FAQs – Mathamnaya Scheme – Naming Discrepancies

Question: Does the deviation from the Prescribed Naming Convention by the Dvaraka, Puri and Tunga Sringeri Mathas Cast Doubts on Their Adherence to the Mathamnaya Scheme?

Answer: In response to this question, Matthew Clarke, a researcher who has extensively studied this subject, offers the following conclusive answer supported by compelling evidence.

According to the guru-parampara of (Tunga) Śrngeri (see Aiyer and Sastri 1962:164–181), none of the first four ācārya-s of the Sṛngeri after Sankara are named Sarasvati, Bhāratī or Purī, as they should be according to the Maṭhāmnāya; ācārya-s nos. 8 to 11, and nos. 35 and 36 are named Tirtha (located at Dvārakā in the Mathamnaya); and acārya-s nos. 5, 6 and 7 are Giris (located at Jyotir matha in the Mathamnaya).

There are no Puris or Sarasvatis in the list at all.

In the Kuḍalī list all the ācārya-s are Bhāratīs.

Of the seventy-nine acarya-s of Dvārakā (Tīrtha and Asrama according to the Mathamnaya), only six are Tirtha, one is a Sarasvati (acc. Śrigerī), thirty-six are Asrama, while the rest have other names.

The 144 ācārya-s of the Jagannatha matha should be called either Vana or Aranya, according to the Mathamnaya, yet none of them have that name.

After the eighteenth, all but two are Tirtha (located at Dvārakā in the Mathamnaya) and the first seventeen have other names. (No guru – parampara is provided by Aiyer and Sastri for the Jyotir matha.)” – Matthew Clark (2006)

In summary, the deviation from the prescribed naming conventions in these three Sankarite institutions viz. Dvārakā, Jagannatha and Tunga Śrigerī, raises questions about their adherence to the Mathamnaya scheme, casting doubt on their claimed consistency.

Categories FAQ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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