Sarvajna Peetharohana of Sri Sankaracharya at Kanchi
Sri Sankaracharya’s ascent to the Sarvajnapeetha (The Throne of Omniscience) at Kanchipuram, in South India holds immense historical importance.
This significant event is documented in various texts such as Cidvilasa’s Sankaravijaya Vilasa, Govindanantha’s Sankaracharya Charita, and Rajachudamani Dikshita’s Sankarabhyudaya.
Cidvilasa, a devoted disciple of the Tunga Sringeri matha, pays utmost reverence to Bhagavatpada’s Sarvajnapeetharohana at Kanchipuram in his biography.
As a staunch follower of the Tunga Sringeri matha, Cidvilasa’s account takes on a special significance, as he brings his deep understanding and spiritual connection to the narrative. Through the eloquence of sixteen carefully crafted verses, Cidvilasa masterfully paints a vivid picture of Sankaracharya’s ascent to the Sarvajnapeetha at the Kanchi kshetra.
Cidvilasa’s portrayal of Sri Sankaracharya’s Sarvajnapeetharohanam at Kanchipuram, in South India, carries a sense of authenticity and serves as a testament to his unwavering faith in the event’s profound significance.
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.
Question: What were the specific alterations made for the first time to the Anandāśrama edition of the (Madhaviya) Sankara digvijaya (MSV) regarding the title of the work and author’s name?
Answer: In an intriguing turn of events, the widely circulated Anandāśrama edition of the Sankara digvijaya had undergone some significant alterations.
Despite the colophons at the conclusion of each of the sixteen chapters clearly attributing the text to Madhava, the editor of the Anandāśrama publication took the liberty to change not only the title of the work to Samkṣepa- Sankara-jaya but also the author’s name to Madhava-Vidyaranya.
This deliberate modification marks the first instance of introducing the revered sage Vidyaranya’s name into the narrative, presumably with the intention of enhancing the popularity and reach of this work.
As a result of this deliberate and intentional alteration, the modified version of the text gained significant popularity among both Indian and Western scholars.
This deliberate attempt to introduce the name of the revered sage Vidyaranya into the narrative seemed to have successfully enhanced the work’s appeal and recognition in academic circles. The modified edition, now titled “Samkṣepa – Sankara – jaya” and attributed to Madhava-Vidyaranya, captured the attention and interest of scholars, contributing to its widespread recognition and study.
Question: According to the Mathamnayas, which matha holds the distinction of being the very first one to have been founded?
Answer: According to all the Mathmnayas, Dwaraka matha is the first of the four mathas to have been founded. Sarada pitha, at Dwaraka is the “first amnaya matha”- “prathamaḥ paścimamnayaḥ śāradāmaṭha ucyate”.
However, Anandagiri, a follower of the Kanchi Tradition, along with his followers Cidvilasa and Kasi Lakshmana Sastri, the author of GVK, both adherents of the Tunga Sringeri matha, assert in their works that Tungabhadra Sringeri was the site where the first matha was founded.
Further research on this subject is warranted due to the disagreement between mathamnaya texts and hagiographies on whether the first founded matha was Dwaraka or Tungabhadra Sringeri.
Question: Why do Mathamnaya theorists consider Cidvilasa Sankaravijaya to be exceptionally unique and significant and could you specify the exact location where Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada ascended the Sarvajna Peetha according to this historical account?
Answer: Cidvilasa is an adherent of the Tunga Sringeri Matha, presents a unique perspective in his Sankaravijaya by claiming that the Acharya established four mathas. Cidvilasa clearly asserts that Sri Sankaracharya ascended the Sarvajna Peetha exclusively at Kanchipuram.
Image: 19th Century Palm-leaf Tamil manuscript of Cidvilasa Sankaravijaya – Translation of the Skt. original text from the Tunga Sringeri matha, evidencing Sri Sankaracharya’s Sarvajna Peetharohanam at Kanchipuram.
Question: When and where was the first printed edition of “Mathamnaya” published, and who was the publisher?
Answer: In 1894, the first printed edition of “Mathamnaya” in the Sanskrit Grantha script was published at Srividya Mudraksharasala, Kumbhakonam. The publisher of this edition was Brahmasri Guruswami Sastri, hailing from Kalpattu village.
Images: Cover page (original) & Foreword by the Publisher in Tamil (Reprint)
Q: Until when did the adherents of the Tunga Sringeri Matha of Mysore State believe that Sri Sankara Bhagavatpadacharya was born in the first century B.C.E.?
A: Sri Sacchidananda Sivabhinava Narasimha Bharati Swami, Head of the Tunga Srirgeri Matha of Mysore State (from 1868 C.E. to 1912 C.E.) constructed a temple for Sri Sankaracharya at Kaladi in Kerala. The consecrations of this temple and also of the newly erected adjacent temple of Sri Saradambal, took place in 1910, in the immediate presence of and under the directions of the Swami.
The Swami also caused to set up a stone plaque, containing an inscription of 18 Sanskrit verses, on one of the walls of the Sri Saradambal temple. The inscription was seen at the spot till about 1970.
Though the plaque with the inscription is not to be found at present in the temple, luckily, the text of the inscription, containing 18 verses in Sanskrit, has been published in the work ‘Kalady’ edited by Prof. K.R Venkatraman, and published by P.S. Narayanan of Palghat – 1966, with a message of blessings from Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Swami of the Tunga Sringeri Matha, dated 8.1.1966.
The first three verses of this inscription are as given below:
कालटीकुम्भाभिषेकवृत्तान्तबोधनाय
श्रीशारदामन्दिरे प्रतिष्ठापितशिलालिखिताः
इमे श्लोकाः ॥
प्रायशो वर्षसाहस्रद्वितयात्प्राक्सदाशिवः ।
दृष्ट्वाऽधर्मेण धर्मस्य ग्लानिं सर्वत्र भूतले ॥१॥
कालट्यां केरले श्रीमच्छङ्कराचार्यसंज्ञया ।
प्राप्य जन्म स्वप्रतिज्ञापालनार्थीमिवादरात् ॥२॥
विजित्य सर्वान् वादेन दुर्मताविष्टचेतसः I
आविष्कृत्यासमन्ताद्वै वैदिकं धर्ममुत्तमम् ॥३॥
The preamble of the inscription states that the verse inscribed below are in memory of the consecration of the Sri Sankaracharya temple at Kaladi and for having a knowledge of the details about the Kumbhabhishekam of the temples.
The first two verses of the inscription purport to say that on seeing the weakening of Dharma in the world, Sadasiva, as if in accordance with his resolve, was born at Kalady, in Kerala, some 2000 years ago. (i.e., 1910–2000 = 90 B.C.) as Sri Sankaracharya.
From the above it is to be understood that till1966, the adherents of the Tunga Sringeri of Mysore State have held that Sri Sankaracharya was born in the first century B.C.E.
(Source: Sri Sankara Bhaktha Jana Sabha, 91, Salai Street Kanchipuram-2 Publication)
ANSWER: The Sringeri swami invited me to this meeting, and told me that we would be discussing the Ram Janmabhoomi issue. So I came. Perhaps, you should ask him what this is all about. They told me that it would be an opportunity for all the four Shankaracharyas to meet, and I was happy about that,
Q: So you do recognise the Kanchi Shankaracharya as one of you, and there are no longer any problems on that count?
A: You should ask this to the two mutts who actually had those differences (Kanchi and Sringeri). If they say they have all come together now, I am happy about that. It is better that we are not divided over small issues.
Q: What is the earliest recorded judicial precedent on this particular issue (Mathamnaya) ?
In the case of Shri Madhusudan Parvat of Jyotir matha, the Bombay High Court held,
A: 1.” Mathamnaya on which the Plaintiff (in the lower court) relles is not a work of Shankar Mathamnayas contain traditional ideals and could not have come down from Shankar”. (page 62).
2. “There is no authoritative version of the Mathamnaya and witnesses for the defendant (in the Lower Court) have produced other versions of it which differ in material particulars from those relied upon by the plaintiff “. (page 66).
3. “If there ever was any strict reservation of areas for the Mohunts of the various Maths certain facts proved in the case indicate that the reservation has long been disregarded.” (page 67)
[Shree Madhusudhan Parvat (Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math) Appellant (Defendant in Lower Court) Vs. Shree Madhav Teerth (Shankaracharya of Dwaraka Math) Respondent (Plaintiff in Lower Court).(Vol. XI of the Bombay Law Reporter)
First Appeal No. 45 of 1907, from the decree passed by Chandulal Mathurdas, Esq., First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No, 640 of 1904.
Before the Honourable Mr. Basil Scott, Chief Justice and Hon. Justice Mr. Batchelor November 11, 1908.]
Q: Is Mathamnaya authored by Sankaracharya, or is it the creation of someone else entirely?
A: In ‘Sankara Granthavali’ printed at the Vani Vilas Press, Sirangam and published in 1910 C. E. in commemoration of the consecration of Sri Sankaracharya murti at Kaladi, in Kerala, under the personal directions of the then Sringeri Acharya, the Mathamnaya Stotra has not been included. This clearly indicates that the Mathamnaya is not a work of Sankaracharya.
