukōṭe, also departed Maisūru.
When Rāmaśāstri went after him to Mēluk ōṭe, he found this scholar there. Rāmaśāstri declared that he would not rest until he had substantiated all of Tryambaka Śāstri’s theories that had been attacked, and the very next day, forwarded to the Svāmi’spresence a document refuting every word in the documents Śriyappācārya had sent the *Svāmi.*It is incredible that Rāmaśāstri, after hearing it read just once, recalled everything in such detail, and even built such strong counter-arguments.
In reply, the ¯
Acāryasaid: “I did not write anything in refutation of Tryambaka Śāstri’s disquisitions. I merely wrote some notes and commentary from the Dvaitaperspective.” The *Svāmi,*unable to directly call this a prevarication, fell silent.553
Śriyappācārya then made an appointment to meet Rāmaśāstri the next day, but quietly left for Beṇgaḷūru that night, and lodged in the home of a person by the name of Kōlāra Śāmrāv. This news reached Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III. As Rāmaśāstri was about to follow Śriyappācārya to Beṇgaḷūru, the king said to Rāmaśāstri: “Dear Śāstri! Why kill a person who is already dead?”
Rāmaśāstri replied: “Indeed, I harbour no resentment against Śriyapp-
ācārya, but Tryambakaśāstri, that treasure house of learning, was my guru.
When a person travels to many countries, bragging that he has refuted the theses established by such a great scholar, and even comes here, but will not stay for a debate, escapes, and then boasts that nobody in Mais ūru could stand up to him in debate, that is merely demeaning the scholarship of someone who is no more. Even worse, if it comes to be believed elsewhere that this court, which is home to all manner of scholarship, is great in name only, we who are so greatly obliged to it would be no better than walking dead, Your Highness. After your bidding, however, I will pursue him no more.”
553See the excerpt from Sharma [1981] in footnote 551, however. It is suggested there that Śriyaḥpatyācārya’s refutation of Tryambaka Śāstri’s work appears in his Dvaita Dyumaṇi, a work that is supposedly a refutation on the Brahmānandīya, but being in reality more of a commentary on the Dvaitaprinciples appearing in Madhvācārya’s Tattvodyota.
210
sons of sarasvatī
Nevertheless, he wrote a paper and two ślōkasrefuting Śriyappācārya’s theses, and sent them to Baṇgaḻī Cauḍappa in Beṇgaḷūru. These ślōkasare printed below in Rāmaśāstri’s own handwriting.554
Meaning: By reciting the mantracalled siddhāntawill I playfully exorcise the demon pratibandi,555 whose ostentation arises from ignorance of siddh-
āntasold and new, and who was conceived by Śriyaḥpācārya, in his abject ignorance of Nyāyaand *Vēdānta. *
Baṇgaḻī Cauḍappa was head Śirastedārin the offiice of the British Resident. He had acquired the nickname baṇgalisince he was employed in the Resident’s bungalow.556 Although he held what was considered a very important position, he had not abandoned traditional practices or adopted 554This reads as follows: “śrī gurubhyo namaḥ| navya prācīna siddhāntāparijñāna vijrambhitāṁ | nyāya vēdānta siddhāntā jñāna (siddhāntā ca jñāna) kalpita mūrtikāṁ ∥
*śriyaḥpācāryaracitāṁ pratibandi piṣācikāṁ | siddhānta mantra paṭhanād vārayāmi (paṭha-nādāvārayāmi) vinōditāh. ∥”*The text been edited, with the original in parentheses.
555 Pratibandirefers to a logical or dialectical fallacy in which the refutation of an argument as flawed suffers from the same flaw.
556Here is what Rao [1936a, p. 403] says: “Chowdiah the Residency Sheristedar was originally a shanbogue or village accountant of Hirisave in the taluk of Kickery. Then he became a clerk in the taluk of Gudibande on a salary of three pagodas a month. Next he became a clerk to the Residency surgeon at Mysore. At the same time he paid court to Ramaswamy Mudaliar and through the latter’s influence with Casamaijor he was appointed Sheristedar in the Resident’s offiice. . . Chowdiah by virtue of his appointment made himself an indispensable factotum of Casamaijor who succeeded Cole and he also became generally the medium of communication between the Resident and the Raja. Casamaijor under the semblance of non-interference is stated to have suffered his agent to meddle and dictate in everything, much to the latter’s advantage. . . ”
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
211
unprincipled behaviours. He remained committed to traditional customs, and maintained a deep respect for scholars, as well as to his countrymen.
As soon as the above document and ślōkasreached Beṇgaḷūru, Cauḍappa followed his instructions to ensure that it reached Śriyappācārya in Kōlāra Śāmrāv’s home; the document arrived at mealtime. Śriyappācārya left Beṇg-aḷūru without making a reply. It is not known what became of him. Some *Mādhvas,*distressed by what had happened to Śriyappācārya, were now biding their time.
The Uttarādi Maṭha is an important institution among the *Mādhvas. *
It is deeply respected among the *Vaiṣṇavas.*This maṭhahas substantial amounts of revenue-generating lands in such places as Mais ūru and Haiderābād, and also owns a great deal of jewellery and other riches. Many Vaiṣṇavasare followers of this *maṭha.*The maṭhais known to host many exceptional individuals, and a number of scholars were also associated with it. In keeping with long-standing tradition, an outstanding scholar named G ūḷiBāḷācārya was appointed pontiff of this *maṭha.*We have already seen that there were debates in the Mais ūru palace on the occasion of Tryambaka Śāstri’s visit to Mais ūru. On that occasion, when Bāḷācārya had carried on the debate with extraordinary eloquence, Tryambaka Śāstri had remarked: “This Bāḷācārya attacks one as a bull does!” From that point forward, Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III nicknamed him “G ūḷi” Bāḷācārya.557 Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III, indulging in a bit of playfulness, often gave people unusual nicknames, such as Julapi Kr̥ṣṇācārya, OnṭeRāmacārya, PāyasaKr̥ṣṇa, PrētaNarasiṁhaśāstri, Hāgū-bēḷeRāmarāv, and MuccagaṇṇuŚrīnivāsācārya.558
557 G ūḷimeans bull in Kannaḍa. Gūḷi Bāḷācārya took on the name ŚrīSatyasantuṣṭa Tīrtha when he became 30th pontifiical head of the *maṭha.*The Uttarādi Maṭha’s account of how he acquired the nickname “G ūḷi” is similar to the one here, except that it alludes to a debate with a visiting scholar called Candramouḷi Avadhāni, instead of with Tryambaka Śāstri. According to the maṭha’saccount, Śrī Satyasantuṣṭa Tīrtha served only 8 months and 14 days as the pontiff ( Āṣāḍha śuddha pūrṇimato Phālguṇa bahuḷa amāvasyaof the Plava saṁvatsara, or July 3, 1841 to March 12, 1842), the shortest tenure in the maṭha’shistory.
558These nicknames have the following meanings: *Julapi:*a small decorative tuft of hair left on the head of a child who has undergone tonsure, *Onṭe:*camel, *Pāyasa:*sweet pudding or porridge made from milk, *Prēta:*spirit of a dead person, *Muccagaṇṇu:*eye(s) with drooping or closed eyelids. Vāsudevācārya [1962, p. 40], associates the nickname Hāga-bēḷe with a Bhīmarāv, rather than with a Rāmrāv, as it is here, and gives the values of hāgaand bēḷerespectively, as one and two Āṇe, a sixteenth and eighth of a *Rūpī.*By his account, this Bhīmarāv acquired his nickname upon discovering a discrepancy of merely three ¯
Aṇein
212
sons of sarasvatī
There was an outstanding scholar called Timmaṇṇācārya in the Utta-radi Maṭha.559 Several Vaiṣṇavitescholars were determined to avenge the loss of face that Śriyappācārya had suffered. Arrangements were made for a debate between Timmaṇṇācārya and Rāmaśāstri when the Svāmiof the Uttarādi Maṭha came to Maisūru. This Svāmiwas known as G ūḷiBāḷācārya in his prior āśrama.560 The scholars were all gathered. The debate be-c. 1841
gan, and made some progress. The Śāstri’s arguments then began to overwhelm Timmaṇṇācārya. It became impossible for Timmaṇṇācārya to respond effectively. Finally, Rāmaśāstri said to the gathering:
“The scholar from the Maṭha has been silenced. I see no reason to hold back. I am happy to continue this debate with any number of those present here, one after the other.” At this point, the diplomatic and far-sighted king called an end to the debate, and caused the scholars to be honoured at the palace. Just as the darbārwas coming to an end, Timmaṇṇācārya rose and paid a tribute: “Your Highness, I have engaged in many debates in my time, but never have I seen such a great scholar as Rāmaśāstri!”
some complicated account. Common names for fractions include pāga (hāga), pāvu, pala, *kālu *(one quarter), *bēḷe *(an eighth), *vīsa, gira: *(a sixteenth), and *kāṇi *(a sixty-fourth). In this context, the values given for hāgaand bēḷein Vāsudevācārya [1962] appear to have been reversed. Also see footnote 542.
559Given the information on page 279, we may discount the possibility of this person having been Kāśī Timmaṇṇācārya. This is most likely Varkhed. Timmaṇṇācārya. He was a student of Satyavijaya Tīrtha, the pontiff of the Uttarādi Maṭha 1726–1737 C.E. We learn in Sharma [1981] that he was “. . . a powerful glossator and controversialist. His commentary on the *Viṣṇutattvanirṇaya, Gajapañcānana,*and Sudhānārambhaṇīyakhaṇḍanamare to be found in the Tanjore Palace Library.” Timmaṇṇācārya is a name from Karṇāṭaka, though Varkheḍis in Ahmadnagar district. It appears that he ultimately migrated to Tañjāvūru.
560This information allows us to date this debate as having occurred sometime between July, 1841 and March 12, 1842 C.E. Rāmaśāstri would have been around thirty-fiive years old.
Chapter 7: Travels in the South (The First
Time)
ThefirstfourofRāmaśāstri’schildrenwereallsons.Theyalldiedim-
mediately after birth. Deeply distressed, Rāmaśāstri decided to travel to Rāmēśvaram.561 Thinking it proper that a great scholar from his court should carry symbols appropriate to his standing, Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III granted him insignia such as the chatraand cāmara.562 The Śāstri, accompanied by his family and a small retinue of students, accepted these insignia, 561He also appears to have visited Kāñci during this trip (footnote 588). Rāmēśvaram is among the holiest pilgrimage sites in the Hindu tradition. The great littérateurḌV. Guṇḍappa relates the following story connected with this trip, which he credits to V.ṢŚrīnivāsa Śāstri [Guṇḍappa 1970, v. 5, p. 140]. As Rāmaśāstri was en route to Rāmēśvaram in his palanquin, a substantial retinue accompanied him, including cooks, carriers of luggage, his students, as well as curious locals. As he passed Māyāvaram, the elderly Mannārguḍi Rājuśāstri, a highly-respected Vēdanticscholar, joined this group with his students, but without divulging his identity, and without requesting any support from Rāmaśāstri. His students were upset, because the much younger Rāmaśāstri travelled by palanquin, showing no apparent regard for the far older Rājuśāstri, who walked beside him. Rājuśāstri urged patience, reassuring them that Rāmaśāstri was a great scholar, that he hoped to learn Navya Nyāyafrom him, and that Rāmaśāstri’s true worth would soon reveal itself. A few days later, Rāmaśāstri asked Rājuśāstri who he was. As soon as he learned the truth, Rāmaśāstri alighted from his palanquin, prostrated himself before Rājuśāstri, recited his pravara, touched his feet, pronounced his supplication to the great Rājuśāstri, and then insisted that they travel together in the palanquin.
This fascinating story, sadly, cannot be accurate. We will see shortly that Mannārguḍi Rājuśāstri did study with Rāmaśāstri during this trip. Rājuśāstri, however, was born only in 1815 C.E., making him eight years Rāmaśāstri’s junior. He would have been a vigorous 25-year-old at the time of this trip, rather than an old man. We might acknowledge some other possibilities, however. First, perhaps the kernel of the story is accurate, but the elderly individual mentioned is misidentifiied. Second (see footnote 671), Rāmaśāstri’s grandson was also named Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri, and was a Dharmādhikāriin the palace. Perhaps the reference to Mannārguḍi Rājuśāstri is accurate, but the Rāmaśāstri was the grandson. Their relative ages would match the story. This is a far-fetched possibility, however. Mannārguḍi Rājuśāstri was a revered scholar by this time, and the grandson Rāmaśāstri did not have nearly the stature that his grandfather had. A record of the grandson Rāmaśāstri travelling to Rāmēśvaram in a palanquin might lend support to this possibility.
562The *chatra *(parasol) and the *cāmara *(fan or fly-whisk) are among the most important royal insignia, and may be used by others only by royal sanction. (See Plate 11b.) The heads of various maṭhasare permitted these insignia, a practice said to date to when Vidyāraṇya temporarily offiiciated as the king of Vijayanagara, an inauspicious kuhayōgahaving been predicted for the real ruler. Vyāsarāya Svāmiwas similarly seated on Kr̥ṣṇadēvarāya’s throne during a kuhayōgain 1524 C.E. [Sharma 1981, p. 293]. “Vyāsarāya” is literally “king Vyāsa”.
213
214
sons of sarasvatī
and departed. Upon his return, he also performed the Nāgapratiṣṭheceremony.563
A male child was born on the day of Narasiṁha Jayanti
May 15, 1840
during the śuddhafortnight of the month of Vaiśākha of the Śārvari saṁvatsara.564 This boy was given the name Lakṣmīnarasiṁha. He is now the well-known scholar Lakṣmīnarasiṁha Śāstri.565
The father had a special affection for his son. He took him everywhere he went. He would bathe his son himself, massage him, wipe and shake his hair dry, and tie his hair in a knot. He began to teach him, even in early childhood. The child was extremely intelligent. We have heard accounts of people who absorb everything at the fiirst or second telling. This quality was manifest in this child. The Śāstri started teaching him Nyāyaat the age of nine.
The Śāstri would teach him as one of a group of fellow-students. The son would raise a challenge to some point the father made during the lesson, and run off to play at marbles or ciṇṇikōluwhile the father came up with a response to his question.566 The Śāstri would consult his books, think deeply about the matter, come up with a response, call out to his son, answer his question, and proceed with the lesson. The son would immediately raise a new objection to what the father said, and run off again to play. We say this here not merely to indicate that this child, even as a nine-year-old, had the intellectual capacity to challenge his father, but also that teachers might learn from the the Śāstri, who worked patiently to answer the questions of a child, instead of simply dismissing them as frivolous.
Let us, however, continue with our narrative. In the Krōdhi saṁvatsara, the Śāstri departed with his students for travels through the southern 563This is the consecration of the image of a snake in a shrine, a ceremony often recommended to childless couples. It may be performed to counter the effects of kālasarpa dōṣa, an inauspicious planetary confiiguration.
564 Narasiṁha Jayantiis observed on the fourteenth tithiof the śuklafortnight of Vaiśākha. The date given corresponds to May 15, 1840 C.E.
565See Plate 26a.
566 Ciṇṇikōluis an Indian game where a small stick with both ends sharpened (the ciṇṇi) is placed on the ground, and struck on one sharpened end with a longer stick (the kōlu). As the ciṇṇirises into the air, it is immediately struck again, sending it flying some considerable distance. A similar game played in Europe goes by the name of Tip-cat.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
215
countries. He was then 37 years of age. He travelled steadily, breaking journey at various places of note. There were large numbers of students here, and a great many of them became his students. Mannārguḍi Gōpālaśāstri and Rājuśāstri were considered great scholars in the region.567
1844–1845
They both studied several advanced works with the Śāstri, as
he travelled through the region. They all came together, and
took him to Puduk ōṭe. This was a place of long-standing renown. The Śāstri intended to demonstrate his scholarship by debating the scholars there, and by succeeding in these debates, to win acclaim. He realized both these objectives.
Word spread in Pudukōṭe of the presence of a great scholar from the kingdom of Mais ūru. The court of Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III in Maisūru was second in glory only to the court of the Pēśva Bājīrāv, and was home to many scholars. Battles had raged between the British and the Marāṭhas in the Dhātu and Īśvara saṁvatsara s, and Bājīrāv lost his kingdom. He was imprisoned by the British in Brahmāvartanear Kāśī.568 The Marāṭha kingdom came apart. The large number of scholars under the patronage of the nobles and affluent notables became widely dispersed. In the kingdom of Mais ūru alone, which was second only to Puṇe, did scholars survive, continuing to obtain sanctuary from the munifiicient king. It being well known in the south that Mais ūru was the one place where great scholarship survived, Rāmaśāstri, as a scholar from that kingdom, was highly esteemed in Pudukōṭe. The Śāstri was received by the king.569
A scholar called Brahmācāri was well known in that kingdom. Arrangements were made for him to debate Rāmaśāstri. At the debate, however, the 567See footnote 561.
568Pēśva Bājīrāv II was imprisoned by the British in Biṭhūr, near the city of Kānpur.
The region around Biṭhūr has been known as Brahmāvartasince classical times. For instance, Kālidāsa’s *Meghad ūtam *( *P ūrvamegha:*50) places it to the north of *Carmaṇvatī *(the Chambal river) and *Daśapura *(Mandasaur in Madhya Pradeśa). Also see Manusmr̥ti2.17 :
“sarasvatīdr̥ṣadvatyordevanadyoryadantaram | tam devanirmitam deśam brahmāvartam *pracakṣyate ∥”*meaning “Brahmāvarta is the land that lies between the divine rivers Sarasvatī and Dr̥ṣadvatī”. Contrary to what the present author says, however, this place is not near Vārāṇasi (Kāśī), bur rather, some 330 km northwest of it.
569This king would have been Rāja Srī Br̥hadāmba Dāsa Rāja Rāmacandra Tonḍaimān Bahād ūr, ruler of the princely state of Puduk ōṭe from July 13, 1839 to April 15, 1886. He was born in 1829, so the kingdom was administered by the British resident in his early years. He formally assumed ruling powers in 1844. He would have been about sixteen at the time of his meeting with Rāmaśāstri.
216
sons of sarasvatī
opponent disgracefully refused to open the debate. At that point, Rāmaśāstri himself opened the debate, and shortly silenced that scholar. Brahmā-cāri then heaped praise on Rāmaśāstri, declaring him a great scholar. The Puduk ōṭe ruler recognized the Śāstri with a most excellent reward. The Śāstri, having achieved this victory, now proceeded to Kāñcīpura with his students.570
There were many Śrīvaiṣṇavitescholars in Kāñcīpura. After Rāmaśāstri’s arrival, a date was determined for him to debate these scholars. The Śrīvaiṣṇavitescholars began elaborate preparations for this debate, devoting themselves day and night to studying many books. Rāmaśāstri, on the other hand, continued as usual, devoting himself to merely performing his daily rituals and teaching his students. The Smārtasof Kāñcīpura gathered in anxiety, greatly concerned at the possibility of humiliation for the sect of *Advaita,*since the Śāstri’s opponents were making such great efforts, in contrast to the Śāstri’s unconcern. Rāmaśāstri was a scholar visiting from Mais ūru, making it diffiicult to suggest to him that he should study in preparation for the debate. Nevertheless, the leaders among this group, deciding that it would be best to acquaint the Śāstri with the situation, arrived at the Śāstri’s camp, and hesitated a long time before summoning up their courage. The Śāstri received them with respect, and upon his inquiring for the reason for their visit, the locals said: “It is nothing, really. We just wanted to inform you that your opponents have been studying a great number of books in preparation for the debate.”
Grasping their meaning immediately, the Śāstri replied: “Self-praise is contrary to the *śāstras.*Neither is it a sign of virtue. Merit, if present in a person, is sure to express itself when the opportunity arises. Immodesty is indeed a sign of conceit. Immodesty is not objectionable, however, if necessary to allay the concerns of so many others, especially before merit has had an opportunity to show itself, or when such an opportunity may not be forthcoming. Let me therefore be clear. Even Paramēśvara, were he to descend from Kailāsa to oppose me in debate, would only match me; even in this situation, you may set aside any thoughts of my suffering a loss.”
Although the Śāstri disliked boasting about his own abilities, the circumstances and the pride he had in his own scholarship conspired to make him 570An inscription attests to Rāmaśāstri’s presence at Kāñcīpuram on the bahuḷa daśamī of the month of Puṣya of the Vikārin *saṁvatsara *(January 22, 1840). See footnote 588.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
217
utter these words. The visitors departed, pleased and reassured. This incident illustrates how much confiidence the Śāstri had in his own scholarship.
We have already noted that a scholar named Kāñcīpura Śrīnivāsācārya had debated Tryambaka Śāstri in Mais ūru, and failed to prevail in the encounter.571 This same Kāñcīpura Śrīnivāsācārya, after returning to Kāñcī, had written a tract claiming that he had debated Tryambaka Śāstri at the Mais ūru palace, that there had been eleven points of disputation, that the eleventh point had been his, to which Tryambaka Śāstri had been able to make no reply, and having concocted eleven such points, had proceeded to distribute the tract in his circle. This came to Rāmaśāstri’s notice in Kāñci.
Rāmaśāstri then wrote a book laying out his eyewitness account of what had actually transpired in the Mais ūru court, and refuting the eleven points that Śrīnivāsācārya had laid out. We give two ślōkasfrom that book below.
dvaitavādi matadhvānta vidhvaṁsana vicakṣaṇaṁ |
vande tryambaka mārtaṇḍaṁ sarvaśāstrābja bōdhakaṁ ∥
Meaning: I salute the sun Tryambaka, who is capable of dispelling the darkness called *Dvaita,*and unveiling the lotus-flower representing all the *śastras. *
bhaṭṭatryambaka śiṣyeṇa rāmēṇa tadanugrahāt |
śrīnivāsakr̥ta svīyōtprēkṣā mūlā nirākr̥tā ∥
Meaning: The work of Śrīnivāsācārya, whose basis is self-exaltation, is soundly rejected by Rāma, the disciple of Tryambaka Bhaṭṭa.
These actions by Rāmaśāstri humiliated Śrīnivāsācārya, and became another reason for the Śrīvaiṣṇavasto prepare for the debate with vigour. This anecdote well illustrates the deep regard the Śāstri had for Tryambaka Śāstri.
Another incident is noteworthy, in this context. A Śrīvaiṣṇavascholar called Vigrahadēśikācārya, fiinding Rāmaśāstri’s attitude insufferable, spoke contemptuously of Rāmaśāstri, saying: “Why does he have a chatraand cāmara? Who gave them to him? What did he see in him to give him such 571See page 190.
218
sons of sarasvatī
things?”572 The Śāstri learned of this, but remained silent, waiting for his opportunity.
As previously arranged, the debate began in the Kāñci temple. A large number of Śrīvaiṣṇavascame to the debate as opponents. The Śāstri too, went to the assembly with his students, and sat down. Some ten thousand people, both brāhmaṇas and others, came to witness this spectacle. Even though they understood none of the technicalities of the debate, they were fascinated by the eloquence of the scholars and thrilled by
1846–1847
the spectacle. The Śāstri prevailed in argument after argu-
ment, and fiinally, established the doctrine of jaganmithyātva in the manner that a scholar called Madhus ūdana Sarasvatī had done in the book *Advaitasiddhi.*573 No argument or device succeeded in refuting what the Śāstri had established. At this time, the Śāstri, mindful of Vigrahadēśikācārya’s contemptuous comment, thumped his chest with his right hand and declared to the assembly: “I understand that Vigrahadēśikācārya asked ‘What did he see in him that he granted him a chatraand cāmara?’
This is what he saw, truly, this is what he saw!” Everyone was left speechless.
They were all extremely pleased with the Śāstri’s scholarship. This occurred in the Parābhava saṁvatsara. The Śāstri travelled with his students in the south for over three years, and then returned to Mais ūru with his students.
It was at this time that the Śāstri established a Saṁskr̥taschool in Kāñci, in accordance with the wishes of the locals, and appointed his dear student Vijayarāghavācārya as its principal.
572This Vigraham Dēśikācārya appears to be the author of Brahmasūtra Bhāṣya T.ippaṇī, a short gloss on the *Śrībhāṣya *[Varadachari 1972], and of the Aṇṇayāryamahādēśikamaṇgala, a eulogy of his guru Aṇṇayārya Śrīśaila [Raghavan 1968, v. i]. The *Srībhāṣyapariṣkārah. *
is a work by Sarasvatīvigraham Deśikācārya [Deśikācārya 1989]. The work is undated, and it is possible that “Sarasvatīvigraham” has been transformed into “Vigraham” by elision.
573Madhusūdana Sarasvatī is a towering fiigure within the tradition of *Advaita,*or non-dualism. He was a master not simply of Advaita, but also of yoga, Navya Nyāya, alaṇkāra (æsthetics), and *vyākaraṇa *(grammar). Two traditional verses illustrate the high regard he is held in: *“madhus ūdana sarasvatyāḥpāraṁ vetti sarasvatī | pāraṁ vetti sarasvatyāḥmadhus ūdana sarasvatī ∥”*meaning that only Sarasvatī, the goddess of learning, knows the limits of Madhus ūdana Sarasvatī’s knowledge, and only Madhus ūdana Sarasvatī knows the limits of Sarasvatī’s knowledge, and “navadvīpe samāyāte madhus ūdana sarasvatī | cakampe *tarkavāgīśaḥkātaro_bhūdgadādharah. ∥”*meaning that when came Madhusūdana Sarasvatī to Navadvīpa, then became fearful Mathuranātha Tarkavāgīśa and Gadādhara.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
219
The Śāstri subsequently wrote a book on logic called *Śatakōṭi.*574 He has now become well-known as *“Śatakōṭi”*Rāmaśāstri.
It was during his travels in the south that a son named Yajñanārāyaṇa was born to him in Kāñci, in the month of Vaiśākha, in the
May 1846
Parābhava saṁvatsara. This Yajñanārāyaṇa was very bright and enthusiastic. He became especially learned in the *Vēdas,*literature, and *Nyāya. *
574This work (see Rāmaśāstri [1911]) is the Gadādharīya Satpratipakṣa Kroḍapatram, and offers a hundred refutations of the defiinitions of the fallacy of satpratipakṣaoffered by Gadādhara. Anantacāriyar (Anantāḷvār) and Kr̥ṣṇatātācāri have written a refutation of this called Śatakōṭikhaṇḍana, which has in turn been refuted in Śatakōṭikhaṇḍanamaṇḍanaby Rāmaśāstri’s student Sokattur Vijayarāghavācārya.
Chapter 8: The Minister Timmaṇṇaśāstri.
Rāmaśāstri’s Scholarship
WehavealreadyseenthatKr̥ṣṇarājaVoḍeyarIIIhadlostadministrative control over the kingdom, that the East India Company had appointed a Commissioner to oversee the administration, and that he was given an allowance of about 25,000 R ūpīsa month.575 We have also seen that IṇgrējiVeṇkaṭappāji had been imprisoned on some pretext. Now, a certain Smārta vaidikabrāhmaṇa from Mulaknāṭu, Timmaṇṇaśāstri by name, had been close to Veṇkaṭappāji, and had established himself in the king’s inner circle. The king had taken on debt, since his expenses were too large.576
Timmaṇṇaśāstri, with the help of some British offiicials, became deeply engaged in politics, especially in the king’s ongoing correspondence with the government in Kalakatta. Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III, justifiiably, yearned to reclaim control over his kingdom, which he had lost due to imprudence. This concern gnawed away at him, like a worm.
Though the Company controlled a great many regions of India at the time, their supremacy had not yet been established. There was a growing concern over open hostilities breaking out between the British and the Marāṭhas under Sindhya.577 Raṇajītsiṇgh having died, power in the Pañjāb had passed into new hands. The strength of the Sīkh army had grown un-bounded under this new leadership. The Company remained ever vigilant, not knowing when this valiant army might fall upon a kingdom it controlled, or what trouble might ensue, at what time. The armies of Sindhya and Raṇajītsiṇgh having both been trained by French generals, victory 575This is not entirely accurate. See footnote 523.
576These debts were massive. As noted by Sastri [1932, p. 134], the Company directors wrote in July 1847 that “. . . on the 30th June, 1845, the debt still remaining due from the Mysore state to the British Government, amounted (inclusive of interest at 5 per cent) to no less than Rs. 23,59,619, although Rs. 31,70,864 had been liquidated since our assumption of the administration.” In 1855, it was similarly noted that “the whole amount, principal and interest, which has thus been paid on account of arrears due by the former government, has been Rs. 56,91,660-12-1/2, or Rs. 57 lakhs.”
577Sindhya is the Anglicised form of Śinde, and is commonly spelled Scindia. Daulat Rāv Śinde was defeated in the Third Anglo-Maraṭha war of 1818 C.E., and was forced to accept local autonomy. He died in 1827 C.E., and was succeeded by Jaṇkōji Rāv II, and then by Jayāji Rāv in 1843, these reigns being interspersed with the regencies of Daulat Rāv’s widow Baiza Bāī and Jaṇkōji Rāv’s widow Tārābāī Rāje.
220
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
221
against these adversaries, who stood up to Company troops as equals, depended entirely on which way Jayalakṣmī glanced at the last moment; this was suffiicient to cause apprehension among humans.578
Under these circumstances, it was essential for the Company to maintain the southern provinces, which remained peaceful, in a state that was quiet and conducive to their goals. Was it thus not natural for the Kalakatta government to seek to maintain the goodwill of the large and well-respected kingdom of Mais ūru, and establish themselves as benefactors of the virtuous Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III, for whom there was sympathy in all kingdoms?
The ongoing correspondence he had pursued provided just the opportunity. The government decided to grant Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III a fiifth of the revenues of the kingdom, just as he had desired.579
It now became well known that Timmaṇṇaśāstri’s efforts had managed to bring in funds suffiicient to match expenses, although they fell short of regaining control of the kingdom. Efforts to restore control over the kingdom continued, despite this success. Determining that the expenses of the Mais ūru palace were too high, Timmaṇṇaśāstri reduced the salaries of employees, according to their abilities. Arrangements were also made to repay the monies the king had borrowed from many farmers, wealthy Gujarātis, and others. The king therefore developed a great regard for Timmaṇṇaśāstri, who had worked so hard to his advantage. It is hardly natural, however, for wild creatures to display the superior nature of domestic animals, for domestic animals to display the superior nature of humans, nor for humans to display the superior nature of the gods. This power went to Timmaṇṇaśāstri’s head, impairing his vision and judgment of the internal and external worlds, rendering him half-blind, as it were. With such numbers of important offiicials seeking to ingratiate themselves with him, might such a person as him be expected to care for a *vaidika?*Never.
The worldly benefiits that Timmaṇṇaśāstri’s efforts had accrued, however, could hardly be compared with the achievements of Rāmaśāstri, whose vaidikaways and scholarship were instrumental in spreading far and wide the glory of Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III, the person who sustained it all. The 578For the eight manifestations of Lakṣmī, including Jayalakṣmī, see footnote 53. The Sikh army was trained by the Italians Jean-Baptiste Ventura and Paolo Avitabile, and the Frenchmen Jean-Françoise Allard and Claude August Court. In its battles with the British, Sindhya’s army was led by French generals, such as Perron and Bouquin.
579This information is inaccurate. See footnote 523.
222
sons of sarasvatī
benefiits from the fiirst kind service were transient, those from the second, enduring. That stalwart of scholarship, Rāmaśāstri, understood this, and never followed Timmaṇṇaśāstri around, as others did. Timmaṇṇaśāstri, ever mindful of this, was biding his time.
Rāmaśāstri and Timmaṇṇaśāstri were both Āndhra brāhmaṇas from the Mulaknāṭu community.580 It is only natural for people from the same community to socialize, and visit and dine with each other. Such practices are seen as being especially appropriate among people who are observant of ritual. People from Mais ūru, Beṇgaḷu¯ru, and elsewhere saw it as a special privilege to be invited to Rāmaśāstri’s house for a meal. There can be no doubt that one’s body and mind are both purifiied by dining in the home of one who is pure and virtuous, and earns his living by righteous means. Nevertheless, it appears that Timmaṇṇaśāstri was reluctant to dine in Rāmaśāstri’s home, seeking instead to flaunt the prerogatives of power and position.
Rāmaśāstri himself never ate in the home of anyone who was not also extremely observant of tradition and rituals such as the Aupāsanaand Vaiśvadēva.581 Not having a great deal of faith in Timmaṇṇaśāstri when it came to such matters, Rāmaśāstri never dined in his house. It was natural for everyone to see this as evidence of mutual antipathy between the two. Such feelings are never enhancing of stature. Both parties were conscious of this shortcoming in their relationship.
Now, an inauspicious planetary confiiguration having arisen at some point that cast an evil influence on the king’s horoscope, scholars determined that its effects could be averted by performing a lakṣa tila hōma.
Accordingly, preparations were undertaken in the palace for the *hōma.*Astrologers determined the most propitious time for the ritual. The main procedure underlying this ritual is the offering of oblations of sesamum seeds a hundred thousand times into a fiire. It was important for the ritual to begin shortly after dawn on the appointed day, and proceed without interruption till it was complete. It was also required that the king, as chief performer of the ritual, was to maintain a fast until the ceremony was complete. To this day, it remains the practice that all vaidikasassociated with the 580This is a community of expatriate Telugu-speaking Smārtabrāhmaṇas, spread out across present-day Karṇāṭaka and Tamiz.nāḍu. This community has produced a number of outstanding individuals across a broad range of disciplines, well out of proportion to its small size. Śāstri [2000] is an excellent resource on the community.
581See footnote 548.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
223
palace complete their baths and rituals early on such occasions, come to the palace, and oversee all the observances. Accordingly, Rāmaśāstri completed his bath and morning rituals, and arrived at the palace within 3–4 gaḷigesof sunrise.582 The havanahad started by the time he arrived.
Ten brāhmaṇas were seated around the fiire altar, offering oblations into the fiire in synchrony. As each of them, in turn, proclaimed the saṇkalpa, and the others offered the oblations, they were making the serious lapse of using the singular person in the saṇkalpa.583 As soon as the Śāstri arrived, he heard the ill-formed mantrasbeing chanted, asked that the ritual be paused, and made his objections known to the priest who was in the role of the brahma.584 No proper answer was forthcoming. A discussion ensued. Nobody was able to hold their own against this lion. Thus far, ten priests had each offered three thousand oblations each into the fiire. Together, they had completed about thirty thousand oblations. That number 582A gaḷigeis 24 minutes, so 3–4 gaḷigesare between an hour and an hour-and-a-half.
583The saṇkalpais a formal declaration of intent or resolution to undertake the ritual.
The saṇkalpais critical; absent a proper saṇkalpa, the actions of the ritual are a mere cha-rade, are devoid of all ritual signifiicance, and bear no fruit. The saṇkalpa’sstructure is also critical. It begins with an elaborate declaration of the time and location of performance, and announces the proposed ritual action, after stating its intent ( artha) and the desired outcome ( kāma). The sentence must be structured using fiinite verbs conjugated in the
*ātmanēpada *(middle) voice and future tense. A saṇkalpafor the morning Sandhyāritual might include the sentence “. . . mama upātta samasta durita kṣaya dvāra śrīparamēśvara *prītyarthaṁ prātassandhyāmupāsye,”*declaring the ritual to be prātaḥsandhyā, with the intent ( artham) of winning the favour of paramēśvaraby effacing one’s accumulated misdeeds ( upātta duritakṣaya). When the ritual action is being performed by an individual, the singular form, such as *kariṣye *(“I will perform”), is appropriate. In this case, however, although the yajamānais the king, an individual, the ritual actions are being performed by ten priests at once. (It is acceptable for the actions to be performed on behalf of the yajamāna by priests.) Each priest, in turn, is pronouncing the saṇkalpabefore all ten priests offer the oblation. Rāmaśāstri’s argument appears to be that when the priest who pronounces the saṇkalpauses the singular form kariṣye, he is referencing his oblation only. The nine other oblations are not covered since this saṇkalpais in the singular form, and become external to the ritual performance. The saṇkalpashould be using an action verb in plural conjugation, such as *kariṣyāmahe *(“we will perform”).
584The brahmais the offiiciating priest responsible for coordinating a Vēdicritual. He issues directions, and bears responsibility for its conduct in strict conformance with elaborate ritual prescriptions. The principal Vēdicpriests are the hotr., udgātr., adhvaryu, and brahma, corresponding to the Rik, Sāma, Yajur, and Atharva Vēdas. Vēdicrituals are complex af-fairs, requiring up to sixteen priests for somarituals. Also see footnotes 600 and 601.
224
sons of sarasvatī
was about a third of what was required for the entire ritual. Rāmaśāstri insisted, however, that these efforts came to naught because of the lapse in the mantrachanted.
News of this controversy reached the king’s presence. Though in a state of ritual purity, he arrived at the fiire altar without ceremony, and inquired what the issue was. Timmaṇṇaśāstri said: “Although 30,000 oblations have been completed, Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri insists that only 3,000 oblations have effectively been offered because of a lapse in the *mantra.*Could 30,000 oblations be negated because of some minor error in language? This can hardly be a real issue. A third of the ritual is already done. We can complete the rest by 11 o’clock today. If, however, we listen to every person who loiters by, take the issue of the lapse in mantraseriously, and restart the entire havana, as Rāmaśāstri insists, the king’s repast will be unduly delayed.”
This angered Rāmaśāstri. His face reddened. He roared: “Your Majesty, the purpose of this ritual of propitiation is to ensure your well-being. It must be performed in accordance with śāstricprescriptions, and all mantras recited in the prescribed manner. Karmadoes not accrue without *mantra. *
When the mantrais defiicient, so is the *karma.*This can only work to the detriment of both king and kingdom. The only proper course now is to atone for the lapse in the *mantra,*and begin afresh the hōma, for the sake of ensuring your prosperity. This is not idle blather, but the Vēdicprescription; I do not know how to speak like a blockhead, idly asking what of this and what of that, with no understanding whatsoever of result or consequence.”
This king, the very embodiment of respect for scripture, said: “We have undertaken this hōmato secure our prosperity and that of our people. This hōmawill be fruitless if performed without the proper *mantra.*All becomes defiicient when the mantrais defiicient. The only proper course is for us to atone for the lapse and start afresh, as Rāmaśāstri bids us do. We began with the saṇkalpa ‘śrī paramēśvara prītyarthaṁ’. Shall I bare myself to the fury of Paraśiva, knowing as I do that the Vēdasand mantrasare merely forms in which he is manifest? It matters little if I remain awake and hungry; I will happily remain so for three days, if need be. Let us ensure that everything proceeds as it should,” indicating satisfaction with Rāmaśāstri’s words, and disapproval with those of Timmaṇṇaśāstri. Indeed! Which other kingdom might have for king such a virtuous person as this? Following the king’s
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
225
bidding, Rāmaśāstri himself took charge, and supervised the hōmafrom beginning to end. The king was very pleased. Timmaṇṇaśāstri’s anger at Rāmaśāstri was now greater than ever, his statements having been called the babblings of a blockhead, in open assembly.
This incident clearly illustrates that Rāmaśāstri completed every task he undertook, with no tolerance for even the slightest flaw, and never giving cause for reproach or objection. The truly great never see any task as unimportant. Even the least important tasks have their consequences. To demean the task as trifling, is to demean its consequence. Those who lack the ability to discern the consequences of a task are the ones who disdain it as unimportant. It would not be wrong to see a person’s worth as diminished in the same measure as his disdain for such tasks. An analogy may also be drawn with people. Everyone has unequalled ability in some respect. It is fair to see a person as worthy if he can perceive the merits of each individual. Others strut around egotistically, dismissing everything and everyone else as unimportant. A person’s true worth is betrayed by his egotism.
Chapter 9: Anugama V āda. Sarvat ōmukha Y āga
ManyofRāmaśāstri’sstudents,suchasKaviVaradācārya,Vijayarāghavācārya, Kuracci Raṇgācārya, and Rāmagiri Śāmācārya were stalwart scholars. Kavi Varadācārya remained in Maisūru. Kuracci Raṇgācārya returned to his home province. Vijayarāghavācārya went to Kañci. Rāmagiri Śāmācārya remained in Maisūru.
There was also a scholar at the time called Viṣṇupādācārya. He was the son of the scholar *“Julapi”*Kr̥ṣṇācārya. Viṣṇupādācārya studied for some time with his own father, then with Rāmaśāstri, and attained unmatched excellence in logic and *Vēdānta.*He developed a special intellectual affiinity for *Advaita.*He was not a person who thought one way, yet acted another.
People were often startled by his insistence on saying what he believed, and doing what he said. Indeed, when Viṣṇupādācārya debated, he would argue against the tenets of Dvaitaand in favour of the tenets of *Advaita.*This led to ill-feeling between him and his fellow *Mādhvas.*The *Vaiṣṇavas,*declaring they were ostracizing him, cut him off socially. Undeterred, Viṣṇupādācārya declared that he was ostracizing the *Vaiṣṇavas,*began inviting Smārtarather than Vaiṣṇavapriests to offiiciate at religious ceremonies and śrāddhas, and started speaking of Vaiṣṇavaswith disdain. Internecine conflicts can take a toll. Even the head of the Maṭha was cautious, out of his great respect for Viṣṇupādācārya’s learning. On one occasion, when the Svāmiof the Uttarādi Maṭha visited Maisūru, Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III arranged for a reconciliation between him and Viṣṇupādācārya.585 The scholar even began receiving a salary from the Maṭha. The Svāmispoke to the small-minded members of his community, asking them not to bring disgrace upon themselves by provoking this lion of scholarship and learning.
This Viṣṇupādācārya had great scholarship not just in logic and *Vedānta,*but also in astrology. Unlike other astrologers, however, he was not one to while away his time talking about propitious times of the day, the influences of stars, or in computing and casting horoscopes. His house was on the street that ran along the northern wall of the fort in Mais ūru. That was 585This Svāmiwas likely Śrī Satyaparāyaṇa Tīrtha, who was head of the Uttarādi Maṭha between March 12, 1842 and October 19, 1863.
226
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
227
a large house, and was two stories high. The ¯
Acāryahad installed a small
planetarium in a room in the house which represented the nine planets and various stars using spheres and lamps, and demonstrated their movements through a clockwork mechanism. Many elderly people in Mais ūru have recollections of this device. Such abilities are indeed rare and unusual. He reminds one of brilliant minds such as Bhāskarācārya and Āryabhaṭa.586
There was also a Smārtascholar at the time called Kāśī Śēṣaśāstri, of the Drāviḍatradition.587 He was a great scholar of grammar, and had a large number of students. A scholar called Kuṭṭiśāstri belonging to the Hoysaḷa Karṇāṭakacommunity had settled in Maisūru, having come from south of the pass.588 He was an expert in all the *Śāstras.*He was especially knowledgeable in the śrautarituals. These scholars, among others, were Rāmaśāstri’s 586Bhāskara II was a celebrated mathematician of the 12th century C.E., who made deep contributions to Algebra, Diophantine equations (including a general approach to Pell’s equation), trigonometry, and had even developed several ideas relating to differential calculus. Āryabhaṭa was a mathematician of the fiifth century C.E. His astronomical work the
¯
Arya Siddhāntais lost, but the ¯
Aryabhaṭīya, his work on mathematics, survives. This work covers a wide array of topics, including arithmetic, algebra, trigonometry, continued fractions, and quadratic equations.
587Explicit references such as this and on page 271 to Kāśī Śēṣaśāstri considerably weaken the argument by Lakshminarasimhaiya *et al., *[1970] that he is the same as the Rāmaśēṣa Śāstri referred to earlier. See footnote 479.
588Kuṭṭiśāstri had been named Vāñchēśvara Yajvan (Sūri) after his great-grandfather Vāñ-chēśvara Kavi, who had acquired the sobriquet *Kuṭṭi Kavi *(“little poet” in Tamiz.) as a child from king Śāhji I of Tañjāv ūru in recognition of his remarkable poetic talents [Śāstri 1946a].
The sobriquet “Kuṭṭi” continued to be used by his descendants as a family name. Kuṭṭi Kavi’s Mahiṣaśatakamis a masterful double entendre, rich in ślēṣa alaṇkāraon the theme of misrule by king Pratāpasiṁha of Tañjāv ūru. Kuṭṭi Kavi was a descendant of the venerated Govinda Dīkṣita of the Hoysaḷa Karṇāṭakacommunity, who was minister to the Tañjāvūru kings Acyutappa Nāyaka and Raghunātha Nāyaka. Govinda Dīkṣita was renowned as a scholar, statesman, and musicologist. His descendants continued in the Tañjāv ūru region.
Kuṭṭiśāstri (Kuṭṭi Kavi’s great-grandson) grew up in Tiruvisanallūr near Kumbhak ōṇam. He studied fiirst with his father, then with Īśvaraśāstri in his own village, then with Śrīnivāsārya from Maṇalūr nearby, and fiinally with Ahōbalaśāstri in Vārāṇasi. The Tañjāv ūru kings had long fostered scholars in Tiruvisanall ūr (see Raghavan [1952]). Around 1800 C.E., Sarbhōji II established a Saṁskr̥taschool in Orattanāḍu nearby, and appointed Kuṭṭiśāstri as an instructor. Finding the king’s attitude overbearing, he soon left for the Mais ūru court, where he was welcomed by T.ippu. Feeling pressured by T.ippu to convert to Islām, however, he moved to the court of the Pēśva in Puṇe, where he remained for a while. Subsequently, he travelled to Kāśī, studied with Ahōbalaśāstri, and taught there for some time. He composed the Ślēṣārthacandrikā, his commentary on his namesake ancestor’s Mahiṣaśatakawhile in Kāśī in 1813 [Sarma and Sarma 1939]. He returned to the Pēśva’s court, and then moved to Mais ūru in 1818 C.E., as Marāṭha power began its
228
sons of sarasvatī
contemporaries. Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III’s court, with scholars such as these, was home to the nine treasures.589 This virtuous patron of scholarship, always granting scholars whatever they needed, and supporting the advancement of scholarship is so many ways, acquired fame not just in India, but also in England and other countries.
Two scholars came to Mais ūru in the Saumya saṁvatsara, attracted by the king’s renown. Rāmaśāstri’s fame grew even greater on account of these decline. Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III welcomed him, and appointed him *Dharmādhikāri.*He performed the Jyōtiṣṭōmasacrifiice in Maisūru (see footnote 599). When he travelled to Śr̥ṇgēri to visit the Śaṇkara Maṭha, he discovered that the pontiff Nr̥siṁha Bhāratī had been his student in Kāśī. He travelled to Rāmēśvaram, and then returned to his own village, where he is believed to have died at around the age of eighty. His works include Hiraṇyakēśīśrautas ūtravyākhyā, Satsāmānyas ūtravyākhyā, Dattacintāmaṇi, Śrāddhacintāmaṇi, Brahmas ūtrārthacintāmaṇi, Kākatāḻīyavādārtha, Dhūrgānacandrikā, Tarkasaṇgrahavyākhyā, *Śrīmahāliṇgaśatakam,*and the Bhāṭṭacintāmaṇi.
An inscription commemorating the consecration of the Kāmākṣī temple at Kāñci on the bahuḷa daśamī tithiof the month of Puṣya of the Vikārin *samvatsara *(January 22, 1840
C.E.) records the presence of the scholars Vāñchēśvara Yajvan and Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri.
We reproduce a genealogy from the introduction to Kuṭṭiśāstri’s *Bhāṭṭacintāmaṇi *(see Gode [1939]), noting that *Dīkṣita, Yajvan,*and Makhinare equivalent agnomina.
Govinda D¯
īkṣita
Yaj˜
naṉ
arayan
Veṇkat
. a Dīkṣita
.ēśvara Makhin
Daughter
(wrote S¯
ahityaratṉ
akara, Raghuṉ
athaviḻ
asa, etc.)
(wrote V¯
artik¯
abharan
. a, etc.)
Ayyavāru Makhin
Tirumala Makhin
Daughter
Lakṣmīpati
V¯
a˜
**nchēśvara Kavi (c. 1690–1760 C.E. **
authored Mahis
. ¯
a´
***sataka ***)
Mādhava
Narasi ˙
mha
V¯
a˜
nchēśvara Yajvan (1760–1860 C.E.)
Narasi ˙
mhaśāstri
Svāmiśāstri
Kāmākṣī (daughter)
(died 1913 C.E.)
Veṇkaṭasubba Śāstri
589It is common to refer to an exceptionally distinguished group of luminaries as *navaratnas *(the nine jewels) if they number nine, or as the *aṣṭa diggajas *(the eight mythical elephants supporting the earth in the eight cardinal and intercardinal directions) if they number eight.
The nine great treasures of Kubēra, the (demi) god of wealth: padma, mahāpadma, śankha, *makara, kacchapa, mukunda, nanda, ṉīla,*and kharva. The Amarakōśa (digvarga: 6 *)*lists the aṣṭadiggajasas: *“airāvataḥpuṇḍarīko vāmanaḥkumudō–ñjana | puṣpadantaḥsārva-bhaumaḥsupratīkaṣca diggajāh. ∥” *
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
229
scholars. The fiirst of these scholars was AnugamabhaṭṭācāriVeṇkaṭarāyaśāstri; he was from the Tenugu kingdom.590 Not content with the learning he acquired studying Nyāyaand Vēdāntain his own country, 1849–1850
he travelled to Navadvīpa in Beṇgāl for futher study, and became famous as Anugamabhaṭṭācārya. Navadvīpa in Beṇgāl has, since time immemorial, been the source site of advanced learning in the *vēdaśāstras.*591 The great reputation of that academy remains unblemished to this day. All the great scholars from the northern countries have acquired their learning either in Kāśī or in Navadvīpa. Just as the inhabitants of Beṇgāl and the north have, through their exceptional erudition in English, defended the reputation of the descendants of the āryanlineages as matchless, so did they secure India’s reputation in times past through their learning in Saṁskr̥ta. Just as they are now the pacesetters in India, they were even then, pioneers in all respects. It has long been the practice for the council of scholars in Navadvīpa to award titles and agnomena to students who have demonstrated accomplishment. Great names such as Brahmānanda and Gadādharabhaṭṭācārya are from Navadvīpa.592
Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri, who had acquired the title Anugamabhaṭṭācāryain this manner, had travelled to many countries, and won great acclaim by prevailing in many debates. This scholar was drawn to Mais ūru by the king’s 590In Kannaḍa, “Tenugu” is an accepted variant of the more familiar “Telugu”. It remains unclear, however, who this Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri might be. The Telugu literary fiigure Vēdamu Veṇkaṭarāya Śāstri was born in 1853, and is obviously not the person being referred to. The name Veṇkaṭarāya, however, appears in alternate generations of this family [Sastry 1976]. Since his father’s name was Veṇkaṭaramaṇa Śāstri (born c. 1817), it is likely that his grandfather was called Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri. Whether this was the person being referred to is a matter of speculation. No references to his grandfather appear in the available biographies of Vēdamu Veṇkaṭarāya Śāstri.
591 Navya Nyāya, the “new” or modern Indian logic, is generally regarded as having begun in Mithila, with Gaṇgēśōpādhyāya (12th–13th century C.E.). Mithila, being remarkably free of Muslim tyranny, remained the center of study of Navya Nyāyafor the next two hundred and fiifty years or so [Ingalls 1951]. Navadvīpa, also known as Nādia, has been the center of Navya Nyāyasince the time of Vāsudeva *Sārvabhauma,*who flourished around 1480 C.E.
[Potter and Bhattacharya 2008].
592The Brahmānanda being referred to is Gauḍa Brahmānanda Sarasvatī, author of the Gurucandrikāand Laghucandrikā, also known as the Gauḍabrahmānandī. Brahmānanda flourished around 1680 C.E. [Phillips 1997], and was a student of Nārāyaṇatīrtha, who was a student of the great Madhus ūdana Sarasvatī (1540–1640 C.E.), author of the Advaitasiddhi. Gadādhara Bhaṭṭācārya is another great logician of the Navadvīpa school, and dates to around 1650 C.E. He wrote numerous glosses, collectively known as the *Gādādharī. *
230
sons of sarasvatī
reputation for generosity and the renown of Rāmaśāstri who graced his court, pulled both by the desire for reward as well as his scholarly arrogance.
He made an ostentatious entrance into Mais ūru, and obtained an audience with the king. His great ambition was to humble Rāmaśāstri in debate.
A debate lasting six or seven days took place between Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri and Rāmaśāstri in the Parakāla Maṭha. Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri began presenting his various arguments in accordance with the anugamavidhias pro-pounded by Śaṇkara Bhaṭṭācārya.593 The great scholars of Maisūru were all present. Kāśī Timmaṇṇācārya, the debate moderator, declared that he was unable to follow Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri’s logical development.594 Nobody else was able to follow it, either. Everyone remained still and silent, inert like images in a painting. The prakāravidhithat Tryambaka Śāstri had developed was prevalent in Southern India.
When Timmaṇṇācārya indicated his inability to follow the argument being presented, Rāmaśāstri said: “No cause for concern. Let Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri fiinish what he has to say.” After this, the debate continued for eight days at the palace. Not only did Rāmaśāstri completely comprehend the arguments Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri made using the technique of anugamavidhi,595
593This Śaṇkara Bhaṭṭācārya is most likely the person listed in [Potter 1995] as “Kāḻī Śaṇkara (Siddhāntavāgīśa) (Bhaṭṭācārya) (1810) ( New Catalogus CatalogorumIV, 80)”. He is credited with kroḍapatrason Jagadīśa’s Jāgadīśīand *Śabdaśaktiprakāśikā,*Mathuranātha’s *Māthurī,*Gadādhara’s *Muktivāda, Śaktivāda,*and *Vyutpattivāda,*Udayana’s Nyāya-kusumāñjali, ṭīkāon Tarkagrantha, and Vyākhyāon the Upamānasection of Gaṇgēśa’s *Tattvacintāmaṇi. *
594Sharma [1981] gives the following information: “K āśi Timmaṇṇācārya (C. 1800–
50): He was a native of the Mysore state and is reputed to have studied Śastras in Banares and established his reputation as the foremost scholar of his day, in Navya-Nyāya. He was a contemporary of Tryambaka Śāstri and Satyadharma Tīrtha. He wrote half a dozen works, mostly glosses, on the *TS, Td, Bhedojjīvana, Kr̥ṣṇāmr̥tamahārṇava, PP,*and the *NS *(for the i adhikaraṇa alone). The Dvaitabh ūṣaṇamis evidently a work of the same author refuting the Candrikākhaṇḍanamof Raghunātha Śāstri. His descendants are still living.”
595Footnote in original: “1. anugamavidhi–The technique of presenting the initial premise in an argument in a concise manner, without a detailed discussion of the properties and characteristics relating to the topic. 2. prakāravidhi–The technique of presenting the initial premise in an argument by detailing all the properties and characteristics.” We see in Bhattacharyya [1990, p. 106]: “The technique of stating a very simple property as simply qualifying an object, and then stating explicitly in what sense the ‘qualifiication’ is to be taken so that the property is shown to be common to all and only the objects to be defiined*, in called anugamaof the defiining* mark; i.e., showing how the defiining* mark is related to all and only the objects to be defiined*.” Also see Chapter IX, “The Technique of Anugama”, in Guha [1979a] for a detailed discussion of this technique.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
231
he both refuted his arguments as well as presented entirely new counter-arguments, using the very same technique. Only Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri was able to follow his arguments; everyone else sat there completely bewildered.
Finally, the new techniques that Rāmaśāstri used turned out to be too much for even Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri to comprehend. Everyone was stunned.
Anugamabhaṭṭācāryahad been silenced. The roar of this lion of logic from Mais ūru fiilled the palace. At this point, Bhaṭṭācārya embraced Rāmaśāstri, and declared to the assembly in the presence of the king: “I have been to many kingdoms and debated many scholars; this Rāmaśāstri is Gautama himself; he is a source authority on *Nyāyaśāstra;*this is not mere scholarship, this is exceptional brilliance.” The king, who had been very concerned that the kingdom of Mais ūru would suffer loss of face, was very pleased. The king awarded 4000 R ūpīsto Rāmaśāstri and 3,000 R ūpīsto Veṇkaṭarāyaśāstri, as well as khillats.596 Anugamabhaṭṭācāryaremained in Mais ūru for some time and then returned to his country.
After this, Rāmaśāstri began instructing his students in the techniques of anugamavidhias well. They all learned to debate both in the traditional mode of prakāravidhias well as in the new mode of anugamavidhi. Subsequently, whenever debates occurred in places such as Kāśī, Gayā, Prayāga, Navadvīpa, Brahmāvarta, Vardhamāna, Darbhaṇga, or Kalakatta, it became the practice to accept Rāmaśāstri as an authority, and to use his techniques in debates.
Another scholar’s arrival in Mais ūru became an occasion for Rāmaśāstri’s fame to grow even more. He was Gaṇgādhara Somayāji of Pāvagaḍh.597
Having determined to perform a yāgacalled *Sarvatomukha,*he came to Mais ūru in the belief that he was likely to get the resources he needed for 596The word khillatoriginally referred to robes of honour, but later was used for any gift given to show royal esteem, especially one marked in a way that made clear its signifiicance.
597A sōmayājiis a person who has performed a *sōmayāga,*the most elaborate of Vēdic rituals. It was long believed that the practice of Vēdic yāgaswas nearly extinct, and that the Agnicayanaperformance documented by Staal in 1975 [Staal 2001a,b] was perhaps the last performance of the extraordinarily elaborate ritual. As Knipe [2015] documents, however, there survives to this day a signifiicant Vēdictradition, including that of the performance of Vēdic yāgas, in coastal Āndhra. Pāvagaḍh is a small town near Tumakūru in present-day Karṇāṭaka. Pāvagaḍh is also a site of considerable antiquity in the state of Gujarāt, which now has UNESCO world heritage site status. It has several temples, the most important of which is the Kāli temple situated on top of a hill. The reference is surely to the local Pāvagaḍh.
232
sons of sarasvatī
the *yāga,*and having met with important offiicials, gained an audience with the king. Being the very fount of support for tradition, the king was very pleased, and said to the Somayāji: “Peace and prosperity is sure to accrue to us and our kingdom from a worthy person as yourself performing such a meritorious act. You may rest assured that your expenses will be covered by the palace.”598 Unfortunately, Kuṭṭi Śāstri, who was seen as without equal in the performance of śrautaritual, failed to give the Somayāji the proper directions for performing this ritual.599 The Somayāji then approached Rāmaśāstri, and pleaded for his help. The Śāstri, having fiirst taken him by the hand and reassured him, had all the śrautisfrom the province of Mais ūru and elsewhere invited to Mais ūru. Among them was Kr̥ṣṇasomayāji of Beṇgaḷūru. The Śāstri was able to construe the procedure for the yāgausing the various books that the śrautishad brought with them.
Four sacrifiicial halls were constructed for the *yāga.*600 A hundred priests were appointed for the ritual.601 The Śāstri himself assumed the roles of 598The resources required for this yāgawere very substantial. In [Versaikar 2013], it is reported that several brāhmaṇas in Puṇe and Nāgpur had received letters in 1857 C.E. (roughly contemporaneously with our story) inviting them to participate in a Sarvatōmukha yāgabeing planned by the dowager queen Baiza Bāi, widow of the late Daulat Rāv Śinde, ruler of Gvāliar, who had set aside seven or eight hundred thousand R ūpīsfor that purpose. Even allowing for some hyperbole, the sum must have been substantial.
599In his Saṁskr̥ta introductionto the Mahiṣaśatakam, Śāstri[1946a] indicatesthat Kuṭṭi Śāstri once performed the Jyōtiṣṭōmasacrifiice, with his students and relatives serving as the priests. Desikāchārya [1949, p. lxxxii] records that on May 13, 1842 C.E., the Parakāla Svāmi visited the yajñaśālaof Kuṭṭi Śāstri, who had performed the Agniṣṭōmasacrifiice. Śāstri
[1946a] goes on to say, however, that Kuṭṭi Śāstri later declined to perform the Vājapēyam sacrifiice for Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III because it involved the sacrifiice of too many animals.
600The Sarvatōmukhais so called because four Jyōtiṣṭōmasacrifiices of different saṁsthās (or varieties) are performed at the same time in four different enclosures located in the directions north, south, east, and west [Bhandarkar 1928, p. 132]. Jyōtiṣṭōmahas the following *saṁsthas: Agniṣṭōma, Atyagniṣṭōma, Ukthya, S.oḷaśin, Vājapeya, Atirātra,*and Aptoryāma.
Three animal sacrifiices are required for the Agniṣṭōma—the agṉīsomīyāpaśuon the fourth day, the savaṉīyapaśuon the fiifth day, and fiinally, the aunbandhyapaśu.
601 Knipe [1997, 2015] reports that an āhitāgnicalled Mitranārayaṇa in Āndhra performed the Sarvatōmukha yāgain 1980 C.E., with 72 priests. Since the Sarvatōmukhais effectively four simultaneous *Jyōtiṣṭōmas,*the large number of priests is hardly surprising. The sixteen priests are in four classes, with the mahartvijafor each of the four Vēdasbeing the chief priest, and his assistants the ardhi, tritīyi, and the pādireceiving only a half, a third, and a fourth, respectively, of the dakṣiṇāpayment given the mahartvija. Some yāgasrequire the sadasya, a seventeenth priest. The priests required are shown in the following table:
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
233
sadasyaand somapravākain the *yāga.*602 Many people and scholars had come from other countries to witness this *yāga.*The Śāstri himself supervised this kratufrom beginning to end. Kuṭṭi Śāstri and his son Vāñchēśvara Śāstri, who witnessed this flawless performance, were pleased and were full of praise in the royal court.603 Kuṭṭi Śāstri was indeed no ordinary person.
He was an accomplished expert in ritual, and very pious; he was also reputed as an outstanding all-round scholar. Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III had a very special regard for him. He would travel to the palace in a palanquin. By order of the king, this venerable person was exempt from the goṣacustom in the palace.
It is clearly no small matter that a person such as him heaped so much praise on Rāmaśāstri.604 At this time, Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III bestowed honours on Rāmaśāstri, and also designated for him a salary of 10 Varāhas.605 He also mahartvija
ardhi
tritīyi
p ādi
v ēda
adhvaryu
*pratiprasthatr. *
*neṣṭr. *
*unnetr. *
Yajurveda
*hotr. *
maitrāvaruṇa
accāhvāka
grāvastut
R.gveda
*udgātr. *
*prastotr. *
*pratihartr. *
subrahmaṇya
Sāmaveda
brahma
brāhmaṇācchamsin
āgṉīdhra
*potr. *
Atharvaveda
602The sadasyais the seventeenth priest required for some *yāgas *(see footnotes 600 and 601). The somapravākais the messenger sent by the *yajamāna,*or sacrifiicer, who informs the agnihotrisfrom whom the offiiciating priests are chosen that a yāgais being planned, the name of the yajamāna, and the fee proposed for the priests. The yajamānachooses the offiiciating priests from those who fiind the terms agreeable.
603Vāñchēśvara was, in fact, Kuṭṭi Śāstri’s own name, not that of his son (footnote 588).
604Given what we know about Kuṭṭi Śāstri (see footnote 588) the following quote from Lakshminarasimhaiya *et al., *[1970] seems not just inaccurate but downright amusing: Among the four such eminent scholars who were appointed as dharmadhikaris, Sesha was, as stated already, the fiirst in the order of precedence. How the port-folios should be divided, Sesha was requested to advise. Sesha reserved Rajad-harmafor himself; Kunigal Rama Sastri was to advise on purely religious matters; Vyakarana Narasimha Sastri had to supervise and regulate the patronage of literature and learning; and Kutty Sastri was to look after odds and ends and being quite a ‘boy’ treated as a probationer. This arrangement did not continue for long, because Sesha died within less than twelve months.
Kāśī Śeṣa Śāstri died in April 1860 C.E., so the appointments alluded to were in 1859 C.E., at which time Kuṭṭiśāstri would have been seventy-nine years old, hardly a ‘boy’, and in fact, signifiicantly older than the others mentioned. It is also inconceivable that a person of this stature would have been asked to, or agree to “look after odds and ends!” Also see footnotes 108 and 110.
605A *Varāha *(or Kaṇṭhīrava Pagōḍa) was valued in 1868 C.E. at 2 *Rūpīs,*14 Āṇeand 6
234
sons of sarasvatī
appointed the Śāstri to the role of Dharmādhikāri. While all this surely enhanced the Śāstri’s prestige, it also raised the intensity of Timmaṇṇaśāstri’s jealousy.
Moved by anger, and determined to ensure Rāmaśāstri’s humiliation at the hands of other scholars, Timmaṇṇaśāstri maintained a steady correspondence with the aim of accumulating information on the names and whereabouts of other scholars. Even now, there are principalities in such places as Gaddavāla and Vanaparti, under the dominion of Haiderābād.
Their rulers have maintained their deep respect for our traditions and practices. They organize a scholarly conference each year, in which they honour scholars and award them annual stipends. Such royal patronage has attracted a number of scholars to these small domains. A well-known scholar called Muddukr̥ṣṇācārya lived in this region.606
Timmaṇṇaśāstri determined to assuage his torment by inviting Muddukr̥ṣṇācārya to Maisūru to let him loose on Rāmaśāstri and humiliate him.
But alas, wretched Timmaṇṇaśāstri! He had not the competence to judge the accomplishments of these two. He was not learned in any vaidikaway, nor profiicient in any laukikaway. It was a great strain for this person, who survived by proclaiming himself a laukikaBr̥haspati when among vaidikas, and a vaidikaSarasvatī when among *laukikas,*to come to terms with very much.607 When asked whether he was an ¯
Aśvalāyanaor an ¯
Apastamba,608
a certain pitiful brāhmaṇa who had never heard these words in his entire Pai, or about 3 *R ūpīs.*Ten Varāhasare about thirty *R ūpīs.*Even after Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III’s demise in 1868 C.E., there were only four paṇḍitasin the palace with salaries of thirty Rūpīs or more (see letter from Major C. Elliot to ḶB. Bowring in Stanhope [1878, p. 68]).
606It is really unclear who this Muddukr̥ṣṇācārya might be. The most likely candidate may be Kr̥ṣṇāvadhūta Paṇḍita [Sharma 1981, p. 513], who was also known as Muddu Kr̥ṣṇa.
His dates, however, appear as either 1835–1909 or 1864–1909 C.E. in the literature, making him no older than 17 or 18 at the time of this episode, perhaps explaining why he began by debating not Rāmaśāstri, but his students. He was born in the region of Baḷḷāri, and became the ¯
Asthāna Paṇḍitaat the principality of Saṇḍūru, nearby. Saṇḍūru is not especially close to Gaddavāla and Vanaparti, the regions mentioned in the text, but these all happen to be locations in the northern part of Karṇāṭaka, bordering what was then Haiderābād. He is held in extremely high regard for his broad scholarship, and his religious devotion. The text calls him a “well-known scholar” from the region, so this is a possibility. There are problems with the dates, however.
607Br̥haspati is teacher to the gods and their chief priest, and thus personifiies the kārmic aspect of existence. Sarasvatī is the goddess of learning, and personifiies scholarship.
608In effect, the question asks what Vēdathe individual is a follower of. ¯
Aśvalāyanais one
of the śākhasor branches of the R.gveda. The reference here is to the Āśvalāyana Kalpasūtra,
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
235
life, responded that he was not aware of being much more than perhaps a little of either ¯
Aśvalāyanaor ¯
Apastamba, but that he was quite sure of
being a relative of PradhānaVeṇkappayya.609 Thinking of Timmaṇṇaśāstri brings to mind just such a worm of a brāhmaṇa. Perhaps Timmaṇṇa-śāstri drew inspiration from the manner in which wrestlers are paired in matches during Navarātri, in the arena opposite the palace. At any rate, he secretly invited Muddukr̥ṣṇācārya to Maisūru to do battle with Rāmaśāstri, apparently seeing scholarly debate as little more than a boxing or grappling match between wrestlers.
Muddukr̥ṣṇācārya arrived with much fanfare, and met with the king.
A scholarly assembly gathered A debate was arranged between him and Rāmaśāstri in the palace. The Śāstri quietly sat down. A debate began between his student Rāmagiri Śāmācārya and Muddukr̥ṣṇācārya. The debate which includes the manual of Vēdicrituals ( śrautas ūtra), domestic rituals ( gr̥hyasūtra), and of law and conduct ( dharmas ūtra). The ¯
Apastamba S ūtrasare the corresponding manuals
for the Kr̥ṣṇa Yajurveda. The ritual identity of a brāhmaṇa is defiined by reference to his ancestral r̥ṣis, his *gōtra,*his *sūtra,*and the Vēdathat he follows. Ignorance of one’s sūtrais a mark of disgrace.
609 PradhāniVeṇkappayya, also known by various other names, such as Veṇkappa, Veṇkā-mātya, Veṇkaṭapati, and Veṇkaṭabhūpati, was a remarkable scholar, statesman, general, and strategist, who deserves to be far better known than he appears to be. Born around 1727 C.E., he rose from modest origins to serve as *Pradhāna *(Chief Minister) between 1763–1779 C.E.
to NavābHaidar ‘Ali, who had usurped the Mais ūru throne. He was a skilled statesman, and served Haidar ‘Ali as the administrator for various provinces, military strategist and general, as well as chief negotiator and emissary to a number of contemporary powers, including the Marāṭhas and the Portuguese. Veṇkappa was deeply involved in military operations when the Marāṭhas surrounded Mēlukōṭe in April of 1771 C.E., and put Haidar’s son T.ippu in grave danger of being taken prisoner. T.ippu was saved mainly by Veṇkappa’s ingenuity and intervention. In addition to his military, political, and administrative accomplishments, Veṇkappa was also an extraordinary scholar, with deep scholarship in both Saṁskr̥taand Kannaḍa. His literary and scholarly output easily matches or exceeds the accomplishments of a great many better-known scholars. His Karṇāṭa Rāmāyaṇa, for example, is the largest Kannaḍa Rāmāyaṇain the Vārdhaka S.aṭpadimetre [Veṇkāmātya 1954]. He also has an extraordinary volume and breadth of work in Saṁskr̥ta, ranging over alaṇkāra, kāvya, and nāṭaka. He has the distinction of having written each of the ten types of plays enumerated by Bharata in the Nātyaśāstra. Despite Veṇkappa’s exemplary record of service, Haidar
‘Ali, who was both illiterate and untrusting of people around him, accused him in 1779
C.E. of improper remittances of taxes, publicly humiliated him, fiined him 60,000 Varāhas, stripped him of his property, and imprisoned him. Intervention by Appāji Rām succeeded in securing his release from prison, and retirement at a monthly pension of 1000 R ūpīs, and permission to keep his title of Pradhāna. Veṇkappa died of complications from diabetes in November 1782 C.E., at the age of 55. For more information about Veṇkappa, see Rao
[1954] and Svāmi and Bhāratī [2007].
236
sons of sarasvatī
made some progress. Another dear student of the Śāstri’s, Vijayarāghavā-cārya, entered into debate. Muddukr̥ṣṇācārya was unable to comprehend his arguments. The visiting scholar then said: “I have not come here to debate you and your fellow-students. Your guru Rāmaśāstri must enter the debate.” Hearing these words, a scholar who was present in the 1852–1853
audience retorted: “Good sir, we would consider it ample for
you to respond just to Vijayarāghavācārya. It seems hardly necessary for Dakṣiṇāmūrti himself to come forth to debate you!” Yet, because he foolishly insisted on ignoring the advice of so many in the audience that he should not take on Rāmaśāstri, the Śāstri himself entered the debate, and made short work of him. Muddukr̥ṣṇācārya’s cute countenance shrivelled up.610 So did Timmaṇṇaśāstri’s bravado. This occurred in the Paridhāvi saṁvatsara.
610 *“Muddu”*means “cute” or “adorable” in Kannaḍa. The name Muddukr̥ṣṇa is an allusion to Kr̥ṣṇa in his aspect as an adorable child.
Chapter 10: The Situation in the Royal Court
Kr̥ṣṇarājaVoḍeyarIIIhadthreequeensconsort.Theseniormost,the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa, was a daughter of the household of Bāgaḷi Dēśē Arasu.611 This lady would be the paternal aunt of Dēśē Arasu, the father by adoption of Colonel Dēśarājē Arasu, of our own time.612 His second wife was the lady of Ramāvilāsa. She was a daughter of the household of Katti Gōpālarājē Arasu; she would be paternal aunt to Kr̥ṣṇē Arasu, who was the biological father of the now deceased Cāmarājendra Voḍeyar.613 Both these ladies were the formally consecrated queens of Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III. Both were from real Arasu households. General Harris and Colonel Wellesley (the Duke of Wellington) gained fame by capturing Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa, destroying T.ippu, and crowning Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III king of the region that is now Mais ūru. DīvānP ūrṇayya had arranged for the marriage of Kr̥ṣṇa-rāja Voḍeyar III with these princesses, with the consent of these offiicers.
More recently, Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III has also married the lady of Sītāvilāsa, who is a daughter of the household of Turuvēkere.614 The seniormost of these queens, the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa, was learned, intelligent, and conducted herself with decorum. She had apparently been expecting at one time, but it came to naught. A youthful Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III had been led astray by faithless retainers who had managed to gain his confiidence, and 611See Plate 23. Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III’s fiirst marriage had been in April 1801 C.E., to Dēvājammaṇṇi, daughter of Sardār Gōpālarājē Arasu [Row 1916, p. 247], but she appears to have died young. This queen’s name appears as Dyāvājāmbādēvī in some sources [Arasu 1993, Archeological Department 1936]. The lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa, being referred to here, was his second wife, and was also named Dēvājammaṇṇi [Row 1916]. She too appears in Plate 23, and would have become the paṭṭamahiṣī, or the senior queen consort upon the death of her more senior namesake queen.
612Lieutenant Colonel Deśarāj Arasu was appointed Chief Commandant, Mysore State Troops in 1897 C.E.
613Cāmarājendra Voḍeyar X was the adopted son of Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III. As a young prince, he had been instructed by Garaḷapurī Śāstri. See page 43.
614Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III had twenty legitimate wives [Archeological Department 1936, p. 174]. By tradition, queens are formally addressed by stating the name of the royal quarters of the respective queen, followed by *Sannidhāna *(presence). The names of his fiirst several wives were as follows: Dēvājammaṇṇi (Dyāvājāmbādēvī), Dēvājammaṇṇi (Dēvāmbādēvī, Lakṣmīvilāsa Sannidhāna), Caluvājammaṇṇi (Caluvāmbādēvī, Ramāvilāsa Sannidhāna), Liṇgājammaṇṇi (Liṇgājamāmbādēvī, Kr̥ṣṇavilāsa Sannidhāna), Dēvāmbādēvī (Sītāvilāsa Sannidhāna).
237
238
sons of sarasvatī
the people of the state were suffering deeply on account of maladministration. A great many people attempted to petition the king, but were ignored.
The king had become deaf when it came to hearing the people’s complaints, their sentiments, or the advice of far-sighted individuals. His eyes, even in his youth, had become in need of eyeglasses when it came to perceiving the truth around him. Dishonourable natives of the state were being joined by avaricious non-natives in converting him to the ways of ruin. Counsels of madness from his evil companions were to him as sonorous music, good advice like hideous braying.615 The kingdom was in shreds, like so much tattered clothing. Beholding all of this, the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa began to give good counsel to the king. The king was vexed by this, however, and his annoyance soon grew into hatred. He stopped speaking with her entirely.
Dāsappāji, the younger brother of DīvānVeṇkaṭē Arasu, a person we have already encountered, had an attitude of arrogance and disregard for the king. The king also began to draw closer to his morganatic wives than to the queens consort. It appears he required the Arasus to treat the son born to the lady of Madanavilāsa with all the deference due to an heir apparent, requiring them, in fact, to eat their meals in his immediate company.616
Many Arasus had therefore turned against the king. Dāsappāji was one of this group. His hatred of the king deepened. It appears that he conspired to write to the Government in Kalakatta in the name of the lady of 615There appears to be much truth to this statement. As early as 1817, just six years after the retirement of P ūrṇayya, Sir Thomas Munro writes to Marquess Francis Rawdon-Hastings, then Governor General, as follows [Arbuthnot 1889, p. 131]:
. . . Wherever the subsidiary system is introduced, unless the reigning prince be a man of great abilities, the country will soon bear the marks of it in decaying villages and decreasing populations. This has long been observed in the dominions of the Peshwa and the Nizam, and is now beginning to be seen in Mysore. The talents of Purnayya, while he acted as Diwan, saved that country from the usual effects of the system, but the Raja is likely to let them have their full operation. He is indolent and prodigal, and has, besides the current revenue, dissipated about sixty lakhs of pagodas of the treasure laid up by the late Diwan. He is mean, art-ful, revengeful, and cruel. He does not take away life, but he inflicts the most disgraceful and inhuman punishments on men of every rank, at a distance from his capital, where he thinks it will remain unknown to Europeans, and, though young, he is already detested by his subjects. . .
616The lady of Madanavilāsa was Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III’s ninth wife, born Muddaliṇg-amāmbādēvī. Her son was Cāmarājabahādūr. Because the lady of Madanavilāsa was a morganatic wife, and not queen consort, her son was excluded from the line of succession.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
239
Lakṣmīvilāsa, complaining that the king had lost his senses, and that the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa should become regent.617 It is not possible to say if the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa was even aware of these goings-on. Dāsappāji had also apparently suggested surrendering Mais ūru as a tributary state to the British for 44,00,000 Varāhas.618 His great ambition was to ruin the king’s reputation in a great many ways, before his selfiish machinations might be discovered. There is suffiicient reason to believe that Dāsappāji, seeing that the name of the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa carried great weight, used it in his correspondence.619
By this time, the Company had taken over the reins of administration from the king. The communication with Kalakatta in the name of the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa came to the king’s attention. In the belief that this letter was responsible for his debacle, he developed an even more malevolent contempt for her. He had the door leading from within the palace to 617Kalakatta (Calcutta) was then the seat of government for the British in India.
618The tone of this statement suggests perfiidy, but there are other possibilities. The king was seeking ways repay his huge debts at the time, which the British were using as a way to take over his kingdom [Guha 1979b]. These negotiations over 44,00,000 Varāhasmay also have been intended to secure a higher status (say, as a tributary state) for Mais ūru than it then had under the East India Company. The Subsidiary Treaty of 1799 had very onerous terms.
Indian states were then either subsidiaryor tributarystates. Military duty in a subsidiary state was performed by the Company’s troops, but not necessarily so in a tributary state
[Commons 1840, para. 451]. Mais ūru was a subsidiary state (but see below). A subsidy was extracted from the state, ostensibly for the upkeep of the British military force. Under Article II of the Subsidiary Treaty of 1799, this subsidy from Mais ūru was 7,00,000 Star Pagodas, the equivalent of 57% of Mais ūru’s estimated revenues at the time. The contribution was to be even higher at times of war involving the Company, as happened in the Marāṭha wars of 1802–1805 and 1817–1818. In 1804 alone, Mais ūru incurred expenses of over 4,10,000 Star Pagodasin support of the Marāṭha campaign [Rao 1936a, p. 357]. The treaty of 1807 required Mais ūru to maintain a standing cavalry of 4000 horse to support the British, which accounted for 70% of the annual military expenditures of 9,50,000–11,10,000 *R ūpīs *[Rao 1936a, p. 491]. The treaty of 1799 granted the king an annual allowance of 100,000 Star Pagodas, as well as a fiifth of the netrevenue of the state. This treaty also allowed the British to assume the government at any time, so Mais ūru was seen practically as a British possession, not simply as a subsidiary state [Commons 1840, para. 459]. No other Indian state, excepting Travancore, was in this situation. In 1831 C.E., following the Nagar insurrection, the British invoked the treaty’s terms, and assumed full control of Mais ūru’s administration.
619Such intrigue was apparently not unknown in the Maisūru Palace. See, for example, Rao [1936a, p. 405]: “Chowdiah and Veene Venkatasubbiah were in league and often did not scruple, it is said, to fabricate communications between the Maharaja and the Resident to serve their own ends. They also prevented proper information from reaching the ears of the Maharaja or Casamaijor.” This Chowdiah is the same Residency Śeristedāralluded to in footnote 556.
240
sons of sarasvatī
Lakṣmīvilāsa walled up, thus isolating these quarters from the rest of the palace. It is a classic quip that a king angry with a queen banishes her to the farthest palace quarters, and forces her to subsist on coarse millet and stale legumes. This turned to reality in the case of the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa.
She often lamented to the ladies closest to her: “*Śiva, Śiva!*The life of a woman is indeed one of woe! I thought the husband who took my hand my god, and forsook my parents, my siblings, and all the comforts of my home. Isn’t a child a part of a parent’s very own being? Should ever a child torn away from a parent’s bosom and given to another who promises to care and protect, be reduced to such a state? No good fortune or prosperity could ever make up for a husband’s indifference to his wife. Securing the lineage is the chief object of a marriage. There now remains no prospect for preserving the kingdom.620 When the wife wed with Agnias witness is forsaken,621 what does it matter when the others beget children? How shall I describe the misfortunes of the king of Mais ūru! The righteous do suffer thus when the malicious prevail. It is far better for husband and wife to suffer the pangs of abject poverty but live in harmony, than for them to enjoy great opulence but live estranged. The ordinary person may be shown the right path through good counsel, but when the king’s mind is corrupted, that is indeed an incurable disease. I am now suffering the consequences of my misdeeds in my lives past. I am a woman, and thus helpless. But blam-ing others gains one nothing. The more suffering one causes a woman, the closer one gets to the great crime of gynæcide. But can one avert fate?” The greater her disappointments, the more high-minded she became. Dressing herself in a simple white sīrecosting three *Haṇas,*she divested herself of her golden and bejewelled ornaments, wore the ashes of vibh ūtion her forehead and a necklace of rudrākṣibeads around her neck, and since she was not a widow, some kuṁkumaon her forehead, and spent her time studying books on *Vēdānta,*acquiring insight into jñāna yōgaand *rāja yōga,*living the life of a *yōgiṉī.*Her life was so exemplary in every respect, that not a tongue could wag, even with lips closed. She waned in body because she subjected herself to such rigours as eating a single meal a day, subsisting on fruits and milk, and fasting. Her delicate fiigure wasted away. Many years 620See footnote 520.
621That is, the formally wed wife, with the status of Queen Consort, rather than a morganatic wife.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
241
passed in this manner. Born into a noble family and being a lady of resolve, however, her mind remained steadfast.
But who can divine the future? One never knows what might happen, or when. Indeed, a reason arose for the king’s heart to soften in regard to this queen. This is a story I have heard fiirst-hand from my maternal grandmother’s sister, that is, my birth mother’s maternal aunt, who heard it from the princess herself.622 By publishing this story here, we hope to bring to light the great virtues of the royal couple.
Also, this narrative is essential to provide context for the king’s displeasure with the queen, its abatement and its transformation into regard, the king’s indignation at the Śāstri because of his aversion to the king’s attitude, and the Śāstri’s consequent determination to leave the kingdom.
A daughter had been born to a lady with whom the king had a concubinal relation. This daughter was beautiful, and bore a strong resemblance to the king.623 In due course, she was married, and became pregnant. The king would meet the daughter as many as four times a day. The king had unlimited regard for his daughter. She was in the fiifth month of her pregnancy. In accordance with tradition, preparations were made for the bangle-wearing ceremony.624 The father said to the daughter one day:
622The sentence in the original is ambiguous: “namma mātāmahiya taṇgi endare cikka hettammanu doreya baṇgārada kumāriyinda kēḷi nōḍida saṇgati endu hēḷida mātannu *nānu kiviyāra kēḷidēne.”*The sentence refers to the same person as mātāmahiya taṇgi, or grandmother’s younger sister, and also as cikka hettamma, the obvious reading of which would mean his biological mother’s younger sister. Since these relationships cannot both apply to the same person, it seems reasonable to read the latter relationship as hettam-mana cikkamma, or mother’s maternal aunt (grandmother’s sister). ṀṢPuṭṭaṇṇa’s given name was Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri, but he was called Puṭṭaṇṇa (“the little one”) for affection; the appellation stuck. His father was S ūryanārāyaṇabhaṭṭa of Cannapaṭṭaṇa, whose father Lakṣmīkānta Bhaṭṭa was learned in the Vēdasand in jyotiṣa, or astrology. In appreciation of his abilities, the king had granted Lakṣmīkanta Bhaṭṭa 20 acres of land in Cannapaṭṭaṇa.
Puṭṭaṇṇa’s mother died a few days after he was born. There is no record of her identity, or of her mother’s. Puṭṭaṇṇa grew up in the house of his birth mother’s older brother Aṇṇayyaśāstri of Aṇṇapēṭe. He was cared for by his grandmother and a widowed paternal aunt named Ammaṇatte, whom he would have seen as his foster mother. The family had connections in the palace, so it would be no surprise for one of the ladies to have known something of the internal goings-on in the palace.
623In praising Puṭṭaṇṇa’s sensitive treatment of this episode, Sujātā [2001] gives the name of this young lady as “Ratnājī”. The source of this specifiic information is unclear.
624In this South Indian ritual, a number of married ladies place green (and red) glass bangles on the expectant mother’s wrists. In wealthy households, bracelets of gold may also
242
sons of sarasvatī
King: Lady, your pregnancy is a divine blessing. Is there anything you wish for? Tell me without hesitation. I will have it brought for you.
Daughter: *Appāji,*will you really have brought to me what I want?
King: I assure you, I will. I will not go back on my word.
Daughter: *Appāji,*I really wish for a bracelet embedded with the nine precious gems.625
King: You are well-acquainted with our treasury. You may choose any bracelet you wish.
Daughter: The Royal Treasury contains none I would want.
King: Then I will have one made for you.
Daughter: I do not want one that is new. I want one that has been worn by a muttaide.626
King: Who might have one such? Tell me, and I will have it brought to you.
Daughter: *Appāji,*I fear you will be angry.
King: No, just tell me.
Daughter: Hold me by the hand, and promise me that you will not be angry, *Appāji. *
King: Lady, one does not swear on a pregnant woman.
Daughter: If I tell you, you won’t restrain your anger, and neither will you have it brought to me. Oh, why did I ever wish for this bracelet!
King: Do not be upset. That pains me. I will have it brought, no matter where it may be. Tell me.
Daughter: It is with the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa. Do have it brought to me.627
be given. The ceremony is a ritual of blessing, and is connected with the sīmantonnayana ritual, which is one of the sixteen *saṁskāras *(see footnote 256).
625The list of navaratnascan vary a bit, but generally, these are pearl, ruby, topaz, diamond, emerald, lapis lazuli, coral, sapphire, and zircon.
626A *muttaide *(equivalently, suvāsiṉīor sumaṇgaḻī) is a respectable unwidowed lady. The presence of such ladies at auspicious occasions is a good omen, and brings blessings and good fortune. Wearing items of jewellery that have been worn by muttaidesis seen as auspicious.
627This would be the queen Dēvājammaṇṇi (Dēvāmbādēvī). See footnote 614. Much more is at work here than fatherly affection; the wishes of a pregnant woman must always be
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
243
As soon as he heard this, the king left the matter where it was, and on some pretext, went outside, away from the presence of his daughter. His daughter’s words, however, remained lodged in his mind. It bothered him that there was no way to fulfiil her wish. His previous resentments had all came gushing forth at the mere mention of Lakṣmīvilāsa; how was a message to be sent to that residence? How was that bracelet to be brought away from there? This did not seem possible. Yet, the wishes of his dear daughter had to be fulfiilled. This was not a matter that could simply be forgotten.
Nor could he bring himself to speak the needed words. His mind could not just continue bearing this burden. Thus was his state. His daughter was depressed that her wish had gone unfulfiilled. The glow upon her countenance had dimmed. Her body too, appeared to be wasting. Seeing her decline, the king fiinally spoke:
King: Lady, I am anguished that your wish has gone unfulfiilled. Do go to where the bracelet is, and ask for it yourself.
Daughter: This is not such a simple matter, *Appāji.*The senior lady will not give me the bracelet just for the asking. Neither is the ornament an ordinary one.
King: What sort of a bracelet is it? Is it not one that we had made? Is it not of our palace? Could I not have one made that is even better?
Daughter: That bracelet was not made in this palace. It was gifted to the senior lady by DīvānP ūrṇayya when she was seated on the ritual platform for some special ceremony. Whether good comes
of it or not, it must be mine, even if only for a couple of days. Your Retinue must arrive and request it.628
King: (Deeply anguished) It appears that I must do what you ask to restore your happiness. I am having to break my vow for you. I will walk behind you to the that apartment, and stand at the door.
You can go in and ask for the bracelet.
accommodated, both by tradition and scriptural mandate. For example, see Yājñavalkyasmr̥ti3.79 : “dohadasyāpradānena garbho doṣamavāpnuyāt | vairūpyam nidhanam vā_pi *tasmātkāryam priyam striyah. ∥”*meaning “If the wishes of a pregnant woman are denied, detriment accrues to the fœtus. It suffers deformity or demise. One should hence do as the lady desires.” The king bears a particular burden in this respect, as the supremely munifiicient patron of everyone and everything in his realm.
628The word “Retinue” is used in what follows as a metonym, and is an allusion to the king himself.
244
sons of sarasvatī
Daughter: Sir, that will not work. You must hold me by the hand and take me inside. When the king’s feet enter the apartment, I will follow.
King: Those with children have left no dignity. As you wish, lady.
At this, a person from the queens’ apartments, who stood nearby, lay prostrate before the king, and said: “Great Sire, it is not befiitting that such thoughts should enter one’s mind. Indeed, it is those with children who are due the highest respect. Affection for one’s children soothes the mind and softens one’s heart. When one sees others suffering, one’s children come to mind, and one’s heart feels for others. Those who can, then work to alleviate the suffering of others. Those who cannot, still feel the anguish. Sire, don’t such blessed people, who work to help others, receive respect? They receive respect even from the gods themselves.”
The king’s mind now turned mellow. The great many virtues of the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa came to mind, one after the other. The conspiracies hatched recently by such rogues as as Dāsappāji also came to mind. It became clear in his mind that blame for what had transpired belonged to such scoundrels, not to the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa, who always remained in her apartments, committed to asceticism. The order went out that the wall that closed off the internal door to Lakṣmīvilāsa was to come down. The lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa commanded great respect everywhere, not just in her quarters, but also among the workers, the servants, and indeed among all the kingdom’s subjects. Overjoyed that the king’s anger had subsided, they pulled down the wall in an instant. The lock that had closed the door for so many years was forced open.
The servants rushed to convey the news of the door’s opening to the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa, who was seated on a deerskin in the shrine in her apartment, immersed in reading the *Gītā,*after having completed her daily worship. She remained silent and distant. At this moment ran in another maid, saying: “Your Majesty! The Royal Retinue approaches this apartment, accompanied by the junior lady!” The naturally calm mind of the lady became disquieted. She worried herself: “I wonder what punishment now awaits me. But then, there would be no reason to bring along the expectant daughter; I wonder why the Retinue approaches!” Just then, the king stood outside the threshold of the door that led from inside the palace to the
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
245
apartment. The princess stood inside the threshold. The king said: “I will remain here. Go in and ask for the bracelet.” The princess replied: “That will not do. The Retinue must enter.” The king then grasped his daughter’s hand, and entered the apartment. Hearing of this, the lady put down her book, and entered the large hall of the apartment. The king looked at his daughter and said: “Ask for the bracelet that you want.” The daughter replied: “You ask for it, *Appāji! *”
Nobody knows what can transpire at what time, and for what reason.
What had not happened for so many years now came to pass. Husband and wife looked at each other. The king at once saw her pure, borderless white *sīre,*the ash that she wore on her body and forehead, the small mark of kuṁkumaon her forehead, her well-grayed and tousled hair tied in a knot, the many layers of rudrākṣibeads at her neck, among which was her circular tāḷihanging from a turmeric-dyed thread, her bracelets of rudrākṣibeads, her palm-leaf earrings, her emaciated fiigure, her once-beautiful face now wrinkled and plain, and her sunken eyes.629
The king said to his royal consort: “Your daughter is expecting. She wants the bejewelled bracelet that YajamānP ūrṇayya gifted to you when you were seated on the ritual platform; please have it given to her.” The lady’s eyes flooded with tears. The king’s mind had been distressed at the state in which he found his wife. The tears in the eyes of his royal consort brought tears to the eyes of the kindhearted king. The lady paid her respects to her husband’s feet, washed them, wiped them clean with the edge of the sīreshe wore, and pressed it to her eyes. With a tremulous voice, she said: “My lord, today, my sins are all atoned for. My life has attained its meaning.” Thinking back over everything that had transpired, at his wife’s virtues, and deeply remorseful at the diffiiculties he had caused her, the king held his wife’s hand and sat transfiixed and silent for a while. A tingling in his nose caused his eyes to swell with tears. Tears streamed from the lady’s 629This is the paradigmatic image of spousal and spiritual devotion. The borderless white sīresignifiies purity and asceticism. The vibh ūtiash and rudrākṣibeads are also symbols of asceticism. The kuṁkumaon her forehead and the tāḷipendant are marks of her status as a sumaṇgaḻī, an unwidowed woman. Her tousled hair, her earrings of palm-leaf rolls, and the turmeric-dyed thread necklace for her tāḷiare signs of her rejection of worldly pleasures and her focus on the spiritual. The latter two ornaments are seen only among the poorest of the poor. A queen consort would of course, have otherwise worn substantial and bejewelled gold ornaments.
246
sons of sarasvatī
eyes; hiccups caused by excessive weeping were clearly audible. The daughter paid her respects to her mother, and stood before her. Tears appeared like pearls on her cheeks at the plight of her parents.
The lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa now did reverence to her husband once again, embraced her daughter, and had brought to her the bracelet she sought, as well as many other ornaments, and gifted them to her along with auspicious materials like turmeric and *kuṁkuma.*The palace was overjoyed. The Arasu relatives were all jubilant. From that day forward, the king placed not just great faith in the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa, but also the greatest regard.
Her asceticism roused feelings of devotion. All the recognition and reverence that she once enjoyed were again granted her, in increased measure.
Whenever an occasion presented itself, the king would remark: “The lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa is most virtuous. Our splendour and prestige are all on her account.” He also often remarked that everything she had warned him about had come true, and that her intelligence and far-sightedness were unequalled.
Thus lay matters, when the time the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa had on this earth came to an end, and she passed away. The funerary cer-c. 1854
emonies were completed with special reverence. The order was
given for all the palace employees and vaidikasto come to the cremation grounds. It was a little late, however, by the time Rāmaśāstri fiinished his morning rituals and arrived at the place. Timmaṇṇaśāstri, who had been waiting for just such an opportunity to sate the fiires in his belly, went up to the king at this time of sorrow, and said: “Your Majesty, everyone is here except for Rāmaśāstri.” The malevolent smoke from that fiire caused the great regard the king had for the Śāstri to become obscured, even to the extent of making him say in reproach: “Why has Rāmaśāstri not come? He really ought to have come!” This episode illustrates the extreme regard in the king’s mind for the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa. In proportion to his regard grew the king’s great sorrow, and in the same proportion, his umbrage at the Śāstri. This became known to Rāmaśāstri, who had just arrived.630
Now, Rāmaśāstri never left home before completing his morning bath and other rituals. He awoke each morning just as dawn was breaking, and went to the side of Cāmuṇḍī hill to attend to personal matters appropriate 630This insistence on performing one’s mandatory rituals before all else is to be respected as a sign of great merit, rather than disdained as a sign of self-indulgence. See footnote 457.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
247
for the outdoors. He would be accompanied by Sāggere Nārāyaṇaśāstri, Subrahmaṇyaśāstri, or some other student. They would discuss interesting topics as they proceeded. He would clarify any doubts or questions they might have had relating to their studies. It was the practice for the student to carry a large pot of water. When they got to the hill, the student would remain behind, and the Śāstri would proceed, taking the pot of water. After he returned home, he would bathe, complete his morning rituals, such as *Sandhyāvandane,*his recitation of scriptures, worship rituals, and *Aupāsana.*This would take about a jāvaor so.631 He would then instruct some students, go to the palace, returning home only after the king had left for his meals after completing his Śiva worship. He would then bathe again, and complete his afternoon rituals, such as Sandhyāvandane, *Brahmayajña, Vaiśvadēva,*and *Baliharaṇa.*It would now be around two or three in the afternoon. At this time, he would seat himself with his students, and have his meal. He would eat well, and without haste. Later, he would complete his evening rituals, such as *Sandhyāvandane,*and retire to bed after dinner, at around 9–10 p.m. He would instruct his students during the times in-between. He would also constantly engage himself in studying his books.
A new fact came to light on one occasion. The Śāstri had left for the side of Cāmuṇḍī hill in the morning, accompanied by Sāggere Nārāyaṇaśāstri.
When they neared the hill, the student remained behind, as was the practice, and the Śāstri went ahead with the pot of water. It was still misty. It was diffiicult to see even those who passed right before one’s eyes. The student completed his morning activities, and sat, waiting for his guru. The sun came up after a while, and it became quite warm; it was now around eight o’clock. The Śāstri had still not returned. Narāyaṇaśāstri began to tire of his waiting. He went in search of the Śāstri. At around nine o’clock, something white was visible in the distance, at the the foot of the Cāmuṇḍī mountain.
When the student went up to it, he saw a shallow hollow in the rock, full of clean, clear water. There was a cave nearby. The Śāstri was standing next to it. He had his outer garment around him. A pañcewas wrapped around his head. His head, spine, and feet were all stiffly stretched out in a straight line.
His eyes were closed. His eyeballs were slightly visible, and turned upwards.
631A *jāva (jhāva)*is the tadbhavaor derived form of yāmain Saṁskr̥ta. This would be an eighth part of a day, that is, about three hours.
248
sons of sarasvatī
There appeared to be no movement in his body. Nārāyaṇaśāstri just stood there, not knowing what to do. After a bit, a sound was heard. The Śāstri opened his eyes. Seeing his student standing there, he said: “Why did you come here? I would have returned on my own,” and charged him not to speak to anyone about what he had witnessed. The guru and student walked back home.632
After completing his morning rituals, the Śāstri would meditate, regulating his breath. In light of all this, there remains little doubt that the Śāstri was not merely knowledgeable in Yoga, but was really very accomplished in Yogic practices. He would do nothing until he had completed his bath and his morning rituals. This was common practice among vaidikasin times past. Indeed, he could be possessed of no other temperament; he was the grandson of Pāpaśāstri, who proceeded to complete his morning bath even when his son lay dead before him, and before he had his corpse removed for cremation. Given his rigorous Yogic practice, it was impossible to know how much time might pass when he meditated upon his breathing and entered a state of deep concentration. Neither is it proper in this case for one to consult clocks, and speak in terms of hours and minutes. Truly, such exalted beings are not captives to the flow of time; rather, time itself is subject to their control. These Yogic and ritual practices on the Śāstri’s part were the real reason for the delay in his arrival at the cremation grounds when the lady of Lakṣmīvilāsa passed away.
Timmaṇṇaśāstri took great care to sustain the king’s unhappiness with the Śāstri, by continuing to speak vicious untruths about him. On some other occasion, the king sent for Rāmaśāstri, wishing to speak with him on some matter. Timmaṇṇaśāstri’s machinations had brought about this circumstance. Guards and servants came a couple of times to call him to the palace. The Śāstri, however, had not yet completed his daily rituals, and there were some additional ceremonies due for performance on that day.
The Śāstri said to the messenger that he would leave in a little while. By the time this word reached the king, it had been completely transformed, and grown into a being with hands, feet, ears, and a nose, as it were. The king was very displeased that the Śāstri had not arrived instantly.
632These symptoms are obviously consistent with conditions such as seizure disorders.
Puṭṭaṇṇa, the author, is aware of, and alludes to this possibility. See page 267.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
249
Even a small black dot stands out starkly against a white and spotless cloth. That same black dot on a dirty and grimy cloth merges with the dirt, and is not even visible. A single fiingerprint on a clean mirror appears like a major blemish, and seems to disfiigure the countenance of anyone looking into the mirror. But no matter how much dirt settles on a tarnished mirror that has lost its brightness, it remains unseen. Neither does a face reflected in it appear disfiigured. In this same way, Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III’s mind, which was pure and principled, saw even a small flaw as substantial, even when placed there by devious minds.
The Śāstri learned of the king’s displeasure. He said: “A brāhmaṇa lives but on the patronage of others. The world is, after all, a large place. There are many countries besides this one. If this king is unhappy, we 1854–1855
shall not remain in this kingdom, in which malicious individ-
uals have such say,” and departed in short order for Kāñci, accompanied by his family, his chief disciple Vijayarāghavācārya, and twenty students.633 The Śāstri did not visit the king when he departed. The king learned of all this. He said nothing, and remained silent.
633It is interesting that at around this very time, a misunderstanding also appears to have arisen between Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III and the SvāmiNr̥siṁha Bhāratī of the Śr̥ṇgēri maṭha, causing the Svāmito depart Mais ūru for the north [Narasimhachar 1913, p. 80]. Kr̥ṣṇa-rāja Voḍeyar III wrote to the Svāmiseveral times in 1854 requesting him not to believe the mischievous people who had caused this rift, and to return to Mais ūru to pay him a visit, even sending money through SāhukārDāmodara Dās to fund his return. The Svāmifiinally replied to the king from Nāsik. In 1861, the king wrote to the Svāmiof his intention to visit Śr̥ṇgēri, urging him not to appoint a spiritual successor till then. See footnote 647 for further information on this spiritual succession.
Chapter 11: Southward Travels (The Second
Time). N ār āyaṇa Shown to Mean Śiva. The
King’s Regard
People saw the world very differently fiifty or sixty years ago than they do today. Their views have changed over time. English education has now become prevalent. But English education is foreign education. Those who teach it are Christians. Most important, such education was brought to this country by Christian missionaries, who are Christian priests. It is understandable for them to preach their religion. The teachers in English schools established by the government, however, were also Christians. Even when it was forbidden to preach Christianity in government schools, and even when teachers desisted from preaching their religion, it was indeed the rare teacher who did not deride or ridicule our āryantraditions.
The scorn aimed at our religion and tradition naturally targeted brāhmaṇas, as the intellectuals who sustained it all. Because such disdain and ridicule comes from teachers, the very individuals our students maintain the greatest regard for, innocent children come to believe that our religion is no religion at all, and that our ancients and elders must have lacked intelligence and discernment. When such children are grown, and work for the government in positions of responsibility, the deplorable views they were exposed to as children remain ingrained in their minds, and they carry out with exemplary ability such tasks as abandoning our traditional practices, and like foreigners, speaking of our own people with censure. Others, out of fear of authority, hesitate to correct their flawed opinions. When such offiicials or dignitaries happen to be brāhmaṇas, their words of censure may be somewhat restrained; if they are non-brāhmaṇas, their intensity is magnifiied tenfold.
Means to express contempt for brāhmaṇas arise naturally, in this fashion. It would be going a step farther, and cause for even greater pride, if a brāhmaṇa were especially well versed in many branches of learning, and one expressed contempt for him and his learning. If, however, some foreign scholar were to suggest that there might be commendable elements in our traditions and learning, then that is believed, there awakens a spark of pride, 250
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
251
and one hears non-brāhmaṇas saying out loud: “These accursed brāhmaṇas hide everything from us! They tell us nothing!”
Even when it comes to goverment employment, non-brāhmaṇas are heard complaining that brāhmaṇas keep such jobs securely locked away in coffers, which they open as they see fiit, but only to hand out jobs to their own. These are the views of those who do not know the truth. With the decline in royal patronage, brāhmaṇas naturally gravitated towards government jobs, knowing no way of earning livelihoods other than by relying on their education. When one considers who holds the power to fiill government jobs, however, one sees only non-brāhmaṇas. Why, then, do they appoint brāhmaṇas? The reason becomes clear upon some reflection. Persons in positions of ultimate responsibility in the government, regardless of the community they are from, give due consideration to the weight of their responsibilities. Such offiicials are ever mindful of such factors as intelligence and ability. When the focus is on ability, rather than on caste, there is no room for partisanship. The point of a needle is able to pierce a piece of cloth without tearing it, and join the two edges of this cloth as if they were one. A crowbar may be made of the same substance, but could it pierce cloth? But a crowbar may be sharpened, to make it like a needle. Then it does become possible. Matters do become clear upon reflection.
Thus have arisen ways for discord to grow among our own people. This is a big reason for the lack of consensus in our nation. People assume incorrectly that this problem is rooted in English education.
This, at any rate, is how the situation stands at present.634 I have no legal brief to argue the case for brāhmaṇas. I have written what appears clear to me after analysis. It is possible that I am being unconsciously dogged by a bias in favour of my own community. I have no desire, however, to harbour such a bias.
This degree of conflict between brāhmaṇas and non-brāhmaṇas did not exist in times past. Brāhmaṇas did see themselves as more accomplished in matters relating to religion and the associated areas of scholarship, but had appropriate regard for non-brāhmaṇas in all other matters, in proportion to their abilities. Non-brāhmaṇas were well aware of this, and in fact, learned a great many things from the brāhmaṇas.
634It is fair to say that the situation is not better, and indeed much worse, more than a hundred years after these words were written.
252
sons of sarasvatī
Thus, there were a great many scholars among non-brāhmaṇas. Among these was an individual called Vāsaraḍḍi Veṇkaṭācala Nāyakafrom a *pāḷeyapat.*that is now under the jurisdiction of the Madras Corps.635 He was always engaged in studying scholarly works, and was patron to a great many scholars. He referred to the scholars in his court as the Aṣṭadiggajas.636 He was very protective of them, always showing them great generosity.
635This is Vāsireḍḍi Veṇkaṭādri Nāyaḍu (1783–1816 C.E.), a powerful and wealthy local ruler, renowned as dynamic and extravagant, and as a great patron of learning and the arts.
An excellent summary of his life and legacy appears in Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa [1963]. He was the last king of a line of pāḷeyagārasdating back to the Vijayanagara empire, and was originally based in Cintāpalli. He later moved to Amarāvati in Gunṭūr district, which he built up and made his base. He is said to have left an estate that included 50 lakh R ūpīsand half a million pounds sterling, in addition to vast lands. All this wealth was quickly dissipated after he died. This family’s history after Veṇkaṭādri’s death is fascinating.
Veṇkaṭādri adopted two sons: Jagannātha Bābu in 1798 and Rāmanātha Bābu in 1807, both children of cousins. Upon Veṇkaṭādri’s death, a court battle ensued between his sons for control of his estate, with Sabnavis Antanna Pantulu, one of Veṇkaṭādri’s two ministers, backing Jagannatha Bābu, and Pott ūri Kāḷidāsa, the other minister, backing Rāmanātha Bābu. This battle dragged on for a quarter of a century. Even by 1818, two years after Veṇkaṭādri’s death, the wealth he had amassed had largely been dissipated, partly due to the litigation, but also because of embezzlement and mismanagement. The collectors of Macilipaṭṭaṇam and Gunṭūru attached most of the estate to cover arrears. In June 1824, the Provincial Court decided against Rāmanātha Bābu, who appealed to the Sadr Court at Madras. The elder brother Jagannātha Bābu died on February 28, 1825. Rāmanātha Bābu now claimed to be his heir, but the Provincial Court decided in favour of Accamma, his senior widow. In 1826, the junior widow Raṇgamma fiiled suit against Rāmanātha Bābu, Accamma, and Pottūri Kāḷidāsa, claiming that she and her late husband had adopted a boy named Lakṣmīpati in 1819 (her mother’s sister’s son), who was thus the heir to the whole estate of Rāja Veṇkaṭādri. This suit was dismissed with costs in 1827, but Raṇgamma appealed. On March 14, 1832, the Sadr Court at Madras found that Lakṣmīpati had not been properly adopted by Jagannātha Bābu, and that whatever remained of Veṇkaṭādri’s estate belonged to Rāmanātha Bābu. In 1848, however, the Privy Council turned this judgment on its head, fiinding Lakṣmīpati’s adoption by Jagannātha Bābu to be valid, and Rāmanātha Bābu’s adoption by Veṇkaṭādri to be invalid, and denying him the right to inherit any of the property, except that given him explicitly by Veṇkaṭādri. In 1852, the Privy Council directed the Collectors of Macilipaṭṭaṇam and Gunṭūru to restore to Lakṣmīpati Nāyaḍu the property they had attached. Rāmanātha Bābu died in 1859. The Madras Government maintained that all that remained for Lakṣmīpati to inherit was the monthly allowance of *Rs.*1,000 that Rāmanātha Bābu had received. For more details, see Mackenzie [1883], Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa
[1963], and Halvorsen [2008].
636Terms such as diggajaor digdantiare frequently used metaphors denoting stalwarts in any fiield. See footnote 589 for further details. Aṣṭadiggajais used in Lakṣmīnārāyaṇa [1963]
for the scholars in Veṇkaṭādri Nāyaḍu’s court.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
253
The chief point here is that our scholars would not have prospered as they have without the support of non-brāhmaṇas, nor would there have been as many scholarly works in Saṁskr̥ta. After Veṇkaṭācala *Nāyaka,*his son Lakṣmīpati Nāyakacontinued as a great patron of Saṁskr̥tascholarship.637 Father and son were both learned in Saṁskr̥ta, and showed great regard for scholars and brāhmaṇas.
Lakṣmīpati Nāyaka would sponsor a scholarly meeting each year. Debates and such activities took place at this meeting. At a conference some long time past, a discussion took place on whether the word nārāyaṇacould in fact, be interpreted to mean Śiva. It is said that a long time ago, Appayya Dīkṣita determined that while the word nārāyanacould be shown to mean Śiva, it was diffiicult to construe nārāyaṇaas Śiva, that the syllable nawas bothersome, but that if ṇawere to arise instead of na, instead, one could construe the resulting nārāyaṇaas Śiva.638
We have seen that Rāmaśāstri departed for Kāñci around the Ānanda saṁvatsaraor so. At this time, Lakṣmīpati Nāyaḍu, who was now resident in Kāñci, cordially invited Rāmaśāstri to participate in the sym-1854–1855
posium the following year. With Rāmaśāstri, renowned all over as a great scholar, resident in the same town, would a scholarly symposium without his presence not be akin to the sky absent the moon?
The Śāstri attended the symposium. There he recited the śloka: 637Lakṣmīpati Nāyaḍu was not Veṇkaṭādri’s son, but his grandson. See footnote 635.
638This may not be as pointless a polemic as fiirst seems. Nārāyaṇais now popularly identifiied with Viṣṇu, but it was not always so. The word is absent even from the Bhagavadgītā.
The authoritative śruticorpus has numerous references to nārāyaṇaas the primal creative principle, associating it often with puruṣa, but never with Viṣṇu, Śiva, or Brahma, the main modern Hindu deities. *Puruṣa *(primordial man) is a central concept in cosmogenesis, and the Nārāyaṇa Sūktaof the Mahānārāyaṇopaniṣadechoes the important Puruṣa Sūktaof the R.gveda, and repeatedly uses nārāyaṇaas equivalent to puruṣa. Given its signifiicance, sects vie to establish that their deity is the referent of the word nārāyaṇa, constructing and construing various etymologies, using various grammatical and scholarly arguments. A direct derivation is as a patronymic from *nara *(man) via the suffiix -yana. This reinforces the association with puruṣa. By Pāṇini *8.4.1: “raṣābhyāṁ no ṇaḥsamānapade” *(“ṇareplaces naafter ror *s.*within a single word”) as modifiied by *8.4.3: “pūrvapadāt saṁjñāyām agah.” *
(“nain the latter half of a compound referencing a specifiic individual or thing changes to ṇa, unless the fiirst half ends in g”), the suffiix -yanais changed to -yaṇa, and we get nārāyaṇa.
Appayya Dīkṣita’s alleged diffiiculty may have been in showing that nachanges to ṇaeven when the compound does not refer to a specifiic entity, such as the deity of the Vaiṣṇavas.
It is unclear to the translator by what means Dīkṣita might have carried his argument to a conclusion, had he overcome this problem. Also see footnotes 213 and 489.
254
sons of sarasvatī
kēcana mūrkhā ṇatvaṁ bādhata iti dīkṣitavarairabhāṇīti |
pralapanti tanmr̥ṣaiva sphurati śivādityadīpikādidr̥ṣāṁ ∥
Meaning: Some fools babble on that the great Appayya Dīkṣita said that he was discomfiited by the syllable ṇa. It is clear that this is false when one examines works such as the Śivādityadīpikā.639
Then he entered into the debate, and showed using arguments by a certain Smārtagrammarian that the correct meaning of the word nārāyaṇa was Śiva. He established that the syllable ṇaresulted, rather than na. The Śrīvaiṣṇavascholars present objected strongly that this was contrary to the Vaiṣṇavatenets. The Śāstri responded that those who felt this was incorrect were welcome to point out the errors in his argument, and silence him. After some quibbling, the Śrīvaiṣṇavascholars agreed that it was diffiicult to counter the Śāstri’s arguments.
At this time, the Śāstri composed a work called Navakōṭi.640 Finally, the issue still unresolved, some 600–700 *Vaiṣṇavas,*deciding that matters were to be taken into their own hands when all else has failed, arrived, bent upon a physical confrontation. The Śāstri replied to them thus: “Gentlemen, this fact has been established more recently than Appayya Dīkṣita, by a great grammarian called Śaṇkara Bhaṭṭācārya.641 This is not a new determination. Besides, this is not a dispute involving sectarian tenets, but a scholarly debate. The arguments we have presented are based purely on statements from the *Śāstras;*there is no disparagement of religion.”
Everyone was then full of praise for the Śāstri. Lakṣmīpati Nāyakagave him the gift of a palanquin, and honoured him greatly. This news reached Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III, the king of Maisūru. The king anguished, saying:
“What sorrow it is that this great scholar, born and brought up in our own country, and who was such an ornament to our court, should have left our kingdom! When will he step on our soil again, and sanctify it?”
639The source incorrectly has *“. . . m ūrkhā natvaṁ. . . ”*Appayya Dīkṣita was a proponent of Śivādvaita, which seeks to unify the Śaiva ¯
Agamasand Advaita. The Śivādityadīpikā is surely the Śivādityamaṇidīpikā, Dīkṣita’s commentary on Śrīkaṇṭha’s Bhāṣyaon Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahmas ūtras, in which Śrīkaṇṭha develops *Śivādvaita.*Also see footnote 213.
640We see the following in [Rāmārāju 2002, p. 766]: “… Navakoṭi–advocating Advaita and Śaivismand criticising Vaiṣṇavism.”
641See footnote 593.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
255
Rāmaśāstri then travelled to Madarās with his family. A gathering took place, in which were present such luminaries as PāḷeyagāraLakṣmīpati *Nāyaka,*Kollā Kannayyaśeṭṭi, Madarās Sadar Adālat Court scholar Gōpālaśāstri, Appaṇṇaśāstri, Caṇgalpat. Collector’s Offiice Head ŚirastedārŚrīnivāsarāv, Nāyab ŚirastedārVaradācāri, who were themselves scholars and important local leaders. The topic of debate was once again whether the word nārāyaṇacould be construed to mean Śiva. The Śāstri took one side of the issue. Opposing him was a foursome: Kunapākaṁ Appāsāmayyaṇgār, Tirupakuḍi Appanaiyyaṇgār, Muñjālagaḍḍe Veṇkaṭācāri, and Vāsudēvā-cāri, a Mādhvaof Kāñcīpura.642 This topic had been debated fiirst in the maṭhaof Upaniṣat Brahma in Kāñci and later in the temple of Pārthasārathi in Tiruvaḷakkēṇi in Madarās. Rāmaśāstri succeeded in establishing his thesis. Everyone praised Rāmaśāstri’s scholarship greatly. They conferred excellent awards on him. Kollā Rāghavaśeṭṭi gave him the gift of a palanquin.
The Śāstri then established the doctrine of jaganmithyathrough his student Vāsudēvaśāstri of Doḍḍabaḷḷāpura.643
This news, too, reached Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III. His anguish regarding Rāmaśāstri’s departure from his kingdom grew. The king continued his efforts to secure the Śāstri’s return, regretting that he had listened to evil-doers and gone too far, and concerned about whether such a luminary would ever return to his province, and whether he would ever see him again.
Around this time, a reason arose unexpectedly for the Śāstri to visit Śrī-raṇgapaṭṭaṇa. The Śāstri’s fame having spread everywhere, he was also well-known in the city of Beṇgaḷūru. The Śāstri arrived in Beṇgaḷūru en route.
He had to remain there a few days, at the urging of some offiicials. Whether it be affection or aversion, its intensity diminishes at distance, but grows in proximity. Some Vaiṣṇavassaw the thesis the Śāstri had established in the region south of the pass, namely, that the word nārāyaṇaactually means Śiva, as a denigration of their beliefs. It appears that a group of people who held 642In the original, the last name appears as Vāsuveēvācāri, clearly a typographical error.
643 Jaganmithyāis the Advaiticposition that the world is illusion. See Śaṇkara’s *Viveka-cūḍāmani,*20 *: “brahma satyam jaganmithyetyevaṁrūpo viniṣcyaḥ| so_yam nityānityavastu-vivekaḥsamudāhr̥tah. ∥”*Guṇḍappa [1970] states that Vāsudēvaśāstri of Doḍḍabaḷḷāpura put forth the Advaiticdoctrine *“brahma satyaṁ jaganmithyā”*and established it in a debate before the Jagadguruof the Śr̥ṇgēri *maṭha.*Pleased with his scholarship and eloquence, the Jagadguruawarded him the agnomen Jaganmithyā Vāsudēvaśāstri. He also received the title Vidyānidhifrom the king of Mais ūru. See page 310.
Plate 35: The royal bathing *ghāt.*at Paṣcimavāhiṉī. Department of Image Collections, National Gallery of Art Library, Washington, DC.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
257
these views had decided to debate Rāmaśāstri on this topic, and if unsuccessful in debate, to mete out punishment befiitting the devilish arguments of the *Smārtas. *
The Śāstri received news of the planned debate. The venue too, was decided. Yet, the fiisticuffs planned if the debate outcome were unfavourable were still kept secret. A person acquainted with the plot, however, sent an anonymous petition to General Cubbon, who was then Commissioner.
When this petition came up for hearing, it came to the hand of Beḷḷāvi Sōmayya, who was Ghaṭaka Munśiin the Commissioner’s Offiice. As per the offiicer’s orders, he opened it and read it aloud. It became clear that there was the strong likelihood of brawls and fiisticuffs, and possibly risk to life and limb, on the day scheduled for the debate between Rāmaśāstri and the residents of Beṇgaḷūru. As soon as Cubbon heard this, he forbade such a debate, and issued orders directing the Amīlof Beṇgaḷūru to stop its occurrence. For this reason, nothing ontoward occurred in Beṇgaḷūru. The plans of the Śāstri’s opponents came to naught.
Sometime later, the Śāstri came to Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa for some personal reasons. On one occasion, he came to bathe in the Paṣcimavāhiṉī.644 This 644The Kāvērī bifurcates around Śrīraṇgapaṭṭaṇa, and a small offshoot of the river forks off from the Western branch. This offshoot flows briefly westwards at one spot, where it is regarded as very holy, especially for the purpose of immersing the ashes of the cremated. A royal bathing ghat exists at this spot. See Parsons [1931] for the following delightful passage: Paschimavahini means “flowing to the west” and the westerly direction gives the river here an added sanctity. For the Kaveri, holy from source to mouth, is doubly so where it is joined by a tributary; trebly so when, as here, it flows opposite to its general direction.
Whatever non-Hindus may feel about her sanctity no one whatever his creed or country can refuse a tribute to the extraordinary beauty of these two or three acres of river side. There can be few places on earth, which in such small compass, offer more loveliness: few as quiet, except when an eclipse or some saint’s day draws multitudes to bathe and worship; and chattering monkeys clamber over the temple roofs and on the bridge, making sudden raids on any eatables in sight, exacting willing or unsanctioned toll of plantain, bread and nuts.
Indeed, it is within living memory for troops of monkeys to be resident in groves, and for all manner of wildlife to be observed in backyards, even in major cities such as Beṇgaḷūru. But no more, alas, may we witness such loveliness as the passage describes, but gaze in horror at the insults and ravages visited upon it by what passes for modernity across the land.
258
sons of sarasvatī
came to the attention of the king. He came to Paṣcimavāhiṉī on some pretext, and visited the place where the Śāstri was staying. The Śāstri offered phalama ˙ntrākṣateto the king, and blessed him. Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III inquired after his health, and seizing the opportunity, invited the Śāstri graciously, saying: “Dear Śāstri, I am very gratifiied to learn of your triumphs in places such as Madarās and Kāñci. I am unfortunate not to have been able to witness these events. My misfortune is the result of my having listened to wicked individuals. You are all-knowing, and should not take such umbrage at me. Please do defiinitely come to Mais ūru.”
In accordance with the king’s wishes, the Śāstri travelled to Mais ūru with full regalia and retinue. He and his family received such magnifiicient gifts as carriages drawn by a pair of horses. He entered Mais ūru in a manner befiitting a great ruler. The king bestowed much recognition on him.
Chapter 12: Birth of Third Son. His Passing
Asignificant event occurred in the month of Puṣya of the Paiṇgaḷa saṁvatsara. Whenever an important offiicial or scholar travelled from Mais ūru to some place nearby, it was customary for them to receive transportation from the palace stables, such as a carriage drawn by a pair, a carriage drawn by a single horse, or an ox-drawn carriage, in accordance with status. At such times, it was the practice for Rāmaśāstri to receive a carriage drawn by a pair of horses. He never cared for such ostentation, however.
He would simply walk to wherever he was going.
Thus, on one occasion, he needed to go to Nañjanag ūḍu. He began walking to Nañjanag ūḍu carrying his belongings in a bag on his shoulder, and accompanied by his student Subrahmaṇyaśāstri. This
December 1857
student was especially close to his guru. The Śāstri, con-
versing casually to pass the time en route, said: “Subrah-
maṇya, the lady of our house is expecting. A son is to be born. You are from south of the pass, and your people fiind excellent names for children.
Suggest a name connoting Śiva.”
Subrahmaṇya: Ammais still expecting. The child is yet in the womb.
Has it already been determined that it is a boy? And what does it mean to name a child that is yet unborn? What manner of wonder is this?645
645Given the background of Rāmaśāstri and his student, we take note of the expression
*“ajātaputra nāmōtkīrtana nyāya” *(the adage of shouting out the name of the unborn), a proverbial expression employed to illustrate the foolishness of naming the unborn. There is variability in naming practices, but the s ūtrasproscribe the naming of a child for at least ten days after birth. In some practices, the child may not be named for a year after birth.
Among other functions, the delay accommodates the duration of ritual impurity resulting from childbirth. A child may be given several types of names, including a name based on the nakṣatra, an abhivādaṉīyaname to be used in salutations, a secret name known only to the child and the parents, a common name, a name based on the gotra, and so on [Kane 1953b].
According to some authorities, the secret name is based on the nakṣatraof birth. Similarly, some state that the abhivādaṉīyaname is given by the guru at the time of his *upanayana. *
See, for instance, the famous story of Satyakāma, ( Chāndōgya Upaniṣad4:4:1,2), who is asked for the name of his gotrawhen he approaches the sage Gautama for instruction.
259
260
sons of sarasvatī
Rāmaśāstri: *Chi!*You know nothing! I have performed the puṁsavanaceremony.646 A boy is certain to be born. There can be no doubt about this. Stop uttering nonsense. Shall we name him Śiva?
Subrahmaṇya: Well, in that case, we could certainly name him Śiva.
Rāmaśāstri: If we name him Śiva, uncultured people from our Telugu community will shorten it to Śivu, and destroy its meaning.
We could name him Śivasvāmi, which would be a handsome name.
Give me such a name.
Subrahmaṇya: In that case, we could name him Śivasvāmi.
Rāmaśāstri: Let us name him Śivasvāmi, then.
(Up ahead, after walking quietly for a little while.)
Rāmaśāstri: Subrahmaṇya, we have named this child Śivasvāmi. Perhaps being called *“svāmi”*will cause him to become a *saṁnyāsi! *
That seems likely. Yes, he will accept the saṁnyāsa āśramaand become an ascetic, that is certain.
Subrahmaṇya: A son has just been born, he has already acquired a name, and he has already become an ascetic! Is this some sort of delusion? Is there anything more?
Rāmaśāstri: This is how you always speak, but what do you know of these secrets? What I have said will surely come true. You will see.
(Guru and disciple walked to Nañjanag ūḍu, conversing in this manner.)
A few months after this episode, a son was born in Mais ūru on Thursday, the eleventh bahuḷa tithiof the month of Phālguṇa of the Paiṇgaḷa saṁvatsara. As decided in the conversation with Subrah-March 11, 1858
maṇyaśāstri during the walk to Nañjanagūḍu, the child
was named Śivasvāmi. Rāmaśāstri immediately went to the
palace, with his students carrying articles such as different kinds of fruit, sugar, and betel leaves, and gifted them to the king. The king examined the child’s horoscope, and said: “Dear Śāstri, this is the horoscope of one who will be svāmito both you and me. You have even now aptly named him Śivasvāmi. Is there anything you do not see?”
646This pre-natal saṁskārais performed to ensure the birth of a male child. See footnote 256.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
261
Thus, the Śāstri knew even before the child was born that he was destined to enter *saṁnyāsāśrama,*and the king knew this after the child was born. It appears from this that Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III was especially skilled in reading horoscopes. The king, who remembered both this episode and the horoscope, later arranged for this Śivasvāmi to enter *saṁnyāsāśrama.*647
This Svāminow adorns the seat of the pontiff of the Śrṇgēri Maṭha. Thus did the words of the Śāstri come true. We cannot say what unusual power or ability this represents. They with yōgicaccomplishments can see the unseen, and hear the unheard. This enigma falls only within their understanding.
Subsequently, the Śāstri travelled south once again in the Kāḷayukti *saṁvatsara.*This was his last trip. He returned in about a year’s time. It is not known where he went, or what he did. The king remained concerned that the Śāstri might still harbour some residual anger towards him, and whenever the Śāstri travelled, he remained anxious to ensure his 1858–1859
return. An opportunity arose to satisfy this wish of his. A debate was arranged between Kavi Varadācārya’s student Beṇga-ḷūra Sītārāmaśāstri and Kāśī Timmaṇṇācārya’s son.648 The king arranged for Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri to moderate the debate.649 Two nights prior, the king had experienced a dream in which someone had said caṇḍamuṇḍaniṣūdinito him, by way of a riddle.650 The thesis Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri established appeared to the king to be a solution to this riddle. The king was very pleased. Saying: “Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri is indeed a cub befiitting 647The maṭhachoosees its *Svāmi;*the king has no say in the matter. Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri had died, however, when Nr̥siṁha Bhāratī, Svāmiof the Sr̥ṇgēri *maṭha,*selected Śivasvāmi as his successor, in 1866. Śivasvāmi, who was only 8 years old, was under the care of his eldest brother Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri, who was himself only 26 years of age, and reluctant to give up his younger brother to *saṁnyāsa.*It took the king’s intervention to convince the elder brother to let the child enter *saṁnyāsa.*Śivasvāmi accepted dīkṣāand the vows of asceticism on Friday, August 2, 1866, taking the name Saccidānanda Śivābhinava Nr̥siṁha Bhāratī.
He became Svāmiafter his predecessor vr̥ddhaNr̥siṁha Bhāratī entered mahāsamādhiin 1879. He was Svāmitill 1912. The name Śivābhinava acknowledges the name his father gave him, and the name Nr̥siṁha Bhāratī acknowledges his guru, the 32nd Svāmi. Saccidānanda Bhāratī had been the 31st Svāmi’sname.
648It is unclear who the son of this illustrious scholar might have been.
649He would have been around fiifteen or sixteen years old.
650This is a common epithet for Durgā, and means “slayer of Caṇḍa and Muṇḍa”, both of whom were demons. Cāmuṇḍī, another name for Durgā, is derived from the initial syllables of these demons. See *Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa,*87.25 : “yasmāccaṇḍañca muṇḍañca gr̥hītvā *tvamupāgatā | cāmuṇḍeti tato loke khyātā devi bhaviṣyasi ∥” *
262
sons of sarasvatī
that tiger,” he honoured him by gifting him items such as a pearl necklace, a bracelet with the head of a lion, and a pair of shawls with gold borders.
This information reached Rāmaśāstri, who was still in a different country.
He returned to Mais ūru immediately. The king had achieved his goal. The Śāstri wrote scholia on several advanced works on Nyāyaand *Vēdānta. *
On the fourth bahuḷaday of Puṣya in the Siddhārthi saṁvatsara, the Śāstri developed a fever. He lay ill for fiifteen days, and passed away on the fourth śuddhaday of Māgha the same year. Shortly be-January 27, 1860
fore he died, he called his wife and children, and speak-
ing words of advice to them, said: “Give up all attach-
ment to me. Please take yourself far from me.” He then drew his blankets over his head, began meditating upon his breathing, and gave up this life.651
This news reached the king immediately. The following morning, before the corpse was removed, the Royal Retinue arrived at the Śāstri’s house.
The king beheld the Śāstri’s face, and moved to tears, said: “The world of scholarship is now in ruins. Never again shall we see the likes of what we have seen,” and consoled his children and his students; to his wife, he said:
“Dear lady, please look upon me as the eldest of your children. We cannot bring back such a precious thing as we have lost, but you need have no 651The suggestion here is that Rāmaśāstri’s death was an act of volition on his part. Accomplished yōgisare seen as capable of such feats as causing their *cittas *(minds) to leave their bodies and enter the bodies of others ( parakāyapraveśa, paraśarīrāveśa), and knowing the times of their own deaths (see Patañjali’s Yōga S ūtras3.38 and 3.22). There are even accounts attesting to such abilities on the part of contemporary *yōgis *[Swami Rama 2002, p. 150]. Accomplished yōgisare able to attain the yōgicstate of samādhi, a unique mental state characterized by full awareness, but also simultaneously of detachment from the world. A number of varieties of samādhiare recognized, of which kaivalyamrepresents ultimate freedom, and unity with the Absolute. The samādhistate is characterized both by unresponsiveness to worldly stimuli and by a slowdown of physiological processes to the extent of their cessation. A yōgi’sdeath is hence generally not distinguished from a state of samādhi, since it may be impossible in practice to tell the two apart. A yōgiis hence buried, rather than cremated. A yōgicdeath has long been considered the ideal, and a fiitting end to a life lived in harmony with traditional values and principles. It is common for exalted individuals to be credited with the ability to achieve a yōgicdeath. See, for instance, Kālidāsa’s description in Canto 1 of the Raghuvaṁśaof the attainments of the kings of the Raghulineage: “śaiśave_bhyastavidyānāṁ yauvane viṣayaīṣiṇāṁ | vārdhake munivr̥ttīnāṁ yogēnānte tanutyajāṁ8 *”*meaning: “(Of the kings of the Raghu lineage I speak…) of those who acquired great learning in childhood, who in youth engaged with worldly issues and pleasures, who in advanced years attained the temperaments of *munis,*and who, at the end, gave up their bodies in the yōgicmanner.”
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
263
worries about other matters,” and ensured that the funerary rites all proceeded without impediment, with the costs being borne by the palace.652
The Royal Retinue returned to the palace after having appointed Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri to a position with the salary befiitting a scholar. The funerary ceremonies were duly fiinished, with no aspect neglected. All required supplies and expenditures came from the palace.
652Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III was fully 66 years of age in 1860 C.E. Rāmaśāstri was 53 years old, so his wife would likely have been in her forties. Given the deep respect for age in Indian culture, the king’s urging of Rāmaśāstri’s wife to consider him her son is a mark of the deep regard he had for Rāmaśāstri. His scholarship and learning would have made him a father-fiigure even to the king, who is honouring Rāmaśāstri’s wife, a far younger lady, by treating her as a mother-fiigure.
Chapter 13: His Many Virtues (1)
Thusdid this brilliant scholar depart this world. Rāmaśāstri was tall in aspect, slender in form, and of reddish complexion; his face was elegant, neither long nor round. His head was large, and somewhat round.
His forehead was large and broad, and protruded slightly. His eyes were handsome and unusual, and gave the impression of his being engrossed in thought over some deep issue. His nose was a little too big for his face, and slightly hooked at the tip. His ears were large and long. His mouth and teeth were small. His lips were thin, and conveyed intellectual determination. He had long limbs. There was hair on his cheeks, chest, and back. There was also hair on his ears.
He always exuded a certain radiance. He wore no ornaments, but dressed himself in a dhōtrawith a big border, also covering his upper body with one. He would also wear a shawl. When going to the palace, he would wear a turban. Elegant vibh ūtilines would grace his forehead. Rudrākṣibeads would adorn his neck. In his hand would be prayer beads of rock crystal.
He never sought to embellish his appearance.
The Śāstri was always engaged in introspection. He always maintained full control over his intellect, never surrendering himself to the inconstan-cies of the mind. Śrīnivāsācārya, his guru, was well aware of his introspective nature. The ¯
Acāryawas over eighty years of age. He would visit the Śāstri’s home on occasion. Upon his arrival, the Śāstri would arise, and would touch his feet. All the students of the Śāstri would then do the same. The
¯
Acāryawould delight in listening to the Śāstri teach his students. He would tell the Śāstri: “Rāmuḍu, I won’t be returning home; I will stay, and eat my meal here.” He would then tell the Śāstri’s wife: “Lakṣamma, I am an old man, and like to indulge my palate; please cook me a good meal. I will eat fiirst; it will not do for me to wait for your husband. If he sits down holding his nose, it may be three days before he stirs again.”653 Lakṣamma would immediately come and touch his feet, ask: “What feast shall I prepare?”
and cook the meal according to his wishes. The ¯
Acāryawould rest after his
653The jocular reference to Rāmaśāstri’s holding his nose is an allusion to his practice of prāṇāyāma, or breath control. The comment about sitting still for three days is a hyperbolic allusion to his immersion in a meditative state. Reference has already been made to both.
264
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
265
meal, and return home at about four or fiive in the evening, supporting himself with his stick. Śrīnivāsācārya, though a *Vaiṣṇava,*had never the slightest hesitation nor any airs, about eating in the home of a *Smārta. *
The issue of Śrīnivāsācārya’s meal is one illustration of the Śāstri’s immersion into deep meditation. There are other instances where the Śāstri had lost himself in this state. When teaching his students, the Śāstri would sometimes suddenly become silent and sit still. His eyes would turn upwards. His students would also sit silently. After his mind turned outward again, the Śāstri would continue the lesson from where it had been left off.
It would appear to the observer that he had just fallen asleep while seated.
On another occasion, the Śāstri was walking to Yeḍatore with his students Subrahmaṇyaśāstri and Gaṇgādharaśāstri of Soṇḍekoppa. Beyond Ilavāla, en route to Lakṣmaṇatīrtha, a small path branched off the main road, and headed towards a village nearby.654 As the Śāstri was walking along this path, these students happened to be about forty or fiifty steps ahead of the Śāstri. Some women from a village off to the side were going to fetch water, and said to the two students: “What, sirs! The brāhmaṇa who walks behind you is in a swoon. Poor man! You have abandoned him!
What manner of people are you?” When Subrahmaṇya Śāstri and Gaṇgādhara Śāstri looked back in alarm, Rāmaśāstri was standing silently in the middle of the path. His eyes were turned upwards. The students stood by and waited. The Śāstri’s consciousness turned outwards. The Śāstri and his students then continued their journey. It is clear that the Śāstri possessed exceptional ability to engage in concentrated introspection, no matter how he was occupied.
The discipline of stilling one’s mind, and the joy that this engenders enraptures the mind and induces tranquillity. This is how self-knowledge is attained. Cidānanda has said in his book Jñānasindhu: 655
654Ilavāla is about 10 km northwest of Maisūru. Lakṣmaṇatīrtha is a river originating in the Brahmagiri region, which is the southern border of the Koḍagu region of Karṇāṭaka. It joins the Kāvērī near the village of Sāgarakaṭṭe near the Kr̥ṣṇarājasāgara reservoir. One must cross this river en route to Yeḍatore from Maisūru.
655Cidānanda Avadhūtawas a Kannaḍa Vīraśaivapoet, whose best-known work is Jñānasindhu. The appellation avadh ūtaindicates that he had shaken off all worldly attachments.
This verse translates as: “never censuring, accepting all censure | giving all away, urging all to take | forgiving those who speak no words of kindness ∥ lost in self-contemplation | with eyes open or shut slowly | know these to be the marks of the saintly ones ∥”
Hari
Kr̥ṣṇa ˙
mbhaṭṭa Ārḍe
Kr̥ṣṇa Śarma
of Kāśi and r
ajāpura
(grammar)
(Ved¯
anta)
Vīrar
aghava
?
Vit
Hanumadāc
.ṭhaḻ
eśōpādhyāya
.ārya
of Pan
of Ṉ
agapura
. ḍharapura
Tirupati Śrīnivāsāc
An
.ārya
. ṇa Śāstri
Tryambaka Śāstri
of Maisūru
of Gargēśvarī
of r
ayadurga
(Ny¯
aya, Ved¯
anta)
(Ved¯
anta)
(Ny¯
aya)
Kun
. igala r
ama ´
S¯
astri
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
e
i
e
ar
a
a
ar
a
a
a
.
ār
c .
a
.
a
a
a
a .
v¯
*ha . *
hāla
on
.
.
on
ad
ami)
.al
āry
.
v¯
.
āry .
āry
āry
āry
āc
astri
āry
son)
āry
āry
āry
ac
.
.
.
v
īpura
.
śāstri
śāstri
śāstri
.
śāstri
.
sāstri
.
śāstri
śāstri
v¯
śāstri
oppa
āc
.
Koc
Ś¯
āpura
.
ac
mat
āc
l .
.
tāc
ac
ac
āc
ac
āc
nc
.
.
aék
asām¯
bhakōf
a
y¯ .
bhakāgugere
amappa
ha
n .
n .
ya .
ara
alasvā˜
t .
s .
.
Ś¯
S¯
d .
agha
˙
˙
a
ēvās
mha
r
mha
.
īm¯
.
ama
ama
.
¯
˙
Gadda
Kābal
˙
Anand¯
mgal
aradōf
eldest
si
mgal
an
Kr
r
Dh¯
Ś¯
īnivōsale
Anan
V
r
d ..
Bh¯
ta
Kuppa
Bh
Son
arak¯
Si
S¯
īk
śr
araman
of
Kum
a
āry
Kum
ra
Si
of
.
ūr,
vi
y
.
asud
ān
a
Śr
ūr
Appan
āla
(P
at
of
ac
Dod
ita
of
d
i
uru
a
of
the
V¯
īnarasi
.
agā
ṇga
amagiri
˙
d .
nk
Ka
a
sāstri
m¯
tiN .
agallu
.
y
e
astri
Vija
of
n .
ar
a´
.
śāstri’s
Ve
.
oyisa
.
Subrahman
āry .
Ra
of
r
Ś¯
.
āry
obhatt
J¯
ṇgapp¯
Pa
ṇgān
ogire
yimatt
Mutt
ac
Kan
āra
iV
a
.
Śā
y
Kut
T¯
Nid
.
l
.
ama
śāstri
..
es
ac
anidhi
Laks
asāc
Ś¯
˙
of
Ra
Ko
ngāra
(r
ṇg¯
˙
a
īniv¯
mbal
Tiramakud
Vidy¯
Ṉ
Śr
Ra
iR
adhara
ana
c ..
˙
B¯
Kupanaiyy
ng¯
īmar
Ga
Kurac
Plate 36: Translator’s reconstruction of the academic genealogy of Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri. See footnotes 506, 506, 680, and page 204.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
267
bayyarāranu bayyakēḷvaru | ayyakoḷirendenutaḻīvaru | priyavacanava nuḍivarārādoḍeyu mannisuta ∥ mayyamarevaru ātmacinteya | loyyane kaṇderedu muccuta | ayyanenapiru jagake idu sādhugaḷa guṇavenda∥
Such is the description of this phenomenon by an omniscient being. If this indeed be sleep, then it is yōgicsleep; if this be sickness, then it is yōgicsickness. Some people even call this a sort of madness, or śivaḻīle.656 Experience shows that this phenomenon occurs naturally in the case of many exceptional individuals. People everywhere who are accomplished in yōgicpractices understand that this is merely regulation of the inner self. Those who do not understand yōgicpractices think of this as *śivaḻīle. *
Rāmaśāstri never coveted anyone else’s wealth. He hesitated even to dine in the homes of others. He would dine in someone’s home only when invited, and only if they were strictly observant of tradition, rites, and rituals. Even many laukikaswould observe rituals such as Aupāsana, since it would be an honour for them to have the Śāstri accept an invitation to eat in their home. The Śāstri would hesitate to even speak with someone whom he discovered to be unethical or immoral. Many people were especially fearful of him.
The Śāstri always spoke softly and carefully. His words and speech, however, flowed freely in a cascade, without the slightest impediment. He was always calm and peaceful, rarely losing his temper. It will shortly become clear that his wife Lakṣamma was of the same temperament.
We have seen that many of his students lived and boarded in the Śāstri’s home. Subrahmaṇyaśāstri, who was from south of the pass, lived in the Śāstri’s home in this manner. This Subrahmaṇyaśāstri once contracted a fever, having been afflicted with an excess of biliousness. Rāmaśāstri gave him his medicine. Subrahmaṇyaśāstri would not take it. Realizing that hunger was making his discomfort worse, the Śāstri and his wife mixed some rice with a little soup, and brought it to him on a leaf.657 He took a little into his mouth, and retched. The Śāstri’s wife then mashed the mixture, put it into a cup, and gave it to him to drink. At this point, Subrahmaṇyaśāstri, who was tormented by fever, spat the food in his mouth over the couple, threw 656 Śivaḻīleliterally means Śiva’s sport, implying that the actions of the person afflicted are a manifestation of this divine sport.
657This soup was almost certainly sāru, a light broth of lentils and spices. It is traditional to eat meals on a banana leaf, or on plates of leaves stitched together. See footnote 486.
268
sons of sarasvatī
the leaf holding the remnants of his meal on them, shouted at them, and fell back asleep.658 Rāmaśāstri laughed and stood up, saying: “Subrahmaṇya, you always were given to such foolishness! Why you fall ill is more than I can know! Never mind. Go back to sleep.” His wife too, laughing, removed the impure and unclean mess, and applied gomaya. The couple both bathed.
They were bothered only that all this should have befallen Subrahmaṇya, and carried not the least resentment in their minds at his having committed this base deed. Ordinary people would never display such forbearance. It is diffiicult for people to put up with this even from the children they have borne themselves.
The Śāstri, however, would be furious at anyone who disparaged Vēdic literature. On one occasion, in the Ātmavilāsa section of the palace, the
Mukhāmiof the Ahōbala Maṭha called Nyāyaan atheistical science.659 He said this right in the very presence of Rāmaśāstri. The Śāstri was furious; he went right away to Ambāvilāsa. The king had just completed his Śiva worship, and was walking bare-bodied, still in a state of ritual purity. The Śāstri saw the king, and said: “Sir, this has now turned into a kingdom of imbeciles!” The king, seeing that the Śāstri was unusually upset, tried to calm him down.
A similar incident occurred on another occasion. Many people were envious of the Śāstri’s renown not just in the local region, but also in other countries. An individual called Pant ōji Subbarāya had been the recipient of the king’s favour, for some reason.660 Some of his people would gather in the palace, and were always on hand for idle chatter. The king had occasion to call the Śāstri to the palace one day. Before the Śāstri arrived at the palace, however, a loudmouth from among Pantōji Subbarāya’s people said: “Rāmaśāstri come now? Hardly likely! He is seated, busily teaching 658Across all Indian cultures (except, of course, among Muslims, who eat communal meals) contact with saliva is regarded as causing extreme ritual impurity. Traditional brāhmaṇas will not even bite into a fruit, preferring to, say, eat a banana by breaking off pieces with their fiingers. They will tilt their heads upwards and pour hot coffee into their mouths, rather than allow the cup to touch their lips. There are few greater insults in Indian culture than spitting on someone, even among Muslims. This is an almost inconceivable insult to a guru and his wife. See footnote 504.
659The Ahōbila Maṭha is a major Śrīvaiṣṇavainstitution, founded by Ādivan. Śaṭhagōpa Yatīndra Mahādēśikan, born in 1378 C.E., near Mēlukōṭe in present-day Karṇāṭaka. The *Vaḍagalai *(northern) sect of Śrīvaiṣṇavasare followers of this *maṭha. *
660Pantōji Subbarāo (Subbarāya) appears to have been an important palace offiicial.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
269
his students the atheistic doctrines of Nyāya!” Rāmaśāstri arrived just then.
Upon hearing of this remark, Rāmaśāstri said angrily to the king: “Good sir, could it be permissible for this brāhmaṇa to speak thus? There are such things as the ¯
Astikaṣaṭkaand Nāstikaṣaṭka.661 The Āstikaṣaṭkacomprises *Tarka, Vēdānta, Jyōtiṣa, Vyākaraṇa, Mīmāṁsā,*and Ayurvēda.662
Let this Śrīvaiṣṇavabrāhmaṇa prove that logic is a nāstikascience. I will then give up my status as a brāhmaṇa. If he fails, let him give up his status as a brāhmaṇa. I will not tolerate such words from base individuals!” The king summoned this Śrīvaiṣṇavabrāhmaṇa, severely admonished him, terminated his salary, and had him removed from the palace.663 Finally, this brāhmaṇa came to Rāmaśāstri’s home, waited for him, and then followed him around everywhere, apologizing for his remarks. Finally, Rāmaśāstri interceded with the king, and had his salary restored. Such were the incidents that angered the Śāstri.
The Śāstri’s disposition was always cheerful. He would speak with his students with familiarity and humour, treating them like friends. He would play games with them, such as taking them to the woods, and plucking a particularly prickly fruit, and throwing it a distance for his students to run and catch; the one who caught it, he would call skilful. The students would run after it, struggling against each other, anxious to catch it. Catching it in a hurry, however, would cause the prickles to hurt their hand. This spectacle would be a great source of merriment to them all. It would also be a good source of fun and exercise for students, serving as well to relieve stress.
He would look for stammerers among students, and get them to participate in debates. He would do this for fun during the Gaṇēśa maṇgaḷārati celebrations in the month of Bhādrapada. The spectacle of the contestants 661These terms mean ‘theistic sextet’ and ‘atheistic sextet’, respectively. They could also mean ‘orthodox sextet’, and ‘heterodox sextet’.
662This is not the standard listing of the ¯
*Astikaṣaṭka.*In the Sarvasiddhāntasaṇgraha
(1:23), attributed to ¯
AdiŚaṇkara, the ¯
Astikaṣaṭkais enumerated in terms of the progeni-
tors of the respective darśanasas Akṣapāda (Nyāya), Kaṇāda (Vaiśeṣika), Kapila (Saṇkhya), Jaimini (Mīmāṁsā), Vyāsa (Vēdānta), and Patañjali (Yoga): “akṣapāda kaṇādaṣca kapilo *jaiministathā | vyāsa patañjaliṣcete vaidikā sūtrakārakā ∥”*At the end of Chapter 4, the Nāstikaṣaṭkais listed as Lokāyatā, Arhata, Mādhyamika, Yogācāra, Sautrāntika, Vaibhāsika. The fiirst two correspond to the Cārvākasand Jainas, and the last four correspond to the Bauddhaschools.
663To clarify, the person punished was not Pantōji Subbarāya, but someone in his retinue.
Any intercession on his behalf by Pant ōji Subbarāya had clearly been ineffective.
270
sons of sarasvatī
debating each other while uttering a word every other minute would be amusing to the audience.
The Śāstri also played pranks to amuse others. A certain brāhmaṇa from Kōlāra, who called himself *Mahāpuruṣa,*visited the Śāstri occasionally. He was somewhat delusional; he had declared himself omniscient, and claimed that he could bring about the end of all creation. There was another brāhmaṇa called Gōdāvarī Veṇkaṭaśāstri, who was an expert in grammar.
He had a stated desire to conduct a santarpaṇafor ten million brāhmaṇas, and kept asking Rāmaśāstri how he might accomplish this goal.664 Rāmaśāstri suggested to him that if he were to carry a large pot on his head and call it an akṣayapātra, someone would be sure to put a handful of rice in it, and that he should then be able to feed ten million brāhmaṇas.665 This Veṇkaṭaśāstri began to act accordingly. Whenever Rāmaśāstri met Veṇkaṭaśāstri, he would inquire: “How is the collection coming along? How many million now remain?” Such folk were always targets of ridicule. For people of exceptional brilliance, who spend all their time engrossed in issues of substance, such amusements are essential for maintaining their mental balance and to prevent their minds from becoming delusional due to excessive engagement with a single matter.
He had set a number of goals for himself. He wanted to train a number of his students in logic and *Vēdānta,*and send them to various countries.
This goal was certainly attained. Even today, in Mais ūru and the southern countries, the best-known scholars of logic and Vēdāntatend to be fiirst-, second-, or third-generation students of Rāmaśāstri. In the great centres of Saṁskr̥tascholarship in the northern regions of our country, such as Navadvīpa, Kāśī, and Darbhaṇga, students undertake a study of his works, such as *Śatakōṭi, Vyutpattivāda,*the Pañcavādas, Uttaravāda, and his numerous scholia, in their pursuit of great scholarship.
His other great wish was to complete all the kratusin the formally prescribed manner.666 This was not an unrealistic desire on the part of Rāmaśāstri, who was looked upon with such favour by Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III.
664See page 22.
665An akṣayapātrais a pot that serves as an inexhaustible source of food.
666A kratuis technically a yajñathat includes an animal sacrifiice, but the term is being used here in a generic sense to signify a Vēdicritual. There are seven *saṁsthas *(varieties) each of the *pākayajña, haviryajña,*and sōmayajñaclasses. These are *nitya,*or mandated *yajñas,*as is clear from Vēdicinjunctions such as “yāvajjīvam agnihotram juhoti,” “yāvajj-
*īvam darśap ūrṇamāsābhyām yajeta,”*and *“vasante vasante jyotiṣā yajeta.”*Consequently,
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
271
Fate just happened to intervene. Because of his sudden, untimely demise, this goal, and his wish to accept saṁnyāsain the sixtieth year and go to Kāśī both remained unfulfiilled.
It appears that the Śāstri had land in Yeḍatore. Regardless, the yield from that land, the salary he received from places such as the Parakāla Maṭha and the palace, the various rewards that he received, as well as the considerations he received in symposia in other countries, were together insuffiicient to meet his expenses. He had to borrow money on occasion. As soon as his debts reached a thousand *R ūpīs,*he would embark on travels. Kāśīpati Śāstri and ´
Kāśī Śēṣa Śāstri were his primary lenders. These two, Tōgire Sāmbam ūrti Śāstri, and Tōgire Subbaśāstri of Chatrada Bīdi were the Śāstri’s chief friends. When the Śāstri died, he owed Kāśīpati Śāstri 3,000 *R ūpīs.*667
Many of the Śāstri’s scholarly contemporaries were ever quick to praise him. On one occasion, a debate took place between the Śāstri and the Te ˙n-galai Śrīvaiṣṇavascholar Govardhana Raṇgācārya.668 A Vaiṣṇavascholar called Mānamāḍi Madhvācārya also joined the debate on the side opposing Rāmaśāstri. While presenting arguments in favour of the doctrines of
Ānandatīrtha, Mānamāḍi Madhvācārya said: “You don’t understand the principles underlying Mādhvadoctrines. This is not a logical argument,”
instead of responding to the points Rāmaśāstri had raised. Unable to countenance those words, Kāśī Śēṣa Śāstri, who was present in the audience said:
“*Acārya,*you would do well to consider Mādhvadoctrine sanctifiied by Rāmaśāstri’s mere utterance of its name. Such bluster as you are attempting will not work against this Dakṣiṇāmūrti!”
Even when money came into Rāmaśāstri’s hands, he would not keep it.
He would hand his money over to others to keep for him. As he spent the money he had, he would request more, but would never ask for an accounting of the original sum. He was very trusting of others, and did not believe no merit accrues from their performance, but demerit does accrue from ignoring them. This may be one reason for Rāmaśāstri’s interest in performing them all.
667Rāmaśāstri drew a salary of 30 R ūpīsa month (see footnote 605), so this debt amounts to his earnings for over eight years. The king would have discharged all such debts as Rāmaśāstri left behind. His creditor Kāśī Śēṣa Śāstri appears prominently in the early part of this biography. Insuffiicient information is available regarding the others.
668Govardhana Raṇgācārya (1810–1874 C.E.), a highly regarded Srīvaiṣṇavitescholar, was originally from Kāñci, but settled in Br̥ndāvana near Mathura. Among his works are the Sahasragītī, a translation of Śaṭhakopa Nammāḷvār’s Tiruvāymoz.ifrom Tamiz. verse into Saṁskr̥taverse. He has also translated Nampiḷḷai’s Īḍu muppatārāyirappaḍiinto Saṁskr̥ta.
272
sons of sarasvatī
anyone would cheat him. A composed and steadfast mind is essential for study and serious effort. If one keeps and manages money, one feels anxiety when it is spent and pleasure when it accumulates. Such emotions suffiice to dissipate one’s time, and disturb mental composure. The mind will not remain steadfast, but behave as a lamp might in a whirlwind.
Rāmaśāstri had three sons, named Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri, Yajñanārāyaṇaśāstri, and Śivasvāmi. He also had a daughter called Śrīlakṣmī. This daughter was born in the Paridhāvi saṁvatsarain Nañjanag ūḍu.669 She was married into the household of Kōṇūru Śāmaśāstri. This Śrīlakṣmī and the second son Yajñanārāyaṇa both died the same day in the Raktākṣi saṁvatsara.670 We have already seen what became of the other two sons. Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri’s son Rāmaśāstri is still a Dharmādhikāriin the palace.671
669She was born in the year 1852–1853 C.E.
670This would be the year 1864–1865 C.E., barely four or fiive years after Rāmaśāstri’s demise.
671Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri’s descendants are still resident in Maisūru. According to the current head of the household of descendants (also named Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri), Lakṣmīnarasiṁhaśāstri’s son Rāmaśāstri was adopted. He was born to Narasiṁhaśāstri and Subbamma, and his name was originally Kr̥ṣṇaśāstri. However, he acquired the name Kuṇigala Rāmaśāstri after adoption. Since he too was known as DharmādhikāriKuṇigala Rāmaśāstri, it is easy to confuse him with his grandfather.
Chapter 14: His Many Virtues (2)
Rāmaśāstripossessedanothergreatquality.Heneverspokeanyun-
truths. He always spoke the truth in any circumstance. He fiirmly believed that one should not speak untruths even to forestall mischief by children, to the insane, or even in jest. Speaking falsehoods gives occasion to many evils. One must consider that good unto others underlies truth, and evil underlies falsehoods. Here, the word “others” does not merely signify one or two individuals. One must take it to mean everyone. People with even larger hearts would include all living beings in this creation.
Some people have come to accept falsehoods as justifiiable if they are well intentioned. Thus, the police mislead criminals through falsehoods, gain their confiidence, and then lead them to punishment. While it is proper to punish wrong-doers, jurists and ethicists do not see such falsehoods as acceptable, since people can be led to collude with police to escape mistreat-ment, and cause innocent people to be falsely implicated. Even when this leads to punishment for lawbreakers, the benefiits that accrue thereby are less than the injuries resulting from the intervening falsehoods, so that the overall outcome is negative, on balance.672 Similarly, in the domain of politics, some offiicials believe that any means they employ are justifiied, as long as it is done under the pretext of public service. Such ways result only in one measure of benefiit for every nine of injury.
672The author ṀṢPuṭṭaṇṇa is speaking from painful personal experience here. The following account comes from Puṭṭaṇṇa’s granddaughter Sarōjā Veṇkaṭarām. A few years before this work was originally published, his two eldest sons ṀP. Sōmaśēkhara Rāv and ṀP. Sāmbam ūrti Rāv arrived by train to Mais ūru with a young student named Nañjuṇḍa, who was boarding and lodging in Puṭṭaṇṇa’s home, although he was no relation. Their intention had been to study in Mais ūru, while living with the well-known educator and journalist ṀVeṇkaṭakr̥ṣṇayya ( Tātayya), a good friend of Puṭṭaṇṇa’s. A Tamilian lady who had travelled with them falsely accused them of having stolen her luggage. Nañjunḍa had gone to look for Veṇkaṭakr̥ṣṇayya’s house, leaving the two young boys at the train station.
The police arrested the three after he returned, and subjected them to painful tortures, including such outrages as inserting needles under their fiingernails. After the boys fainted, a telegram was sent to Puṭṭaṇṇa, who rushed to Maisūru, abandoning the naming ceremony of his newborn son Kr̥ṣṇa. Puṭṭaṇṇa, a well-respected fiigure, secured the release of his sons from custody, and had the responsible police offiicials discharged from service.
273
274
sons of sarasvatī
False praise is said to be acceptable, since it allows the attainment of one’s goals, yet causes no injury. There are many naïve individuals, however, who come to believe such false praise, and begin to see themselves as veritable mountains of virtue. The roots of any harm caused by such conceited individuals will truly lie in such false praise.
Some may regard the old saying *“a thousand falsehoods to make a marriage, a thousand falsehoods to save a life”,*as a moral guide. Such people concede at the outset that a falsehood, even under the said circumstances, is a transgression. The one who hides the truth and speaks untruth shares responsibility for the fruits of this transgression, as and when they become apparent. If, on the other hand, the benefiiciary of an untruth cannot be blamed for the untruth, it is permissible to speak an untruth to bring them reward? This is a subtle ethical and moral question.
Falsehoods spoken as hyperbole, in jest, or in fear, are unpremeditated.
Neither are they calamitous in effect. These have hence not come to be seen as infractions. If a calamity does result, however, the infraction will then have manifested its natural outcome.
People in the West sometimes distinguish white lies from black lies.
They view a black lie as one that results in harm to someone and a white lie as one that does not, and see it as unacceptable to tell a black lie, but acceptable to tell a white lie if the occasion so demands. Even a white lie, as described above, does bring some harm into this world, and hence cannot be condoned. In certain narrow circumstances, perhaps, no harm results from a white lie; yet, if it becomes known that a person spoke an untruth, his reputation is sure to be damaged. This is certainly harm of one kind.
Even if no damage ultimately results, it was Rāmaśāstri’s view that one should forswear untruths in all circumstances. Someone with this wicked habit may otherwise cause us harm, whether deliberately, or unknowingly.
The outcomes of such untruths are forced upon us. Hence, in order that people may act rightly, even the Vēdascontain the injunction “satyam vada, *dharmam cara” *, meaning, speak the truth, and act righteously.673
673This is from the *Taittirīyōpaniṣad *( Sīkṣāvalḻī19): “vēdaṁanūccyācāryō_ntevāsinam-anuśāsti | satyam vada | dharmam cara | svādhyāyānmā pramadaḥ| ācāryāya priyam dhanamāhr̥tya prajātantum mā vyavatcchētsīḥ| satyānna pramaditavyam | dharmānna *pramaditavyam | kuśalānna pramaditavyam | bh ūtyai na pramaditavyam | svādhyāya-pravacanābhyām na pramaditavyam ∥”*Meaning: “Having instructed the student in the
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
275
There is another approach to considering the effects of a falsehood on the mind of one who hears it.674
satyaṁ br ūyāt priyaṁ br ūyāt nabr ūyāt satyamapriyaṁ |
priyañcanānr̥taṁ brūyāt sūkṣmā dharmagatī parā ∥
This means: “One must speak the truth. One must speak what is pleasant.
One must not speak the truth if unpleasant. One must not speak untruth even if it is a pleasant one. This is the subtlest moral path.” The truth is surely pleasant. The truth, however, may be unpleasant for some. When we are constrained to answer a question, we must speak the truth whether or not it is pleasant to all. When there are no such constraints, however, we are not compelled to speak the truth for everyone to hear. There are many disagreeable aspects about the human body. There are many delicate aspects.
It would be speaking the truth to discuss these at length. But who is ignorant of these facts? Even if someone were thus ignorant, it would offend respectable people were a woman to speak truthfully about these matters to a man. There is no requirement that such truths be spoken. Neither would there be detriment to anyone if these were left unspoken. Such truths need not be spoken in these circumstances.
However, if it were necessary to discuss such a matter at length in a court of law, where it is being determined whether an accused is to be punished or set free, it is irrelevant whether or not the truth is pleasant. This consideration does not apply to other, and more ordinary situations.
When Drōṇācārya’s blows gained in strength, the Pāṇḍavas feared impending defeat. To cause Drōṇa to cease battle, Kr̥ṣṇa said to Dharmarāya:
“Shout out loudly that Drōṇa’s son Aśvatthāma has died.” Dharmarāya replied that this would be a falsehood, since Aśvatthāma had the boon of eternal life. He agreed to Kr̥ṣṇa’s suggestion, however, that he shout out *Vēdas,*the teacher exhorts him | speak the truth | act according to dharma | do not neglect the study of the *Vēdas *| having gathered the wealth for your teacher that he desires, do not sever the line of procreation | do not stray from the truth | do not neglect dharma | do not stray from what is benefiicial | do not stray from prosperity | do not stray from Vēdiclearning and teaching ∥”
674See *Manusmr̥ti *(4:138) : “satyaṁ brūyāt priyaṁ brūyāt nabrūyāt satyamapriyaṁ |
*priyañcanānr̥taṁ brūyāt eṣaḥdharmaḥsanātanah. ∥” *
276
sons of sarasvatī
that an elephant named Aśvatthāma had died.675 Upon reflection, however, it is clear that Dharmarāya well knew that Drōṇa would suffer hurt, no matter in what manner he declared Aśvatthāma dead. Thus, an elephant by that name did die, and announcing that fact was not an untruth. Yet, there is no doubt that this constitutes an unpleasant truth.
A gang of thieves once broke into the house of a brāhmaṇa who always spoke the truth. The people next door to him were rich. When the brāhmaṇa said to these thieves: “I am truthful, but poor. My neighbours are rich,”
the thieves entered the neighbour’s home and looted it.676 It is certainly true that these neighbours were rich. Yet, this brāhmaṇa’s speaking this truth when the thieves did not ask him to, indeed makes it an unpleasant truth.
No demerit accrues from not speaking such a truth. Demerit does accrue, however, from speaking such a truth. In such circumstances, it is important to consider the ethical and moral consequences of one’s actions.
False praise and hyperbole are rather related to the category of pleasant untruths. While it is wrong to speak untruths, it is heinous indeed to speak unpleasant untruths. Even if this is pleasant to one person, it is unpleasant to another, and causes detriment. Some people speak pleasant untruths to children. We can be certain, however, that such people lack foresight. Even if children believe us in the interim, there is the risk of their losing all faith in us, if they come to see the untruth in our words. In fact, if these children make a habit of speaking untruths, there are no limits to the criminality engendered thereby. We can estimate in advance the end results of speaking untruths to the insane.
Most importantly, the truth is what comes naturally. Untruths are un-natural. The fiirst is indispensable for those of upright character, the second to those whose character is warped. Even if one disregards the principle that one should speak the truth regardless of consequences, and looks at it from 675This is a famous episode from the *Mahābhārata *( Drōṇaparva). Drōṇa proved impossible to vanquish in battle, so Kr̥ṣṇa contrived the following deceit. He had Yudhiṣṭhira shout out that an elephant called Aśvatthāma had been killed, and arranged to have loud noises made to coincide with the word “elephant”. (In some recensions, Yudhiṣṭhira utters the word “elephant” under his breath.) Given Yudhiṣṭhira’s reputation for honesty and integrity, Drōṇa was thereby led to believe that his son Aśvatthāma had been killed, and lay down his arms. Droṇa was then killed by Dhr̥ṣṭadyumna.
676A version of this story appears in the Ṉīticintāmaṇiby ṀṢPuṭṭaṇṇa, a collection of stories for children illustrating moral principles. The immediately preceding Saṁskr̥taverse appears as epigraph in this story.
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
277
the perspective of outcome, it will still be apparent that the truth leads to benefiits, while untruth leads to detriment. This is why the Śāstri had established the principle of speaking the truth under all circumstances.
Not only did Rāmaśāstri himself never speak untruths, he would not tolerate untruths from anyone else, either. On one occasion, it came to the Śāstri’s attention that one of his students had spoken an untruth in some context. He immediately called the student, and said: “From now on, you are forbidden from entering this house, or coming to me for instruction.
Take yourself away immediately,” had him removed from the house, and forbade his other students from speaking with him. The student was deeply remorseful from that moment on. The Śāstri would not change his mind even though the student lay down fasting for two whole days in front of the Śāstri’s doorstep. He changed his mind only after the Śāstri’s wife pleaded with him in a great many ways to show the student mercy.
Chapter 15: His Many Virtues (3)
AuniqueradiancewasmanifestonthefaceofthisvirtuousŚāstri.His
greatness was widely known. No offiicial who visited Mais ūru would leave without visiting him. Once, a person called Kr̥ṣṇamanāyaka, who was head Śirastedārat the Commissioner’s offiice in Beṇgaḷūru, and was respectfully addressed as *Dīvān,*came to Mais ūru; after meeting Kr̥ṣṇarāja Voḍeyar III, he visited the Śāstri’s house.677 It was about 8–8:30 in the morning.
The Śāstri’s students saw him, and seated him with due respect. The Śāstri, who was inside, came out after fiinishing his bath, and having donned his vibh ūtiand rudrākṣi. He spoke with the Nāyakamost graciously, and saw him off with respect. The Śāstri inspired great respect in the *Nāyaka.*As he was returning, he said to his companions that he had never seen such radiance on anyone, and that seeing him was like experiencing divinity. The Śāstri’s brilliance and his mental composure were clearly evident upon his countenance.
Rāmaśāstri was never partial to anyone. Neither did he tolerate such behaviour on the part of others. On some occasion, the palace distributed gifts to all *vaidikas.*Many of Rāmaśāstri’s students received a pair of shawls.
Somehow, a person called Dhāravāḍada Śrīnivāsācārya happened to be over-looked. The issue was not raised at the time. The next day, as the students were speaking with each other, it became clear that only the ¯
Acāryafrom
Dhāravāḍa had not received a gift. When some students asked him why he had not received a gift, Dhāravāḍada Śrīnivāsācārya replied: “I too would have received a pair of shawls, had I but worn vibh ūti.”678
The next morning, as the students were studying, someone informed the Śāstri of what had transpired. When the Śāstri heard this, he immediately anguished that he had not learned of this on the day the oversight occurred, and went inside, brought out a shawl, and draped it on the student.
Dhāravāḍada Śrīnivāsācārya struggled with a dilemma—if he accepted the shawl, that would cause the Śāstri a loss, but if he did not, the Śāstri would 677This is surely Kollam Krisnama Naidu, who was Huz ūr Head Śirastēdārduring 1844–
1858 [Rao 1936a, p. 487; Row 1916, p. 114]. He had apparently served as the head of the English Department at the palace and next as a Munsifunder the British Commission.
678 Vibh ūtiis worn only by Smārtas. Vaiṣṇavasand Śrīvaiṣṇavaswear vertical marks on their forehead called nāmasin Kannaḍa. See footnote 143.
278
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
279
be displeased—but fiinally, considering the shawl a blessing from the guru, accepted it.
Rāmaśāstri would not bear causing hurt to others. He would anguish even if it were an animal that was suffering. Compassion for all creatures was present in ample measure in this great man. One day, the Śāstri was returning home at around noon. It was summer, and the heat intense. Water had to be fetched from some distance. He saw his student Dhāravāḍada Śrīnivāsācārya, who was weak in body, struggling to carry a pot of water, and rueing the student’s situation, helped carry the pot home.
Other scholars who were contemporaries had enormous respect for the Śāstri. Kāśī Timmaṇṇācārya was a leading scholar of logic in Maisūru.679
Gadādhara Bhaṭṭācārya is the author of an eponymous masterwork called the *Gadādharīya.*A commentary on this work has been written by Kr̥ṣṇa Bhaṭṭācārya.680 This Kr̥ṣṇa Bhaṭṭācārya had two students called Ramaṇā-cārya and Viṭṭhalōpādhyāya. We have seen that Rāmaśāstri’s guru Tirupati Śrīnivāsācārya was a student of Viṭṭhalōpādhyāya. Ramaṇācārya happened to be Kāśī Timmaṇṇācārya’s elder brother. Rāmaśāstri had special faith and regard for Timmaṇṇācārya because of this connection in their academic lineage. As soon as the news arrived one morning that Timmaṇṇācārya had passed away, the Śāstri, who was seated, teaching his students, stopped his teaching, sent his students away, and before the corpse was removed, went 679See footnote 594.
680This Kr̥ṣṇa Bhaṭṭācārya is likely none other than Kr̥ṣṇaṁbhaṭṭa Ārḍe, the son of Raṇganātha and Kamala, and brother of Nārāyaṇa, dated in Gode [1956] to 1750–1825 C.E.
On page 19, this reference also alludes to an Ārḍe family still resident in Rājapur Tāluka
of Ratnāgiri, as late as 1856 C.E., corroborating the information in footnote 506. We quote from Gode [1956]: “Aufrecht records about 74 works of this author. In CG II, 23 and CG III, 26 Aufrecht calls him son of Raṇganātha. In CC III, 114 he informs us that one Raṇganātha
Ārad., son of Mahādeva, wrote *Daśakumāracaritapūrvapīṭhikāsāra *(Stem 81). Hall in his edition of the Vāsavadatta (Bib. Ind. 1859) states that a rumour had reached him regarding a commentary on the Vāsavadatta by Kr̥ṣṇabhaṭṭa Ārḍe but Aufrecht makes no mention of this commentary. Hall farther informs us in footnote 1 on p 47 of his Preface to Vāsavadatta as follows—Krsnabhatta was ‘a Maratha of Benares, son of Raṇganātha and pupil of one Hari. Among his works are huge commentaries on the *Nirṇayasindhu, Gadādharī,*and *Jagadīśī.*The second is called Kāśikāor *Gadādharīvivr̥tti,*and the third Mañjūṣāor *Jagadīṣatōṣiṇī. *…’ M M Professor P.V. Kane makes the following remarks…The foregoing remarks of several scholars like Hall, Aufrecht, Kane, reveal that Kr̥ṣṇabhaṭṭa Ārḍe was not only a great logician but also a learned commentator on works pertaining to Dharmaśāstra and Kāvya. . . ”
280
sons of sarasvatī
to Timmaṇṇācārya’s home, spoke words of courage to his children, and returned after having accompanied the body to the cremation grounds.
A nearly forgotten piece of information is that the Śāstri had a weakness for sweet foods. He liked hot foods rather less. He always ate in the company of his students. He never ate without them, regardless of how late the hour was. As they ate, he would engage his students with humour. He would recount amusing anecdotes and tales, making everyone laugh. No one would feel any tedium, no matter how long the meal took. The Śāstri went to bed after 10–11 o’clock. It is not clear whether he slept for even three hours. According to the students who were close to him, the Śāstri could be seen sitting on his bed no matter how late the hour; it appears that he would be in a state of samādhi, having meditated upon his breathing.
The Śāstri’s students all had enormous love and respect for him. Every student who spoke of the Śāstri did so with great enthusiasm, and recounting stories of his life, would say: “We will never again see a thing such as this”, and shed tears. I have beheld this with my own eyes.
The biography of this great man has all been about his scholarship. It is impossible to take its measure, or tell its beginning, or its end. On another occasion, a scholar from Navadvīpa who held the title Tarkabrahmacame to Mais ūru from the North. This Tarkabrahmamet the king, and proceeded to visit the Sarasvatī Bhaṇḍāra in the palace.681 When he perused the works on *Nyāya,*he found but a few of them. He spoke disparagingly, saying: “When the palace library, with such a name as Sarasvatī Bhaṇḍāra has so few advanced works on logic, what could a famed scholar of logic, such as Rāmaśāstri have studied?” He went to the Śāstri’s home, but did not fiind many books there, either. This foreign scholar’s pride in his own scholarship swelled. A debate lasting several days took place between Tarkabrahmaand Rāmaśāstri. As Tarkabrahmabegan presenting propositions from books that existed only in the North but not in the South, Rāmaśāstri continued responding to him and making refutations. This scholar then praised 681This is the Royal Library. Malleson [1870] lists 608 works in a catalogue of this library prepared in 1869 (Kielhorn [1874] lists 607 more in his supplementary catalogue) of which 33 are on Nyāya, most being standard works. Sadly, according to Rao [1936b, p. 178], the fiire of 1897 C.E. destroyed a fiifth of the entire palace “. . . including the Sejjeand the three stories above it to the gold pinnacles, the Sanskrit Library, the armoury, the music-room and the Balakhana.”
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
281
Rāmaśāstri before the king, saying that even when challenged with arguments in books he had never read, Rāmaśāstri had responded perfectly, and that such scholarship must be counted as exceptional brilliance.
The Śāstri was especially devoted to God. He would occasionally walk to Nañjanag ūḍu with his family.682 Some of his students would carry the luggage, others would carry his children, and still others would carry the Aupāsanāgni.683 En route, near Mallanam ūle, if the Kabiṉī was full and flowing, the Śāstri would jump off the bridge into the water, and swim to the opposite shore.684
He would stand before the deity at the Nañjanag ūḍu temple and start reciting stōtraswith great devotion, his eyes full of tears.685 It is natural for such tears to flow from the eyes of those in whose hearts are combined devotion and compassion. A paramahaṁsahas said that certain emotions expressed in divine presence are especially strong in the case of those who have left no remaining births, and are fulfiilling their fiinal birth. Rare indeed it is for such blessed individuals to be born in this world. Some believe the Śāstri to have been a devotee of Narasiṁha.
Rāmaśāstri had high regard for ritual. We have already seen that he had wished to perform all kratus. He kept up efforts towards this goal. Preliminary to performing kratus, the śāstrasrequire the performance of a ritual called ¯
Adhānato establish the Śrautāgni. The Śāstri made efforts to perform this ritual. Four r̥tviksare needed for this ritual. They are to receive such dakṣiṇaas horses and chariots. He made preparations for such gifts.
An araṇiwas required for the ceremony. The performer of the ritual had to seek out an araḷītree that had grown entwined with a bannitree, fiind a branch growing in a specifiic direction, cut this branch down on a certain prescribed day after having bathed and completed his daily rituals, while reciting certain prescribed *mantras.*686 An araṇimay be constructed from this branch if it were to fall to the ground in a particular direction when cut.
682Nañjanagūḍu is about 25 km from Maisūru.
683The Aupāsanāgniis the domestic fiire in which the Aupāsanasacrifiice is offered. See footnote 244.
684This is likely the bridge built by DaḷavāiDēvarājayya in 1753 C.E., which was later converted into a railway bridge. It is now in disuse, but enjoys the status of a heritage monument, being the oldest railway bridge in India.
685This deity is Śrīkaṇṭhēśvara, that is, Śiva.
686The araḷītree is Ficus religiosa. Banniis Prosopis cineraria.
282
sons of sarasvatī
The araṇiresembles a wooden basin. If one places bits of dried cowdung in it, and churns it with another piece of wood in the manner of a drill, heat is produced, causing the pieces of cowdung to ignite. The yajñais to be performed with that fiire.
He had the region searched for a suitable araḷītree. A suitable tree was found in a village in the district of Hoḷēnarasīpura.687 He cut down the branch himself, in the prescribed manner. It fell in the direction prescribed in the śrautas. The Śāstri was very pleased. He had two araṇisconstructed from that branch. He had other implements for the yajñamade from other woods.688 The most auspicious date and time for the yajñawas determined.
Everything was in order.
When the Śāstri returned home after bathing in the lake on the appointed day, however, he learned that his wife had started her monthly period.689 The Śāstri felt deep sorrow at what had come to pass, despite his planning for the ritual having taken into account such impediments. As 687Hoḷēnarasīpura is 80 km from Maisūru. The search for the right tree clearly had been extensive.
688The construction of these implements is specifiied in great detail in the s ūtras. The araṇi, for example, is to be constructed of *aśvattha *( araḷīin Kannaḍa) wood, and measure 16 × 12 × 4 inches. There are some 36 other implements of various shapes and sizes, and used for various purposes in the performance of the *yajña.*For instance, the Taittirīya Saṁhita specifiies the following implements: sphai, kapālāni, agnihōtrahavaṇī, śūrpa, kr̥ṣṇājina, śamyā, ūl ūkhala, musala, dr̥ṣat, upala, juhū, upabhr̥t, sruva, dhruvā, prāśitraharaṇa, iḍāpātra, mēkṣaṇa, piṣṭōdvapaṉī, praṇītāpraṇayana, ājyasthāḻī, vēda, dārupātrī, yōktra, vēdaparivāsana, dhr̥ṣṭi, idhmapravraṣcana, anvāhāryasthāḻī, madantī, antardhānakaṭa, *phaḻīkaraṇa, asida, aśvaparśu, upavēṣa, dōhana, sānnāyatapaṉī,*and the śākhāpavitra, made from a variety of different woods. In addition, there are implements such as the *nirvāpapātrī, sadaṁṣa, śikya, śakaṭa, pariśrayaṇa,*various pots, and so on.
689The menstrual period confers ritual impurity upon a woman, who would have been confiined during this time. All Indian rituals require the presence of the yajamānaand his wife, so the yajñaRāmaśāstri was contemplating could not have taken place at the appointed auspicious time, since his wife would not have been permitted to enter the ritual grounds.
The most propitious time for the ritual would have been determined by astrological calculations, and would have passed by the time his wife’s ritual purity had been regained. See *Manusmr̥ti (*5.66 ): “rātribhirmāsatulyābhirgarbhasrāve viśudhyati | rajasyuparate sādhvī *snānena strī rajasvalā ∥”*The concern over various forms of ritual pollution (see maḍi, footnote 218) is extreme, and in observant brāhmaṇa households, entry to certain sections of the house, such as the household shrine and the kitchen, is reserved for those who are ritually pure. The timing here appears to have been most unfortunate. The yajñawould have commenced with a dīkṣāritual for Rāmaśāstri and his wife, which is a ritual equivalent of birth and death [Knipe 2015, p. 50]. After dīkṣā, the couple would have been immune to ritual pollutions, including those due to death in the family, or menstruation. In case the wife’s
biography of kuṇigala r āmaśāstri
283
he approached his home, and heard this news, he stopped there awhile. He thought to himself: “Alas! With such preparations, and the care with which I would have conducted this ritual, Yajñēśvara himself would have come to accept his share of the ritual offerings.690 Because this impediment has arisen in this circumstance, it appears to be divine will that I should not conduct this ritual. One cannot go against this,” and without entering his home, he left for Paṣcimavāhiṉī without even eating his meal. He returned only after three days, after his friends and his students urged him to overcome his deep sadness.
It appears that after Yajñanārāyaṇa, the Śāstri had three daughters including Śrīlakṣmī, and that excepting for Śrīlakṣmī, the others all died without having left the birth-chamber. The Śāstri performed the *puṁsavana,*or the *sīmanta,*ceremony to ensure the birth of a son. The sīmantais one of the sixteen *karmas.*691 He believed fiirmly that performing this rite would result in the birth of a son. This was the substance of the conversation he had with his student Subrahmaṇyaśāstri.
A son was indeed born, in conformance with his beliefs in these rituals.
Neither was this any ordinary son. Born to him was one to whom even the greatest monarchs must bow down, one with the rank of emperor among ascetics. Every emperor has his subordinate kings. He also has enemies who period were to begin after *dīkṣā *(a certainty for non-menopausal women, since some yajñas last weeks or months), she does not pollute the ritual; she may remain in the yajña bh ūmior ritual ground, and would continue her duties while confiined to the patniśāla. She would, however, remain untouchable for the menstrual period.
690Yajñēśvara, or lord of the yajña, is Viṣṇu. The usual means of conveying the offering to the gods is throught the agency of Agni. The suggestion here is that Yajñēśvara would be so pleased with the perfection of the yajña’sexecution that he would accept the offerings fiirst-hand, foregoing Agni’s mediation. A yajñainvolves four formal elements: dravyaor sacrifiicial item, devaor the divinity for whom the sacrifiicial dravyais intended, tyāgaor act of renunciation, and mantraor ritual formulæ. The havisor dravyaoffering is cast by the yajamānainto the ritual fiire accompanied by the prescribed mantra, and a tyāgaformula that names the devaand contains the phrase *“na mama” *. For example, “prajāpataye idam *na mama”*is a tyāgaformula declaring “this is for Prajāpati, it not mine”. The offering is now conveyed to the devathrough the agency of Agni, who has been invoked at the outset with mantrassuch as R.gveda6.16.10: “agna ā yāhi vītaye | gr̥ṇāno havyadātayte | ni *hota satsi barhiṣi ∥” *, and appointed messenger with mantrassuch as R.gveda1.12.1: “agnim *d ūtam vr̥ṇīmahe | hotāram viṣvavedasam | asya yajñasya sukratum ∥” *, and R.gveda5.28.5
and 5.28.6: “samiddho agna āhuta devān yakṣi svadhvara | tvaṁ hi havyavāḷasi ∥ ā juhotā *duvasyatāgnim prayati adhvare | vr̥ṇīdhvaṁ havyavāhanam ∥” *.
691See footnote 256.
284
sons of sarasvatī
will not salute him. But this son has only followers, and no enemies. An emperor may hold temporal sway, but has no assurance of any standing in the other world. This son holds sway in both worlds equally, is truly without enemies, and reigns over the kingdom of deliverance.
Saṁp ūrṇa