On the nature of our faith...

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________