enchanting and interesting. There is a temple of Säkṣi Bhāvānārāyana in Ponnur village of Guntur District. The story goes that a Bhakta of this Bhāvanārāyana by name Guni Gōvinda brought him there as a witness to his maternal uncle in connection with his marriage. Because he was brought there by his Bhakta as a witness, the God was thereupon called by the name Sākṣi Bhāvanārāyana. This Sthalapurāņa or the description of this incident, i.e., Māhātmya of that God happens to be the subject-matter of Bhāvanārāyana Vilāsamu. In a way, the narration of the theme in Abhimanyu Kalyānam, written by Cenna Bhattar coincides with that of Bhāvanārayāņa Vilāsamu. In both these works, the maternal uncle fails to keep up his promise to his nephew in connection with giving his daughter in marriage, when God Bhāvanārāyaṇa interferes as a witness and fulfils the wishes of the nephew. Thus we find a similarity in the works of both the father and the son. Now, as the son selects the subject matter pertaining to Guntur District, there is a slight chance for our drawing the hypothetic conclusion that they might be the inhabitants, somewhere, of Guntur District. Practically, no internal evidence is available from either the present book or from the works of his brother Cenna Bhattar or from that of his son i.e., Raṅgācārya to assign any date to the author.
- ↑ 1. Sri N. Venkata Rao, M.A., in his essay "Kulaśekhara in Telugu Literature" in the Journal of the University of Madras, Section-A, Humanities, Volume XXIII, Nos. 1 and 2 (July-December pages 57 to 61) establishes the date of Raghunāthācārya. There he puts forth the following arguments:—
2. Firstly in the Dāśarathi Śataka written by Gōpanna, mention is made of one Raghunātha Bhattarācārya in the 9th stanza. There neither his family nor surname is mentioned. As such this statement could not stand for argument as there is the possibility of having different persons with one and the same name.
3. Secondly he brings in the relationship between Raghunāthācārya and one Tirumalācārya of the same family and surname, giving out as example the introductory portions written by the respective authors of Kulaśekharamahīpāla Caritra, Abhimanyu Kalyānam and Ambarıṣōpākhyānam. Though the said Tirumalācārya belongs to “Sēṣam" family and Kauṇḍinyasa Gōtra, he describes Nārāyanacārya as his father. But the mention of this Nārāyanācārya is not made by these two brothers in their respective works. Here Sri N. Venkata Rao has mentioned in the family tree that Nārāyanācārya was one of the five sons of Ahōbila Dēśika. But in both Kulaśekharamahīpāla Caritra and Abhimanyu Kalayāņam nothing was mentioned except the fact that Ahōbila Deśika had five sons and Rāmānujācārya was the eldest of them. At the same time the mention of either Ahōbila Deśika or his five sons has not been made by Thirumalācārya through it is said that his father was Nārāyanācārya. He never mentioned anything about his grandfather.
As such the statement that Nārāyānācārya was one of the five sons of Ahōbila Dēsika, is not borne out by literary evidences and could not stand for reason. Therefore until and unless a positive proof is available, the matter is left open for investigation and till then we are not in a position to decide the exact date in which Raghunathācārya lived.