Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c14: Chapter IX

Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar c14

Language
English

Contents

Chapter IX

c14.1

Introductory

c14.2

The centuries following the Christian era were marked by the spread of Śaivism and Vaiṣṇavism in South India.

c14.3

The Śaiva saints Tirunāvukkaraśu, Tirujñānasambanda, Sundara and Māṇikkavācaka and the Nāyanmārs started the *bhakti* movement in South India. The first three wrote the *Dēvārams*, while Māṇikkavācaka wrote the *Tiruvācakam*. All of them stressed the importance of *bhakti*. Side by side with this *bhakti* movement was another movement which stressed the importance of the philosophical aspect of religion. This was headed by Śrī Śaṅkara (8th century) who expounded the doctrine of Vedānta and based his philosophy on the Vedas and Smṛtis. He saw no difference between Śiva and Viṣṇu, and his philosophy was a rigorous monism. To propagate his theories, he is said to have established four *mathas* at four places—Śṛṅgēri, Kāñcī, Jagannāth and Dvārakā over each of which he appointed a pontiff to be followed in regular succession.

c14.4

Similarly with regard to Vaiṣṇavism, there appeared in South India a few Vaiṣṇava teachers who were known as the Ālvārs. They were twelve in number, and among them prominent mention may be made of Pōygai Ālvār, Namma Ālvār, Kulaśēkhara Ālvār, Periya Ālvār and Tirumaṅgai Ālvār. Their works “may be described as welling with a genuine love of an extremely intense degree for Viṣṇu, and in their earnestness and fervour they stand only on a par with the equally strong and touching appeals to God made in the *Dēvāram* by the Śaiva saints. Their love or *bhakti* is the foundation of the doctrine of *prapatti* which looms large in the Vaiṣṇava philosophy.”¹ Later than the Vaiṣṇava Ālvārs, flourished a few Vaiṣṇava Ācāryas such as Nāthamuni and Āḷavandār (Yamunācārya), who propounded and elaborated the philosophy of the Ālvārs. They were followed by Śrī Rāmānujācārya who lived in the 11th and 12th centuries. While Śaṅkara emphasised the monistic theory, Rāmānuja propounded the theory of Viśiṣṭādvaita. According to the Advaita doctrine of Śaṅkara, Brahman alone is real, and all else is illusory manifestation (māyā), but according to the Viśiṣṭādvaidic position all things are real and permanent as attributes inseparable from the one Brahman.

c14.5

¹ T. A. Gopinatha Rao, *Hist. of Śrī Vaishnavism in South India*, p. 29

c14.6

In the thirteenth century there lived another great philosopher and thinker called Madhvācārya who preached the doctrine of the Dvaita philosophy. He argued that the individual soul was not one with the supreme God, but separate, and that all things were real and permanent.

c14.7

These movements were slowly spreading in the country, when all of a sudden, in the fourteenth century, the Muhammadan invasions with their concomitant results gave a fresh impetus for the religious movements in South India.

c14.8

At the beginning of the fourteenth century, India south of the Vindhyas presented a deplorable picture. It was then a land of warring kingdoms and principalities being divided among four important powers, the Yādavas of Dēvagiri, the Kākatīyas of Warangal, the Hoyśālas of Dvārasamudra and the Pāṇḍyas in the extreme south. It was at this time that the Sultans of Delhi began to interfere in South Indian politics, and thus drove a wedge into the confusion that prevailed in that part of India. Muḥammad Bin Tughlak invaded the Hoyśāla territory in 1327 and compelled Ballāḷa III to submit. The dispute between Sundara Pāṇḍya and Vīra Pāṇḍya in the Pāṇḍyan court in the extreme south over the succession question weakened the empire and made it easy for the Mahammadan invaders to interfere in her affairs, plunder her territories and add to the confusion in the country.² After the preliminary excursions had been led into South India, Muḥammad Bin Tughlak “subdued the whole of the Karṇāṭak both in length and breadth even to the shore of the sea of Oeman”³ in 1327 and appointed Jalāl-ud-din to rule over Madura which he had made a province of the Delhi empire. But Jalāl-ud-din declared his independence. Tughlak arranged an expedition against the rebellious chief but his attempt proved abortive. The Madura Sultan was murdered and was succeeded by his son-in-law Ghiyās-ud-din, who in the course of a war with Vīra Ballāḷa inflicted "the worst of all defeats" on the Hindus and murdered the Hoyśāla ruler. Ghiyās-ud-din was successively followed on the throne by Nāṣir-ud-din, 'Ādil Shāh, Fakr-ud-din Mubārak Shāh and 'Alā-ud-din Sikandar Shāh. The Sultanate seems to have come to a close about 1377-78 as a result of the early wars of the Vijayanagar prince Kampaṇa.

c14.9

² See K. A. Nilakanta Śāstri, The Pāṇḍyan Kingdom, pp. 201-11.

c14.10

³ Briggs, The Rise, I, p. 413.

c14.11

The Muhammadan occupation of South India was a regular tyranny. Ibn Baṭūṭa found his brother-in-law Ghiyās-ud-din to be a cruel tyrant and observes that he was "a fiend in human shape." The temples were the objects of Muhammadan attack, and the renowned shrines of Śrīraṅgam and Cidambaram suffered worst. As soon as the Muhammadans had reached near Śrīraṅgam, the image of Śrīraṅganātha was taken away from the place by Vēdānta Dēśika. The Pāṇḍyan Chronicle says: "The proper tutelary deity of Madura went into the Malayalam country. Then the wall of the temple, the fourteen towers on it and the streets inside were destroyed."⁴ An epigraph describes the rule of the Muhammadans at Madura in the following terms: "The times were Tulukkan (Muhammadan) times; the devadāna lands of the Gods were taxed with kuḍimai; the temple worship, however, had to be done without any reduction; the uḷavu or cultivation of the temple lands was done by turns by the tenants of the village."⁵ The Madhurāvijayam of Gaṅgādēvī also gives a vivid but somewhat poetic description of the character and effects of the Muhammadan occupation of Madura. It says: "The place now known as Vyāghrapuri (Cidambaram) has been continuously so, for tigers inhabit it now where men once dwelt, the Vimāna (the dome of the central shrine) of Śrīraṅgam is so dilapidated that now it is the hood of Ādiśēṣa alone that is protecting the image of Ranganātha from the falling debris. The Lord of Gajāraṇya (Tiruvāṇaikkāval, Jambukēśvaram near Śrīraṅgam), who once killed an elephant to obtain its skin for his garment, has now again been reduced to this condition, because he is stripped bare of all the clothing; while the garbhagṛha (central shrine) of many another temple is crumbling, its maṇṭapa overgrown with vegetation and the wooden doors of the temple eaten up by white ants. Where there resounded once the joyous music of the mṛdaṅgam (a kind of drum) there is heard at present the howl of the jackal that has made it its abode. The river Kāvēri that was curbed by proper dams and flowed in regular channels has begun to run in all directions. In the agrahāras where the smoke issuing from the fire offerings (Yāgadhūma) was largely visible, and in which the chant of the Vedas was everywhere audible, we have now the offensive smelling smoke issuing from the roasting of flesh by the Muhammadans and the harsh voice of these ruffians alone is heard there. The beautiful cocoanut trees which were gracing the gardens surrounding the city of Madura have been cut down by these intruders, and in place of these we see plenty of śūlas (stakes for impaling persons) with garlands made by stringing human heads together, resembling and recalling in a remote manner the cocoanut trees. The water of the river Tāmraparṇī which used to be rendered white by the sandal paste rubbed away from the breasts of the youthful maidens who were bathing in it is now flowing red with the blood of cows slaughtered by these monstrous sinners.”⁶

c14.12

⁴ Or. His. Mss., I, p. 35.

c14.13

⁵ M.E.R., 1916, para 33.

c14.14

⁶ Madhurāvijayam, Intro., pp. 5-6.

c14.15

Thus the Muhammadan occupation of South India created a feeling of great horror among the Hindus. The Hindus rose up from their slumber and felt the necessity for united action. They wanted to stem the tide of Muhammadan aggression beyond the south of the Kṛṣṇa. This desire to strengthen the cause of Hindu unity in South India necessitated their united action and the foundation of a strong government. The establishment of this empire which was to play a very important part in the history of South India marked the assertion of Hindu independence by South India.

c14.16

The object of the foundation of Vijayanagar was religious in character. The Hindus were anxious to preserve their religion, traditions, and Dharma from the onslaughts of Islam. This work necessitated a greater amount of attention being paid to the religious revival in the land. This activity in the field of religion to save it from Islam led also to greater attenion being paid to literature, for in India the character and number of literary productions depended largely on the religious movements in the country. Thus the foundation of Vijayanagar had three effects: the Muhammadans were held in check, the religious revival was given an impetus, and the period was marked by a great literary renaissance Soon after its foundation, the Saṅgama brothers and their sons, especially Kampaṇa, the son of Bukka, engaged themselves in freeing South India from Muhammadan domination. According to the Kōyiloḷugu, the idol of Raṅganātha of Śrīraṅgam after having been taken to Tirunārāyaṇapuram by way of Jyōtiṣkuḍi, Tirumāliruñjōlai (Aḷagarkōyil), Kōlikkūḍu (Calicut) and Puṅganūr, was kept at that place for some time after which it was finally removed to Tirupati. When Gōpaṇṇa, the ruler of Jiñji, heard of the vicissitudes of the idol, he had it removed to Jiñji where he kept it in the beautiful rock-cut shrine of Raṅganātha at Śiṅgavaram near his capital. Meanwhile the chief who was left in charge of Śrīraṅgam removed his headquarters to Kaṇṇanūr, a village six miles north of Śrīraṅgam, owing to considerations of health, and fortified that place with the stones obtained by demolishing the outer enclosures of the Śrīraṅgam temple. Through the good offices of a dancing girl of Śrīraṅgam who was on intimate relations with the Muhammadan chief with the object of saving the temple from destruction, a Kaniyāḷa Brahman named Śiṅgappirāṇ secured a post in the service of the Muhammadan chief and was serving him faithfully. As soon as news of the foundation of Vijayanagar reached the ears of the distressed people of South India Tirumanattun Nambi, the son of Śiṅgappirāṇ, sent one Uttama Nambi, one of the sthānattārs of the temple, to inform Gopaṇṇa about the condition of Śrīraṅgam. Soon communications were started between Jiñji and Śamayavaram. In 1370-71 Gōpaṇṇa defeated the Muhammadan chief “who had degenerated by drink and debauchery and become thoroughly powerless to resist an attack,” and re-established the image of Raṅganātha in the temple.⁷

c14.17

⁷ See Madhurāvijayam, pp. 12-25; Taylor, Or. His. Mss., II, p. 111; 18 of 1899; S. K. Aiyangar, South India under the Muhammadan Invaders, p. 116. The Pāṇḍyan Chronicle describes in vivid colours how the temple looked when it was opened by Kampaṇa. It says: “Then things were found precisely as on the day when the temple was shut; the lamp that was lighted on that day, the sandal wood powder, the garland of flowers, and the ornaments usually placed on the morning of festival days were now found to be exactly as it is usual to find them on the same evening of such festival days.” (Taylor, Or. His. Mss., I, pp. 35-7).

c14.18

The activities of Kampaṇa in the south proved a death-knell to the Muhammadan domination in the south. Ruined temples were restored by him and worship in them was revived. When he was active in the south the enthusiastic sons of Saṅgama were active in the north. In the arduous task of stemming the tide of Islamic aggression, they were helped by the distinguished pontifical heads of the Śṛṅgēri maṭha, Vidyātīrtha and Vidyāraṇya. Later tradition even goes to the extent of crediting Vidyāraṇya with the foundation of the city of Vijayanagar for the preservation of Hindu religion and Dharma. Kriyāśakti Paṇḍita of the Pāśupata school of Śaivism also joined hands in the Hindu effort to save South India from Islamic aggression. "It is a recognised element of national psychology that where a society is on the defence it cherishes every inherited tradition and holds fast to all things good and bad which it has inherited. Conservatism becomes a national virtue; the maintenance of what has been a point of national honour. That is not the time for reforms, for the raison d'etre of the State is the defence of what exists. The orthodoxy of the kings became therefore the central point in the State. Hence it is that the great States which stood out the Mahommedan influence........like Vijayanagar........became the citadels of orthodoxy, places where customs, which in a free India never had universal acceptance, came to be considered orthodox and unchangeable."7a The ideal for which Vijayanagar and its kings stood is well indicated by an epigraph of A.D. 1376 which states: "In the world Acyuta (Kṛṣṇa) was born to Yaśōdā and Nanda Gōpa and gave them a promise that he would eventually reappear as a king to deliver the world when it was overspread by Mlecchas. Accordingly he was born in the region of Pampāpuri to Saṅgama and his wife Kāmāmbikā as Bukkamahīpati."8 It was an epoch of religious excitement and moral awakening when the forces of Hinduism were strengthened. The interest of the kings in such a movement is well borne out by such titles as Vedamārgapratiṣṭhāpanācārya and Vaidikamārga pratiṣṭhāpanācārya which the early rulers of Vijayanagar took. It was also a period when "the teachings of Śaṅkara, Rāmānuja and Madhvācārya, the doctrine of the Vedānta, Advaita and Dvaita schools, the creed of the Jaṅgamas or Liṅgāyats, etc., were led to interminable discussions all urging their respective tenets with a zeal."9

c14.19

7a. Sardar K. M. Panikkar, Origin and Evolution of Kingship in India. pp. 153-54.
8. E.C., IV, Yd. 46; Intro., p. 23.
9. Elliot, Num. Orient., p. 92.

c14.20

According to the *Guruparamparā*, Vidyāraṇya, the *Advaita* teacher, and Akṣobhyamuni, the follower of the *Dvaita* philosophy, had a controversy regarding their respective doctrines of illusion (*māyā*) and reality (*tattva*). Both of them sent their contentions through the king of Vijayanagar to Vēdānta Dēśika (then at Śrīraṅgam) for arbitration. But the *Viśiṣṭādvaita* teacher decided in favour of Akṣobhyamuni. Though the chronology contained in the story is not above suspicion yet “the story...... sufficiently illustrates the state of conflict between the two schools of philosophy.”¹⁰ But such hot controversies and differences of opinion in regard to highly philosophical questions did not prevent the rival schools from working together for the preservation of their religion. The activities of Vidyāraṇya who was on very intimate terms with the royal house of Vijayanagar are known to us better. He helped Bukka I and Harihara II in the task of religious revival and tried to do his work with their help. He added to his religious undertakings others of a political nature and boldly played the part of a statesman and empire builder.¹¹ Vidyāraṇya is said to have invited Vēdānta Dēśika who was living at Satyamangalam to Vijayanagar perhaps to work together. But the Dēśika appears to have preferred a life of seclusion whence he could work for the emancipation of the country to one of active participation in the political movements of the period, in which respect he was a shining contrast to the great *Advaita* techer of the fourteenth century.

c14.21

¹⁰ J.B.B.R.A.S., XXIV, p. 293: *Life and Times of Śrī Vēdānta Dēśika* by V. Rangachary; see also C. M. Padmanabhachar, *The Life and Teachings of Madhvāchariar* (Coimbatore, 1909); See contra. Bhandarkar, *Vaishnavism, Saivism*, pp. 59 ff.

c14.22

¹¹ See M.A.R., 1908, paras 18-19.

c14.23

To save South India from the Islamic onslaughts and to revive the Hindu religion, literary works had to be produced, and commentaries on ancient works had to be written to expound and explain the tenets of the Hindu religion. The foundation of Vijayanagar coincided in point of time with the outburst of a momentous literary movement in South India. Since the fourteenth century there flourished in the Vijayanagar empire a succession of eminent scholars in the different branches of literature and who were followers of the different schools of philosophy of South India. It was an age of intense literary activity beginning with Sāyaṇācārya and Vēdānta Dēśika.¹² On account of the destruction of the Hindu kingdoms in the Deccan, a large number of scholars migrated to South India and received great patronage under the Vijayanagar sovereigns. Sāyaṇācārya and his brother Mādhavācārya founded a school which wrote commentaries on the Vedas, Āraṇyakas and the Brāhmaṇas. Thus the epoch was one of great religious and literary activity.

c14.24

¹² Mookerjee, *Local Government*, p. 13.

c14.25

In the Vijayanagar days all the religious sects in South India such as the Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava, Madhva, Jain, Muhammadan and in the later Vijayanagar period, even the Christian were living side by side with one another. The Rāyas of Vijayanagar generally tried to encourage the religious movements in the empire.

c14.26

Hinduism

c14.27

1. Śaivism :

c14.28

Among the Hindu religious groups in the Vijayanagar empire the Śaivas constituted a large majority. They may be classified under three broad smaller groups: (i) Advaitins or Smārtas, (ii) Pāśupatas and (iii) Vīra Śaivas.

c14.29

(i) Advaitins: The Advaitins were the followers of the philosophy of Śrī Śaṅkara who preached the theory of non-dualism. In the Vijayanagar empire there were two maṭhas said to have been established by Śrī Śaṅkara; one of them was at Śṛṅgēri and the other at Kāñcī, later transferred to Kumbakōṇam. There were also two minor maṭhas, one at Puṣpagiri and the other at Virūpākṣam, but it is difficult to say when they were founded. The great scholar and literary celebrity, Vidyāraṇya, was an Advaita teacher and his maṭha at Śṛṅgēri was greatly patronised by the Vijayanagar kings. In A. D. 1346 the five Saṅgama brothers made a joint grant to that maṭha.¹³ Vidyāraṇya himself seems to have died at Hampi.¹⁴ The Śaṅkarācārya maṭha at Kāñcī was also, as we shall see in the sequence, greatly patronised by the Vijayanagar sovereigns.

c14.30

¹³ E.C., VI, Sr. 1.

c14.31

¹⁴ M.A.R., 1916, para 97.

c14.32

From time to time the Vedāntist school of Śaṅkara produced scholars of eminence and repute who wrote works and expounded the Advaita doctrines. They had also controversies with the exponents of the other schools of philosophy. Tradition affirms that Vidyāraṇya had a philosophical dispute with Akṣōbhya Muni, a disciple of Madhva and an exponent of the Dvaita philosophy. Appayya Dīkṣita, a great scholar and philosopher who flourished in the sixteenth century, was a controversialist and had disputes on questions of high philosophy with Vijayīndra Tīrtha of the Madhva maṭha at Kumbakōṇam.

c14.33

(ii) Pāśupatas: During the Vijayanagar period there flourished along with the Advaitins or Smārtas, the Pāśupatas. They paid greater attention to the Śaiva Āgamas though they did not reject the Vedas on that account. By the Vijayanagar period the Śaivas of this school had spread in portions of South India. They had their own gurus and interpreters. The first few kings of Vijayanagar appear to have been followers of this school of Śaivism. Harihara I and Bukka I appear to have been the disciples of Kāśivilāsa Kriyāśakti who was a Pāśupata. He was also the guru of the great minister and general Mādhava, who mentions him in one of his grants of A.D. 1368.¹⁵ At the instance of this Kriyāśakti guru, Mādhava carried out a special Śaiva vow, lasting for a year at the end of which he made a gift from the funds of his own property to eighty learned Kāśmīr Brahmans who were well versed in the Śaiva rites and were devoted to the Śaiva creeds.¹⁶ It was probably he that inspired the compilation of the Śaivāgamasāra Saṃgraha written jointly by Mārappa and Mādhava.¹⁷ Harihara considered him to be his kulaguru.¹⁸ Kumāra Kampaṇa who conquered the Southern districts for the Vijayanagar empire also accepted Kriyāśakti guru as his kulaguru.¹⁹ Immaḍi Bukka, son of Harihara, made a grant to the temple of Vidyāśaṅkara with the permission of Kriyāśakti.²⁰ According to an epigraph at Vāgata in the Bangalore district, Kriyāśakti himself made a grant of some lands to the local Viṣṇu temple.²¹ These two inscriptions indicate in unmistakable terms that Kriyāśakti guru, though a follower of the orthodox Śaiva school, was tolerant not only to the Advaitins but also to the Vaiṣ- navas. This speaks highly of the general spirit of tolerance that prevailed in the empire.²²

c14.34

¹⁵ E.C., VII, Sk. 281.

c14.35

¹⁶ Ibid.

c14.36

¹⁷ E.C., VIII, Sb. 375.

c14.37

¹⁸ E.C., V, Cn. 256.

c14.38

¹⁹ M.E.R., 1925, para 30; M.A.R., 1918; paras 105-106; Madhurāvijayam Canto 1, v. 4. Mādhavācārya calls himself the kulaguru of Bukka. Probably the sons of Saṅgama had more than one kulaguru.

c14.39

²⁰ E.C., X, Mb. 11.

c14.40

²¹ E.C., IX, Hk. 129.

c14.41

²² A record of A.D. 1377 mentions Singanna Odeya, the grandson of Kampana I, as a disciple of Ākāśavāsi Sāmavēdigāru. It is stated in the inscription that he received the initiation (upadeśa) of Bhuvanēśvari from that guru, and on that occasion he made a grant of the village of Perusalu to his guru (681 of 1917). The term Ākāśavāsi seems to be a variant of the more familiar term Ākāśamukhin which indicates that the members of this sect lived always mentally in heaven. But we do not have more details about them. See M.E.R., 1918, para 66; See also Monier Williams, Brahmanism and Hinduism, p. 88.

c14.42

(iii) Vīra Śaivas: The Vīra Śaivas constituted an influential religious sect in the empire. They were another off-shoot of the Śaivas. Vīra Śaivism as a religion was given a popular turn by Basava (Vṛṣabha), a minister and contemporary of king Bijjala of the Kaḷacūryas. The way had however been prepared for him by a succession of Śaiva teachers. They did not concern themselves very much with the philosophical doctrines of the Vedāntins. "What philosophy the Jaṅgamas professedly have is Vedāntic, but in fact they are deistic (not pantheistic) disciples of . . . . Basava (Vṛṣabha) who taught Śiva worship in its grossest form, the adoration of the Liṅga (Phallus); while his adherents, who spread all over India under the name of Jaṅgamas, 'vagrants,' or Liṅgāyits 'Phallus wearers', are idolatrous deists with but a tinge of Vedantic mysticism."²³ They are staunch Śaivas and carry the phallic (Liṅgam) always with them. They reject the authority of the Vedas, disbelieve the doctrine of re-birth, object to child marriage, approve of the remarriage of widows, and cherish an intense aversion to Brahmans. They constitute even now a very powerful community in the Kanarese country, especially among the trading classes.

c14.43

²³ Hopkins, Religions of India, p. 482.

c14.44

(iv) Śaiva Siddhāntins: By the Vijayanagar days religion had become too much associated with ritualistic ceremonials on the one hand and philosophical speculations on the other. The caste system had become rigid, and ceremonials had taken the place of devotion. Hence there was a general revolt against the rigidity of caste and the elaborateness of rituals, and the scope for the study of the religious literature of the country was expanded by the free use of the vernaculars. This widespread discontent against rigid orthodoxy resulted in the rise and spread of the cult of Śaiva Siddhāntism among the Śaivas. The author of this movement was one Meykaṇḍadēva who wrote the Śivajñāna-bōdham which contains the principles and tenets of that creed.²⁴ He stressed the importance of Śiva in the religious pantheon, and made Śaivism the popular religion among the masses. Meykaṇḍa had a worthy line of followers in Pattiragiriyar, Paṭṭaṇattu Piḷḷaiyār, Parañjōti Muṇivar and a few others. They stressed the importance of *bhakti* or devotion in preference to rituals and ceremonies. Śiva Vākyar ridiculed idol worship thus: "What is the use of decking stones with flowers? What true religion is there in the ringing of bells, the performance of set obeisances, the going around fanes, the floating of incense, the offering of things arranged as if in a market?" About pilgrimages he asked: "Can a bath in the Ganges turn black into white?" But he said: "Shun illusions, repress the senses, then the sacred waves of Kāśi will swell within your breast." Paṭṭaṇattu Piḷḷaiyār had no love of life. He says about the body: "It is a property claimed by various agents—by fire, by worms, by the earth, by kites, jackals, and curs. Its ingredients, moreover, are nasty and of bad odour". He insists upon the love of God. To him forms of worship and the scriptures are all 'godward perfidy'. He pleads for the true love of God.²⁵ This movement slowly spread in South India during the Vijayanagar days.

c14.45

²⁴ The date of Meykanda is one of doubt. Prof. Seshagiri Śāstri, suggests that he lived about A.D. 1550. (*Rep. on Sans. and Tam. Mss.*, 1896-97, pp. 52 and 56). The author of the *Madras Manual* assigns him to the eleventh century and says that the Siddar schools came into existence after Ativīra Rāma Pāṇḍya whom he places in the eleventh century (Vol. I, pp. 57 and 120). Gopinatha Rao however thinks that Ativīra Rāma Pāṇḍya lived about A.D. 1236 (*Madras Review*, 1904). See in this connection *Indian Antiquary*, Vol. XLIII, pp. 156-57. Meykanda appears to have lived in the twelfth century at the latest. Umāpati Śiva, fourth in the spiritual succession to Meykanda, wrote his *Śaṅkarpa Nirākaraṇam* in Ś. 1235 (A.D. 1313). See S. Anavaratavinayakam Pillai, *Śaiva Siddhānta Varalāru*, p. 33.

c14.46

²⁵ See *Ind. Ant.*, XLIII, pp. 157-58; see also *Madras Univ. Journal*, Vol. II, No. I, pp. 111-127 for an article on the Truth in the Śaiva Siddhānta by S. S. Sūryanārāyaṇa Śāstri.

2. Vaiṣṇavism

c14.t1.1

The Vijayanagar days were very propitious for the spread of Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism in South India. Since the days of Rāmānuja, the great Śrī-Vaiṣṇava philosopher and teacher, the Vaiṣṇava creed was gaining a large number of adherents. But in the course of a few decades his followers had effected certain modifications in his teachings and introduced doctrines and practices which the founder of the sect had not enjoined and would not have sanctioned.

c14.t1.2

Thus within a few years after the death of Rāmānuja the Vaiṣṇavas had fallen into two camps, each with particular views on the different religious and social questions. Their differences were generally doctrinal and social in character. The first point at issue was whether Sanskrit or Tamil was to be the medium of worship, whether the Sanskrit Vedas or the Tamil Prabandhas were to be read for the attainment of salvation. Rāmānuja by himself drew no difference between the Sanskrit works and the Tamil works with regard to their use in religious worship; but later when the Vaiṣṇavas came to be divided into two wide and distinct groups each preferred one language. While the Vaḍagalai Vaiṣṇavas preferred the Vedas to the Tamil Prabandhas, the Teṅgalai Vaiṣṇavas preferred the Tamil Prabandhas to the Sanskrit literature. But while the former did not neglect Tamil, and in fact Vēdānta Dēśika wrote many Tamil works, the latter neglected Sanskrit.

c14.t1.3

The question as to the method by which salvation could be attained was also one of the grounds for the differences between the two schools. The doctrine of bhakti as a most essential requisite for attaining Heaven had been developed by the Ālvārs into that of prapatti or śaraṇāgati (self-surrender). Rāmānuja who was a Vaiṣṇava Vedāntin accepted this doctrine of self-surrender, and interpreted the Upaniṣads and the Vedānta Sūtras in the light of this doctrine. But after his days disputes arose among the Vaiṣṇavas as to the circumstances and method by which one could attain salvation. The Vaḍagalai school held that before one surrendered himself to the divine will, he must try to attain salvation by his own effort; it was only after he found that he could not attain salvation by such unaided effort, that he might abjectly surrender to the divine grace. But the Teṅgalai school held that for a man desiring salvation, self-effort was not necessary for the divine grace was spontaneous and overflowing, and hence one could reach Heaven even without his self-effort, if only he surrendered himself to God. Their views on this question are expressed by an analogy. The Vaḍagalais said that the individual must make efforts to get saved in the same way as the young one of a monkey clings to its mother while she is hopping from place to place; but the Teṅgalais argued that God's grace being spontaneous, acted like a cat carrying the kitten in its mouth; hence even without one's self-effort one could attain salvation, and there was required nothing but an attitude of receptivity to the free flow of grace.²⁶ Commenting on this question, Bhandarkar says: "The tendency of Rāmānuja's system seems to be to give an exclusive Brahmanic form to the traditional method of bhakti or devotion to God, and this is definitely seen in the doctrines of the Vaḍagalai, while the Teṅgalai, or south learning, is more liberal and so shapes the doctrines of the system as to make them applicable to Śūdras also."²⁷

c14.t1.4

²⁶ Ind. Rev., Dec., 1908.

c14.t1.5

²⁷ Bhandarkar, Vaiṣṇavism, Śaivism and other minor religions, p. 57.

c14.t1.6

This difference in the idea as regards the nature of God's grace led to another differentiation with regard to sin and forgiveness. The Teṅgalai school held that since God's grace was spontaneous, sins might be committed by men with impunity, but the Vaḍagalai school contended that sins could not be committed with impunity, for God simply ignored the commission of sins, but did not welcome them.

c14.t1.7

The two schools again held different views as regards the position of Lakṣmī. The Vaḍagalai school held that Lakṣmī could not be considered as one different from God, for she lived in and through him; she was one with the Lord and hence co-operated with him in his duties of the preservation of the universe. But the Teṅgalai school relegated her to a lower position, argued that she was as much a finite being as any body else, but held a superior position as a servant of God, and was only a mediator between the sinner and the Lord. According to them she could only plead for the sinning soul, but did not have any power of independent action.

c14.t1.8

As regards the institution of caste there were differences between the two sects. The Vaḍagalais believed in the caste system and held that one was bound by the rules governing his varṇa; but the Teṅgalais held that a true prapanna rose above all castes and creeds, and said that a man of the lower order was equal to a Brahman if he was a true bhakta.

c14.t1.9

Similarly the Teṅgalais were liberal enough to think that spiritual knowledge could be obtained through a teacher of the lower order, while the Vaḍagalais opposed such notions. The Vaḍagalais believed in pilgrimages, but the Teṅgalais had no such belief in theory at least. As regards religious ceremonies like a śrāddha, there were differences between them. While the Vaḍagalais held that food must be offered to God alone on the śrāddha day, their opponents held that it must be offered to the Nityās and Ācāryas also. Then again while the former believed in the efficacy of sacrifices, the latter denounced them as involving cruelty to animals. In social practices also there arose differences between them. While the Vaḍagalais put a nāmam like this ⋁ the Teṅgalais put it like this ⋃. While the former enjoined the tonsure of widows, the latter objected to it and said there was no sanction for such tonsure. During the time of pūja, the Teṅgalais did not ring bells, for it was supposed that Vēdānta Dēśika was an avatār of the Ghaṇṭā of Veṅkaṭanātha but the Vaḍagalais rang the bells. The Teṅgalai people prostrated themselves before each other irrespective of the fact whether the person to whom the prostration was made was an old man or a young one, whether he was a Śūdra or a Brahman, whether he was a guru or a disciple, male or female, or whether it was in the presence of a deity or a guru. But the Vaḍagalais protested that namaskārams could be made only by the young to the old, by the Śūdra to the Brahman, by a disciple to his guru, only to deserving women like the wife of a guru, or a mother, and held that they must not be made in the presence of a deity.²⁸

c14.t1.10

²⁸ See J.B.B.R.A.S., XXIV, pp. 126-136; Mysore Census Report, 1891; Monier Williams, Hinduism, pp. 125-55; J.R.A.S., 1910, pp. 1103ff. and 1912 pp. 714 ff.; Barth, Religions of India, p. 227; Ind. Ant., III, p. 175; Hopkins, Religions of India, pp. 500ff; He says: "The monkey Ramaites are a sect of the north (vaḍa) and hence are called Vaḍagalais. The Cat or Calcinistic Ramaites of the south (ten) are called Teṅgalais." This appears to be a curious classification. Dr. Grierson also has misunderstood the true significance of the term. See J.R.A.S., 1910, p. 566. S. M. Natesa Sastri thinks that the practices of the Teṅgalai Vaiṣṇavas are to a large extent influenced by Śūdra practices. See Ind. Ant., Vol. XIII, pp. 252ff.

c14.t1.11

Vēdānta Dēśika who flourished in the Tamil country in the fourteenth century, wanted to restore the doctrines of Rāmānuja and stood as an apostle of conservative orthodoxy. He commanded a following who were willing to accept the doctrines of Rāmānuja and came to be known as the members of the Vaḍagalai sect or of the northern school. The other party which fought against conservative orthodoxy was headed by one Maṇavāḷa Mahāmuni, a native of Āḷvār Tirunagiri and a disciple of Śrīśaila. He is believed to have flourished in the first half of the fifteenth century, and he was in a large measure responsible for the foundation of the sect of the Teṅgalais, the followers of the southern school, as a separate sect. The leader of the Vaḍagalais was one Nainār Ācāryār also known as Varadācārya, the son and successor of Vēdānta Dēśika. Maṇavāḷa Mahāmuni was followed in his arduous work of social reform by his successors in the eight maṭhas which he himself established for that purpose. This popular movement rapidly spread among the people; for its catholicity was responsible for admitting in its fold members of all castes, high and low; and in the course of a century the new faith was able to command an equal number of adherents with the Vaḍagalais.²⁹

c14.t1.12

²⁹ Monier Williams, op. cit., p. 125.

c14.t1.13

The Vallabha Sect:

c14.t1.14

The bhakti movement among the Vaiṣṇavas led to the foundation of a sect known as the Vallabhācārya sect, so named after its founder. It was believed that the founder was an embodiment of a portion of Kṛṣṇa’s essence. According to the religion he propagated, Viṣṇu was the highest God, and he was to be worshipped in the form of young Kṛṣṇa associated with Rādhā. Vallabhācārya held that God Kṛṣṇa must not be worshipped with fasting and self-mortification, but worshippers must do so without putting any restrictions upon themselves, for according to him every individual soul being a portion of the Supreme Soul, there must not be placed any restriction on man. The devotee should eat and drink, should satisfy his hunger and other wants, worshipping Kṛṣṇa in perfect satisfaction.

c14.t1.15

There is a tradition that Vallabhācārya was invited to the court of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya of Vijayanagar where a disputation was held, in which, it is believed, he succeeded even against the celebrated Vyāsarāya Tirtha, the Madhva teacher, and that he was elected the chief Ācārya among the Vaiṣṇavas. Later he travelled through different parts of India for over nine years and finally settled at Benares, where, it is said, he composed seventeen important works on his philosophy and religion. The followers of his religion are largely found in the merchant communities of Bombay and Gujarat, as also of a few portions of the Madras Presidency. Their priests known as the Mahārājas are married men, and are recruited from the Telugu Brahmans who are related to its distinguished founder.

c14.t1.16

The followers of this new religion grossly exaggerated the highly philosophical teachings of the founder especially in regard to his non-ascetical view of religion, and interpreted it in a gross and material sense. “Hence their devotion to Kṛṣṇa degenerated into the most corrupt practices, and their whole system was rotten to the core.”³⁰ 3. Madhvaism :

c14.t1.17

³⁰ See Monier Williams, Brahmanism and Hinduism, p. 136 and Rep. on a search for Sans. and Tamil Mss., by M. Seshagiri Śāstri, Vol. I, p. 16; see V.A.—40

c14.t1.18

Originally founded in the thirteenth century by Madhva to propagate his theory of Duality, this religious school gained a large number of adherents in the Vijayanagar period. Among the great Madhva teachers, mention may be made of a few. One of them was Padmanābha Tīrtha, the immediate successor of Madhvācārya. He was the head of the Pādarāya-maṭha; one of the distinguished heads of the maṭha was Śrīpāda Rāya, a contemporary of Saḷuva Narasimha. Madhva Tīrtha was a great scholar who presided over the Uttarādi maṭha established by Madhvācārya. He was succeeded by one Akṣobhya Tīrtha who was a contemporary of Vidyāraṇya. The controversy between these two famous teachers has been noticed earlier. Akṣobhya had two disciples, Jaya Tīrtha and Rājēndra Tīrtha, both of them able logicians. But the most eminent of the Madhva teachers was one Vyāsarāya, a contemporary of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya. Eight maṭhas were established to spread the teachings of the founder, and they carried on faithfully his work. Vyāsarāya was the disciple of Brahmanya Tīrtha. He was a logician and Vedāntin of rare ability, and he was the author of several works on certain important aspects of the Dvaita philosophical system among which mention may be made of Tātparyacandrikā, Tarkaṭāṇḍava and Nyāyāmṛta. He was also the commentator of "all the Śāstras" and was called the Vaiṣṇava Siddhānta pratiṣṭhāpanācāryaḥ.³¹ He appears to have been a great favourite of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya. It is even said that the emperor abdicated his throne for a short time in favour of Vyāsarāya to avert a serious calamity that was predicted for the empire, should the king occupy the throne at a particular hour.³² A large number of villages was granted to him by the emperor.³³ He lived at Tirupati for many years.³⁴ According to the Sampradāyakuladīpikā, a work of the sixteenth century, Vyāsarāya Tīrtha presided over a meeting held at the court of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya in which Vallabhācārya defeated

c14.t1.19

³¹ M.E.R., 1905, para 33.

c14.t1.20

³² This statement rests only on the orthodox Madhva tradition. No corroborative evidence is available from other sources.

c14.t1.21

³³ 370 of 1919; E.C., IX, Cp. 153; E.C., VII, 85; Intro., pp. 41 ff. See also Q.J.M.S., Vol. XV, pp. 43 ff. and M.A.R., 1911-12, para 107; 1919 para 30, etc.

c14.t1.22

³⁴ 74 of 1899.

c14.t1.23

also Macnicol, Indian Theism, pp. 127-28 and Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, XII, pp. 580-83.

c14.t1.24

his opponents in a dispute.³⁵ Prof. Aufrecht says that he founded the Vyāsarāya maṭha.³⁶ He seems to have died at Hampi. “Even today the pious pilgrim who goes to the Pampākṣetra (Hampi) is shown the tomb of this great religious teacher and scholar on an island called Navabṛndāvana in the Tuṅgabhadrā river about half a mile to the east of Anegondi.”³⁷

c14.t1.25

³⁵ M. Seshagiri Śāstri, Rep. on the Search for Sans. and Tam. Mss., Vol. I, p. 16.

c14.t1.26

³⁶ Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 619.

c14.t1.27

³⁷ M.E.R., 1923, para 84.

c14.t1.28

Another great Madhva teacher was one Vijayīndra Tīrtha and was a contemporary of the great Appayya Dīkṣita. He is said to have been master of the sixty-four kalas or branches of learning. He spent the evening of his life at Kumbakōṇam and had a philosophical dispute with the Vīra Śaiva guru of the place; it lasted for eleven days, at the end of which he came out successful. He was the author of several works.

c14.t1.29

Vādi Rāja Tīrtha, the successor of Vāgīśa Tīrtha, in the Soude maṭha was also a great scholar and a reputed controversialist. He also wrote several works. Rāghavēndra Tīrtha, the disciple of Sudhīndra Tīrtha, was likewise a great scholar who lived in the seventeenth century. He was a powerful writer and a noted controversialist.³⁸

c14.t1.30

³⁸ See E. I., XII, pp. 344 ff.

Section III. Jainism

c14.s1.2

Jainism received great patronage in the Vijayanagar days. The Jains were an influential religious sect with their sphere of influence spreading in the northern and western portions of the empire. The Vijayanagar sovereigns found religious toleration not only a sound policy, but also a political necessity; and in the case of the Jains also they were tolerant. For instance, when in A.D. 1368 there arose quarrels between the Jains and the Śrī-Vaiṣṇavas, Bukka I settled their disputes and brought about reconciliation between the two rival sects. This Jain-Vaiṣṇava compact marks an important epoch in the religious history of South India. The way in which such a reconciliation was brought about is interesting. Bukka I summoned the leaders of the two sects and declared that as there was no essential difference between the two sects they should remain friends. It is said that he took the hands of the Jains and placing them in the hands of the Śrī-Vaiṣṇavas of the eighteen nāḍus including the ācāryas of Śrīraṅgam, Tirupati, Kāñcī and Melkōṭe and other Vaiṣṇava sects among whom special mention is made of the Tirukulas and Jāmbavakulas, i.e., Holeyas and Maḍigas,³⁹ decreed as follows: “The Jaina creed is, as before, entitled to the five great musical instruments and the kalaśa or vase. If loss or advancement should be caused to the Jaina creed through the Vaiṣṇavas, the latter will kindly deem it as loss or advancement caused to their own creed. The Śrī-Vaiṣṇavas will to this effect kindly set up a śāsana or inscription in all the bastis of the kingdom. For as long as the sun and the moon endure, the Vaiṣṇava creed will continue to protect the Jaina creed. Vaiṣṇavas and Jainas are one body; they must not be viewed as different. Tāttayya of Tirupati will, out of the money levied from every Jaina house throughout the kingdom, appoint twenty servants as a body guard for the God at Belgola and repair ruined Jaina temples. He who transgresses this decree shall be a traitor to the king, a traitor to the saṅgha and the samudāya”.⁴⁰ One fact deserves to be noted with regard to this compact. The opening verse of these inscriptions is in praise of the Śrī-Vaiṣṇava teacher Rāmānuja; and this is the last one of the five verses known as Dhātu pañcaka in adoration of Rāmānuja.⁴¹

c14.s1.3

³⁹ They are said to have helped Rāmānuja in recovering the image of Śelva Pillai from the Muhammadans at Delhi.

c14.s1.4

⁴⁰ E.C., II, (New Edn.), Sb. 344; (Old Edn.), Sb. 136; E.C., IX. Mg. 181.

c14.s1.5

⁴¹ E.C., II, Intro., p. 633.

c14.s1.6

Irugappa Daṇḍanātha, the minister of Harihara II, was a Jain. He was a disciple of Puṣpasēna⁴² and built the Kuntha Jinālaya at Vijayanagar, the present Gani giṭṭi temple at Hampi⁴³, and a basti for Pārśva Jinanātha at Gooty.⁴⁴ His inscriptions are also found at Tirupparuttakuṉṟu, a small Jain colony near Conjeevaram where he appears to have constructed a maṇṭapa before the Jaina temple.⁴⁵ Dēva Rāya II built a stone temple for Arhat Pārśvanātha in a street of the Pansupari bazaar at Vijayanagar.⁴⁶

c14.s1.7

⁴² E.I., VII, p. 115.

c14.s1.8

⁴³ S. I. I., I, p. 156.
44. 326 of 1920.
45. 42 of 1890; E.I., VII, pp. 115-16.

c14.s1.9

⁴⁶ S. I. I., I, 82. From these grants and constructions by the members of the first Vijayanagar dynasty M. S. Ramaswamy Ayyangar concludes that

c14.s1.10

Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya and his successors also patronised Jainism;47 and it was in a flourishing condition in the northern and western portions of the Vijayanagar empire.48

c14.s1.11

Christianity

c14.s1.12

Christianity appears to have come to South India even at a very early date. According to a few records, a Christian was the Dewan of Vijayanagar in A.D. 1445 under Dēva Rāya II.⁴⁹ But it was only with the coming of the Portuguese to India that Christianity began to spread in South India. The Jesuits who came to India had conversion as their main object, and their attempts met with partial success. About 1533 the Paravas of the fishery coast in the south were the first to be baptised. Unable to bear the oppression of the Muhammadans who claimed monopoly over the pearl fisheries, the Paravas sought the help of the Portuguese missionary Dr. Pero Vaz de Amaral, who was then at Cochin and in return for it promised to embrace Christianity. Later, regular conversion was undertaken by the Jesuits who

c14.s1.13

⁴⁹ See Du Brahmanisme et de ses rapports, avec le Judaisme et le Christianisme by Mgr. Laoenan, Pondicherry, I p.t., II, 402-03 referred to in Mys. Gaz., New Edn., Vol. I, p. 341.

c14.s1.14

they were Jains. He says: "These incidents are sufficient evidence to prove that the ruling families of Vijayanagar not only patronised but some of them professed the Jain faith." (Studies in South Indian Jainism, p. 118). But his conclusions are not supported by facts. The Vijayanagar kings were never Jains though they largely patronised Jainism. Their liberal grants to Jain temples and institutions cannot prove the assertions of the author.

c14.s1.15

47. 528 of 1928-29.

c14.s1.16

48. About the existence and spread of Buddhism however we have only very little evidence. But it appears that vestiges of the religion lingered on in some parts of the empire. There are two inscriptions which speak of Buddhism. One is in the Belur taluk but the evidence afforded by it is only indirect. It states that God Kēśava of the place was worshipped by the Śaivas as Śiva. the Vedāntins as Brahmā, the Bauddhas as Buddha.... (E.C., V, Bl. 3). Another inscription at Kumbakōṇam mentions a temple of Buddha at Tiruvilandurai from which land was acquired for a channel by the residents of the village of Tirumalairājapuram, in return for which lands were given in compensation (292 of 1929). Thus Buddhism appears to have lingered on in South India in the Vijayanagar days.

c14.s1.17

settled at Madura. About 20,000 of the Paravas were converted to Christianity.⁵⁰

c14.s1.18

⁵⁰ Heras, Aravidu Dynasty, pp. 118-21 and the authorities quoted therein: see also D'Sa, Hist. of the Catholic Church in India, II, p. 31.

c14.s1.19

In the Nāyak court of Madura a Jesuit missionary, Robert de Nobili by name, began a regular campaign of conversion of the Hindus, for he was of opinion that they had no true knowledge of God. In order to achieve his end he thought that he should sacrifice all his conveniences, don the robes of a Hindu Sanyasin and live like a high class Brahman. He learnt Sanskrit, Tamil and Telugu. He wished to win their respect and esteem before he could convert them to his religion. He did not, however, condemn the Hindu religion, but induced the Hindus to accept his religion by setting an example to them. In this respect he was a noble figure, for though the expedients he adopted for converting the people to Christianity are not above criticism, yet his intense devotion for his religion was so much that to him no sacrifice was too great to gain his object. His winning manners, sincerity of purpose and forcefulness of expression could however bring into his fold only a very few people. Nobili failed in his attempt at mass conversion; and that is easily explained. His method was opposed by a brother missionary, Father Fernandez, who said that it cut at the very root of Christianity. This apart, the period in which he came to South India did not afford a good opportunity for his policy of proselytism; for it was a period when Śrī-Vaiṣṇavism according to which there was no difference between man and man in the eyes of God had spread in South India. To the Hindus the Christian religion did not make any new appeal. Thus Robert de Nobili failed in his attempts to spread Christianity though he tried his best and sacrificed all his comforts.

c14.s1.20

The Jesuits were also patronised by the Vijayanagar emperor Veṅkaṭa II. He very often summoned them to his presence, honoured them and heard the philosophical disputes that were held in his presence between the Jesuit Fathers and the leaders of rival Hindu faiths. They were allowed to establish their churches at Candragiri and Vellore. Veṅkaṭa also settled upon them an annual income of one thousand gold pieces. With this annual income the Candragiri mission and the college which they had established at St. Thomé were conducted.⁵¹

c14.s1.21

⁵¹ See Heras, ibid., pp. 464-485.

c14.s1.22

Islam

c14.s1.23

With the inroad of the Muhammadans into South India at the beginning of the fourteenth century there arose great antipathy between them and the Hindus. The Muhammadans pillaged and plundered Hindu temples, and made forced conversions of the Hindus. But with the establishment and expansion of the Vijayanagar empire, they cooled down in South India, and since then have remained a separate community. The Hindus have also been amicable towards them.

c14.s1.24

Dēva Rāya II set the example for giving encouragement to the Muhammadans to settle in the empire and this policy appears to have been followed by his successors. Ferishta says that Dēva Rāya effected some reforms in his army organisation, entertained Mussalmans in his service, allotted them jagirs, erected a mosque for their use in his capital, and commanded that no one should molest them in the exercise of their religion. He also ordered a Koran to be placed before his throne on a rich desk so that the Muhammadans might perform the ceremony of obeisance before him "without sinning against their laws."52 The entertainment of Mussalmans in Hindu service is also indicated by the evidence of inscriptions. An epigraph of A.D. 1430 states that Dēva Rāya II had 10,000 Turuşka horsemen in his service.⁵³ Another inscription of A.D. 1440-41 mentions one Ahmad KHān, as a servant of the king Vīrapratāpa Dēva Rāya II, and that he built a well.54 Paes referring to the Muslims in the service of the Hindu king mentions a Moorish quarter which was at the very end of the city, and says that among them there were many who were natives of the country and who were paid by the king and belonged to his guard.⁵⁵ They were so much in the confidence of Kṛṣṇadēva Rāya, that in his campaigns against Raicūr, he sent the Moors in the royal service to lead the van.⁵⁶ The spirit of accommodation of the Hindus is also shown by the fact that in A.D. 1537 a pious Hindu constructed a mosque for the sake of the Mussalmans.⁵⁷ The same policy was pursued by Sadāśiva and Rāma Rāja. The regent, like Dēva Rāya II, caused a Koran to be placed before him when the Muhammadans came to pay their respects to him.⁵⁸ A large number of Muhammadans were appointed to posts of importance in the Hindu service. Prominent among such officers was one Amūr Khān for whose maintenance Rāma Rāja granted an estate.⁵⁹ Ainana Malukka ('Ain-ul-Mulk Gīlāni) was another important officer at whose request the regent made the grant of the village of Bevanahaḷḷi to the Brahmans.⁶⁰ This officer was so much in the confidence of the regent that he was very often called his brother.⁶¹ Another, Dil-uvar Khān, who was an agent of Rāma Rāja, made a grant of a village as baṭa agrahāra.⁶² The Vijayanagar kings also appear to have encouraged the Daraga an “institution in all probability the shrine of the Muhammadan saint Babanatta, to whose astrological forecasts or to those of the priests who presided over that institution, much importance was attached by kings and peasants alike.” The Vijayanagar sovereigns seem to have granted many donative villages to that institution meant for the encouragement of the study of hōrā (horoscopy). For instance in A.D. 1638-39 Veṅkaṭa II renewed certain grants of villages to the Daraga of Babayya at Penugoṇḍa.⁶³ Similarly Maṅgammāḷ, the Nāyak queen of Madura, made a gift of some villages near Trichinopoly in A.D. 1701-02 to the Daraga of Babanatta. The reason for the grant was the forecast “that the state business of Tañjāvūr would result in a success and it proved to be true.”⁶⁴

First 99 of 295 passages. Read on

Linked texts (29)