From the time Sri Manavaala Maamuni passed away in Sri Rangam in 1450 CE until the fall of the great Vijayanagar Empire in the great battle of Talikota in January 1565 CE when the last of the Aravidu Kings, Raama Raja was beheaded by the Bahmani Sultans, the Sri Vaishnava “ubaya vedaantins” continued to skirmish sporadically and fight their petty power-battles to gain control and dominance over the Sri Devarajaswamy Perumal Temple in the small temple town of Kanchipuram. The southern faction that had now begun calling itself Sri Rangam-based “Tenkalai” continued to feud with and challenge the so-called northern Kanchi-based Vadakalai faction on the specious and unfounded ground that the latter had broken away from the true legacy of Sri Ramanujacharya. They held their ground on mainly three causes of grievance:
a) First, the Vadakalais had departed from the “gold-standard” of Sri Vaishnava “divya-desam” temple-worship practices that had been instituted earlier by Sri Ramanuja and duly adopted at Sri Rangam, Tirumala and Melkote;
b) Secondly, the Vadakalai’s temple-stewards, viz. the Thaathacharyas, were only pretenders since they had not been duly ordained by Sri Ramanuja himself (unlike at Sri Rangam, Tirumala and Melkote temples) to act as the custodians of the Sri Varadaraja Temple; instead they claimed and drew their legitimacy to administer the Kanchi temple from the Vijayanagar royalty who, after all, could only be regarded as the seat of temporal not spiritual power of the day….. and therefore Kings had no right to appoint custodianship of the Kanchi temple or to devolve it upon the Thaathachaarya family’s generations;
c) Thirdly, the “ubaya-vedaantin-s” of Kanchipuram had contributed virtually nothing by way of aiding and supporting the “tennaachaarya” community under the leadership of Sri Sailesa and Sri Manavaala Maamuni in the post-Ramanujacharya period of nearly 100 years when it undertook the great task of reconstructing and rebuilding the Sri Rangam temple and restored it to its old glory after the Muslim invasions had ravaged it. The “vadakalais” also had not accorded welcome or due respect in Kanchipuram to Sri Manavaala Maamuni and his “southern” disciples in recognition of the signal service they had all rendered unto the community while reviving Vishnu divya desam temples in and around Sri Rangam and restoring the glorious imprimatur of Sri Ramanuja there. Instead they were openly espousing a breakaway tradition called “Desika sampradaayam“ that was venerating Sri Vedanta Desikan of Kanchipuram as the upholder of the “sri bhaasya simhaasanaadhipathi” lineage of “ubaya vedaantin-s”. From this slighting of the “tennaachaarya sampradaayam”, the Tenkalais could only extrapolate an elaborate narrative concluding that the Kanchipuram Vadakalai position was a deviant and insular-minded sect. It was a veiled affront to the tradition of the Dravida Tamizh Vedas of the ancient Azhwaar-s; it was a departure from the liberal outlook of Sri Ramanujacharya on the matter of “varnaashrama” and caste; that it was a departure from many of the doctrinal “rahasyas” (esotericism) of “raamaanuja–siddhaatham” (such as those propounded by Sri Pillai Lokacharya relating to the ontological status of Lakshmi, “prapatti” etc.); and that it represented the true legacy of Sri Ramanujacharya neither in letter nor spirit.
At first, such feelings of ill-will, difference and dissonance was nothing more than a storm in teacup. But then by the middle of the 17th century when the great Vijayanagar Dynasties began crumbling under the onslaught of the Bijapur and Golconda Sultanates….. and royal patronage and financial sponsorship for the temples of South India including those of the “ubaya vedaantins” began to dwindle rapidly and dry up….. the bickering and sniping amongst the Sri Rangam and Kanchipuram Sri Vaishnavas began to snowball, getting bitterer and more competitive as both sides began to clamor for what little resources, grants and royal largesse were still trickling through from the Vijayanagar treasury to temples such as Kanchipuram and Sri Rangam via the temple chief-custodians such as the Thaathaachaaryas and Utthama Nambis.
*******************************
The real nature of the bickering and petty sectarian sniping indulged in by the “ubaya vedaantin-s” at Kanchipuram has been well-described in the chapters of the two books in English published in recent times as already cited viz. Dr. K.V.Raman’s PhD dissertation “The Temple of Lord Varadaraja, Kanchi” and the rebuttal of it by Sri R. Varada Tatacharya in his book “A Critical Survey”. The peculiar — and at times even perverse — forms in which Tenkalai and Vadakalai fought their battles appeared as follows:
- One side tried to project itself as the real and legitimate custodian of the Kanchi temple and the other as a parvenu.
2. One side took credit for the construction of many of the great architectural structures inside the temples while trying to discredit the other’s claims to the same. The person of Sri Azhagiya Manavala Jiyar (referred in earlier Part) plays a major controversial role here.
3. One side accusing the other of using stealth and deception to change the sectarian character of the Kanchi temple by putting up Tenkalai symbols, insignia and “naamam-s” on walls, pillars, portals and archways.
4. One side claimed closer relations with the royal courts of Vijayanagar Kings while trying to devalue the position of the other vis-a-vis the very same kings.
5. One side claiming that the other side had been guilty of dereliction of duty as temple-custodian and accusing it of abandoning Kanchipuram and seeking personal fortunes in the royal courts of the Mysore Wodeyar Kings.
6. One side accusing the other of bad faith and treachery, misuse and malfeasance of temple wealth and property. And in this case, the nefarious incident of one Atthaan Jiyar and Rama Rao is perhaps the darkest event that happened in the history of the Kanchi temple….. Athhaan Jiyar played such great mischief that it resulted in the relations between Tenkalai and Vadakalai turning sour at the beginning and eventually, very toxic permanently.
It would be worth reproducing passages in-extenso from the book of the Vadakalai viewpoint in R.Varada Tathacharya’s “Critical Survey” rebutting the narratives of the Tenkalai viewpoint in Dr. K.V.Raman’s “The temple of Varadaraja: Kanchi” just to be able to gauge the depth of sectarian virulence that had been building up for over 200 years between the 15th and 17th century CE.
*************************************
QUOTE:
The author next deels with the Alagiya Manavala Jiyar who lived between 1420 to 1468 A. D., calling him as “ the most prominent Jiyar at Kanchi in the post-Manavala Mamuni period”.
Further while speaking about the Alagiya Manavala Jiyar the author says that he (the Jiyar) is mentioned in “ several inscriptions datable to the latter half of the 15th century and the earlier half of the 16th century ”. Though the author freely speaks “ of his services to the Temple and his eminent position in the Temple affairs of Kanchi ”, he has not given any idea about the particulars of the inscriptions in which he is mentioned. We will have to be very guarded therefore, in giving them credence or taking them for granted without any reliable data or basis. As stated by us at the outset..... the Jiyar of the 16th century finds a place in some of the inscriptions. In those times when there was no such ill-feelings as we witness in these days between the Tenkalais and Vadakalais the management or supervision of the Temple works, worship and conduct of festivals were entrusted with and allotted to those who were sincere and devoted without any distinction of sect or even caste. The Tatacharyas who were “the Manager-General of Temple Affairs ” could not themselves attend to each and every item of the stupendous works they had started not only in our Temple but also in the other Temples at Kanchi and elsewhere. Naturally, this Jiyar who was a pious and sincere devotee might have been entrusted with 'some of the works and services by them as an agent. In some of the inscriptions occur the names of such agents like Tirumalai Nambi Chakrarayari, Ramanujayyan of Tiruppullani M , Alagiyasingar, Tiruppani Singarayyangar, Emberumanar Aiyyan, Tiruvengada Aiyanga, Viswa- pandita, Vaidyanatha Iyer, Jana Mudaliar, etc.. It is learnt from these that in those times, “ the several affairs of the Temple were assigned to different persons or bodies each in his or its time attended to the work for which he or it was nominated”. Thus it is quite possible that Alagiya Manavala Jiyar was also entrusted with some of the works that were progressing under the aegis of the Tatacharyas as an agent which caused the mention of his name in some inscriptions. There are also similar inscriptions in our Temple about Ahobila swamis, Sankaracharyas, Madwacharyas and other pro¬ minent persons, mentioning about their gifts of villages and services to our Temple, during the same period (16th century A. D). Several other inscriptions describe the various offerings of devotees at different times 19. These dignitaries who are equally, if not more prominent are not known to lay any such extravagant claims to the authorship of the major constructions in the Temple on the basis of their gifts or services in the 16th century A.D. The author gives an exaggerated account similarly with regard to the Kandadai Ramanuja Ayyan, Paravastu, and Prativadi Bayankaram families on the basis of one or two inscriptions, he was able to delve from the ocean of inscriptions mentioning some gifts and services by them. Kandadai Ramanuja Ayyan or Ayyangar was a disciple of Alagiya Manavala Jiyar . He was in charge of Ramanuja Kutams at Tirumalai, Ranchi and other places. He was instrumental for the conduct of some festivals in several places including Kanchi. But the author is not justified in exaggerating his contributions to our Temple.
He says that because of the fall of Vijayanagar Kings, the family of “ Ettur Kumara Tatacharya moved to Srirangapatna, the capital of the Mysore Kings, in the latter half of the 17th century in search of better fortunes ”. This is not only derogatory to the great family and its greater ancestor who were solely responsible for the construction of temples, endowing of properties towards the maintenance of Temples in general and our Temple in particular making of the several vehicles, ornaments and various other important necessaries to our Temple, the philanthropic deeds like the construction of big lakes at Aiyangarkulam and Tenneri called “Tatasamudram ”, the establishment of Agraharas (Villages) etc., but uncharitable and wrong to say that they migrated to Mysore “in search of better fortunes”. The fortune and wealth which the Tatacharyas acquired from out of their position, as the royal gurus (preceptors) to the Vijayanagar rulers for nearly three centuries would have sufficed to maintain several generations in royal splendour if they had but appropriated them for their own personal use. History, inscriptions and othor ancient works like Prapannamratam, Sadvamsa Guna Kirtanam, Maha Vamsa Mahimai etc., mention about the selfless services of the Tatacharya family and their undying enthusiasm towards the uplift of the temples. That was the only goal and aim of life of that great Lakshmikumara Tatadesika his ancestors and his descendants. In order to make out an imaginary case for Tenkalai influence in the Temple at this period he has to avoid the presence of the Tatacharyas and their influence at that period. To avoid this embarrassing situation he has started on a theory that the Staanatar who were managing the Temple affairs entrusted the management to Todarmal (not to be confused with Raja Todarmaal who was Minister to Emperor Akbar in Delhi) and that he in his turn gave it to his Acharya Aatthan Jiyar in the beginning of the I8th century. This is completely wrong. The Atthaan Jiyar agreement also will falsify this story. What was the necessity to enter into an agreement with a non-existent family ! To get over this, the author starts with yet another story of “The Return of the Tatacharya Family to Kanchi in 1711”. To say that one Ettur Tirumalai Kumara Tatacharya returned to Kanchi from Mysore in 1711 A.D is yet another piece of the author’s inventive genius. As already observed there were several members of the family who had remained at Kanchi and the family of Sri Venkatavarada Tatacharya alone left for Mysore. The family of “ Venkata Varada ” had not also left Mysore once and for all in 1711. They remained there till the middle of the 19th century as the royal preceptors of the Kings of Mysore visiting Kanchi off and on. They wielded great influence by which they not only spread Sri Vaishnavism but also secured several large amounts of wealth to our Temple. So, both the stories of the family leaving entirely for Mysore in the later half of the 17th century and returning in the beginning of the 18th century, are, on the face of it, distortions. When the Jiyar was all in all, as the trustee, why should he enter into an agreement with persons who had lost all touch with the Temple ? These are patent misrepresentations that can be easily observed by a discerning eye. Could anybody by any stretch of imagination, conceive of the family abandoning and leaving in lurch everything they had so devoutly built, fondly reared and cherished and maintained for the sake of “seeking better fortunes” as if they were in need of it. As the unquestioned and great “ Achaaryapurushas ” of the day, they were sought after by the, kings of Mysore, the Nayak Chieftains of Tanjore and others. Simply because some of them had to go to different places for some time as spiritual preceptors, it cannot be said that the entire family had once for all left Kanchi bag and baggage. Most of the descendants were certainly staying behind, to look after the Temple and other interests, while only one family, viz., that of Venkata Varadacharya, the second son of Kotikannikadanam Lakshmikumara Tatadesika, left for the court of Devaraja Wodeyar at Srirangapatnam (Mysore). The remaining sons were certainly staying behind at Kanchi.
The Tatacharyas, who secreted the Utsavar idols of Sri Varada and Nachiyars to Udayarpalayam on account of the fear of Muslim depredation, were said to have been reeling in agony and despair due to the separation. It was further, heightened when they were unable to restore them back, after the scare subsided, by the refusal of the Zamindar of Udayarpalayam to part with the Idols. Accidentally and fortunately just then, there was present at Kanchi, one Attan Jiyar, who was the guru of Todarmalla the Chieftain of a regiment. This Jiyar who was a Telugu Brahmin Sanyasin had come to Kanchi fleeing Golkonda after the killing of his relatives Akkanna and Madanna by the forces of Aurangazeb. The Tatacharyas approached this Jiyar for help in restoring the idols through his disciple Todarmalla. The Jiyar readily agreed and made his disciple act. Todarmalla accordingly went to the Zamin with his regiment and forced the zamindar to part with the idols. Having thus secured back the images, the Tatacharyas were prepared to give anything to Atthaan Jiyar for this great help. But as a true Sanyasin he only desired that the Tanian or Sloka in praise of his Acharya Manavala Mamuni, “Sri Sailesa Dayapatram” should be allowed to be recited before the commencement of the recital of Prabandas in the Temple. To this, the Tatacharyas readily agreed. This consent has been given by an agreement called “Atthaan Jiyar Agreement” not an undertaking as Dr. K. V. Raman would name it. What more ? They have even allowed him to run the affairs of the Temple itself, in their ecstatic moment. Thus leaving almost everything in his hands in good faith, they started going on tours of “Sishyaarjana” periodically. The judicial decisions in the second half of the 19th century will establish that Atthaan Jiyar and the scions of his family were running the administration of the Temple on behalf of the Tatacharyas until 1792, when one Rama Rao, the last of the Atthaan Jiyar family was dismissed by the then Collector for misbehaviour. One Srinivasaragavachari a grand son by daughter of Tatacharya was appointed by the Government in 1794 to manage the affairs, as a deputy to Tatacharyas. Even this person’s term was terminated in 1796 and the Government took over the management under their direct control which lasted till 1842 when it was restored back to the Tatacharyas as the “original mirasdars” (‘Church-Wardens’) of the Temple. Still more fantastic, is the story that they were given this priority of honours by their undertaking to honour the Tenkalai traditions (maamul) of the Temple, as if there was such a tradition. When a person is honoured on account of his worthiness nobody will take an undertaking from him. The author states here that this agreement or “undertaking” is the famous agreement known as Atthaan Jiyar Agreement and this “was signed by Ettur Immadi Lakshmikumara Tatacharya and delivered to Attan Jiyar”. This is not correct since “Sri Lakshmikumara Tatacharya” was not in the picture in 1711 A.D. He lived between 1572 to 1632 A. D. One Lakshmikumara Tirumalai Tatacharya and some others were the signatories to it. This “Ettur Tirumalai Lakshmikumara” is an appellation and not a name by itself, and is prefixed to all the names of the descendants of Sri Lakshmikumara Tatadesika. Secondly, the presumption itself is wrong. As said above the Atthaan Jiyar had no such right or position' to confer the right of "Agratambulam" on Tatacharyas. It was the Tatacharyas, on the other hand who conceded to Atthaan Jiyar his request to recite, the Tanian of his Acharya as a return for his help in restoring back the idols. The history of the Tatacharyas in connection with the Temple and the influence they wielded as the spiritual preceptors of the Vijayanagar monarchs are all narrated in glowing terms by the chroniclers of history and the inscriptions found in several temples of South India. From at least the 15th Century A. D., these Acharya Purushas of an exalted line of the Vaishnavite hierarchs, prescribed the mode of worship and rituals to be observed in the Temple, as the Srikaryams of the Temple affairs. While so, the author’s story of his book that Atthaan Jiyar, a newcomer in 1710 A. D. to Kanchi conferred the 'Agratambulam' honours on the Tatacharyas after taking an undertaking from them that they would honour the Tenkalai tradition and mode of worship in the Temple, to say the least, is ridiculous. “The Tatacharyas connected with this Temple were very orthodox in the observance of religious rites and rituals to their meticulous perfection as prescribed in the scriptures. The same system of observance has been handed down to their posterity and is still observed”.
The author wants us to understand that the Tenkalai mode of ceremonies and worship prevailed in the Temple by citing some documents connected with the litigation of the Temple. What are the modes of Tenkalai worship and what are the Tenkalai ceremonies we fail to understand, despite the author’s parrot-like assertions without clarity or truth. Strictly speaking there can be no Tenkalai or Vadakalai mode of worship in a Temple. The worship is performed according to the Agamas which are neither Tenkalai nor Vadakalai. But we generally call a temple Vadakalai or Tenkalai on the basis of sectarian marks and those who officiate in the pujas. Even on this basis our Temple is definitely Vadakalai, as aforesaid. If the temple’s character is to be determined on the basis of service holders, the majority of the services like Vedaparayanam, Puranam reading, Stotra- patam, Mantrapushpam etc., are in the hands of the Vadakalais. The Tenkalais have only the Adyaapaakam service in which the Vadakalais also participate. The author’s case fails here also.
The author’s next item of the subject matter is “ Vaishnava-Sect-Marks" The author makes out a very big case for the preponderant Tenkalai sect marks in the Temple. These marks which the author delves from the ocean of Vadakalai marks in the Temple are comparable to a mouse and a mountain. As detailed above the innumerable Vadakalai marks all over the fabric of the Temple in the most prominent and important places, starting from the Chief Deity bear eloquent testimony to the Vadakalai character and pre¬ dominance in the Temple. The so-called Tenkalai marks do not belong to the Vijayanagar period as alleged by the author. The Vijayanagar Kings were all Vadakalai Vaishnavaites and disciples of the Tatacharyas. They would not have allowed or caused the Tenkalai marks to be displayed. The insignificant marks were surreptitiously introduced during the latter half of the 18th century by the scions of Atthaan Jiyar family when they had a free hand in running the affairs of the Temple in the absence of the leading Tatacharyas who were on tours of Sishyartanas. It will be clearly seen that the few Tenkalai namams seen lurking in some insignificant places in the Temple represent the work of those who had opportunities to introduce them stealthily during the latter half of the 18th century. On the basis of such insignificant features of Tenkalai marks the author tries to make out that the Temple is a Tenkalai one. When these tamperings were noticed on their return, the Tatacharyas tried to wrest the management from Rama Rao the last scion of the family of the Jiyar. This man resisted and refused to hand over back the charge of the Temple to the Tatacharyas. Thereupon the Tatacharyas who were then popularly called the ‘Brahmins’ by the authorities approached the Collector for removing him. The Collector finding Mr. Rama Rao, guilty of gross insubordination dismissed him in 1792 and appointed one Srinivasaragavachari to manage the Temple as a deputy of the Tatacharyas.
UNQUOTE
(to be continued)
Sudarshan Madabushi