purattaasi kEttaithanil puvi uthitthOn vaazhiyE!

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhakthi/Prapatthi group,

 

Fall semester is in full swing. The days are getting shorter. I

already see Halloween decorations in the yards of my neighbors.

Soon we will see Christmas decorations. To me Christmas

decorations mean the arrival of Maargazhi and thiruppaavai. But

let us not forget what we have on hand right now, purattaasi, the

month blessed with the thiru nakshatram of two of our greatest

aachaaryaas, Sri Swami dEsikan (ThiruvONam, 10/13) and

Srimadh aathivaN SadagOpa yathendhra mahaa dEsiakn, the

founder of Sri AhObhila madam (kEttai, 10/10).

 

Here are some of His thiruppaNikaL [1]:

 

1. Raja gOpuram at Thiru NaaraayaNan sannithi

2. SOpaanam (steps) for thiruppathi thirumalai

3. NooRRuk kaal maNdapam for Kaanchi varadharajar

sannithi

4. thooppil dEsikan sannithi

5. Utthara veedhi raaja gOpuram at Sri Rangam

6. Dhasaavathaara sannithi at Sri Rangam

7. Sri dEsikan sannithi, near Sri Ranga Naachiyaar sannithi in

Sri rangam

8. Sri dEsikan sannithi at Thiru naaraayaNapuram

9. Sri dEsikan sannithi at aazhvaar thiru nagari (Mani, look

this up during your trip)

 

Another interesting tidbit; this azhagiya singar granted sanyaasam

to Sri MaNavaaLa maamunigaL.

 

Digressing a little bit, until the time of the fifth azhagiya singar, Sri

Sarvathanthra Svathanthra Sri SadagOpa yatheendhra mahaa

dEsikan, (1493-1499) there was no thenkalai and vadakalai

separation [1]. The rivalry perhaps reached its peak about 30/40

years ago. Since then, I suppose things have been improving.

During my last trip to India in 1991, as we were coming down from

Hayagreevar sannithi at Thiruvaheendra puram, I noticed the front

door of Sri DEvanatha perumaaL kovil hastily closed shut as a

group of thenkalai sri vaishnavaas passed the front door with Sri

MaNavaaLa maamuni utsavar on their shoulders (\bt

ELappaNNikkoNdu \et. After the group passed, the door was

opened. This incidence has left a mark in my heart. I may have

read more than what there really was; this may just be a tradition

that has its roots in bigotry, but followed blindly today. The two

groups in Thiruvaheendra puram may be getting along just fine.

But I wish there is just one group and traditions such as the one I

have described are abandoned.

 

With less and less people taking interest in spiritual matters it is

ever more important for Sri Vaishnavaas every where to act

consistent with the teachings of our ethiraajaa. With this objective in

mind, I would like to learn more about what separates these two

groups. I request knowledgeable members to contribute.

 

Dr. Radhakrishnan, ex-president of India, captures the essential

difference between the two groups in his "monkey theory" and "cat

theory" [2]. In the case of monkey, the baby monkey has to cling

onto the mother, i.e. action is required from the jeeva for salvation

=> vadakalai. In the case of cat, the cat carries its kitten in its

mouth, i.e. no further action is required after prapatthi => thenkalai.

Is this correct? I was under the impression that no further action

is required after prapatthi, thenkalai or vadakalai.

 

Two other differences, I think, are the number times one performs

formal prapatthi and the role of thaayaar in prapatthi. Are these

correct? Are there any more? What is the difference that led to

the separation of thenkalai and vadakalai and the causes for the

rivalry? The intensity of the rivalry seems to differ from

place to place. In vaduvoor, my native place, the rivalry

is practically non-existent.

 

 

regards, dileepan

 

 

P.S. Perhaps I have raised a controversial topic. My intent is to

discuss it in Sri Vaishnava spirit. If the group feels this is not an

appropriate topic for us, just ignore my comments and I promise

not to raise these again in this forum.

 

 

 

References:

 

[1] "Achaarya vaibhavam," Published by Sri Vishistadvaitha

Research Center, 66, Dr. Rangachari Road, Mylapore, Madras 600

018.

 

[2] "Indian Philosophy," Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, Vol 2., page 706.

[Guest guest]

Parthasarati Dileepan writes:

> Digressing a little bit, until the time of the fifth azhagiya singar, Sri

> Sarvathanthra Svathanthra Sri SadagOpa yatheendhra mahaa

> dEsikan, (1493-1499) there was no thenkalai and vadakalai

> separation [1]. The rivalry perhaps reached its peak about 30/40

> years ago.

 

Actually, historical accounts indicate that the rivalry reached

its peak after the British arrived, sometime in the 17th and 18th

centuries, when some ambitious people realized that they could

get control of temples and get temple honors through the

British-introduced court system.

 

There was a tremendous court battle over most of the major

ksetras, especially the Triplicane Parthasarathy Svami Temple.

In places where the temple was controlled by Thengalais,

prominent Vadagalai members of the surrounding community rose to

challenge their authority, and vice versa. Often, court cases

were filed simply over how the ThirumaN would look on the Lord's

forehead.

 

This is quite unfortunate, since at its heights, such acrimony

was motivated not by any doctrinal or intellectual difference. It

was essentially a fight for power and prominence.

> With less and less people taking interest in spiritual matters it is

> ever more important for Sri Vaishnavaas every where to act

> consistent with the teachings of our ethiraajaa. With this objective in

> mind, I would like to learn more about what separates these two

> groups. I request knowledgeable members to contribute.

 

The differences are, in my opinion, overemphasized. There was

never a ban on intermarriage between the two subdivisions, so

they never became two individual castes. They worship at all the

same temples, irrespective of which sect has authority at that

place.

 

Historians say that the deep division that you've witnessed is a

product of lesser minds a century or two after Manavala Mamuni's

death. Certainly, there were differences in emphasis on grace,

karma, etc., and surrender (prapatti), but the greatest teachers

on either side had no intention of causing a split. In fact

Vedanta Desika says in one of his works that "In the tradition of

Yatiraja (Ramanuja), there is no division; there is only a small

difference in opinion." Similarly, Manavala Mamuni (the main

post-Ramanuja acharya for Thengalais, who lived a century after

Desika) quotes Desika in his works and refers to him very

respectably as "abhiyuktar". I believe this term was used only

for respected members of one's own community.

 

As for the differences themselves:

> Dr. Radhakrishnan, ex-president of India, captures the essential

> difference between the two groups in his "monkey theory" and "cat

> theory" [2]. In the case of monkey, the baby monkey has to cling

> onto the mother, i.e. action is required from the jeeva for salvation

> => vadakalai. In the case of cat, the cat carries its kitten in its

> mouth, i.e. no further action is required after prapatthi => thenkalai.

> Is this correct? I was under the impression that no further action

> is required after prapatthi, thenkalai or vadakalai.

 

The cat/monkey analogy is of late origin, and is apparently used

more by non-Srivaishnavas than Srivaishnavas themselves! It is

highly misleading and trivializes the subtle differences between

the two conceptions of SaraNaagati.

 

First, let me go into the origin of the doctrinal differences,

and then I'll deal briefly with the differences themselves. One

recent author, instead of using the words "Thengalai" and

"Vadagalai", used the terms "Srirangam Acharyas" and "Kanchi

Acharyas", since a difference in opinion existed long before the

"---galai" words came to prominence.

 

There are several reasons for this difference. First, Ramanuja

never definitely put down his words on the nature of SaraNaagati.

Since Ramanuja's words were always final, it may have been part

of his genius to leave this unresolved since it was such an

intensely personal matter. At any rate, there were two sets of

Srivaishnava scholars left after Ramanuja passed on. One group,

located in Kanchi (where Desikar later grew up), became known

for its vast Sanskrit scholarship, probably because Kanchi was a

great center of Sanskrit learning of all sorts. People of all

religious traditions lived there, and debate between Srivaishnava

and non-Srivaishnava was probably very active and

prominent. Hence, the greater of use of Sanskrit and Sanskrit

ideas by the "Kanchi Acharyas", the Northerners, and eventually

the "Vadagalai".

 

The other group was located in Srirangam, essentially a purely

Vaishnava center. Here, popular Vaishnavism was more prominent

than Sanskrit-oriented debate with other schools. Hence, there

must have been great occasion for public lecture (Katha

Kaalakshepam, Upanyaasam, etc) of the Prabandhams and general

bhakti literature, as opposed to the abstruse Sanskrit Vedanta.

Therefore, there was greater usage of the Tamil Prabandham,

language and more radical metaphors (when viewed from a Sanskrit

perspective), as befits expositions of the Azhvar literature,

which are more 'anubhavam' (experience) than doctrine. This is

probably also why there are more Thengalais (of all castes) than

Vadagalais.

 

Naturally, with this difference in geography, intellectual

climate, and language came some differences in emphasis. The

Kanchi Acharyas, carefully guarding the doctrine of karma, etc.,

emphasized the need of the individual soul to actually perform

the act of surrender to the Lord, with its associated attitudes,

etc. The Srirangam Acharyas, taking many of the words of the

Azhvars and the stotra literature to heart, emphasized the

greatness and overwhelming grace of the Lord to "save His own",

and therefore spoke more of the *attitude* than the act. The

Srirangam acharyas felt that *performing an act* of surrender was

an act of self-exertion, which was not in line with the

individual soul's svaroopa as being completely dependent on the

Lord. Furthermore, they felt that such an *act* was 'amaryaada',

i.e., was disrespectful, since (i) the soul was offering itself

when it in actuality eternally belonged to the Paramaatma, and

(ii) not even the physical act of surrendering can force the Lord

to save the soul. He saves the soul on His own initiative; rest

assured that He *will* save you, but don't try to force Him.

 

Therefore, there is no separate 'prapatti' or 'SaraNaagati' for

Thengalais, like there is for Vadagalais. Thengalais also do not

admit bhakti-yoga as a separate means, with the idea that it is

only prapatti (which is essentially realizing the nature of one's

soul) that "achieves" moksha. (Thengalai Acharyas would probably

even object to my usage of the word "achieve".)

 

So this is the distinction. Naturally, many other beliefs follow

from this difference, but what is outlined above is primary. The

concept of caste, etc., was much more liberally interpreted in

the Thengalai acharyas' works in consequence, but it appears that

such doctrines did not have a lasting impact on the

community. Orthodox Thengalai Brahmins are as staunchly casteist

as any Vadagalai that I know.

 

Sorry for this overlong mail. I have been intrigued by the

difference between the two subsects, so I tend to ramble. Please

forgive me.

 

Yours,

Mani

[Guest guest]

In <199409281818.LAA09674, Mani Varadarajan wrote:

>

>Therefore, there is no separate 'prapatti' or 'SaraNaagati' for

>Thengalais, like there is for Vadagalais. Thengalais also do not

>admit bhakti-yoga as a separate means, with the idea that it is

>only prapatti (which is essentially realizing the nature of one's

>soul) that "achieves" moksha. (Thengalai Acharyas would probably

>even object to my usage of the word "achieve".)

>

 

I have heard that there are two stages in the vadagalai tradition,

"samaasrayaNam" and "bharaNyaasam". Is that what you mean? I am

not quite familiar, though some of my relatives will be.

 

There are some practices which I found to differ, the number of

times one does "sEvippu", for example.

 

In my father's funeral, five years ago, I was made more aware of the

differences. The vadagalai "sambandhi" of my father insisted

on so many stricter rituals. The thengalai "sambandhi" was

very tolerant and tried to be more adjusting. I do not know

if that can be generalized.

 

In my earlier posting on the origin, I should have added that

the average 1.2% per year, should include births minus deaths,

as well as conversion_in minus conversion_out etc. The percentage

could have been much higher in the first few years as you mentioned,

then dropped lower later.

 

Srinivasan

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 10:47:32 -0700 Mani Varadarajan said:

>

>

>For the Thengalai sampradaayam, this is it. The recognition that

>Sriman Narayana is the ultimate is the primary element in their

>"non-resistance" to His grace. Vadagalais, on the contrary,

>belief that a separate surrender ('bhara-nyaasam' -- placing the

>burden of achieving moksha upon Him) should be performed. They

>also call this prapatti, SaraNaagati, and Atma-nikShEpa. This

>is usually done through an acharya, but I am of the opinion that

>PerumaaL will not refuse those who do it themselves in all

>sincerity. Such is His nature.

>

 

For Sri Ahobhila madam bharaNyaasam is done only through

the azhagiya singar. For munithrayam followers, I believe,

bharaNyaasam can be done through anyone who occupies guru

status, it could be one's father. Someone more knowledgable

can verify this.

 

BharaNyaasam is also likened to getting married to the Lord

assuming nayaki bhaavam.

>> There are some practices which I found to differ, the number of

>> times one does "sEvippu", for example.

>

>Yes, Thengalais only sEvikku once, but Vadagalais do it (at

>least) twice. I'm not sure the reason for this. Though, in

>A.K. Ramanujan's book "Hymns for the Drowning", a translation of

>Nammaazhvar's poems, he cites an interview with a Thengalai

>acharya who says, "Don't prostrate before Him more than three

>times; don't work His heart that much. He'll come to you."

>Such a soft and beautiful statement of His affection for us!

>Very anthropomorphic, but I like it anyway.

 

 

Four times is the norm, at least in our family.

I believe during bharaNyaasam you are supposed to

prostrate before the jeer non-stop until

He asks you to stop. Again, more knowledgable

persons may please verify this.

>

 

regards, dileepan

[Guest guest]

K. Srinivsasan writes:

> I have heard that there are two stages in the vadagalai tradition,

> "samaasrayaNam" and "bharaNyaasam". Is that what you mean? I am

> not quite familiar, though some of my relatives will be.

 

Yes, this is what I mean, from my understanding of the Vadagalai

tradition. The 'samaaSrayaNam' (also known as the 'panca-samskaara'

for the five-fold initiation rite that it encompasses) is akin

to a baptism into Sri Vaishnavism. It is a formal recognition that

Sriman Narayana is our All. I suppose this is also why Sri Vaishnavas

are invested with the three sacred 'mantras' at this time.

 

For the Thengalai sampradaayam, this is it. The recognition that

Sriman Narayana is the ultimate is the primary element in their

"non-resistance" to His grace. Vadagalais, on the contrary,

belief that a separate surrender ('bhara-nyaasam' -- placing the

burden of achieving moksha upon Him) should be performed. They

also call this prapatti, SaraNaagati, and Atma-nikShEpa. This

is usually done through an acharya, but I am of the opinion that

PerumaaL will not refuse those who do it themselves in all

sincerity. Such is His nature.

> There are some practices which I found to differ, the number of

> times one does "sEvippu", for example.

 

Yes, Thengalais only sEvikku once, but Vadagalais do it (at

least) twice. I'm not sure the reason for this. Though, in

A.K. Ramanujan's book "Hymns for the Drowning", a translation of

Nammaazhvar's poems, he cites an interview with a Thengalai

acharya who says, "Don't prostrate before Him more than three

times; don't work His heart that much. He'll come to you."

Such a soft and beautiful statement of His affection for us!

Very anthropomorphic, but I like it anyway.

> In my father's funeral, five years ago, I was made more aware of the

> differences. The vadagalai "sambandhi" of my father insisted

> on so many stricter rituals. The thengalai "sambandhi" was

> very tolerant and tried to be more adjusting. I do not know

> if that can be generalized.

 

It has been said that the Vadagalai side is closer to the 'smaarta'

tradition, but I'm not sure how true this is. Perhaps in your case

the Vadagalai sambandhis just happened to be more conservative

than the Thengalai ones, all community issues aside.

> Srinivasan

 

Mani

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 29 Sep 1994 10:47:32 -0700 Mani Varadarajan said:

>is usually done through an acharya, but I am of the opinion that

>PerumaaL will not refuse those who do it themselves in all

>sincerity. Such is His nature.

>

 

 

Since my knowledge in matters relating to our tradition is

between zero and none I am at a loss to appreciate the

objections to the pesonal opinion expressed above.

I do understand that we should not diminish the role of

acharya for without their guidance we can't even start to have a

spiritual life. Swami dhEsikan calls upon all of us to

start our daily prayers with \bt ennuyir thanthaLLitthavarai

saraNam pukku...... \et. However, our Lord being an ocean of

kaaruNyam will he not save the one who for some reason is

forced to perform saraNaagathi directly.

 

Perhaps the objection is not about the opinon,

but only about expressing it in the impersonal net. Then

I have a question and a comment. The comment first, this

group is less impersonal than an open Usenet news

group, but I concede it is still not the same as

face to face discussion. My question: would not expressing such

opinion and discussing them in a forum like this one

give an opportunity for individuals like myself to gain a more robust

understanding of our tradition? This discussion in itself

has raised my understanding a little bit.

 

Due to my ignorance I may have said some silly things above.

But I am genuinly interested in understanding why we should

not discuss critical issues in a closed group such

as ours.

 

 

regards, dileepan