While the rest of the country descended into chaos, anarchy and slavery throughout the 15th to the 18th century CE resulting from wars, conquests and the tyranny of Muslim and British Imperialistic rule, the Sri Vaishnavas of Tamil country themselves descended into a private anarchy of their own making. The war between Tipu Sultan and the British East India Company was waged in fact in the narrow strip of land between Polilur near Kanchipuram, in Arcot, Gingee, Trichinopoly, Uraiyur, Sri Rangam, Tanjore….. After the defeat of Tipu Sultan, much of the same Tamil country was conquered by the terrifying hordes of Maratha warriors. Battles raged all around the temples of Sri Rangam and Kanchipuram…..
Strangely, the wars that the Sri Vaishnava communities experienced did not engender any sense of unity amongst them. Even in the face of a common enemy –the Muslims first and then the British later — the Sri Vaishnavas of Tamil country could not rise above their own petty intra-communal differences. The sectarian rift between the Tenkalai and Vadakalai sects kept widening by the decade and getting bitterer by the years thanks largely again due to their perverse fixation and obsessions with the two principal events that can be described as historic flashpoints in the history of the “ubaya-vedaantins“.
- The first event was the establishment of the Tenkalai hermitage of Sri Vaadikesari Azhagiya Manavaala Jeeyar Muttam in Kanchipuram from 1450 CE onwards. It was the spiritual beachhead for the Tenkalais in Kanch from where they began launching their relentless struggle to re-claim the Sri Devarajaswamy Perumal temple from the Thaathaacharyas of the Vadakalai school. This muttam’s main aim was to re-establish and propagate the southern “tennaachaarya sampradaayam” of Sri Manavaala Maamuni in the northern parts of Tamil country where the Vadakalai sect they felt had begun claiming that a separate “Desika sampradaayam” was the principal and true legatee of “sri raamanuja siddhaatnham“.
2. The second historic flashpoint was the incident in 1711 CE when the controversial “Atthaan Jiyar Agreement” was said to have been solemnly executed by the Thathaachaarya-s of Kanchi by which, it was claimed, they had virtually signed away their rights as the custodian of property, assets and traditional rights in the temple of Sri Varadaraja Perumal in favor of the heirs of the Atthaan Jiyar family who were wedded to the Tenkalai “sampradaaya” of Sri Manavaala Maamuni and his principal grand-disciple, Sri Azhagiya Manavaala Jeeyar.
To this very day even in 2022 CE, the ghosts of the two antagonists in the above two historic flashpoints hearkening back to the 15th-7th century CE continue to haunt the Kanchipuram “ubaya vedaantins”, the Vadakalai-sect and Thaathaachaarya-s as well as the legal courts, lawyers and judges of Tamil Nadu!
These two events in history are indeed the defining moments in Sri Vaishnava history and they have stubbornly resisted to die out even after 3 centuries!
They continue to be hotly contested in courts as the source of all strife and conflict between the two sects in Kanchipuram. The Aatthaan Jiyar Agreement is a veritable red-rag to both the Tenkalai and Vadakalai. It provokes centuries old feelings of rivalry and grievance; it brings back memories of long-forgotten insults and humiliations heaped on each other by both sects; and it arouses a whole gamut of atavistic emotions of rage, outrage and great moral umbrage. And, yes, it is very very difficult to explain the psychology behind it, but the lingering presence of the ghost of Sri Azhagiya Manavaala Jiyar in Kanchipuram…. and generations of his many disciples and followers right up to this day…. does continue to stoke a muted, simmering but undying resentment in the hearts of generations of Vadakalai communities which have come long after him too.
***********************************
The deep scar in the psyche that the above two events have left amongst the “ubaya-vedaantins” of Kanchipuram is best described in the words of Sri. R.Varada Tathacharya himself in his book “A Critical Survey“ of Dr.K.V.Raman’s dissertation, “The Sri Varadaraja Perumal Temple, Kanchipuram“.
QUOTE
"That the members of the Srisailapurna family (of Tirumala) had the honour of having been the spiritual heads of Vijayanagar Kings from the period of Devaraya and Virupaksha down to the last ruler in this line cannot be disputed. It is equally impossible to disprove to the growth and spread of Vaishnavism among the rulers of this line and in the region over which they had their sway. That the Tatacharyas were mainly responsible for this cannot be denied. The rulers of Vijayanagar had their interest aroused in the maintenance of Varadarajaswami Temple at Kanchi only by the Tatacharyas and not by any other religious teacher. The spiritual leader of great distinction of the Tatacharya family should have been living then with the rulers. Other members of the family must have been living at Kanchi and are not mentioned in the inscriptions. This is not a proof that they ceased to enjoy their rights to render service in the Temple. It is not unlikely that Alagiyamanavala Jiyar (C.1550 A.D.) was then a person found fit for getting entrusted with the work of Srikaaryam in the Temple. He must have been only an agent of Panchamatabanjanam Tatadesika whose absence from Kanchi was necessitated by his presence with the rulers for instruction and guidance in both religious and secular affairs. (Some inscriptions have called him as ‘Ettur Tirumala Kumara Tatacharya’). That Azhagiya Manavaala Jiyar was well versed in Ubayavedanta does speak highly of his attainments for being the head of a religious Math known after his name but this does not even suggest that he was the sole wielder of power in the administration of the Kanchi Temple. He was only an agent then. The (event dealing).... with the concealing of the Utsavar idol of Sri Varadaraja at Udayarpalayam during the last decades of the 17th century and its restoration in or about 1711 A.D after the iconoclastic overzeal of Aurangazeb was over: There can be no dispute over the secreting or restoration of the Idol or the dates given here. The complete omission of the presence or existence of the Tatacharya custodians of the Temple during this period and the assertion that one Atthaan Jiyar and his disciple Todarmalla were alone in the picture and (the claim that) they themselves caused the restoration without anybody’s prompting, is a point which we cannot accept as correct. ************** (The tenkalai) brings out the name of one Alagia Manavaala Jiyar as the architect of the important constructions and structures of the Temple like the big rampart wall- Periyatirumadil, Gopura, Kalyana mantapa, the front porch of the Abhisheka Mantapa and the Ornamental Mantapa where both Lord Varada and Sri Perundevi are seated together on the same dais on the Maha-Navami Day. He concedes also that these were done in the 16th century by the patronage of the Vijayanagar Kings. These Vijayanagar Kings were the acknowledged disciples of the Tatacharyas. There is nothing on record to show that Alagiya Manavala Jiyar was the Guru of the Vijayanagar Kings .... While so, we are unable to see the logic in asserting that this Jiyar did all these Kainkaryams in the sixteenth century. There is no inscriptional or historical basis for such an assertion. In this context it is also relevant to note that while the words “Srimad Vedamarga” etc. occur before the name Ettur Tirumala Kumara Tatacharya in the inscriptions, these prefixes or “Birudus” and also “Paramahamsa Parivrajakacharya” are not used for Alagia Manavala Jiyar. He is simply mentioned as “Srikaryam Seyvar Alagia Manavala Jiyar”. If he has to be placed on a par with the Tatacharya, these prefixes would have certainly found a place in the inscriptions before his name. The pontiffs of the Ahobila Math are all mentioned with such prefixes, in the inscriptions, that are due to the ascetic order. This significant absence of the “birudus” to the Alagia Manavala Jiyar in the inscriptions do certainly indicate the difference in their status and that he was only doing the Srikaaryam service under the overall control of the Tatacharya who was the Manager-General (Srikaarya-durandhara) of Temple Affairs. Another interesting point that is noteworthy here is that one Jana Mudaliar is also described as ‘Srikainkarya Durandara’ in the inscriptions (Saka 1493-1571 A.D). By this, it can be seen that this title “Srikaryam Seyvar” alone cannot be made much of, unless augmented with other stronger factors of proof for establishing the position of a superior authority in the Temple* On the other hand, it has been recognised by history and inscriptions found not only in the temples of Kanchi but also other places like Tirupati, that Sri Tatacharya and his venerable father, Panchamata-banjanam Tatacharya, his ancestors and their descendants were the Raja-gurus and responsible for the several constructions mentioned above, as well as so many other items like Bali-pitam, Vahanas, Jewels, Kavachas and Viraanas, through the bounteousness of their royal disciples the Vijayanagar Kings Krishnadevaraya, Achyutaraya, Ramaraya, Sri Ranga, Venkatapatideva I, etc. The slokas which deal with some of the said Kainkaryas are inscribed in the Temple in stone, in several places. Another inscription deals with his services at Tirupati (Panipatigiri). Yet another one describes his kainkaryas not only at Kanchi but also in several other places like Srirangam, Kumbakonam, and Tirupati in his capacity as the most respected royal preceptor of the Karnataka Monarch. It is sufficient to point out that the Tenkalai assertion in season and out of season that Alagia Manavala Jiyar, a Tenkalai Sanyasin, did all these services has absolutely no basis. As pointed out earlier he might have acted on certain occasions as the “Koil Kelvi” or Superintendent under the control of Sri Tatacharya. One other thing also may be remembered. It was a time when no such animosity between Tenkalais and Vadakalais existed as we witness nowadays. Even though the Jiyar was a Tenkalai who hailed from Mysore and whose headquarters is still at Melkote in Mysore he could have come and camped at Kanchi to worship the Lord during the 16th century. As an ardent Vaishnavite devotee he would have been only too glad to supervise these sacred works under the guidance of the Tatacharya. So there is nothing contradictory or surprising about the mention of this Jiyar’s name casually in some of the inscriptions. But the author maker a mountain out of a mole-hill.
The 350 inscriptions found all over the fabric of the Temple gives the names of hundreds of donors to the various constructions and to the religious, social and other purposes and those who were entrusted to manage these trusts. But all those persons mentioned cannot be said to have held the management of the Temple itself. The hundred pillared mantapa which is styled as the Kalyanamantapa, is also mentioned as the Jiyar’s work which is also not true. (While dealing with) Ramanuja’s school of Vaishnavism... (the Tenkalais) have started .... a most controversial theory of Sri Bashya or the northern school and Prabhandic or southern school, implying a Vadakalai — Tenkalai cult. The very terms are fallacious and contradictory, since both the Vadakalais and Tenkalais even now take pride in styling themselves as ‘Ubaya- Vedantins’, meaning that they swear by both Sri Bashyam and Bagavad-vishaya — (Prabhandas). It is only to misguide and confuse the uninformed and also the Courts of Law in the Tenkalai Vadakalai disputes, such theories were recently started by the ingenuity of the Tenkalai litigants. The Tenkalais claim themselves to belong to the southern cult or the Prabandic school (Tamil) and the Vadakalais, they say belong to the northern cult or Sri Bashya school (Sanskrit). By representing that they are pro-Tamils, they attempt to earn the sympathy and backing of the public of these parts who are all almost Tamilians. In the same way they try to mislead the courts also. A deeper study into the real significance of these two terms, will show the falsity of their claim. As said above both the sects revere Sri Satakopa (Nammalwar) and Sri Ramanuja (Bashyakar) and their works Divyaprabandas and Sri Bashya respectively. The author will be contradicting himself if he is going to say that the Vadakalais are more, if not ‘solely interested in Sri Bashya and Tenkalais in Bagavad- Vishaya, since the Tenkalais are equally vociferous in claiming to be the true followers of Sri Ramanuja (Emberumanar) the apostle of Visishtadvaita Siddanta. Specializing in a particular line of our Vaishnavite religion through certain scriptures by a person does not mean that the other scriptures are discarded by him or treated by him as against his cult.
Sri Pillan, it was, upon whom the title of “Ubaya-Vedanta Simhasanadipati” was conferred by his Acharya Sri Ramanuja and adopted by him as his spiritual son. It is under the behests of the latter that Sri Pillan brought out the commentary, “Arayirappadi”, the first gloss or interpretation of Tiruvaai- mozhi of Sri Nammalwar, otherwise called Bagavat-Vishaya. While directing Pillan to write a gloss on Tiruvaaimozhi, Ramanuja was influenced by the interest which Pillan evinced for this composition. Ramanuja also took into his consideration the fact that Pillan belonged to the family of Srimann Natamunikal. Yamuna too refers to Nammalwar as the Lord of his family. It is but natural that Pillan should have been made the Chief for Ubaya-Vedanta. The Tatacharyas are the descen¬ dants of Pillan directly. So the bogey of two schools - Sri Bashya and Prabandic - northern and southern - raised has no basis, since they are not opposed to each other. ....There was no sectarian rancour even until and after Vedanta Desika’s time between the two schools and they are of recent origin. The two schools, if schools they can be called, are not contradictory but complementary to each other. They do not prescribe or teach the distinctions of Tenkalai - Vadakalai sampradayas or practices as we observe in these days, like the “tonsuring of widows”, sect marks etc. These two interpretations, not two schools, of Vedas and Prabandas are the two eyes of a true Vaishnavite. But the Tenkalai for reasons best known to himself brings out here, his own theory that they are two different schools. He blows both hot and cold when he says that “even regarding the texts, the difference was one of preference. In fact, most of the followers of Rama¬ nuja like Embar, Battar, Kurukesa, Nanjiyar, Nampillai, Periya-acchan Pillai, Pillailokacharya, Vedanta Desika and others were well versed in both Sanskrit and Tamil lore. In their works they struck a balance by adopting the manipravala style a free mixture of Sanskrit and Tamil words etc.” Striking a balance may mean as though there is a difference between these two scriptures which are in Sanskrit and Tamil. The ‘manipravala’ is only a script adopted by our elders containing both Sanskrit and Tamil words. Loosely used, they create confusion. After saying that the above mentioned Acharyas were well versed in both, the Tenkalai attributes that the differences and cleavages between the two studies , started later. Here also we cannot agree with the Tenkalai position. It is not the difference between the two studies but the difference between the the two sects viz the Tenkali and Vadakalai with regard to their ‘sampradayas’ or pratices. These differences are not taught by the ‘two studies’. This concept of distinction, based on the study of Sri Bashya and Bagavat- Vishaya which is introduced, is fundamentally wrong. Such sophisticated theories to delude the ignorant and uninformed are of recent origin and there is no place for such distinctions in our Vaishnavism. Sri Bashya interprets the Vedas, in Sanskrit and Bagavad-Vishya in Tamil. The philosophy contained in both of them is the same. Are not the Ten- kalai temples have Vedas and Mantras (Sanskrit) in their rituals and vice-versa the Vadakalai temples the Prabandas (Tamil) ? But in the litigations of the Tenkalai-Vadakalai disputes in our Temple and elsewhere, we may find instances of each belittling the other in order to establish his own right as superior. To be more clear, the Tenkalais who are the office-holders of Adyaapaakam (Tamil Prabandas) in our Temple will assert that their service alone is very essential and that no other service even exists. On the other hand, the Vadakalais who are the Vedaparayana mirasdars will try to claim that their service alone is essential and the Prabhandas are not necessary for the pujas or services in the Temple. Stranger still is the position with regard to the Temple at Tiruvahindrapuram in South Arcot District, which is purely a Vadakalai one. Here the dispute between the reciters of the Vedas and Prabandas are between Vedakalais themselves, each trying to decry the other and rushing to courts, criminal and civil to establish their rights. By such ugly squabbles caused on account of purely selfish motives to gain certain preferences in the temples, we cannot take it that the Vedas and Prabhandas are themselves contradictory and conflicting to each other. These are super-imposed by interested litigants and have nothing to do with our religion or philosophy.
To say that Tenkalais are more liberal in their outlook with regard to caste-system and the Vadakalais are rigid is also a travesty of truth. As already observed above, it is only a device to play to the gallery and earn the sympathy of law officers. Both the Tenkalais and Vadakalais have regard to Alwars, who were from different castes. Sri Vedanta Desika, the great Vadakalai Acharya, had chosen to claim Tiruppanalwar, a Harijan by birth, as Nampaananaathan (our Paananaathan ). He has even written a commentary on his (the Alwar’s) “ Amalanadipiran ”, by name “ Munivahana-Bogam ”. Sri Desika also swears by the Prabandas of Alwars. The Tenkalais who claim to be the followers of Ramanuja could not find a single work of Sri Ramanuja in Tamil. Will they give him up because of this? All that was in Sanskrit originally viz the Vedas, Sutras, Upanishads, Gita etc., were reproduced as it were, in Tamil, by the Alwars. Later, our Acharyas reproduced them again in Sanskrit, according to the times and needs of the society towards its emancipation. Sidditrayam Geetartha Sangraham, Stotra- Ratnam and Chatussloki of Sri Alavandar, Sri Bashya, Geeta Bashya, Gatya Trayam etc., of Sri Ramanuja, Panchastavams by Sri Kurattalwar and the Stotras of Parasara Batta and other Acharyas like Sri Vedanta Desika in Sanskrit are all almost the interpretations of the Divyasuktis of Alwars, which in turn were the interpretations of the Vedas. We are really fed up with such distortions and misinterpretations with regard to our great religion advanced both in the law courts and outside by this sect, ad nauseam, to gain certain narrow ends, through their journals and other media-outlets. UNQUOTE
(to be continued)
Sudarshan Madabushi