Who gave title “Sripadaraja”?

  sripadarajaru-N-copy sripadarajaru-N

Who gave the title “Sripadaraja” to Sri Lakshminarayana Muni?

“Sripadaraja”, the name which literally means – King of Sripaadaas, the sanyaasins, is the name given to Sri Lakshminarayana Muni, who headed the parampare of Sri Padmanabha Tirtharu.

Many people are not aware of  the real ashramanama name of Sripadarajaru.  Most of us read him as Sripadarajaru only instead of his real name.  Many have thought that Sripadaraja itself is the ashramanama.  But the real name of Sripadarajaru is Lakshminarayana Muni when he took sanyasa from Sri SwarNavarNa Tirtharu.

But how he got the title Sripadaraja? It is widely said that Sri Lakshminarayana Muni got the title “Sripadaraja” at Koppara in the gracious presence of his guru Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu and Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu.

Recently a debate is going on as to the question of who gave the title Sripadaraja to Lakshminarayana Muni.   Even though there are many points, which have come out of the debate, I am sorting out only the documents which are presented with proper analyses like that of Mr NAPS Rao and others.  But there are some other comments which are flowed in the internet with 100% biased to a particular Mutt formula.  As such, I have not mentioned their names.  However I have tried to analyze on their possible points as well.  

This is not a conclusion, anybody could contribute for the discussion.  Any healthy discussion is welcome to ensure that the unity of the Mutt is maintained and at the time history is not filtered.

    The same has to be analyzed on various aspects which can be summarized as follows :

  1. Where was the title given?
  2. Who gave the title? whether Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu or Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu? or some body else?
  3. Who were present when the title was given?
  4. What was the circumstances under which the title was given?
  5. Whether the title “Sripadaraja” was famous during his period only or after his vrundavana pravesha?
  6. When was the title given?
  7. Whether Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu, Sripadarajaru, Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu were contemporaries?
  8. Whether Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu was the ashrama jyesta to Sripadaraja?
  9. Whether Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu was the ashrama jyesta to Sripadaraja?
  10. Whether only ashrama jyesta  can give the title?
  11. Whether some mutt pontiffs should not give the title? If given, is it invalid?
  12. Whether moola swaroopa jnaana is required for ascertaining whether the title given to Lakshminarayana Muni is correct or not?
  13. If the moola swaroopa of Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu is not known, whether he can give the title?
  14. Whether any king was present during the honouring of the title?
  15. Whether Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu was a grantha kartha or was a Sudha pandit to honour other?
  16. Whether a junior seer can’t give the title to a senior title? or only a senior seer has to give the title?
  17. Whether there is any kakshya superiority is required for honouring another yathi?
  18. Whether there is devaranama which records the giving the title?
  19. Whether there is any reference in any grantha as to the record of honouring the title is available or it is just a verbal saying?
  20. Whether any Mutt is just saying that one gave the title to express their Mutt’s superiority over the other?
  21. Whether any yathi’s name is spoiled when another Mutt yathi offered the title?
  22. Whether the title given by Raghunatha Tirtharu is the judgement of the capacity of Sripadarajaru or simply a just of respect?

In this way, many questions can be analysed for finding out the issue of “Sripadaraja” Title given to Sri Lakshminarayana Muni.    Now, we shall try to analyze one by one points.

Where was the title given?  –  For this there is consensus amongst all that it is given at Koppara in the Narasimha kshetra and there is no dispute.

Who gave the title? whether Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu or Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu? or some body else? This point we shall discuss later, as this is the main topic, after studying all the other facts.

Who were present when the title was given? –   As per the various documents it is said that Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu who was hearing the anuvaada of his shishya Sri Sripadarajaru, Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu who came on a visit to Koppara were present.     There are some versions, which says that Sri Saalva Narasimha Devaraya (1485-1491),  who was the king of Chandragiri. (He was the first king of Saaluva Dynasty)  But it is said that he was commander in chief of the army of Chandragiri, and was the Mandaladhishwara of the Chandragiri dynasty even earlier to 1470AD).

What was the circumstances under which the title was given? –   The version goes on like this –   Once Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu, was staying in Koppara Narasimha kshetra for chaturmaasya.  He was doing Srimannyayasudha paata to Sri Lakshmi NarayaNa Tirtharu.  Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu came there on tour and had decided to stay for Chaturmasya at the same place, where Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu had stayed.    Daily paata by Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu was going on to his shishya Sri Lakshminarayana Tirtharu.   During this Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu also had the presence.    Sri Lakshminarayana Muni had the opportunity of presenting the anuvada of Srimanyaya sudha in front of  vidya guru Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu and in front of another seer Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu.     He was daily observing the paanditya of Lakshminarayana Muni.   Overwhelmed with joy, Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu felt happy and praised Sri Lakshmi Narayana Tirtharu and gave the title “Sripadaraja” in front of Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu. That was the vidyaa pakshapatitva of Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu.

Whether the title “Sripadaraja” was famous during his period only or posthumously ? –  Yes.  The title was famous during Sripadaraja’s period itself and was famous during his period itself.  

  • Sri Vyasarajaru in his kruti  “vaadigajamastakaamkusha sujana budhagEya mEdinIsuravaMdya shrIpaadaraya” has used the word Sripadaraya. 
  • Sri Vyasarajaru in his Sripadaraja Pancharathnamaalika, has said “vaMdE shrIpaadaraajaM ruchitamahRuyaM pUjita shrI sahaayaM “.   
  • Sri Vadirajaru in his Sripadaraja stotraM starting from “dwaipaayanOttama…… says shrIpaadaraajavarashaapaayudhaM….”
  • Sri Vadirajaru in his devaranama “srIpaadaraayara divya shrIpaada bhajisuve” also mentioned Sripadaraja
  • Sri Vyasarajaru in his devaranama “paramata Ganavana paavakane sharaNu bhUsurasuta siri naaraayaNa yOgi”. has mentioned the name naaraayaNa yOgi instead of Sripadaraja.
  • Sri Vyasarajaru in the charamashloka of Sripadarajaru says ” ಜ್ಞಾನವೈರಾಗ್ಯ ಭಕ್ತ್ಯಾದಿ ಕಲ್ಯಾಣಗುಣಶಾಲಿನ: |
  • ಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀನಾರಾಯಣಮುನೀನ್ ವಂದೇ ವಿದ್ಯಾಗುರೂನ್ಮಮ ||  “jnaana vairaagya bhaktyaadi kalyaaNaguNashaalina: | lakShmInaaraayaNa munIn vaMdE vidyaagurUnmama” – has used the word Lakshminarayana Muni.

Note :  All the above quotes are from the contemporaries of Sripadarajaru.  The above quotes do not disclose whether he was famous as “Sripadaraja” during his life time or posthumously.    Sri Vyasarajaru himself has quoted Lakshminarayana Muni and Sripadaraja in several of his krutees.

When was the title given?

Some have analysed and taken into account many possible dates of Raghunatha Tirtharu and Sripadarajaru.   Mr NAPS Rao has considered two possible dates, i.e., 1444-1502AD and the other date 1479-1527.  He has based for the second that about Sri Vidyanidhi Tirtha’s charamashloka effect which may drag him to 68 years of moola raama pooja.  This even UM itself can’t accept as Sri Vidyanidhi entered vrundavana in 1444AD itself as per UM Records.  Even if Mr NAPS Rao suggest that Vidyanidhi were in the peeta for 68 years, then he has to drag the period of Vidyanidhi to 1503AD (but he suggest  1479-1527 for Raghunatha Tirtharu, which also can’t tally).  As such, I feel that the second (1479-1527 for Raghunatha Tirtharu) is not acceptable.  It cannot be taken into account while analyzing the dates of Raghunatha Tirtharu as there is no supporting evidences.  Only some sources have taken those dates, without satisfactory documents.   Whereas the first date 1444-1502AD or 1444-1504AD seems to be correct as it has more documents.

There is no conclusive dates as to the date of giving the title.  No one, whether it is UM or RM or SRPM has suggested any possible dates for the date of the title given to Lakshminarayana Muni. 

 
Whether Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu, Sripadarajaru, Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu were contemporaries? 

   The ashrama period of the yathees are as follows (as per mostly accepted data) :

  1.        Sri Sripadarajaru 1412 – 1504 AD
  2.        Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu – 1435 – 1490AD   
  3.        Sri Vidyanidhi Tirtha’s period – 1436-1444 AD  
  4.         Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu – Period 1444 – 1502AD   
  5.         Sri Vyasarajaru – 1447 – 1539AD

 

Note : Sripadaraja’s Vrundavana date also differs from various analysis.
 
a)    Sri BNK Sharma says in his book “Dwaitha Vedantha Vajmaya & Itihasa – in Page no 397 (Kannada     Version) as 1420-1487; whereas in the same book in page no 494 as 1420 – 1486. According to him, Sripadaraja’s Vrundavana is in 1486AD or 1487AD
b)     Sri Naps Rao says it is in 1502AD (Ashrama period 1412-1502)
c)     Sripadaraja Mutt Panchanga says it is 1504AD (Ashrama period 1412-1504)
d)     Sripadaraja Mutt Website says it is in 1504AD (Ashrama period 1412-1504)
e)     Sri Aralumallige Parthasarathi in his book “Sripadaraja Samputa “says. 1502 (1412-1502AD)
 
          Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu’s ashrama period is said to be from 1444-1502AD as per Uttaradimutt Panchanga.  But based on the charama shloka of Sri Vidyanidhi Tirtharu, said to be composed by Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu, some section of people are saying the ashrama period of Raghunatha Tirtharu as after 1503AD only.  But none of the records suggest the Sri Vidyanidhi Tirtharu was there in the peeta upto 1503AD. May be some different meaning for the charama shloka as to the 68 years, which UM has to clarify.   “This 68 years, may be 60 years + 8 years =68 years. What is wrong.  If he was sanyasi for 60 years in Taulava parampare, and 8 years in Ramachandra Tirtha parampare.   But just based on the charama shloka one can’t pull the date beyond 1503 for Raghunatha Tirtharu.    
 
       Some said that since he is from Taulava parampare, Sri Vidyanidhi can’t be accepted.  Acharya Madhwa is from Taulava parampare only.  Sri Narahari Tirtha has come from Kalinga kingdom.  Sri Padmanabha Tirtha has come from Godavari.  Sri Akshobhya Tirtha is from Gulbarga.  Sri Jayatirtha is from Gulbarga region.  Sri Vyasaraja is from Mysore.   Sri Rayaru came from Tamilnadu.     As such, just because he is from Taulava parampare one can’t rule out his ashrama.    There are many pontiffs from Taulava parampare who are recognised as great for Madhwa philosophy like Satyatirtharu, Sri Hrisheekesha Tirtharu,  Sri Vijayadhwaja Tirtharu, whose we are honoring.  Even in the latest parampare, Sri Pejawara Seer, Sri Phalimaaru Seer, Sri Bhandarfakeri Seer, Sri Puttige Seer, Sri Vidyamaanya Tirtharu are all from Taulava parampare only and are all recognised as great for Madhwa Philosophy.    If one tries to reject Sri Vidyanidhi just basing his Taulava, then we have to reject Acharya Madhwa also.  Can we do that. Our Madhwa philosophy is not based just on a particular place basis.    This does not have any impact on the Madhwa culture.
 
        In view of the above all the three Sri Vibudendra Tirtha, Sri Raghunatha Tirtha and Sri Sripadaraja are all  contemporaries.
 
         Whether Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu was the ashrama jyesta to Sripadaraja?
         Whether Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu was the ashrama jyesta to Sripadaraja?
 
      Sri Sripadarajaru was ashrama jyesta to even his vidya guru Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu, then the question of ashrama jyestatva (seniority)  against Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu does not arise at all.  Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu is said to be in the peeta since 1435 AD (as per Gurucharite).  Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu took ashrama only in 1444AD as already discussed.  But Sripadaraja took sanyaasa in 1412AD.  That means Sri Sripadarajaru is quite senior to both Vibudendra Tirtharu and Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu in his ashrama sweekara, and as such he is ashrama jyesta only.  
 
       Here even Sri Vibudendra Tirtha’s sanyasa period may be guessed much earlier to 1435AD.  It was in 1435AD that Sri Ramachandra Tirtharu entered vrundavana.  He would have given early also.  But when?  No records are available.   Even RM history (Gurucharite) is silent on the date of sanyasa.  It clearly says that Sri Ramachandra Tirtharu (1406-1435AD) handed over the Sri Raamachandra idol for worshiping to Vibudendra Tirtharu.  It further says  when Sri Vibudendra Tirtha went for extensive tour for Madhwa dharma prachaara, the idol was kept with his guru only.  It is an indication that Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu was a sanyasi before 1435AD.   But  the exact date of his ashrama sweekara is unknown from any records. 
      
       Even though Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu was the Vidya Guru of Sripadarajaru, one can’t rule out that Sri Vibudendra Tirtha must have taught in his poorvashrama itself.  There is no rule that only a sanyasi must teach sanyasi.  There are many instances where a gruhastashrami is the guru of a sanyasi. 
 
      What are the documents which narrate that Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu gave the title “Sripadaraja” to Lakshminarayana Muni?
 

       1.      Sri HK Vedavyasacharya’s “Gurucharite”,  the official grantha of Rayara Mutt, published in 1949AD, (even the latest publication in 2010) confirms that Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu conferred the title “Sripadaraja” in the vidwat sabha under the chairmanship of Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu.  He conferred the title on seeing the panditya of Sri Lakshminarayana Muni.
       2.     Sri HK Vedavyasachar in his grantha “Karnataka Haridasaru” released by Rayara Mutt, Mantralaya in 1965 in page no 186 said – “Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu gave the title “Sripadaraja” on seeing the panditya of Lakshminarayana Muni and did the stotra on him. 
        3.     Sri BNK Sharma in his “Dwaita Vedanta Vaajmaya haagu itihaasa – Vol 2, page no 397 said “Sripadaraja title was given by Raghunatha Tirtharu of Uttaradimutt.  In Kannada, Sripadaraya is also used”.
        4.    Sri Satyanidhi Tirtharu of Sripadaraja Mutt in his grantha “Sripadaraja Charitamrutam” said –  Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu praised the knowledge of Sri Lakshminarayana Muni.  He further told, we are only “Sripadaas”, but you are “Sripadarajaru” and that from now on you are called as Sripadaraja itself.  Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu, the guru of Sri Lakshminarayana Muni was also present in that sabha.
          5.     “Guru Vruttaanta” – a grantha released during the period of Sripadaraja itself – it is mentioned
      6.   Sri Beluru Keshavadasaru in his “Haribhakta Vijaya” released in 1932 – Page no 18 – has written – “Sri Vibudendratirtharu and Lakshminarayana Muni both were at Kopra Nrusimha Kshetra on Chaturmasya.  During that period Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu of Uttaradimutt also came there for Chaturmasya.  Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu is the Shishya of Sri Vidyanidhi Tirtharu.  Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu wanted to test Lakshminarayana Muni and gave him some Srimanyaya Sudha Vaakya.  Sri Lakshmi Narayana Yati narrated the entire Sudha.  On hearing the panditya of the young Yati, Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu praised him.  For this Lakshminarayana Yati responded by saying that you being a great samsthanadhipati must not praise me.  The Raghunatha Tirtharu replied him that “we are Sripadaas, but you are Sripadarajaru”.  Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu also acknowledged the words of Raghunatha Tirtharu.  From then onwards, he became Sri Sripadarajaru”.
                (Note –  Here Sri Beluru Keshavadasaru must have exaggegarated some things in favour Raghunatha Tirtharu.  He must have guessed or overpraised by telling that he was examining Sri Sripadarajaru.   But that can’t be accepted having taken into account the vidya of Sripadarajaru, and his period.      But the thing that  Raghunatha Tirtharu was one of the parties who gave the title to Sri Sripadarajaru, can’t be ruled out.)
\
      7. Further in the following books, we can find that Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu had given the title Sripadaraja on      Lakshminarayana Muni.
           a.   In Dr K M Krishnarao’s grantha “Sri Jagannathadasaru”, Page No.80
           b.   In “Tatvavada” 1965 June, magazine by Sri Rayasam Tirumalarao.
           c.   In “Glories of the Pontiffs of Sri Uttaradimutt” released in 1964 by Sri DV Subbacharya Tamraparni – Page 191
           d.  Mysore University’s Kannada Study Department book titled “Sripadarajara krutigalu” released in 1973 – Pg  XXV.
           e.  Sri Vadavi Bheemacharya’s “Sripadarajakathamrutha” released in 1952 Page no 34
           f.   Dr BN Nagarathna’s “Sripadarajaru – jeevana mattu krutigalu” – page no 24
           g.  Dr Krishna Kolhar’s “Madhwa MaTagalu” – page no 74
           h.  Smt Sarojamma Gopinath’s “Sripadarajaru” page no 4 in 1986
           i.   Prof. Sri SK Ramachandrarao’s edited book released in 1985 “Purandara Sahitya Darshana” page no 32
           j.   Sri Haridasaratham Gopaladasa’s “Sri Vijayadasaryaru” – released in 1995 – page no 5
           k.  Dr Sri Vyasanakere Prabhanjanachar’s  “Sri Vyasadarshana”
           l.   Sri Haridasaratham Gopaladasa’s book “Sripadaraja Guruvarastuti” released in 2001 – page no 3
           m. Sri Chikkeroor Govindacharya’s manuscripts
           n.  Sri Aralumalli Parthasarathi’s “Sripadaraja Samputa released in 1987 – page no 81
           o.  Sri Prasanna Srinivasa Dasa’s “Prasanna Sripadaraja Anucharite”
           p.  Sri Chikkeroor Govindacharya’s grantha “Sri Kopra Kshetra Mahatme”
           q.  As per BNK Sharma – Sri Satyanidhi Tirtharu (1638-1660) in his “Gurucharya”
           r.   In the book “Sri Gurumaahaatmya Ratnavali”, which contains the Yatiparampare upto Sri Satyanatha Tirtharu.
           s.  As per “Sripoornabodha Guruvamsha Kathakalpataru” written during Sri Satyabodha Tirtharu.
           t.   “Saviraaru Keertanegalu” released by “Ankita Pustaka”
          u.  Sri Jagannatha Vittala Prakashana Bangalore’s “Srimadharikathamrutasara Sankarshana Odeyar” vyakyana
          v.   “Madhwa Vagmaya Tapasvigalu” by Sri Pandarinathacharya Galagali – in page no 305
 
         
       Whether only ashrama jyesta  can give the title?
      
       There is no such rule.  Any body who has respect on the other can give the title. 
 
      It is said – while giving the title Sri Raghunatha tirtha declared in praise of Sri Lakshminarayana yogi….as “If I am a Sripada, in view of great scholarship of Lakshminarayana yogi.   He is a Sripadaraja”.    That is an indication as to the respect and vidyapakshapaatitva Sri Raghunatha Tirtha had on Sripadarajaru.   
 
       Some said – Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu was not in good terms with Vidyanidhi Parampare and as such there is no chance of both meeting at the same place and in the same venue.   REPLY – one must note that Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu never bothered about his personal standings.    He was a vidya pakshapaati.    Even Gurucharite also says the same – When he could not worship moola raama, he felt he was unfortunate and said “Well, it is Hari’s will, it is simply immutable with the only alternative submission”.  That is an indication that Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu had no such enemity with any body and that he never felt that Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu was his enemy.    As such, the question of  meeting between Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu and Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu can’t be ruled out.
 
        Whether some mutt pontiffs should not give the title? If given, is it invalid?
 
     Some said –   Sri Raghunatha Tirtha is from UM.  Lakshminarayana Muni is from some other Mutt.  How could Raghunatha Tirtha could praise Lakshminarayana Muni which brings undue pride for their Mutt?    REPLY –   If one looks at the Vidya pakshapaatitva, he would not have said that.    During those days, the mutt seers were not about their Mutt prestige.  Every scholar they used to praise.   Similarly Mantralaya samstaana has honoured not only Madhwa pandits, but also non Madhwa pandits also.    Those non Madhwas who are honoured can’t think that Madhwa philosophy is defeated.  Sri Vidyaranya himself recognised Sri Jayatirtharu.  One should not think that our Madhwa parampare pride is spoiled with this.   It is vidya pakshapaatitva.    
 
      Whether moola swaroopa jnaana is required for ascertaining whether the title given to Lakshminarayana Muni is correct or not?
       Some said – The moola swaroopa of Sripadarajaru is said to be Dhruvaraajaru, but the moola swaroopa of Raghunatha Tirtharu is not declared by UM.  As such, the question of honouring a person with a greater kakshya by a person of an unrecognised kakshya is invalid.     REPLY – Here while honouring a person, the question of moola swaroopa is not a requirement at all.   Similar to my previous example, when Mantralaya Rayara Mutt is honouring the people from different fields during Rayara Aradhana at Mantralaya.  There is no caste policy is followed by honouring the celebrities.  It does not mean that those who are honoured are having the great kakshya than the person who is honouring.    Sometime,  a Muslim, or a christian or a shudra is also honoured.   Do you propose to say that they have greater kakshya?
 
        As such, the importance of the kakshya or moola swaroopa is of Zero importance.
 
          If the moola swaroopa of Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu is not known, whether he can give the title?
 
      Some said –  Sri Rajendra Teertharu, Sri Kaveendra Teertharu, Sri Vibhudendra Teertharu. all of them, belong to well-known “Aravattvakkalu family”  and  they are relatives, of  Sri Brahmanya Teertharu and Sri Sripadarajaru. (as also, Sri Vyasarajaru, Sri Vijayeendraru, Sri Sudheendraru and offcourse, Rayaru..and so on) But not so in case of Sri Raghunatha Tirtha.   REPLY –  For honouring a respectable person a family relation shall be the merit.   whether they are from 60 vokkalu or deshastaru, does not merit for honouring.  Infact honouring a person from different family will be of more importance than honouring within the family.    If one looks at the vidya pakshapaatitva, he would not have commented like this.    The way he has used the comparison of 60 vokkalu is indication as to his prejudiceness.  Whether any body has any proof that Acharya Madhwa is from Aravattu Vokkalu.  No.  Whether Sri Acharya Madhwa has given any conditions for a sanyasi to be from aravattu vokkalu only.
       
      Some said – Sri Vibhudendraru/Vijayeendraru as per Rayara Matha, is a ruju, next in the order of Sri Vadirajaru as BhaviSameeraru.  –  But he could not clearly mention what he means with the comparison of the names.  If he has indication that Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu is not a Ruju – Again this is invalid statement or doubt. 
 
        Whether any king was present during the honouring of the title? or the king honoured with the title
       This can’t be ruled out.    There is a saying that Sri Saalva Narasimha Bhoopaala from the Saalva Dynasty was present and he gave the title in front of Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu to Lashminarayana Muni.  Sri Saalva Narasimha Devaraya (1485-1491),  who was the king of Chandragiri. (He was the first king of Saaluva Dynasty)  But it is said that he was commander in chief of the army of Chandragiri, and was the Mandaladhishwara of the Chandragiri dynasty even earlier to 1470AD). 
 
       If one assums that  the king has honoured, then the following points also need to be cleared.  
       a) If he is the king at that time, (1485-1491), then the Sripadaraja title must have been given during that period.  In such case one has to agree that both Vibudendra Tirtha, Sri Raghunatha Tirtha were pontiffs in their respective mutts and as such, the question raised by some that Raghunatha Tirtha was not a sanyasi does not stand in their favour.
        b) If one says that Sripadaraja title was given at that time, then Sripadaraja must have been in his 80s, 90s.   
        c) If the king is giving the title “Sripadaraja”, can it be justified can be studies as –
          i) .  Had the king honoured, he would have honoured with some other honour, like Sri Krishnadevaraya honouring Sri Vyasarajaru with “raajaguru” of Vijayanagar King.   He called him as “simhasanaadeeshwa”.   That is why even now, Sri Vyasaraja samstaana, has the distinction of doing “darbaar”
       ii)   The same Chandragiri king honoured Sripadaraja with “Rathnaabhisheka”, which is well recorded by all the historians.
          iii)    The title Sripadaraja literally means and being explained all the sources that  – If we are Sripaadaas, you are the Sripaadaraja”.  That is Lakshminarayana Muni is recognised as Sripadaraja as the king of all the Sripaadaas.  Can the king give such title by calling him as Sripaada.
         
         As such, the suggestion of giving the title “Sripadaraja” by the king Saalva Narasimha can’t be accepted.
 
        Whether Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu was a grantha kartha or was a Sudha pandit to honour other? –
     Even though it is not found in the history as to with whom he studied his “Sudha”, it is said that he had taught Sri Raghuvarya Tirtha and Sri Aadya family.  As such, he must be a pandit.
 
       Whether a junior seer can’t give the title to a senior title? or only a senior seer has to give the title?
       Some said – Sri Sripadaraja Tirtha had taken sanyasa earlier.  Raghunatha Tirtha has taken sanyasa later.  It is not justified giving the title by a younger yathi.   REPLY  for honouring a respectable person, age or deeksha or sanyaasa is not of much importance.    All the trio are of the same age.  Even though the birth year of Raghunatha Tirtha and Vibudendra Tirtha is not known, as all the three entered vrundavana during 1490 – 1504AD, one must assume that the three must of the same age.    Sri Vishwesha Tirtha of Pejawara Mutt is being honoured throughout the country.  It is not that only the people who are senior to him in age have honoured or senior to him in sanyasa have honoured.   Many youngsters have honoured him.  Then can one think that the seniority problem there in honouring?   No, not at all.  It is the duty of anybody for that matter to honour the “Vidya” which Sripadaraja had and as such, he was honoured and not with any seniority or juniority or Mutt issue.
 
       There is no specific mention of the date on which the title “Sripadaraja” given to Sri Lakshminarayana Muni.  One can’t imagine that at his age of 20 or 30 itself Sri Lakshminarayana Muni must have got such a great honour.  It is with combined effort of himself in studying and with the esteemed knowledge passed on to him by Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu after several years. He might have been a Sudha Pandit, long back itself, but it was only a rare occasion on which Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu met him, at Koppara, having heard of him, wished him to narrate some instances from Sudha, which might have prompted him to honour with such an honour.  It must be only during his forties or fiftees that he must have received such an honour.    What is wrong if some younger yathi honour an older yathi?    It was an honour from another mutt pontiff
 
      Some said –  only ashrama jyesta can give the title – if he is trying to say that Sri Vibudendra Tirtharu said  “we are sripaadaas, you are Sreepaadaraja”,    that also can’t be accepted.   Here also Sripaadaraja is ashrama jyesta, and Vibudendra Tirtharu is ashrama junior.   
 
       Whether there is devaranama which records the giving the title?
  1. 1) As per Karpara Narasimha Dasa’s Kruti –
 sripaadaraaja paaliso, kaipiDidee bhavada kOpaaradinda paaliso |
 ……
 kShEtra kaarpadali shrI raghunaatha |
vibudEndra sahita Chaatraa  nimmannu kELalu sUtraartha
chaaturmaasyadi kUtirE  tava sarvaatishayadi | sachchaastra pravachana suprIta
raGunaatha muKagItaa naamadivya kyaataa |
 
The above stanza tells the meeting of the trio at Karpara kshetra.
 
2) As per Ramakantha Vittala Dasaru
karuNaveNdeNeLaaytu iMdige | shrIpaadaraaja |
mOdatIrtha muniya vaMshada raGunaatharallya-
gaadha saahasa tOrisi srIpaadaraaja birudu pottara |
 
(in the above song the sequence of Sripadaraja title is available)
 
Whether the title given by Raghunatha Tirtharu is the judgement of the capacity of Sripadarajaru or simply a just of respect? 

Some said – Sri Sripadarajaru has not only a single grantha – Vaagvajra.  He may not have been so much qualified?  REPLY  It is baseless.  Sri Sripadarajaru deserves more than that.  He was the vidya guru of Sri Vyasarajaru and  many others.  One can’t give him anything.  It is only a part of respect which Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu has shown on him and it will not judge the capacity of Sripadarajaru.   He has done everything in devaranama itself.  By virtue of number of krutees one can’t judge the capacity of any yathi or pandit.  There are many scholars like Sri Brahmanya Tirtha, who has not given any grantha.  But the shishyas which are his contributions can’t be ruled out.  That is an indication as to their “vidya”. 

Please note :  The section of people who are telling that Sri Vibudendra Tirtha has given the title or Sri Saalva Narasimha has given the title or those whose are rejecting Sri Raghunatha Tirtha from giving the title to Lakshminarayana Muni have not given any proof for their saying.  It is just simply based on assumptions.  Some have tried to assume that the Raghunatha Tirtha name should not be coming  just because he is from UM.    One person who is so fond of creating the other Mutt said “those who are telling Raghunatha Tirtha has given the title are frauds”.  But had he given any proof for his stand for his stand, one would have appreciated.  This is nothing but prejudiced statement by some section of people.   Such an attitude should be condemned

It is not the judgement that Raghunatha Tirtha gave the title. I have extracted and collected those information from various investigative article.  If any body provides the other way also, we should be ready to accept, provided, it has some proof, without bias and without any MUTT sentiment. 

I am ready to correct myself, if anything proved wrong in my above analysis.  My main intention of analysing is just to make sure that the history is not modified to MUTT politics.  The next generation should not have mutt based politics, which are being prompted by some section of people. 

Source –

a)  Sri Chikkerooru Mukkundi Srikantacharya’s book “Sri Raghunatha Tirtharu haagu Sri Sripadarajaru” released in February 2009
b) BNK Sharma’s book
c) Various devaranamas
d) Various articles.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *