Tenkalai/Vadakalai

[Guest guest]

Thanks Mani for your excellent reply. After my first post I

remembered reading about this subject in the book entitled "A

Dialog on Hinduism" by Sri. V.N. Gopala Desikan, (1990)

published by Sri Visishtadvaita Research Center, 66, Dr.

Rangachari Road, Madras 600 018. Chapter 13 of this book deals

with this subject and it starts out saying "There is no fundamental

or basic difference in the philosophy, between the two schools,

Vadakalai and Tenkalai." The chapter states there are 18 points of

difference, but lists only 12. These are given below. I have

paraphrased many of them in order to be brief. In this process I

may have introduced imprecision. Please pardon me for this and

feel free to correct gross mistakes.

 

 

1. Role of Lakshmi: Both V and T consider Lakshmi as

"mediator" and "she, along with Narayana, is the object of

attainment, Paramapada." V views Laksmi as a means of attaining

Paramapada, i.e. upaya, and T does not.

 

2. T views Lakshmi as Jivatma.

 

3. T views Lakshmi as atomic in nature.

 

4. Both T and V hold Kaivalya (perceiving and enjoying one's

own soul through Jnana yoga) inferior to Paramapada. According

to V, Kaivalya is outside Sri Vaikunta, for T it is in Sri Vaikunta's

outer most parts.

 

5. V accepts bhaki as a means (upaya) and T does not.

 

6. Prapatti is necessary for V, for T it is not.

 

7. This is related to the concept of prapatti. According to V,

Lord's grace has to have a reason, like the efforts by the individual

soul. T holds that the Lord's grace is spontaneous.

 

8. T holds that the sins of devotees are pleasing to the Lord,

like the misdeeds of young children. According to V, the Lord

ignores these sins.

 

9. According to T, exalted persons need not perform duties

such as sandya, etc., they do so only to set good example. For V,

these duties must be performed even by the exalted.

 

10. For T, the giving up of all dharma stated in the carama

sloka refers to an explicit act of giving them up, for V it is a

statement of fact, i.e. when you are ready for prapatti, you have

already given them up.

 

11. T believes the Lord also grieves when a person is suffering,

like Rama and Krishna avatharams. V says the Lord being

satyasangalpa will remove the suffering and won't grieve.

 

12. This one is about the Lord being "smaller than the smallest

and bigger than the biggest." Both V and T interpret "smaller than

the smallest" as He is inside even the smallest particle in the

universe. For "bigger than the biggest," T says the Lord envelops

the infinite things, such as Time, and V says the Lord is also

present with infinite things.

 

As you see, the differences are highly technical and IMHO not

important to ordinary folks like myself. I for one would like to see

the two schools merged. Recently I read in Sri Nrisimha Priya

that azhagiya singar met with a thenkalai jeer, (sorry, I am unable

to recall the name of the madam) and discussed cooperation. I

wish for more such meetings and joint endeavors.

 

P.S. This book "A Dialog on Hinduism" is an excellent primer for

understanding the basic differences among the many schools of

Indian philosophy. It is written as a dialog between a father and a

child. The discussion is at a level that even I was able to follow

most of it.