Supplementary to Adi Sankara’s work

Is found in the remote village of Cholamadevi

TIRUCHI, TAMIL NADU, 18/05/2016: The view of a figure of a lady holding a ladle and a row of pots, a sculpture of Krishna caught in the act of stealing butter. at the Kailasamundaiyar temple, dating back to the 11th century, is a virtual treasure house of historic information pertaining to the Cholas. The adhistana and the walls of the temple are fully covered with inscriptions belonging to the periods of Raja Raja Chola I, Rajendra Chola I and Vira Rajendra Chola I. A majority of the inscriptions belong to Raja Raja I. Further, the inscriptions contain the earliest known reference to Sankara Bhashyam, a commentary on Sankara's philosophy, written by Chidaananda Bhattaara. The inscription is in Tamil with a few Sanskrit words in between written in Grantha characters. Cholamadevi is a tiny village located in the middle of lush paddy fields near Trichy city in South India. The nearest well known site is Tiruverumbur. The village has a small temple dedicated to Lord Shiva. The highlight of the temple is that it was built by Rajaraja Chola I, who also built the internationally famous Big Temple of Tanjore. It is believed that this temple is older than the Big Temple. This 11th century CE temple has inscriptions of Rajaraja Chola I, Rajendra Chola and Veera Rajendra Chola. As per the inscriptions, the village was once called as 'Tenkarai Brahmadeyam Sri Cholamadevi Chadurvedi Mangalam'. Apart from the importance of the inscription, the Kailasamundaiyar temple itself is rated as an architectural marvel and built as per specifications of the Silpa Shasthra. The Siva temple consists of a central shrine, ardha and Mahamandapas. The presiding deity, the Linga has a square base. The four-pillared ardhamandapa has exquisite in the front. Two dwarapala sculpture adorn the entrance of the ardhamandapa. Photo: M. Srinath

Adi Sankara’s Brahmasutra Bhashya, also known as Saareerakabhashya and Saareeraka Mimamsa Bhashya, attracted many scholarly commentaries. While the PanchapAdikA of Padmapadacharya, a direct disciple of Sankara, and BhAmati— the 10th century commentary of Vachaspati Mishra are the most famous, a vArttika called Pradeepaka for Sankara’s Brahmasutra Bhashya seems to have existed in Tamil Nadu. This can be seen from an 11th century inscription discovered in a Siva temple in the village of Cholamadevi, near Tiruchi.

VArttika is a special type of commentary, pointed out Dr. S. Sankaranarayanan, when I met him in 2013. Sankaranarayanan was an epigraphist with the Archaeological Survey of India for 21 years, director of the Oriental Research Institute, Tirupati, for 10 years, honorary director, Adyar Library, and a recipient of the Presidential award for Sanskrit (1994). VArttika is defined in Apte’s dictionary as “an explanatory or supplementary rule which explains the meaning of that which is said, of that which is left unsaid, of that which is imperfectly said.” The dictionary says that it also “supplies omissions.”

Sankaranarayanan analysed the Cholamadevi inscription, the estampage of which was taken in 1991 by Dr. S. Rajavelu, who was then with the Archaeological Survey of India.

The inscription in Cholamadevi belongs to the reign of Virarajendra Chola (1063-1069 C.E.). It records the grant of land, upon a royal command, for the maintenance of a teacher (vakkaanipaarkku vrittiyAga), who taught a vArttika called Pradeepaka, written by Chidananda Pidariar (Chidananda Pidariar pannina Pradeepam Agira vArttikam). The epigraph says this vArttika was a commentary on a work known as Saareerakabhashya, written by one who bore the title of Bhagavadpada (BhagavadpadIyam Saareeraka-Bhashyatukku).

Sankaranarayanan felt that since the inscription could be assigned to 1063 -1069 C.E., the vArttika must have been written at least 50 or 60 years earlier, for it to have been learnt and expounded, and for a king to have provided a grant for teaching it. So Sankaranarayanan concluded that it was probably written in 1000 CE. That would mean that the vArttika was perhaps written during the reign of Raja Raja I.

As for the name Saareerakabhashya, used in the inscription, Sankaranarayanan said it pointed to Sankara’s Brahmasutra bhashya. Ramanujacharya’s bhashya, popularly known as Sri Bhashya is also referred to as Saareeraka Mimamsa Bhashya. But the possible date of composition of the vArttika mentioned in the Cholamadevi inscription, means it cannot be a commentary on Ramanuja’s work, because the latter was born in 1017 C.E. Moreover, the honorific of Bhagavadpada is used for Sankara, and not for any other preceptor, Sankaranarayanan argued.

The inscription is engraved very close to the place intended for Dakshinamurthy, although the icon is now missing. In the Advaitic tradition, Dakshinamurthy Ashtaka is recited before and after the conclusion of Sankara bhashya classes. So according to Sankaranarayanan, the location of the inscription was further proof that the Saareerakabhashya referred to in the Cholamadevi inscription was Sankara’s bhashya. Sankaranarayanan felt that classes for teaching Chidananda Pidarar’s vArttika were also probably held somewhere close to the Dakshinamurthy sannidhi.

In conclusion, the inscription reveals the following interesting facts: Sankara’s Brahmasutra bhashya was popularly known as Saareerakabhashya in Tamil Nadu; Sankara was referred to by his honorific Bhagavadpada, in Tamil Nadu, as early as the 11th century; a vArttika existed for his bhashya in the 11th century; the vArttika was considered significant enough for a Chola king to make arrangements for it to be taught. But who was Chidananda Pidarar who wrote the vArttika? There is no information about him. Pidarar is an honorific in Tamil, equivalent to the Sanskrit bhattAraka or bhatAra.

Unfortunately, Chidananda Pidarar’s vArttika is lost to us. Interestingly, the inscription says that the village assembly which declared the royal grant for teaching of the vArttika, met in the courtyard of the Vishnu temple in the village. The inscription refers to the Vishnu temple as Tirumaliruncholai Alwar temple. There are other inscriptions in the Siva temple that talk of provisions for conducting various services in the temple. In all these cases, the village council is said to have assembled in the courtyard of the Vishnu temple, to sanction these grants.

Sankaranarayanan’s guess was that the Vishnu temple must, therefore, have been larger, and older too than the Siva temple in the village. But there remains no trace of the Vishnu temple today. It is one of those many temples that we have lost, and wouldn’t even know about, if not for such inscriptions.

(The author thanks D.P. Kannan, a doctoral candidate of Sanskrit in the University of Madras, for his inputs)