A Doubt

[Guest guest]

Om Namo Narayana

 

Dear Sri Bhagavathotamas,

While discussing with my friend(an advaithin), the topic of tirumala

deity cropped up. my friend said that it was emperumanar who chaned the

appearance of a swyampu ambal to resemble thiruvengadamudiyan. is it true?

Is there any purana references to tirumala as any deity other than

thiruvengadamudiyan?

has emperumanar in any of his works said that he did something to

restore thiruvengadamudiyan to tirumala? if yes can you give me the

reference so that it is easy for me refute my friend.

also can anyone tell me why smarthas refuse to accept

thiruvengadamudiyan as an incarnation of naryana?

 

adiyen,

acharya daasan,

Anand.

[Guest guest]

> Dear Sri Bhagavathotamas,

> While discussing with my friend(an advaithin), the topic of tirumala

> deity cropped up. my friend said that it was emperumanar who chaned the

> appearance of a swyampu ambal to resemble thiruvengadamudiyan. is it true?

> also can anyone tell me why smarthas refuse to accept

> thiruvengadamudiyan as an incarnation of naryana?

 

Dear Anand,

 

This is a totally baseless assertion that has neither

iconongraphic nor historical evidence. In fact, most

traditional smArtas do not accept this version of the

facts either -- the theory that the Venkatesvara

mUrti is female is a purely modern concoction.

 

For the best reference on this subject, please see

S.K. Ramachandra Rao's monograph on the history of

the Tirumala temple, from which most of the following

is derived.

 

The best proof of the identity of Venkatesvara with

Vishnu is to visit the deity on Fridays, when a

tirumanjanam (abhiSekam) is done. On this day, you

will be able to see the mUrti with barely any adornment.

As S.K. Ramachandra Rao points out, the SrIvatsa mark

characteristic of Vishnu is clearly identifiable on the

mUrti, and there are absolutely no distinctive feminine

features.

 

Furthermore, the iconographic details on the mUrti coincide

identically with descriptions contained in some of the

Vaikhanasa Agama samhitas, the texts which codify worship

in many Vishnu temples. In addition, from time immemorial

only Vaikhanasa priests have been associated with this

temple. The Vaikhanasa priests are strict Vaishnavas but

do *not* belong to the tradition of Ramanuja.

 

Historically, all the inscriptional evidence contained

within the temple boundaries point to the Vaishnavite nature

of the deity. All references in religious and non-religious

literature, from the Jaina Tamil work SilappadikAram to

the Alvars' hymns in the Divya Prabandham uniquely identify

the deity of the Venkatam Hill with Vishnu. Ask your friend

this question: if Ramanuja was the one who "changed" the

nature of the image, why do all the Alvars, who are the

strictest of Vaishnavas, unreservedly worship and take refuge

in this mUrti, identifying it only with Vishnu?

 

Furthermore, if the mUrti truly were representative of

any other deity, why is there no poetic reference as such

by any Saiva or SAkta poet-saint?

 

aDiyen rAmAnuja dAsan

Mani

 

P.S.:

 

In recent times, scholars such as Sri P.B. Annangaracharya

and Sri Puttur Krishnaswamy Iyengar have fought public

battles against such false propaganda.