Polemics and Patronage in the City of Victory:

Vyasatirtha, Hindu Sectarianism, and the Sixteenth-Century Vijayanagara Court

by Valerie Stoker

University of California Press.2016

Review (Part 1) by Prof. Nagesh Havanur

The last word on Shri Vyasaraja (1447-1539) is yet to be written. Five centuries after his
passing away he still remains an elusive figure. This book is an ambitious work in that it
seeks to examine the life of Vyasaraja “in the light of broader social and historical
realities” as she puts it.
On the positive side it is richly documented and offers a wealth of information
supplemented by maps and photographs. The bibliography on primary and secondary
sources is extensive, if not comprehensive. The chapter notes are helpful to both the
researcher and the general reader. The book has also benefited from the author’s
interaction with late Prof. K. T. Pandurangi and Dr. D. Prahladacharya (currently the
Head of the Shri Vyasaraja Mutt (Sosale).

The Thesis of the Book

Unfortunately, it is based on flawed premises and reaches the wrong conclusions.

It makes claims, some of which are debatable and others entirely untenable.
In the main it argues that Vyasaraja used polemics with rival schools of philosophy to
secure royal patronage and advance the interests of his sect. He was an agent of the state
and implemented the policy of the state, be it the use of land or water. Consequently the
Mutt was richly rewarded with gifts of whole villages not to mention gold, silver and
cash for the services rendered to the state. In the power politics of Brahminism in South
India he played his dice well, making partnership with Shrivaishnavas first and then
isolating and outmaneuvering the Smarthas. How far is this thesis valid?
Let me rebut it point by point.

Getting the date wrong

At the outset it may be mentioned that she has got the year of birth wrong. It is not 1460,
but 1447.Why is this important? If we get this wrong, the whole timeline of Vyasaraja’s
life goes haywire.
Before the arrival of Vyasaraja on the scene the discourse of Vedanta was dominated by
giants like Vidyaranya (Advaita) and Vedanta Deshika (Vishishtadvaita). Matters were
complicated by Navya-Nyaya introduced by Gangeshopadhyaya. It changed the rules of
the game in argument.
Young Vyasaraja learnt and mastered the whole system and years later wrote
Nyayamruta to put rival schools of Vedanta in place. He did not need this writing to
impress the monarch, Krishadevaraya and curry favour with him. His learning was
known.
The temporal versus the spiritual authority

The second point relates to a more serious misunderstanding on the part of the author.
Religion recognizes two sources of authority, the temporal and the spiritual. The temporal
authority is represented by the monarch or the state. The spiritual authority is represented
by the Guru Peetha or the Mutt. The relationship between these sources of authority has
varied throughout human history.
In Medieval Europe monarchs and the church fought pitched battles for power. In modern
times the church has shown both sides of what is capable of. In the early half of the 20th
Century it could collude with Nazism and Fascism and enable holocaust. In the latter half
of the same century it could also fight for democracy in Eastern Europe.
This brings us to the relationship between the state and Hinduism in India. Here we have
more than one religious order, both Brahmin and non-Brahmin, competing, collaborating
or merely co-existing without interference with one another.

Seeking legitimacy from seats of religion

The history of Vijayanagara offers a unique case. The Empire was home to more than one
community, Shaivas, Veerashaivas, Vaishnavas, Smarthas, ShriVaishnavas, not to
mention Jains. Succeeding monarchs offered liberal grants to temples and monasteries of
all these groups and saw to it that no one felt alienated.
The royal family, however, shifted its allegiance to religious order as ruling dynasties
changed. In the early days of the Empire the Shringeri Mutt held its sway. Later it was
Shrivaishnavas followed by Madhvas. Note that worship of traditional deity, Lord
Virupaksha always continued even as Lord Narasimha, Venkateshwara, Ranganatha and
Vithala became the family deities one after another.
It is a matter of history that the temporal order has always derived sanction for legitimacy
from the religious order. In Vijayanagara power changed hands first from Sangama to
Saluva and then from Saluva to Tuluva dynasties. Every time this happened the
succeeding clan did not want to be seen as a group of power hungry usurpers and it was
necessary to obtain the seal of approval from the religious order. Krishnadevaraya’s
father, Narasappa Nayaka did precisely that. His anointing was done by Shrivaishnava
gurus. Rulers sought legitimacy. They did not want to be seen as usurpers.
Legitimacy of accession was even more critical in the case of Krishnadevaraya as he was
the son of a subordinate queen who was once only a maid in the palace. The tag, “once a
dasi putra, always a dasi putrra” would have undermined his authority as the monarch.
The Shrivaishnava Acharyas who monitored the royal anointing ceremony ensured that
the sacred ritual erased traces of the tag from the public mind. Importantly,
Krishnadevaraya proved himself and came to be known as one of the greatest monarchs
in history.
Note that the Madhva yatis, Shripadaraja and Vyasaraja were not involved in this
power play and at no point of time did they seek access to the royal court, let alone
ask for its patronage.
In his “Vyasayogicharitha” Somanatha implies that the Saluva and Tuluva dynasties had
the unqualified approval of these Madhva yatis for their ascent to power. What he
refrains from mentioning is that the struggle for succession was marked by treachery,
rebellion and bloodshed. If Somanatha’s claim is blithely accepted, then the two yatis
would be tainted by collusion with every usurper who coveted the throne.
It’s wiser to read history than to trust hagiography in verse like Somanatha’s.

The Monarch and the Monk: Differing Agendas

This is not to suggest that there was no worthwhile relationship between the monarch and
the monk. They both sought co-operation from each other. Each had an agenda of his
own. For Krishnadevaraya it was empire building and for Vyasaraja it was spreading the
Madhva faith. The monarch sought conquest through diplomacy and war. The monk
sought winning the hearts and minds of people through kindness and devotion to God.
Where did these two ends meet?
After every war the people of a defeated nation find themselves bereaved and broken in
spirit, having lost their near ones and dear ones. They are now refugees in their own land.
The defeated nation feels humiliated and degraded as it finds itself under the heel of the
conqueror. Memories of death and destruction linger in the ravaged land. What it needs is
reconstruction, rehabilitation and recovery of its life. Krishnadevaraya saw it all and
wisely gifted the land to gurus like Vyasaraja. They provided the healing touch and
offered promise of a future that was theirs. The author of this book does not see this
larger picture at all and sees Vyasaraja only as a beneficiary of royal patronage.
To his credit Vyasaraja did not ask for undue favours or even suggest that his mutt should
get preferential treatment over others. All that he wanted was that the state did not
interfere with the good work that he did. In all this he was only being pragmatic as the
Shrivaishnava gurus and the Shringeri Swami had a large following and influence in the
empire. Vyasaraja was a shrewd observer of power equations in state and society. He did
not want to depend on royal will that could be arbitrary and also degenerate into
caprice.There was no prosetylizing zeal about him in that he tried to convert followers of
other faiths. Nor did he try to capture sacred spaces of other faiths.

Tirupati Temple Affair

The Tirupati temple affair is a case in point. As is known, the temple has always been
administered by Shrivaishnavas. During the reign of Saluva Narasimha enormous
corruption came to light. Apparently a number of priests were involved, quite few related
to one another. They were arrested and executed without anything like fair trial. It is
probable that a few were innocent. Importantly, the temple had no eligible priests to
perform the daily rituals. So Vyasaraja was requested by the king to take the
responsibility. He remained in Tirupati for 12 years (1486-1498). Thereafter he handed
over the temple to the Shrivaishnava priests and gurus.
Decades later Krishnadevaraya gifted three house sites near the temple. Out of respect for
him the Shrivaishnava management of the temple offered him the privilege of performing
pooja on the main precincts on his visits. Tirupati was a Shrivaishnava stronghold and it
still remains one. Vyasaraja’s efforts only gave a toehold for his mutt in Tirupati.
In this book Valerie Stoker maintains that there is no evidence that Vyasaraja officiated
as the Head priest or the Administrator at the Tirupati temple during Saluva Narasimha’s
reign. It is not in the inscriptions of the king or the temple. While there is a reference to
the theft by the priests in the temple in Krishnadevaraya’s inscriptions of the grant to
Vyasaraja it is not clear why the mention was made after so many years.

A guardian saint, not an agent of the state

This brings us to one of the several contradictions in the author’s main thesis. She accepts
that Vyasaraja was a kind of guru to Krishnadevaraya. On occasion he could have even
offered advice to the king on policy making. That does not make him an agent of the state
or an administrator implementing the policy of the state as she presumes in this book.
Remember that the Empire \encompassed a region of 140,000 square miles and a
population of about 25 million with around 480,000 people in the capital alone.
It’s tempting and flattering to believe that Vyasaraja guided the destinies of
Vijayanagara Empire throughout the reign of Krishnadevaraya. The answer to this
presumption has to be NO.
To her credit Valerie Stoker rightly cites Anila Verghese who rejects the idea that
Vyasaraja had such an official advisory role and in stead describes him in more symbolic
terms as the empire’s “guardian saint.”
Madhva pandits on the other hand go overboard in claming credit for Vyasaraja as the
“Rajaguru” of Krishnadevaraya whose divine blessings made the emperor’s success
possible.
A few go so far as to cite Somanatha that Krishnadevaraya considered Vyasaraja as his
“kuladevata” This is absurd. By tradition, Virupapaksha was the royal deity and he was
followed by Lord Vithala after Krishnadevara brought the idol from Chandragiri at the
instance of Vyasaraja. However, both gods continued to be worshipped together by
Krishnadevaraya and his successors.
A kuladevata is always a god, and not a guru, certainly not a living one. Krishnadevaraya
did revere Vyasaraja, but did not elevate him to the status of god.
Vyasaraja does not need this kind of spurious credit in any way and indeed, it burdens his
life and legacy with needless presumption and falsehood.
Why so? Krishnadevaraya’s imperial project was his own. He had his cabinet of ministers
and governors for formulating policy and carrying out its execution. Vyasaraja was in no
way responsible for the acts of omission and commission by Krishnadevaraya.
It’s a fact that the mutt received grants of land and monies and it was used for cultivation,
building of temples, monasteries and agraharas.
Where did the funds come for?
Land grants came from royal patronage, yes. However, as Valerie Stoker herself points
out, such patronage may have been generous, but it could not have been infinite.
Krishnadevaraya was giving these grants to Shrivaishnava and Smartha Mutts also.
More importantly, mutts also received grants and gifts from the feudal lords and traders
apart from common folk. Vyasarraja or for that matter any other mathadhipati was not
dependent on royal patronage alone.

Power equations between Vaishnava sects and the court

One problem with this book is its vague mapping and description of the changing
relationship between the Vaishnava sects and the court. During the Sangama dynasty era
the Shringeri Mutt commanded influence and Vitupakshha was the royal deity.
This changed during the Saluva dynasty era. Saluva Narasimha embraced Shri
vashnavism and appointed Kandadai Ramanuja Iyengar (1430-1496) as his representative
in Tirupati (for some inexplicable reason Valerie Stoker gets the name wrong and gives it
as Kantatai Ramanuja Aiyankar).
While the theft of Tirupati jewels years later is accepted by the author it is not clear how
Kandadai Ramanuja Iyengar allowed it to happen or whether he was on the scene at all.
This is a critical lacuna as the author is reluctant to accept the claim that Vyasaraja was
sent to officiate as a priest at Tirupati on the request of Saluva Narasimha after the
execution of the priests allegedly involved in the crime.
Here we have to make some allowances for the author’s stance. The ritual at Tirupati is
elaborate and only a Shrivaishnava can do it justice. If this is accepted, Saluva Narasimha
would have found a Shrivaishnava priest rather than a Madhva guru to fill in the role. The
only source for Vyasaraja’s officiating role in Tirupati is Shrinivasa Tirtha’s Vyasa
Vijaya. The official history of Tirupati or Saluva inscriptions do not have any record of
the same.
What we do have by way of circumstantial evidence is Saluva Narasimha considered the
Madhva Yati Shripadaraja as his guru. So when Tirupati needed a priest and also an
administrator, Saluva Narasimha nominated as Vyasaraja as the authority on the advice
of Shripadaraja. Decades later Krishnadevaraya granted three house-sites to Tirupati and
the inscriptions also make a mention of the theft that took place long before. Apparently
the gift was made to Vyasaraja on account of his services rendered to the temple years
ago. But why so late and why not by Saluva Narasimha are questions that remain
unanswered.
Be that as it may, who were the Shrivaishnava gurus that had influence in
Krishnadevaraya’s court is not mentioned in the book. One name that occurs elsewhere is
that of Lakshmikumar Tathacharya (1456-1543). It appears that Krishnadevaraya also
considered him as his guru. There is reason to believe that Vyasaraja collaborated with
Tathacharya on all religious matters relating to temples including Tirupati.
It is surprising that Valerie Stoker offers little or no mention of the Shrivaishnava gurus
at the court, let alone any description or analysis of their role in it.

Vyasasamudra: from the lake to the sea

During 1520s Shri Vyasaraja received the village of Bettakonda from the king. The land
needed water. He took personal interest and had the earth dug up for building a lake. Now
comes a story that is the stuff of legends. Right when there was going to be free flow of
water it was obstructed by a rock. While Vyasaraja was wondering how to do away with
the obstacle an innocent Brahmin appeared before him and asked him for a mantra with
which he would be blessed. Bemused by his naivete, the monk said, “Yahi mahisha”
(“Hogu Kona”). Now the man took it as a sacred mantra coming as it did from Vyasaraja
began to recite the words, “Aayahi mahisha”( “Baa Kona”). Moved by his devotion Lord
Yama’s bull appeared and the bhakta reported to Vyasaraja, “Your mantra is a blessing.
The KONA has appeared and what command would you give it?” Touched by his
devotion and pleasantly shocked by the appearance of Lord Yama’s BULL Vyasaraja
asked the magnificent beast to make holes in to the rock so that the water could flow
through them. The BULL used its sharp horns to drill holes into the rock and
disappeared. Now water flowed and filled the lake and appeared like a bright and
transparent sea. It came to be known as Vyasasamudra. Now it’s perfectly possible for
the modern reader to drill holes into this story! Why did Lord Yama send his BULL all
the way down to the earth just to pierce the rock with his horns in this kaliyuga? Surely,
less spectacular means were available to Vyasaraja even if they took longer time.
Besides, a lake is a lake and it does not become the sea merely because devotes of
Vyasaraja call it so. When will this penchant for hyperbole stop?
Any way what happened next is a matter of greater concern as it becomes a central issue
in the book.

Raya changes the name!

It was named Vyasasamudra after the big lake which he caused to be dug there. In 1526
Krishnadevaraya made a formal grant of the village to Vyasaraja. The copper plate
Inscription describes Vyasaraja as the disciple of Brahmanyatirtha and had a mind
exclusively devoted to the contemplation of Brahman and who had written a commentary
on the shastras. It also mentions that the monarch performed the ritual of the daana with
abhisheka and dakshina.Then it makes the announcement that the place known before as
Bettadakonda and Vyasasamudra would now be known as Krishnarayapura. The
inscription does not end there. Vyasaraja gives away the land to as many as 308
householders/ Brahmins belonging to all sects (each of them listed by name in the
inscription). The whole information is recorded with a commentary in an article,
Kamalapur Plates of Krishnadevaraya, Saka 1447 by late Mr. V. Rangacharya,
Madras in Epigraphica Indica, Vol.31 (p.139-p.162)
https://archive.org/stream/epigraphia-indica/epigraphia-indica-vol-31

A dubious hypothesis

The author of this book draws some debatable conclusions on this archaelogical
evidence.
The 1526 Kamalapur copper plates imply that Kṛishnadevaraya gave this land to
Vyasaraja as a reward for his having developed it.
The king was rewarding Vyasaraja for his work to irrigate the area and thereby promote
its economic well-being,
This is not the case.

A more probable hypothesis

Time and again the monarch would seek the blessings of the sage and would ask what he
could do by way of seva. Then he would be told and he would do the needful and it
would become an institutional arrangement. That’s it. No more. Let me put in idiomatic
Kannada as customary English usage would not do it justice.
Matha aramanege hogalilla Aramane mathakke bantu.
Anjaneya for the humble devotee

Contrary to what this author presumes, Vyasaraja had far wider horizons. There was a
whole world beyond the court and the monastery. That was the world of common
humanity. It was that world that he really cared about.
This book mentions that Shrivaishnavas built vast mega temple complexes for which
Krishnadevaraya gave grants and Vyasaraja joined hands with them. Yes, he did and
devotees came in droves to see these marvels in stone. However, Vysaraja also
recognized, these temples would give preference the rich and powerful when it came to
anything from darshan to pooja.
So where else can the poor go? So he went about installing hundreds of Mukhya Prana
idols in remote places all over South India. This was not without reason. Few gods have
captured public imagination as Anjaneya. His enormous strength, devotion to Rama and
Sita and childlike innocence (not to mention subsequent mellow wisdom) have provided
enchantment for ages. Even today as then simple, humble folk go to a Hanuman temple,
offer no more than two bananas to the benevolent god and feel blessed. The place is an
island of calm. Vyasaraja did not preach “Vayu Jeevottama” day in and day out. He made
the presence of Mukhya Prana tangible in the lives of ordinary folk. Where Anjaneya is
present, Rama, Lakshmana and Sita are present too. You don’t have to rush everywhere
else.
Aren’t there Anjaneya temples allover India? There are. But Vyasaraja made it special
(1).
There is one point of factual detail here. The Madhva belief is that Vyasaraja established
as many 732 such idols. However, it is not clear where and how all of them can be found.
Valerie Stoker writes:
Recently, there was a Madhva effort afoot to locate and identify all 732 of these icons.
Due to the organizer’s unexpected death, the effort has been suspended. The link
(www.vyasasamudra.org) to the website documenting these efforts is now broken.

Such diligent attention to detail that she gives in this book can only be saluted.

Vyasaraja and the challenge of Vachanakaras

This brings us to the final point. Hindu sectarianism was very much real in Shri
Vyasaraja’s time and it was shielded by orthodoxy. He was determined to get past the
same so that he could convey the message of Hari bhakti to common folk.
Why was this necessary at this particular point of time? It should be remembered that the
Virashaiva Movement led by Basavanna (1105-1167) had made a big headway in
Karnataka for 350 years or more. The vachanakaras had captured the public imagination
with sheer sincerity and simplicity of devotion towards Lord Shiva. They won over the
hearts and minds of many with their ethic of honesty and hard work.
No, Vyasaraja sought no confrontation with the Virashaiva Movement. To each his own.
Besides, the conflict between Vaishnava and Shaiva sects itself is centuries-old.
What he did was to offer a parallel movement of his own, the seeds of which had been
planted by his guru Shripadaraja.
The men he chose for the mission were the saint poets, Purandaradasa and Kanakadasa.
Between the two of them they tore down the walls of orthodoxy, calling into question
everything that it involved. They went one step further and offered a whole critique of
society itself through their songs. As expected, the orthodox were outraged and
demanded action against them.
At any other point of time the duo would have been branded as heretics, excommunicated
and thrown out. Not this time. Vyasaraja stood by them and made it clear that the
Haridasas were acting with his express approval and any one harassing them would incur
his displeasure.
The Mutt, a bastion of orthodoxy now heard voices of dissent loud & clear. Surprise of
surprises, it was supported by the Swami of the mutt itself. That’s the ultimate paradox.
Purandaradasa and Kanakadasa sang and danced their way into the hearts and minds of
common people. They touched on the trials and tribulations of ordinary folk, be it poverty
or illness. They questioned God Himself on the nature of human suffering and the
injustice of it all. When they received the answer from Him, they spread the word, “The
meek and the humble shall inherit the earth.”
Just like Shripadaraja, Vyasaraja set verse in Kannada and composed a number of kritis.
In one particular pada he asks a tacit question, who did Krishna love most? It was
Kuchela, Kubja and Vidura The Lord loves the humble and the wise.
The ascetic at whose feet monarchs bowed and who met Acharyas and Gurus of his time
on level terms never lost sight of the misery and unhappiness of simple, uncomplicated
human beings.
There is no way of understanding Vyasaraja’s life and work unless one places it firmly in
the social and cultural history of Karnataka and Kannada literature. Society then was in a
state of flux on account of the vachana and Haridasa movements. Valerie Stoker accuses
Vyasaraja of Brahmin sectarianism. The irony is that she herself cannot get past
Brahminism and see the world beyond the court and monastery.

Vyasaraja and the playful Lord

Who was the real Vyasaraja? Was he only the fierce polemist who wrote Nyaamruta and
Tarka Tandava? Or was he the monk that guided the monarch in crisis? Was he a
pragmatist who allied with Ramanuja’s followers and built a vast canopy of Vaishnavism
in the whole of South India as this book claims? Or was he the visionary who set in
motion the Haridasa Movement that challenged both the social order and orthodoxy?
He was all these and much more. In the solitude of meditation he could still play with
Lord Krishna Himself. Here is an apocryphal anecdote. Vyasaraja used to put the ankita
nama as “Krishna” Then he changed it from from Krishna to Sirikrishna.
Once Lord Krishna Himself appeared in Shri Vyasaraja’s dream, smiling, said,
“Vyasa, neenantu sanyasi. Ninage hendirilla. Nanagillave! Shreekrishnanendu ankita
maadu.”
(Rukmini Girimaji, humorously adds, “Idu Gopeejaara Shrikrishnana soochane.”
Vyasaraja, laughing, “corrected his mistake” and changed his ankita nama
Now this is an apocryphal anecdote. But it illustrates the kind of relationship that he and
Haridasas enjoyed with God Himself
If you lose Dasa, you lose Vyasa!

Valerie Stoker, the author of this book came to India and interacted with some of the best
Sanskrit scholars on the subject. She could also have interacted with native Kannada
scholars and learnt how Vyasaraja set in motion a whole movement of saint poets that
changed our ways of thinking for centuries to come. At least three of them deserve
special mention here, Shri A. N. Anantaswamirao (Bangalore), Ms T.N. Nagaratna
(Mysore) and Shri Krishna Kolhar Kulkarni (Bijapur). They could have disabused her of
all her notions of caste and class that she has so recklessly applied to the life and legacy
of Vyasaraja.
There is a vast corpus of literature on Haridasas and their work. Samagra Dasa Sahitya
alone runs into 52 volumes and is now out of print. I did not expect Valerie Stoker to
know the language, let alone its literature. But I would have expected her to show more
humility and not the arrogant condescension that she has displayed throughout her work
towards the saint poets who were a liberating influence on our society. Vyasaraja himself
was one and he charted a path for his disciples, Purandaradasa and Kanakadasa.

To be continued

Links:

1) Polemics and Patronage in the City of Victory:

Vyasatirtha, Hindu Sectarianism, and the Sixteenth-Century Vijayanagara Court
(ebook)

https://doi.org/10.1525/luminos.18

2) Epigraphica Indica, Vol.31 (p.139-p.162)

https://archive.org/stream/epigraphia-indica/epigraphia-indica-vol-31

3)VyasaYogicharita by Somanatha Edited by B. Venkoba Rao (1926)

https://bit.ly/2zZi6Of

4)Documentary on the Sosale Vyasaraja Mutt:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbv7LB56QnU

Notes

(1) There is an elaborate procedure for “prathisthapana” and preserving the “sannidhana”
of Mukhya Prana. For now we are not into that detail.

Select Bibliography:

1)Vimarshatmaka Shri Vysaraja Charitre mattu Shri Vyasa Vijaya (1971)

- V. N. Deshikachar,
Kundapura Vyasaraya Mutt, Hanummantha Nagar Bangalore 19

2) Shri Vyasarayara Kritigalu by Dr. T. N. Nagaratna

3)Samagra Dasa Sahitya Vol.1 Shripadaraja and Shri Vyasaraja (2003)

- Dr. Shrinivas Havanur and Aralumallige Parthasarathi

4) History of Dvaita School of Vedanta and its literature,

Third revised edition (2000)
-B.N.K. Sharma

5) Raya: Krishnadevaraya of Vijayanagara (2020)

-Srinivasa Reddy

6)Vijayanagara Samrajya (1936)

-Pandurangarao Desai and M.H. Krishna

Acknowledgements:

I owe a special debit to Shri A.N. Anantaswami Rao with whom I have discussed the
work of the saint poets for years. On this occasion also the veteran scholar (he would be
turning 90 this year) heard me out and on my request lent me 3 valuable books listed in
the bibliography. On a personal note, I may mention that the Samagra Dasa Sahitya
volumes were edited by my late father, Dr. Shrinivas Havanur and a team of scholars.
It goes without saying that the views expressed here are my own.