Talk:Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Tamil Nadu (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Hinduism / Swaminarayan / Shaktism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I've made a number of changes to this page.

  • Removed quotes from 'influential institutions'. I can't see that there is any doubt about its influence. That's one of the reasons for the controversies around it.
  • Removed the following text, because the first is arguable (see history later), and the second irrelevant here;
The Mutt has a long established history of saints and was reverred all over India.Sri Chandrashekarendra Saraswathi Swamigal was a saint who lived for 100 ears and was popular all over India for his simple life and humility. He refused to meet Indira Gandhi at the time of Emergency.
  • Removed and simplified much of the history paragraph, to state only the formal claim to being founded by Sankara, and to the dispute as to Sankara's place of death The other claims, (e.g. that the courts support the matha's official history) need references and to be clearly written if they are to be included in the article. The existing references only support the statements now on the page.

Imc 19:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Imc:many o

The source http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/alt_hindu_msg.html does not qualify as a primary or secondary reliable sources according to wiki guidelines : "Personal websites as primary sources" "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources". This link is to a email letter written to some organisation. This may be therefore deleted.

Appaiah 12:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC


Sorry Appaiah, I disagree, both with your above statement, and the same reason that was given for your edit of 19th Feb.
  • First, the original posting was to a mailing list. A mailing list is not a 'blog', by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it a personal website. I agree only that it was an email, and that it was to a mailing list. Also the content was not 'from a blog' (as stated previously), it was from a person to the mailing list. Such posts are regularly quoted in scholarly circles, providing the content itself meets similar criteria to those that Wikipedia sets. An article does not have to be published in article format to be reputable and quoted.
  • Second, this reference is not the original mailing list anyway. It is a web page at http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/ which is a major and reputed website, and publishes this posting because of its content.
  • Third, S. Vidyasankar is himself a reputable source. He has other reputable published work on related topics, for instance that on Jyotirmath. This detailed and researched email has itself been reproduced, as here and on other websites, for its content and value. See also; [1]
  • Finally, I've looked through Wikipedia:Verifiability and the only item that I can see that may support your case is that which says that 'blogs' are not verifiable sources. I trust that this is not the reason you insist on calling it a blog, when it is not.
On the reversion of the other (anonymous) edits, it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to give details of the organisation's contacts in the USA. Imc 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i disagree.Advaita vedanta is the personal website of so called Vidyasankar Sundersan who keep on saying Kanchi Mutt is not an established mutt with the so called inscriptions. Sringeri Mutt holds date of adisankara in the 1st century till 19th century AD.But now they show 788-820 AD.Did he said anything about that? What about the geneologies of other main mutts which agree in common of 6th century BC.Did he say anything about that? How fortunate. No importance should be given to the website which shows this much IGNORANCE.The ONLY thing which is altogther correct is about his Jyoti Mutt.14.99.22.138 (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

History edits[edit]

This page sees drastic editing changes, with massive removal or massive addition of material. e.g. Latest editing of the history section: a blanket statement has been introduced, attributing a 5th century BC date to Adi Sankara, and all the earlier material that attempted to be objective in attributing dates has been removed.

This page needs careful monitoring.


I HAVE SEEN THE TEXT OF MR.VIDHYA SHANKAR AND I JUST ASSUME THAT IT IS JUST HIS PERCIEVED NOTION HE HAS TRIED TO EXPRESS.

I NOTE FROM A DISC. BETWEEN HIM AND ONE MR.BGS WHICH IS ATTACHED FOR THE BENIFIT OF THE GROUP.

IN MY OPINION THE REF MENTIONED BY HIM IS MORE FROM THE SOURCES OF SRINGERI MUTT AND IS REFLECTED IN HIS TEXT AS WELL.

NO ONE DOUBTS THE DIVINITY OF SRI CHANDRASEKARENDRA SARASWATHI BUT THIS ARTICLE IS TOO POOR IN TASTE TO HURT THE FEELING OF MILLIONS.

I MAY REQUEST EVERYONE TO VISIT THE DIALOG BETWEEN MR.VIDYASANKAR AND MR.BGS WHERE MR.BGS QUOTES VARIOUS GOVERNMENT AND VARIED SOURCES AND THE OTHER PUBLICATION FROM A PARTICULAR INSTITUTION.

THE LENIAGE OF THE MUTT IS AN ENVY TO MOST OF THE NON-ADVAITHA AND EVEN THE SOME ADVAITHA INSTITUTIONS WHICH IS OUT TO MALIGN THE NAME AND THUS SPOILING THE VERY CONCEPT OF ADISHANKARA ONENESS.

LETS MATURE AND FIGHT THE DIFFERENCE WITH A COMMON GOAL TO EXCEL AND NOT RESORT TO CHEAP AND UN-NESSESARY AND C---P PUBLICITY CREATING A RIFT WITHIN THE GREAT INSTITUTIONS OF ADVAITHA PHILOSOPHY.

K.M.BINDHU SADHAKAN


Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2000 05:31:39 +0100 Reply-To: Indology <[log in to unmask]> Sender: Indology Mailing List <[log in to unmask]> From: "Ganapathi ." <[log in to unmask]> Subject: kanchi Shankara Mutt Comments: To: [log in to unmask] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I read the article written by Sri Vidyasankar “Real History Of Kanchi Math (Re:Former President Inaugurates…)Celebrations” in the alt.hindu Newsgroup. This article was written on the major issues covered in “The weekly cover story” of the Illustrated weekly Of India (Sept.13,1987) –K.P.Sunil.

Page 3 and 4 of the article (Real History Of….) give the following information….

“ Historians, however, hold that the Kumbhakonam math was in verity a branch of the Sringeri math established in 1821 AD by the famous monarch of Tanjore, Serfoji. (Mr.Sunil has a fact wrong here.The monarch of Tanjore in 1821 was not Serfoji but his son Prathap singh Thuljaji.The date 1821 is correct.-it is the date of the oldest inscription found in the Kumbhakonam Math building.) Later the war broke out between the kings of Tanjore and Mysore, the Kumbhakonam Math proclaimed independence from Sringeri and established itself as the Kamakoti Peetam.”(there is no war documented between the Maratha rulers of Tanjore and the Wodeyars of Mysore after the 1821.By this time, both were more or less puppets of the British. That the Kumbakonam math proclaimed independence from Sringeri however is a fact…)

Mr.Sunil captures the major facts regarding the Kanchi Math correctly though. Briefly,

1.A branch of the Sringeri math was established in Kumbakonam, the building for which was constructed in 1821 AD, with the help of the Tanjore king… 2.The Kumbakonam math soon proclaimed independence from Sringeri… 3(2)Thus the kanchi math as an institution dates from 1842 AD…..”

htpp://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1994/msg00539.html

The findings of the author in the said article made me to look out for more fine points on the subject. Therefore a discussion was initiated in the indology group.

Sri Vidyasankar wrote..(23.08.2000) “…As an inscription dated 1821 is found in Kumbakonam, it stands to reason that there must have been a matha there for a few decades before that date. I don’t think that people and institutions suddenly come into being , on the date of the first available written record…The question that causes the biggest controversy is whether the said matha came to Kumbakonam in the first place and if so, when. That is still to be addressed”.

1.The inscriptions relating to 1800 AD clearly mention the name of the Math as the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam and the modi documents of 18th and 19th century also do refer the institution as the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam and the Peetadhipathi as the Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam. Therefore the existence of Kanchi Shankara Math at Kumbakonam during this period is proved beyond doubt.

2.The Kumbakonam Shankara Mutt inscription, according to Sri Vidyasankar relates to 1821 AD.According to him the then ruler of Tanjore during this period was not Serfoji but his son prathap singh Thuljaji.


Ekoji I 1676-1684 Shaji 1684-1711 Serfoji I 1711-1729 Thukoji 1729-1735 EkojiII 1735-1736 Sujan bhayee 1736-1738 Kattu raja 1738-1739 Prathapa Simhan 1739-1763 Thulaja 1763-1787 Amarsingh 1787-1798 Serfoji II 1798-1832 Sivaji 1832-1855

From the above genealogy list, we can infer that the monarch was only Serfoji II . Sivaji II was the son of Serfoji II and not Prathapa Singh Thulajaji as given by Sri.Vidyasankar.

3.The date of this marathi inscription was the 10th Feb.1822. According to this inscription Raja Sri Chathrapathi Serfoji Maharaja built the Temple of Chandramouleeswara (Chandramouleeswara Griham) in the Math.

4.Vidyasankar wrote.(27.08.2000)”…That there was a Shankaracharya associated with Kanchi Kamakoti Peetam in the 19th Century does not require much proof. Around the 1700’s is the crucial time period for which one needs information.As for as one can make out from your mails, the modi documents do not cover this”.

The object of this interaction is to share the views on the issue whether the Kanchi shankara Math has any historical evidence to prove its existence at Kumbhakonam prior to 1820s as an independent Math. When some one has been repeatedly saying that the Kanchi math is an institution dating from 1842 AD, the Math had proclaimed independence from Sringeri etc., it is essential to take into account all the material available during this period. Therefore, the Kumbakonam inscriptions and Modi Documents (which cover a period of more than hundred years) shall not be rejected with out assigning any reasons.

5.The Letter written to SivajiII contains information about the shifting of Kanchi Math head quarters from Kanchipuram to Kumbakonam during the period of Raja Prathapa Simhan. There are also records in connction with the Vyasa pooja Offerings made to the kanchi Kamakoti Peetadhipathi during the 1760s.(Sri VidyaSankar might have the curiosity of discovering more info. from the 1700s. But this can not reduce the importance of the documents shown in support of my contention that the Kanchi Math had come to Kumbhakonam during the period of Raja Prathapa simhan only as an independent Kanchi Math and it is highly ridiculous to claim it as a sub math of Sringeri).

6. It was also mentioned in one of my earlier postings that the Tanjore Kings had extended their patronage to various other maths. Sringeri Math had not been referred in any of these Documents. Hence the tentative assumptions that a branch of the Sringeri math was established in Kumbakonam, the building for which was constructed in 1821 AD, with the help of the Tanjore king etc., are not backed by any proof.

BGS


01.Saraswathi Mahal Library Pub. No.46 (1990)

BHONSLE VAMSA CHARAITHRA

-being the marathi historical Inscription in the Big Temple Tanjore on the History of Maratha Rajas of Tanjore. Translated by Sri.V.Srinivasa Murthy & S.Gopalan

Page.. 83-87

02.Tamil University Pub. No.151 (1992)

KUMBHESWARAR KOYILUM MAHAMAKHA THIRUVIZHAVUM

Pulavar K.M.Muthu Samy Pillai

Page..41 & 42

03. Saraswathi Mahal Publication No.312 (1990) MAAMANNAR SERFOJI Edited by; M.Sadasivam, Director, TMSSM Library Article: MAAMAANAR SERFOJIYIN SAADHANAIGALUM SAMAYA PANIGALUM By: Sri Rajaram Raja Saaheb Chathrapathi, Senior Prince, Tanjore Page..48 & 58


04.Tamil University Pub. (1984)

Administration and Social Life under the Maratha Rulers of Thanjavur

Prof.K.M.Venkataramiah Page..21 & 22, 432-436, 500 & 501.


05.Saraswathi Mahal Library Pub.No.409 (1999)

MODI DOCUMENTS IN THE SARASWATHI MAHAL LIBRARY- VOL –I

Edited and Translated by Dr.R.Vivekananda Gopal, Modi Expert, Tanjore

Page.. viii, Section III –1-12.


06.Tamil University Pub.No.71 (1987)

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE MARATHAS OF THANJAVUR

Pulavar Se.Raasu,

Page 158 & 159.




Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main INDOLOGY page



 Back to the LISTSERV home page at LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG. TICE IN  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.61.251 (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC) 

References[edit]

Adequate references have been provided. I dont think "unrferenced" tag is relevant any more -Ravichandar84 15:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The references given as place of sankara's death as Kedarnath in the Himalayas only says about his full life about various doings and establishment of 4 mutts and of him staying at kanchi in his last days and after him it is math also.There is no mention of his passing away in the himalayas. So editing the history.14.99.243.89 (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Murder trial[edit]

I was surprised to find no reference to the ongoing murder trial in the article. I have added a summary paragraph with citations.

I think we should provide more details of this episode and its effect on the matha. mukerjee (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/origin.html and other pages in that domain. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)