laxmIpura-shrInivAsaH

MAHAMAHOPADHYAYA PANDITARATNA
LAKSHMIPURAM SRINIVASACHARYA Reprint From
QUARTARLY JOURNAL OF THE MYTHIC SOCIETY
Vol. LXXXV
No. 3 July Sept. 1994
pp. 1 to 16
THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE MYTHIC SOCIETY
Vol. LXXXXV
JULY-SEPT. 1994 No. 3

MAHAMAHOPADHYAYA PANDITARATNA LAKSHMIPURAM SRINIVASACHARYA

Laxmipuram P. Srivatsa*

The Indian subcontinent before its independence in 1947 remained a dominion of the greater British Empire for over 100 years. The independent states were still under the princely rule while the overall state administration was carried out through its Governor General residing in Delhi. It is a credit to the fairness of the British, that even though in the late 19th century, India was fully and completely dominated politically and a uniform national educational policy was making its way, the British rulers did not interfere with ethnic Indian studies and its character, thereby contributing immensely in the preservation of native customs, traditions and the cultural patterns. At that time, of course, an English education was the preferred choice of many an eager and aspiring Indian student, as it provided a job in the growing massive public administrative setup. It is also a fact, that this overriding preference however did not influence an equally large number of other Indian students belonging to certain sections of the society, particularly the religious Brahmins. They remained stoically inward and attempted to perpetuate their ancient traditional wisdom by studying their own literature and philosophy under the prevalent guru-shishya concept.

*163, South Gordon Way, Los Altos, California 94022, USA

Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society

Sometimes even the inability to finance their education came in the way of their aspirations. Nonetheless, these committed and traditional- minded few also got their due share of recognition and encouragement. Princely states like that of Mysore, patronized various religious denominational seminaries known as mathas and provided gifts of land and financial resources to establish and run Samskrit gurukulas and pathashalas. The students graduating from these Samskrit institutions were even provided stipendium either directly from the palace or through the various “mathas”. In addition the promise of an employment as an adhikari either in the “matha” or Palace itself awaited to those who were successful and some of these outstanding students even found their way as teachers in the various Samskrit institutions themselves. Dharbanga in Bihar, Kasi (Varanasi or Banares) and Baroda to name a few other states, earned respect for fostering similar efforts and even prided themselves on being home to many distinguished and learned scholars in their Palaces. Added to this was the lofty social practice of wealthy land-owning Brahmin families allowing needy and eager students to freely board with them while attending school. All they were expected to do was to lend a helping hand in the domestic chores. Not to be left charged as being uncaring and only religious, the “mathas” went out of their way in encouraging poor and worthy students by offering them boarding privileges.

Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya, my grandfather was one such extraordinary yougster who benefited from such benevolent practice. He was born on March 8th, 1866 as a 11th generation sibling in the 700 year old family of Nallan Chakravarthy. He belonged to Lakshmipuram agrahara near Kuppam in the North Arcot district of erst-while Madras presidency. His father, Venkatacharya, a land-owning pious Brahmin did not live long enough to matter in young Srinivasacharya’s life or education. However, the young Srinivasa, was initiated into a rigorous and traditional tutelage under his cousin (father’s brother’s son,) Veerakti Raghavacharya. Six years of intense study was all that was needed for this determined youngster to master essentially Samskrit grammar, language and mantrartha- shastra. Unsatisfied, he left with his mother Tatamma and sisters to neighbouring Mysore city seeking more knowledge. He joined the Samskrit college and studied under Panditaratna Kasturi Rangacharya, an eminent scholar at that time. This provided him with a unique opportunity to study the elements of Vedanta and Upanishads. This was not as easy a matter, as it sounds. Even a perfunctory study of [[3]] the elements of Indian philosophy means a full life’s commitment and perseverance of a very high order. It begins at first, by attaining mastery in Samskrit language, per se. This includes study of very difficult Vedic grammar and usage. Alongside this has to be undertaken the related and voluminous study of Jyothishya and the elements of Dharmashastras. This apparently provided him only a feel for the entire liturgy and Samskrita sahitya. For example, the study of Dharshanas falls into a different system altogether. This entire task became all the more difficult as there were few scholars or pundits who could teach the above subjects with confidence. Lakshmipuram. Srinivasacharya, was fortunate at this stage of his career to find the right guru in Mysore city itself, in Panditaratna Kasturi Rangacharya. He attained proficiency in subjects like Mimamsa, (a ritualized Vedic ancillary), Alankara (Aesthetics), Tarka and Nyaya (science of logic) under this guru. Apart from these, there were elements corporate to worship and temple rituals known as Agama. Its study presumed that the student must have co-opted to study at the same time, other epics like that of Geetha Bhashya and Brahmasutrabashya. Who else was more appropriately suited than Ranganatha Brahmatantra, the Holy Parakalamath seer, to initiate this to the very eager Srinivasacharya? Quite naturally, Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya became his ordained student. It also goes without saying that under this academic task-master even a brilliant student like that of Srinivasacharya had to devote time and master these disparate but enveloping allied subjects. One can then fully understand the magnitude of commitment that the young Srinivasacharya devoted to achieve, nothing short of absolute mastery, while sheer penury of bringing up widowed mother and an unmarried sister always awaited at his door. The days were many, when he went to bed even without a morsel of food. In this matter, as time went by, the Parakalamatha came forward to provide him with an evening meal. There is no obvious element of melodrama in this, as those were hard demanding days indeed. In saying this, it just should not take the actual measure of effort, that the young Srinivas, must have put into such a colossal commitment. However, evolved into a very fine and estimable scholar.

The next step was to do something original. Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya attempted the tenacious task of providing Shastric exordium to most of the principle tenets in Darshanas that he had just mastered. Then he attempted to study other religions in compariso to his own and particularly evinced a keen interest in Jaina and Bud

Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society

philosophies. In fact, he also attained a rare mastery in those subjects and became an acknowledged authority in them. Quite naturally he became the rightful choice to occupy the place of his guru, Panditarathna Kasturi Rangacharya in the Samskrit college itself. The beginnings of such a fine scholarship started to show itself in a dramatic if not quintessential way. The young scholar, Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya began to display a rare kind of erudition in his writings. His encyclopaediac word, whenever issues relating to interpretation of the ancient texts was found wanting in any conference in the college and in the numerous Palace-sponsored Pandita Ghoshtis (invited symposia) or even the Parakalamatha. Several instances that confirm his prodigious intellect are worthwhile to recollect here.

Ramanujacharya, the doyen seer of the Srivaishanavas who lived in the early 1200’s who had to run away from his persecutors and vivify a survival of sorts for himself and his many followers in his native Madárs state, had sought sanctuary in the hill city of Melkote, in the neighboring Mysore state, and even gone to establish a new Srivaishanava fellowship there. Appropriately enough, with the main intention of perpetuating the legacy of Sri Ramanuja, the Melkote temple authorities, started celebrating special pujas and arranging a symposia of a very high standard on the very day of the great Acharya’s birth. Being a fellow Srivaishnava himself, it became quite abvious for Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya to grace one such meeting as a special invitee in the later half of 1920. The assembled Pundits were all eager to hear him speak on Vishishtadvaita of Ramajuja, a subject much dear to most of the Srivaishnavas present. What surprised the audience was the catholicism expounded by the Pundit Srinivasacharya by electing to speak on the subtle, yet cardinal point in the use of the adverbial Daya (heroic compassion), Dana (munificence) and Dharma (self control) as Prajapati had originally addressed while questioning Asura (evil spirit), Manava (man) and Sura (deity). This was culled from “Brhadaranyaka Upanishad” and quite appropriately expounded as a triad by even Ramanuja, as being central to the Srivaishnava philopsophy. As the lecture progressed the sheer depth of erudition and the clarity with which it was delivered just stunned the entire assembly.

Another instance occurred at Nanjangud, about 12 miles south of Mysore city on the banks of Kabini. The occasion was a Pandita Ghoshti in which representatives of all religions practised in the subcontinent were invited to put forth their respective judgement and

Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya

underscore the problems facing them. Pandit Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya was the obvious choice of the Hindus and the attending scholars apparently expected him to condescend for his faith unequivocally, short of proselytizing. Instead, Srinivasacharya chose not to speak on Hinduism at all. He marshalled his arguments for the urgent need of fostering universality of all religions and stressed. that the individual is supreme and master of his own destiny. This surprised all who had assembled. His emphatic call for catholicity in judgement particularly in the questions of faith and moral values was not just underlined by sheer mastery of eloquence but impassioned plea for tolerance. This could have quite naturally and readily caused ready umbrage in those lesser men in academy, but the ready reference to the sources in the very ancient shastras that the learned Pandit culled in delivering the message held them all, both stupefied and in silence. Unable to refute their senior scholar in scholarship the assembly had only one option before them, to stand by with Srinivasacharya’s opinion. The crowning glory of the entire emotionally charged congress came when quite uncharacteristically the learned Pandit endorced a prescription that the issue is “Vincit que se vincit”, as far as tolerence between religions is concerned.

Various other issues both academic and often socially inconvenient ones also came to be placed for the religious preview, more in line to seek consensus than opinion. In view of his expertise and authority, Pandit Srinivasacharya became the ultimate reference in all such queries. One important issue that arose under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, was that of the scourge of untouchability within the society. Individuals looked in the direction of the religious institutions for both comfort and guidance. Not surprisingly, the religious institutions themselves were placed in an uncomfortable position. They could not be accused of being unkind to their fellowmen out of reality with the current social issues but at the same time being unscriptural. The charge that the religion itself was fast becoming a relic, apparently was gaining currency. The Mysore government and the Sovereign just conveniently referred for opinion to the mathas and the Samskrit colleges. Within the Samskrit college and the matha, the choice fell on the Pandit Srinivasacharya. Who else could be worthy of giving the infallible final verdict on the difficult issues than Pandit Srinivasacharya to settle the matter without being influenced by any personal preferences? Amazingly enough, Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya brought out in a record number of days a small monograph appropriately titled “Asprishyatharthah”.

Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society

This was culled from the shastras and at the same time discussed the explosive social issue threadbare. Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya’s opinion was to seek judgement in the definition of an untouchable. He went ahead by subscribing to the meaning that it was character related and never by birth. He quoted the Varaha Purana to support his conclusion.

Vishnusthana sameepasthan

Vishnusevarthamargathaan

Shawpajaan Pathithaanyapi Sprashtana Snaanamacherath

Utsavae Vasudevsya yaha Snayathi Sparshashankaya.

Spargasthah Pitharathasya Pathanthi Narake Kshanath

(Varaha Purana-45 Adhyaya)

This reference to ‘Varaha Purana’ culled from none other than Vedanta Desika’s own works, astounded the entire Brahmin community. Some voiced that the learned scholar has become a heretic while some others called him senile but none could call him wanting in scholarship or challenge him openly. So much so, that they sulked and kept quiet. Once again the intellect triumphed and his detractors stood in abject silence as the arguments were all from the very Smritis and the Shastras, the substate of all interpolations. To save embarrassment, opponents diverted the issue by labelling Srinivasacharya as being too liberal. A classist who ran a vein of liberal slant in him did in fact came in as a decoration than condemnation.

Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya cannot be in anyway labelled as either a conservative or a liberal. His commitment was only to scholarship and he was far from being an ideologue. His opinions were not given depending on situations or social exigesis. He had total if not an abject faith in his region. In his valued experience, the faith suffered from aberration, time to time, not because the religious texts were faulty but their interpretation was far from being perfect due to problems in preceptions and often lapses in the ancient source texts in themselves. To a certain extent, these problems in the valued opinion of the learned scholar, Srinivasacharya, was in innumerous and unauthentic ancient commentaries and monographs that came to be proliferated in the ancient past itself. Many of these commentaries

Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya

even had the same namesake, as that of the legendary scholars of yore. Indeed, for a scholar of even Srinivasacharya’s reputation to take such a clear and strongly professed view such as this, needed an immence strength of conviction not found in ordinary men of learning.

One another issue supporting this wisdom, comes to recollection. In Jyothishya, uparaga means eclipse. In one such astronomical event, the Pandita Ghoshti raised an issue relating to the need for directives to perform the otherwise soteriological obsequies, known in religious rituals as thithi. There could not be a consensus as to the finer details, particularly when it came to the question of deciding as to when, the observance of the ritual is mandated and under what circumstances it is not obligatory. Once again, Pandit Srinivasacharya in whom the assembly sought refuge insisted that the eclipse be first defined. A partial eclipse less than of 1/17th part does not warrant ritualistic observances. To support this view, he brought out a well researched monograph Uparaga Mimamsa which set standards as a reference document thereafter. In various other issues Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya drew vaneration. The Profoundity of his wisdom bacame apparent when rather weary social issues interfered directly with the customs, family and life. One particular issue was relating to both pre-puberty marriages and widow remarriages. It was also a contentious issue, as streaks of strong male chauvinism was embeded in the subtle guise of religion. At a conference held in Madras in the mid 1929, Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya earned more respect and accolades from a far wider audience as he dismissed such restrictions on remarriages as not Shastrically endorsable. Futher, he even dismissed the opinion of the clergy that undertaking of voyages across the seas, mandates atonement (prayaschitta). It is in these points and particulary the strong position taken against practice of pre-puberty marriages prevalent in his days and earlier the Pandit earned respect and above all admiration for having the necessary courage to say so. He drew attention of the scholars of even the mettle of Pandit Madana Mohana Malaviya, on this issue in particular. Pandit Malaviya, made it a point to visit Mysore and confer with Srinivasacharya, while on his South Indian tour. It is said that the two giants had a long talk to the end of the day closeted by themselves and parted with increased admiration for each other. Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya was so much taken up by the scholarship of Pandit Malaviya, that he invited the distinguished visitor to the Samskrit college and even extolled his

Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society

qualities in a poem that he specially composed and personally read. It was not just praise. It was a poetic acknowledgement to the visitor’s progressive views and scholarship on record. One specific subject that came to be discussed, it was said later on was on the current issues presenting itself as irreligious wranglings in the narrow bigoted interpretation of some aspects of the Dharmashastras. The two giants it seems agreed that it its purely aspects of tautology in question and cannot be obfuscated by imposing constraints or restrictions and definitely does not accommodate the interpreter’s omissions and commissions, as it is the society that acts as the rightful gaurdian and never at all the iconoclastic priests. Further, the two great minds, agreed that the wisdom should prevail accomadatively, as certain developments from time to time surface as paramount issues in a dynamical world questioning the very basic moral values and permissible actions. The dynamics of such divergent opinions must be judged in the context of the social values that are rapidly changing and cannot altogether be dismissed from a perfunctory reference to the religious texts alone.

In this context, the thorny issue of allowing equality among sexes became a particularly irksome. The question grew into a more complicating aspect of allowing women into the male bastion of priesthood particularly on initiation into Brahministic traditions by giving them brahmopadesha. Learned Pandits country wide, were locked in controversy. Pandit Malaviya, being in the vanguard of a movement in Bengal, advocating social adjustability stood ardently for forstering equality of the sexes. However, the guile Pandit Malviya, was guarded in eliciting opinion form Srinivasacharya, not knowing the otherwise stern looking Mysore Pandit, well enough. He at first, wistfully thought that the Pandit Srinivasacharya to be ostrich like. After a little chat with the classic scholar from the South, of whom he had heard but not too much familiar with or his writings forced Pandit Malaviaya to change his opinion. To Pandit Malaviaya’s pleasant surprise, Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya expounded in his own imitable way that in even Smritis like that of Harita, such a fellowship between the sexes were implied. He went on to say that the very existence of the astringently cadenced, syntactical use by even Panini, in his grammar to separate between Acharya and Acharyini or Brahmachari and Brahmacharini supported only this view. The distinction when occuring (clearly) in joint usage, it meant to include The feminie gender. What is more, it was used separately to impart

Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya

its due adverbial quality. Srinivasacharya, went on to garner support by illustrating that the very existence of the Kumara Brahmacharinis proved the same point, de profundis. So, preaching the Brahamasutras to women is not irreligious was the logical conclusion. It was also said that Pandit Malaviya, carried a Special message from his friend Mahamahopadhyaya Gangadhara Shastri Telang of Varanasi and the general guess was that the senior Mahamahopadhyaya was seeking consensus from his junior but brilliant colleague on a very subtle interpretation in the Dharmashastras. What it was about and other details of this message is sadly lost to prosperity as all the three concerned maintained strict silence over the note. This secrecy was not either due to academic solipsism or arrogant intentions but one that was purely banal and unpretentious. Imagine the intrigue that this visit of Pandit Malaviya stature might have caused in the Southern city of Mysore, particularly in the hey days of the independence movement across the country? Surely, the entire citizenery of Mysore might have been talking of it in hushed wonderment, as to what might have transpired between the two? Each being a very private person with detachment from things that are not academic the two scholar’s intention of doing their talking confined to issues concerning only to their interests, seems rational and prefectly acceptable.

Pandit Srinivasacharya was a known and an established scholar. He was known by his acknowledgedly authoritative writings and he had been in touch with his contemporaries by correspondance. There are letters from Professor Barriedale Keith in Britain, Professor Rapson in Chicago, Professor H. Ui in China, Professor Louis De La Vallie Poussain of France, he kept an on- going discussion with them all, on topics of mutual interest. This intimacy was equally encompassing with his others colleagues in India too. Special mention be made of Professor S. M. Das Gupta, Professor Ganganath Jha, Professor Hirianna and Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishanan. Almost all these contemporaries were ever ready to write a piece of supportive review when asked for by Srinivasacharya, to several of his books. Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya made a name as a prolific writer. Beginning with a world to word annotated synopsis of Vedanta Desika’a Prapatti, which is in itself an excellent or classic commentary of Ramanuja’s Sribhashya, Pandit Srinivasacharya even attempted a review of a far more authoritative source book, Sribhasyabhushana. In this monumental effulgency, the Pandit refers to even much more ancient sources such as Sutraprakashika and Tatvateeke. In doing so,10

Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society

he bacame one among the very few who could do this authoritatively. Then, Srinivasacharya attempted to do his originals which have now become classic reference books.

First, he worte Darshanodaya and followed it up with Manameyashlokavartikam. Darshanodaya is a prolegomenon of the religio-philosophical literature beginning with the earliest times of the growth of the Hindu philosophical system culled in entirely form the very ancient sources. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, who lovingly wrote the foreword more as a tribute to his teacher under whom he studied for a brief time while in Mysore, said “This very erudite text attempts a doctrinal discussion summarized in a vivid way with great care.” Acknowledging the author from Lakshmipuram, as an “accomplished master”, Dr. Radhakrishanan, goes on to emphasize that it is quite natural to expect from the Pandit Srinivasacharya, such display of intellect acquired over years of patient and contiuned commitment to the philosophies. The book, “Manameya”, on the other hand is an excellent compilation of all that is in the Indian philosophy. This exhaustive work systematically deals with all the issues raised in different systems of the Indian Philosophy, not excluding Jainism and Buddhism. Dealing this otherwise complex subject in essentially three categories and subdividing each into the discussion under section Prameya (substance), Pramana (quality) and Prayojana (perceptions) as attempted by none other than Gautama, the preceptor scholar of Nyaya Shasthra. What distinguishes this particular compendium, is that the author Srinivasacharya has expertly attempted to deal with the otherwise complex subject of seeking a perceptive view and arriving at the validity of an argument by examining the syllogistic propositions often found abudndant alongside the didactic ones. This approach is not new. It is not easy either. Such an attempt by any author, seems to have led towards more ambiguity than it offers a new clear perception. Obviously therefore this approach has victimised even profound masters. Pandit Srinivasacharya took such a brief, quite challengingly and willingly.

Judging Pandit Srinivasacharya as the author of such erudite and demanding books makes one think quite naturally that the he must have been a fundamentalist scholar and deeply religious in his personal beliefs. While it is very difficult to say or comment on his personal beliefs, however one thing stands out as outstanding character of his for instance, in the recitation of the famous devotional prayer, Mukundamala the reference to katha, vatha and pittha seems to have

Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya

disturbed him, because when in deep meditation of the diety, he would often say, the devotee must keep his mind free from such asubhas. On the other hand, it is quite surprising to learn that Srinivasacharya was a scholar on nastika philosophy also. It was not in academic practice particularly in the narrow outlook of the times that we are referring, to expect such broad minded scholarship as that of Pandit Srinivasacharya. Pandit Srinivasacharya definitely was of a different mettle. He had studied the doctrine of Charvaka as yet another philosophical system, deserving all due merit of examination in tis own right. He was of the opinion that one should not be conceited and preopinionated in examining intellect and cannot just dismiss things cursorily only because they stand in contradiction to one’s own faith. Beginning with this charity in preception, Pandit Srinivasacharya mastered the Charvaka doctine and even brought out a very small book titled Sarvadarsanasangraha to educate the readers in diverse systems that need to be examined without passion. This book was written in Kannada language, but the Kannada that the Pandit wrote, it must be admitted was grossly Samskritised. This book apparently became hard to understand as the author in Pandit Srinivasacharya, came under the grip of stodgy writing quite unconciously. It appears that it was a price that he had to pay for being such an extraordinary scholar. Howeer, this style still limited his reach with the general public. Realizing this, he started to write yet anohter book Hindudharshanasara which was to serve an an introductory book on Indian systems of philosophy for the lay. This book also became pedantic and served only the reaonably educated few. So, the learned Pandit went an extra mile to reach the very section of society he had in mind. He readily agreed to deliver popular public lectures, whenver he was invited. He did not stand on the status of the forum, to accept any such invitations and requests. He also displayed humility at heart and humble disposition to anybody, who desired to meet him after a lecture and enlighten on any popular philosophical or religious issue he had touched upon. He tried to be a man in the crowd. He was a simple man, very unpretentious.

The Mysore city in early 1930’s was still free from the convenience or inconvenience of the motorized traffic, even horse carriages were few and far between. Much of the details of the domestic chores like getting firewood, groceries and even commute to work apparently was accomplished by foot quite unmindful of the distance. Pandit Srinivasacharya discharged this duty to the family, he would not stand by his academic accomplishments or his status in the community

Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society

come in any way in discharging it. He would often be seen chopping wood for the home kitchen and one who lived nearby in the neighbourhood could also without fear of being admonished approach him and engage in a casual conversation even on such weighty subject as philosophy. This was often done, as he walked everday to either the Samskrit college or the Oriental library, where he worked part-time. Incidently, the Pandit Srinivasacharya worked, at the Oriental library not just to supplement his earnings but to exploit the rare opportunity of reading and codifying the various manuscripts that it housed. This bespoke of the Pandit having cager students to walk along with the learned Pandit having no trait of self importance or airs that kept the interested far from him. So much so, that even the street that he resided, “Bazaar street” was changed by the Mysore City Municipality to “Geetha road” as a token of respect to his scholarship. Honours kept coming. The Sovereign of Mysore, honoured him with the title of “Panditaratna”. The Maharaja of Dharbhanga invited him to his darbar and showered him with both a title and a purse. The Kasi Vidyapeetha welcomed him gratuitously. The neighboring Madras state invited him twice in succession to deliver the famous Rukmini lectures. In early 1926, the crowning glory of being honoured by the British government came. He was among the select few to be given the title “Mahamahopadhyaya”. It was only natural and befitting that he received this supreme honor. Pandit Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya did not covet or feel satisfied with such decorations. This does not mean that he had even vanquished desire. His need was different. He loved and felt more satisfied being close to his numerous students and as a Professor at the Samskrit college or being the editor of the university publications. Appropriately enough as we come closer to the end of recounting the academic saga of this man, we must do some recollection of the individual himself.

Pandit Srinivasacharya was a family man. He loved his children and took particular interest in their education. It must also be said that an equal credit lies with his wife, Smt. Champakalakshamma. Smt. Champakalaks hamma, was a dutiful and doting wife to the Pandit and a stern disciplinarian mother to her children. Knowing quite well that her scholar husband would not demand nor particularly desire to be provided anything for himself, the wifely intuition took root and saw to all his needs. Probably, this trait must have come form her physician (Ayurvedic) father, to whom she was born in the village of Mallur, 40 miles south-west of Bangalore. Being close to her father,

Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya

Smt. Champakalakshamma learned the delicate art of home remidies and this gave her the inner strength and above all confidence to bring up a large family of eight children, without getting at anytime apprehensive about childhood illnesses and raise her family. Despite the dutiful wife, Smt. Champakalakshamma looked after the entire family’s day-to-day needs. Besides, the mother of Smt. Champakalakshamma, that is, the Pandit’s mother-in-law, Akkamma by name, a widow of exceptionally gifted character lived within the family, as a matriach. It was to this pragmatic lady that the Pandit Srinivasacharya would ask for counsel. It was Akkamma, that accompanied the learned Pandit on his many visists out of Mysore city, as Smt. Champakalakshamma, was a young mother with handful of children to mind. Therefore, Akkamma, would go along with the Pandit during many of his travels away form home. Akkamma, would cook and mind his needs, as the Pandit would not partake food outside or at anybody’s house. Often, the cooking had to be prepared on the railway platforms with all the needed grocery packed and bought along form Myosre itself. This did not greatly bother either of them, as it appeared a common practice for devout Brahmins to be doing so, in those days. It is also said that the Pandit Srinivasacharya had come to respect his mother-in-law so much so, that he would even ask for advice over investments of the various gratuities he had come to collect over the years. Being a thoughtul lady, Akkamma, had rightly adviced buying of wet lands. The Pandit thereafter, also became a landed gentry. By this doting by either his wife or mother-in-law, the Pandit Srinivasacharya was not to exploit their devotion or become fully dependent on his family by any measure. He would discharge his part of the duties to the family. He would personally sit through the mandatory evening prayers, before the children would attend to their school work. His well chiselled and firm jaw however displayed a very stern Aryan exterior. Probably this firmness resulted in the extreme discipline he enforced on himself. He would sit down at his writing desk for hours at a stretch early in the morning. He would be seen writing or annotating books or munuscripts on pieces or paper collected into a neat bunch, tied into a tag from what his children discarded as waste. Even a commercial flyer with its other un-printed side provided an adequate writing space. His crystalline script often displayed the obsessive devotion that the placed on his work. The only display of vagary or whim would be his habit of circularly rubbing his bald plate while deeply thinking into the void almost

Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society

mesmarizingly. Despite all this collective self discipline he would not enforce it on others not even on his children. He just adored them to a fault. The vivid recollection of several of his children to this effect can be cited. During the Dussera festival, running for a month long all over the continent, the Mysore Palace would arrange special observances and invite important functionaries and scholars to grace the celebrations. These functions almost bacame a ritual. Special pujas, would be held where only a select few, used to be invited. Each year during Dussera, after attending the pujas Pandit Srinivasacharya would collect the gift of offerings like puffed rice and savories in a bundle and walk home very eager to share it with his children. The severity of either the mid-day sun or the notion that such an esteemed scholar would be found doing such mundane things would not disturb or arise in him. The thought would only be of his darling children expectantly awaitingly for those goodies. He was also a very forgiving man. For instance once he found himself embarrased rather comically and could not rationally explain to himself as to why he was running behind one of his daughters around the house in a momentary fit of anger. This is an example of his short memory when it came to the dispaly of sudden temper. Quick to anger, he would forget equally spontaneously. He had absolutely no enemies or people who disliked him. He was univolved, Once, he was pressurised to adjudge a petty squabble between his scholar colleagues, that blew up in the college. The Pandit counselled reconciliation forgetting the entire episode. In his view, the enquiry should not have taken place in the first instance, that too for a trivial exchange of words between friends, colleagues or scholars. Then by not speaking a word against anybody and considering the sissue as an non-event the Pandit Srinivasacharya, declared it as closed. The only thing that mattered to him outside the house, that is in the grandiose precinct of the college was academic issues and nothing else. Least of all anything that was ad hominem. The other distinctly remarkable character was his dispaly of phenomenal memory which was almost photographic. He was found to recite full passages and even cite the exact page, correct to a line from memory.

The good times or men like these enviably do not least forever and for fate itself would display in any way differently to the virtuous. In fact, the virtuous get shortchanged in the life’s game. Pandit Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya entered the fast approaching middle age weary in his physical health due to an underlying diabetes conditon.

Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya

The simple yet noble scholar inched slowly and precipitously into posterity. Much like his very many writings he became the measure of timelessness itself. Panditaratna Mahamahopadhyaya Lakshmipuram Srinivasacharya died on January 16th, 1938. His life’s work was to make its presence felt by his immersurable and valuable contribution to philosophy. He earned rightly a permanent place in history of Indian Philosophy by doing so. He left a life with a promise of expanding knowledge that the obsessively felt inwards, in this quest. The list of scholarly works of this philosopher, are,

Manameyarahasyashlokavartikam
Dharsanakalanidhi
Dharsanaadhaya
Dharsanamimamsa
Shabharabhashyabhushana
Nallanchakravartivaibhava
Bhagavadgeethaprabhandhamimamsa
Rahasyatrayasarasangraha
Nyayamuktikamalika
Aithireyaupanishaddriti
Asprashyashastrarthahg
Vedantasangrahaprameyasangraha
Mokshatatvam
Shastratatvam
Adrishtapariksha
Vivahavidhimimamsa
Uparaagamimamsa
Bhagavadharadhana
Ashaoshanirnaya (in Kannada Langauge)
Darsanodaya (in Kannada language) and
Sarvadarsanasangraha (also in Kannada)

These works are a testament to his deep scholarly character. Finally, writing this humble tribute about such a venerable human being is an irreplaceable honour upon me, as his grandson.

T Mahamahopadhyaya Pandita Ratna
LAKSHMIPURAM SRINIVASACHARYA