Guest guest Posted January 15, 1999 Report Share Posted January 15, 1999 Dear bhaktas: There was a certain amount of discussion regarding the two kalais of Srivaishnavism, i.e. thenkalai and vadakalai, recently, and it got me thinking about a few things. I apologize in advance if my chain of thought appears discontinuous, or if I end up restating the obvious, but then, where else [other than in the presence of bhakti list members as yourselves] could I freely voice my thoughts about Srivaishnavism? A few members were not entirely aware of the differences between the two kalais, and furthermore, almost everyone wanted to forget about them with the integrity of Srivaishnavism in mind. Differences are not always bad though, and diversity is nature's way. Most of the major sects in hindUism have sub-sects, and it is not in the least surprising that ours would also have them. When I first learnt about the kalai split in Srivaishnavism as a child, I was very upset since I knew that our community was small in number to begin with, and here we were dividing that up even further. I recall my grandmother trying to tell me then, "ippodhellAm ovvoththanum swajAthi"... [Read: Today each one is his own sect]. And she went on to say that the kalai split represented disagreements between scholars, which did not surprise her at all since she didn't know of a single vAdhyAr or vaidEkan who saw eye to eye with another of his kind. The kalai split according to me, is a function of human behavior manifesting itself in our AchAryas, because the fundamental difference between kalais is after all, the allegiance to separate guru-paramparAs. There was more to this split in the ranks, than what meets the eye today. We speculate about doing away with the external differences in thirumaN, in the performance of thiru[v]ArAdhanai, and in the chanting of AchArya thaniyangaL; all these are very desirable and I hope to see them occur in my own lifetime. But the fundamental divide really, is the age-old issue of prefering samskRit vs. Tamil, or vice-versa. This preference for language of composition resulted in rivalry between piLLai lOkAchArya and vedAntha deSikan. Little wonder then, that the vadakalais are looked upon as preferential to samskRit [vada=north] and the thenkalais towards Tamil [then=south]; for samskRit IS northern [and of Indo-European origin] while Tamil is distinctively southern to the Indian subcontinent. Could it have been that rAmanujar perceived this tendency amongst his disciples [to prefer one language over another] during his own lifetime, and hence declared both the "mozhis" to be of equal importance? I realize that ubHaya vedAnta encompasses more than this, but it is just a thought. The book "Srivaishnavism through the ages" by swAmi harsHAnanda of the rAmakRisHna AsHrama describes the kalai differences in some detail. Altogether there appear to be eighteen major differences between the kalais which permeate all levels of the faith ranging from day-to-day lifestyle to scholasticism. It doesn't do any good to harp on such differences in today's age, when there are concerted efforts to bridge the divide. But it is part of Srivaishnava tradition, and this is a discussion group where we can peruse and ponder over these things in a mature, academic manner. Divisions and differences are a fact of human History. The vishishTAdivaita school itself is one view of vedAnta, and the veda is but one of the paths towards salvation in a religion which itself is one of the many religions in human society. Perhaps we may learn valuable lessons from these divisions, and be able to overcome them eventually. There are other things about Srivaishnavism that I often think about, and I will greatly appreciate input from fellow bhaktas on any of these matters. Firstly, is this or has this [srivaishnavism] faith always been a non-proselytizing one, open only to the ranks of the Brahmin community? It brings to my mind the much-debated gopuram episode in rAmAnujar's life, when he supposedly uttered the sacred asHTAksHara mantra in public. Some Kannada-speaking Srivaishnavas are believed to be descendants of Jain scholars who were converted to Srivaishnavism by rAmAnujar. Is there any truth to this? It is a fact of history, that the hoysaLa king bittideva was made a vaishnavan by rAmAnujar, and subsequently given the new name visHNuvardHan. But were there any converts to Srivaishnavism? I say this specifically because such a "conversion" [perhaps facilitated by the administration of pancha-samskAra by an AchAryan] would entail becoming a bRAhmana which was traditionally not possible for a non-bRAhmana. If this is the case [i.e., that cross-varNa conversion to Srivaishnavism is not possible by definition of varNa] then does that make Srivaishnavism a faith that one may only be born into? This would be analogous to the predicament faced by members of the ZoroaSTrian faith world-wide, where their declining numbers and cultural assimilation with the outside world threaten the very future of their religion. Certainly though, the analogy does not apply completely since the number of Srivaishnavas is far greater than a hundred thousand [which is purported to be strength of the ZoroaSTrian community today]. But then, how many are we [srivaishnavas]? I don't have an estimate and I wonder if any of you could enlighten me, in addition to, of course, enlightening me with regard to my other questions/statements. Thank you for your patience and I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with you all. aDiyEn -SrInAtH ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 1999 Report Share Posted January 18, 1999 Srinath Chakravarty wrote: > But the fundamental divide [between Vadagalai and Thengalai] > really, is the age-old issue of prefering samskRit vs. Tamil, > or vice-versa. This > preference for language of composition resulted in rivalry between > piLLai lOkAchArya and vedAntha deSikan. Dear Srinath, This is not an accurate description of the origin of the split. In fact, there is no evidence of any rivalry between Pillai Lokacharya and Vedanta Desika. Both loved Tamil and Sanskrit, as both were scholars of the Ubhaya (dual) Vedanta system of Ramanuja. [ Please see my article that describes the Vadagalai Thengalai genesis in brief: http://www.best.com/~mani/sv/bhakti/archives/all94/0069.html There are other articles in the archives which talk about the subtle philosophical differences between the sects. The so-called "18 points of difference" are oversimplications that, in my opinion, do not do justice to the debate between the two sub-schools. ] It all the more wrong to say that Sri Desika preferred Sanskrit to Tamil. Desika wrote profusely in both languages, composing philosophical and poetic works in large quantities in Tamil and Sanskrit. To show his love of Tamil and Prabandham, one only need read his description of himself in "Prabandha Saaram" as "candha migu thamizh maraiyOn" -- as one belonging to the Tamil Veda of many meters. If anything, one can say that Pillai Lokacharya and Vedanta Desika were full of respect for one another. During the Muslim invasion of Srirangam, they divided the duties of protecting the sampradAya in a wonderful manner; Sri Lokacharya lead the party that carried away Nam PerumaaL (Sri Ranganatha utsava mUrti) to safety, and Sri Desika saved the manuscript of the SrutaprakASika and protected the two sons of Sudarsana Suri. Some accounts also have Desika constructing a wall in front of the mUlavar to prevent His desecration. > The book "Srivaishnavism through the ages" by swAmi harsHAnanda of > the rAmakRisHna AsHrama describes the kalai differences in some detail. Generally, books written by Ramakrishna Ashrama swamis on Sri Vaishnavism contain many misconceptions. The exception to this rule was the late wami Adidevananda, whose translations and expositions of Visishtadvaita are outstanding. To answer your question about samASrayaNam: samASrayaNam is what makes someone formally a Sri Vaishnava. One can be of any caste, sex, or national origin; after samASrayaNam, one is part of thondar kulam, the community of the Lord's servants. samASrayaNam does not make one a brahmin, nor is it open only to brahmins. Brahmin-hood is a different thing entirely. Mani Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 1999 Report Share Posted January 18, 1999 Dear Srinath, Your mail regarding the kalai differences was interesting. I think your thoughts represented most of the bhakti list members. In fact I liked your perspective on this bhakti list forum, where all of us think aloud and voice our thoughts freely... Thats how it should be. ------------------ but then, where else [other than in the presence of bhakti list members as yourselves] could I freely voice my thoughts about Srivaishnavism? -------------------- One minor correction though: you said: --------------------- But the fundamental divide really, is the age-old issue of prefering samskRit vs. Tamil, or vice-versa. This preference for language of composition resulted in rivalry between ^^^^^^ piLLai lOkAchArya and vedAntha deSikan. ---------------------- I am sure you didn't mean to use the word "rivalry" here. But just to clarify, for others, Sri piLLai lOkAchAryar and Sri vEdhAntha dEsikar were definitely much much beyond such 'rivalries'. Rivalry is just an outward expression of one's egocentric character. Could we think, even for a moment, that our great AchAryAs carried such thoughts? That would be a great insult to them. Much worse, this goes to prove how much we have misunderstood and misrepresented their thoughts. From what little I know, they both respected each other very much, appreciated each others' differences and they were engrossed in the bhagavadh/bhAgavadha kaimkaryam that they wouldn't even have had time to engage in such rivalries. It is just us, the later generation, due to the economic benefits from the British administration, amplified these differences and tickled our fanatic nerves, the one thing that comes naturally to all of us and one of the easiest things to do. We should just think loudly and clearly. Yes! There exists some differences between the two kalais. I personally prefer one over the other in most cases. Let me follow what I feel right. At the same time let my mind be little broad enough that I don't unduly criticize the other school of thought. After all the other school also had had great AchAryAs. They have done great service as a bhAgavadha. They have contributed so much to what we all proudly possess as SrivaishNavam. Above all, once we entertain such thoughts of rivalry and try to misrepresent our AchAryAs we are deeply hurting their hearts. We atleast do not want to do this. I think I digressed too far... There is so much in common to sit back, relax and enjoy all our lives. Lets just do that. Its easier... adiyEn irAmAnusa dhAsan Vijay Triplicane (Viji) -- Vijay Triplicane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 1999 Report Share Posted January 18, 1999 Namaskaram Bhagavataas, I a freshman student of SriVaishnavism and therefore I wish to be enlightened on my mistakes and short comings. I would like to express my views on Thiru Srinath's article. On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:37:09 PST "Srinath Chakravarty" <nallaan wrote: 1. Srinath:-)the kalai split represented Srinath:-)disagreements between scholars, which did not surprise her at all since Srinath:-)she didn't know of a single vAdhyAr or vaidEkan who saw eye to eye with Srinath:-)The kalai split according to me, is a function of Srinath:-)human behavior manifesting itself in our AchAryas, I personally feel that this split was not the result of human behavior manifesting in our acharyas. Pride, a Human nature is one single reason that always cause splits in many and any organisation. When Two teachers or leaders don't see eye to eye with each other, it eventually results in a split in the organisation. BUT... Here this is not the case. Sri Vedanta Desikar and Sr Pillai Lokacharya might have differed in their views but pride would have never touched their hearts. If it were that both the personalities had held their differences due to egoism, It automatically disqualifies them to be Acaryas who are supposed to have crossed over these mundane feelings. Therefore to say that the split happened due to the opposing views of Sri Vedanta Desikar and Sri Pillai Lokacharya would be improper. Instead it may be said that both tried to intepret the Vedanta through Vishistadwaita thought with uttermost care and dedication but differences arose by themselves as they always do in all societies and schools of thought. Srinath:-)these matters. Firstly, is this or has this [srivaishnavism] faith Srinath:-)always been a non-proselytizing one, open only to the ranks of the Srinath:-)Brahmin community? It brings to my mind the much-debated gopuram Srinath:-)episode in rAmAnujar's life, when he supposedly uttered the sacred Srinath:-)asHTAksHara mantra in public. But were Srinath:-)there any converts to Srivaishnavism? I say this specifically because Srinath:-)such a "conversion" [perhaps facilitated by the administration of Srinath:-)pancha-samskAra by an AchAryan] would entail becoming a bRAhmana which Srinath:-)was traditionally not possible for a non-bRAhmana. If this is the case Srinath:-)[i.e., that cross-varNa conversion to Srivaishnavism is not possible by Srinath:-)definition of varNa] then does that make Srivaishnavism a faith that one Srinath:-)may only be born into? I, along with Thiru Srinath harbour this doubt about the proselytizing issue. But it should be remembered that the process of converting a person of another faith or parampara or school of Philsophy was done through debates where the opponent who fails in the argument accepts the philosophy/parampara of the victor Proselytization as introduced by Christian Missionaries or Muslim invaders was almost unknown and unpractised in Ancient India. I am ignorant about the position of a person accepted into Srivaishnavism through a proper Guru and initiation in respect to his caste position but I think he naturally becomes a Brahmin. After all a Brahmin is determined by the nature of this state of mind and Gunas as explained in the Bhagavad Gita. I would like to hear from fellow Bhagavatas on this matter. A Hindu is born or anyone can become a Hindu- which one is right? If a Hindu means a person, born in India, you can only be born as a Hindu. If a Hindu means a person believing in the Vedas, God, Karma, Dharma, Moksha, Samsara, Anyone can become a Hindu as well as a SriVaishnavite. What opinions do Bhaktas hold in this matter? Thanking you, Adiyen Jagan Mohan Naidu _______________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.