VADAKALAI-THENKALAI Differences & DISTINCTIONS

[Guest guest]

VADAKALAI-THENKALAI Doctrinal Differences

Historians say that the deep division that you've witnessed is a product of

lesser minds a century or two after Manavala Mamuni's death. Certainly, there

were differences in emphasis on grace, karma, etc., and surrender (prapatti),

but the greatest teachers on either side had no intention of causing a split.

In fact Vedanta Desika says in one of his works that "In the tradition of

Yatiraja (Ramanuja), there is no division; there is only a small difference in

opinion." Similarly, Manavala Mamuni (the main post-Ramanuja acharya for

Thengalais, who lived a century after Desika) quotes Desika in his works and

refers to him very respectably as "abhiyuktar". I believe this term was used

only for respected members of one's own community.

As for the differences themselves: First, let me go into the origin of the

doctrinal differences, and then I'll deal briefly with the differences

themselves. One recent author, instead of using the words "Thengalai" and

"Vadagalai", used the terms "Srirangam Acharyas" and "Kanchi Acharyas", since a

difference in opinion existed long before the "---galai" words came to

prominence. There are several reasons for this difference. First, Ramanuja

never definitely put down his words on the nature of SaraNaagati. Since

Ramanuja's words were always final, it may have been part of his genius to

leave this unresolved since it was such an intensely personal matter. At any

rate, there were two sets of Srivaishnava scholars left after Ramanuja passed

on. One group, located in Kanchi (where Desikar later grew up), became known

for its vast Sanskrit scholarship, probably because Kanchi was a great center

of Sanskrit learning of all sorts. People of all religious traditions lived

there, and debate between Srivaishnava and non-Srivaishnava was probably very

active and prominent. Hence, the greater of use of Sanskrit and Sanskrit ideas

by the "Kanchi Acharyas", the Northerners, and eventually the "Vadagalai".

The other group was located in Srirangam, essentially a purely Vaishnava center.

Here, popular Vaishnavism was more prominent than Sanskrit-oriented debate with

other schools. Hence, there must have been great occasion for public lecture

(Katha Kaalakshepam, Upanyaasam, etc) of the Prabandhams and general bhakti

literature, as opposed to the abstruse Sanskrit Vedanta. Therefore, there was

greater usage of the Tamil Prabandham, language and more radical metaphors

(when viewed from a Sanskrit perspective), as befits expositions of the Azhvar

literature, which are more 'anubhavam' (experience) than doctrine. This is

probably also why there are more Thengalais (of all castes) than Vadagalais.

Naturally, with this difference in geography, intellectual climate, and

language came some differences in emphasis. The Kanchi Acharyas, carefully

guarding the doctrine of karma, etc., emphasized the need of the individual

soul to actually perform the act of surrender to the Lord, with its associated

attitudes, etc. The Srirangam Acharyas, taking many of the words of the Azhvars

and the stotra literature to heart, emphasized the greatness and overwhelming

grace of the Lord to "save His own", and therefore spoke more of the *attitude*

than the act. The Srirangam acharyas felt that *performing an act* of surrender

was an act of self-exertion, which was not in line with the individual soul's

svaroopa as being completely dependent on the Lord. Furthermore, they felt that

such an *act* was 'amaryaada', i.e., was disrespectful, since (i) the soul was

offering itself when it in actuality eternally belonged to the Paramaatma, and

(ii) not even the physical act of

surrendering can force the Lord to save the soul. He saves the soul on His own

initiative; rest assured that He *will* save you, but don't try to force Him.

Therefore, there is no separate 'prapatti' or 'SaraNaagati' for Thengalais, like

there is for Vadagalais. Thengalais also do not admit bhakti-yoga as a separate

means, with the idea that it is only prapatti (which is essentially realizing

the nature of one's soul) that "achieves" moksha. (Thengalai Acharyas would

probably even object to my usage of the word "achieve".)

So this is the distinction. Naturally, many other beliefs follow from this

difference, but what is outlined above is primary. The concept of caste, etc.,

was much more liberally interpreted in the Thengalai acharyas' works in

consequence, but it appears that such doctrines did not have a lasting impact

on the community. Orthodox Thengalai Brahmins are as staunchly casteist as any

Vadagalai that I know.

VADAKALAI AND TENKALAI DISTINCTIONS

In Srivaishnava school itself, two branches of thought had emerged between the

time of Sri Ramanuja and that of Sri Vedanta Desika whose contemporary was

Pillai Lokacharya. They are called Vadakalai ( Northern ) and Tenkalai (

Southern) though in reality there is NO GEOGRAPHICAL POLARIZATION to justify

their nomenclature.

Possibly, this is due to greater importance ascribed by the former to the Vedas

which were in Sanskrit, a language prevalent in the Northern part of India,

while the latter stressed the importance of the Divya Prabandams of Alwars

which were in Tamil, the language prevalent in Southern part of India. This

distinction has, in fact, no meaning since both in temple worship and in the

hearths and homes the two streams have been so integrated and observed by both

the branches.

Swami Sri Vedanta Desika is generally regarded as representing the so called '

Vadakalai' sect. But, since he has produced monumental works in both the '

Northern Sanskrit' and the ' Southern Tamil', he and his followers could more

appropriately be called ' Ubhaya Kalai' ( both Kalais) rather than mere '

Vadakalai'.

Also, their differences are not on fundamentals but on certain aspects of the

Srivaishnava philosophy which one branch emphasises with greater force than the

other. It is unfortunate that some later day enthusiasts of the two branches

went to stupid lengths ( e.g. ) putting alternatively their respective ThirumaN

on the forehead of the poor temple elephant and taking the dispute right upto

the privy council.

In fact, most people know only this difference regarding the application of the

white clay caste marks in the form of 'U' by the northern and 'Y' by the

Southern sects. It would appear that when an Acharya observed that the base of

the castemark should touch the TIP of the nose. one set took it to mean the

TOP-TIP where to link the eyebrows with a U shaped curve while the other took

it to mean the TOE-TIP, with a spear- point -like stroke riding on the back of

the nose reaching up to the nostrils. We do not know whether the Acharya did

not explain what he meant or the Sishyas did not seek a clarification or the

Acharya had become unavailable for an explanation. Be that as it may, the

practices had come to stay and stay with such disastrous consequences. This is

an example of how over- enthusiastic fanatics could blow up even insignificant

and inconsequential distinctions to abnormal proportions.

There are about 18 such points of differences with varying degrees of

insignificance as not to deserve a discussion at all. Still, being on the

subject, we shall briefly allude to a few of them by way of illustration and

without comment

1. Regarding Lord's mercy. Next to the Caste mark, this probably is the only

other difference most people are aware of

Vadakalai View

Some positive gesture is necessary on the part of the jeevatma to deserve the

grace of God, because He can be deemed partial if He grants Moksha to all both

deserving and undeserving.

Tenkalai View

Lord's grace is spontaneous. He can grant Moksha to anyone he likes.

2. Regarding the status of Lakshmi (i) as to her being the means (ii) as to her

being infinite (iii) as to her being Paramatma

Vadakalai View

(i) She is the means for attaining salvation as much as the Lord Himself and

also has the role of a mediator ( Purushakara)

(ii) She is infinite in nature (Vibhu) like the Lord Himself

(iii) She is also Paramatma as much as the Lord Himself

Tenkalai View

(i) Do not accept this position though they accept her recommendatory role as held by Vadakalais

(ii) She is atomic in nature like other Jeevatmas

(iii) She is a Jeevatma like any of us.

3. Regarding Kaivalya

Vadakalai View

(i) Kaivalya is inferior to Paramapada

(ii) Kaivalya is not eternal

(iii) Kaivalya is situated Outside Paramapada

Tenkalai View

(i) Accepted

(ii) Kaivalya is eternal

(iii) Kaivalya is within Paramapada but in its outermost parts.

4. Regarding the means of Bhakti and Prapatti

Vadakalai View

Accept both as the direct means but Bhakti is more difficult and dilatory while

Prapatti is easy and immediate

Tenkalai View

Do not accept any means because Jeevatma is so utterly dependent as to be

incapable of adopting either Bhakti or Prapatti as a means.

5. Regarding Prapatti

Vadakalai View

Prapatti has to be a positive specific act of surrender by the jeevatma to the Paramatma

Tenkalai View

No positive, specific act is necessary. All that is required is

(i) the knowledge of the Svarupa of the Jeevatma and

(ii) mental acceptance of the Lord's grace in granting salvation

6. Regarding sins

Vadakalai View

When a jeeva surrenders, the Lord forgives the sins committed by the jeevatma and grants Moksha.

Tenkalai View

The sins of a jeevatma is a source of joy for the Lord who relishes the same

like a cow licking off the dirt on the body of its calf

7. Regarding performance of Compulsory duties like Sandhyavandanam

Vadakalai View

As compulsory duties are laid down by the Sastras which are the Lord's

commandments, non- performance will tantamount to transgression of His commands

(Ajna adhilangana) and will render the Prapanna liable for punishment

Tenkalai View

To a highly evolved soul, non- performance of the compulsory duties is not an

offence. But, they should continue to do them more for setting an example to

the less evolved souls.

8. Regarding the interpretation of the words "Sarva Dharman Parityajya'

occurring in the Charama sloka

Vadakalai View

The Dharmas actually refer to the 32 Vidyas attaching to Bhaktiyoga which had

already been given up by the jeeva due to incapacity and delay involved in

observing them and the Lord offers to stand in their place

Tenkalai View

This is literally interpreted to mean ' First, give up your duties and then take

refuge in the Lord'

9. Regarding the Lord's grief at the suffering of the souls

Vadakalai View

One can have grief only when one cannot remove suffering of another. But, the

Lord is capable of removing suffering. So, there is no need for Him to grieve.

As Sri Rama , He shows to the World how a human would feel and how one should

react on seeing the misery of others.

Tenkalai View

They hold that the Lord actually feels sorry on seeing the sufferings of souls

and cite examples from Srimad Ramayana where Sri Rama is depicted as grieving

over the misery of others.

10. Regarding the Lord's being also atomic as well as gigantic in size as mentioned in the Vedas.

Vadakalai View

He is smaller than the atom in beings that are atomic in size. This is called

'Antar Vyapti' ( Immanence). He is also greater than the greatest in the sense

He pervades and surrounds everything. This is called ' Bahir Vyapti'. (

Transcendence)

Tenkalai View

His being atomic in atoms and enveloping even the biggest are all

done by what is known as 'Agatitha Ghatana Saamartya'- Special powers enabling

accomplishment of even the impossible.

Arangathamma Sevayil Adiyen,

Vaishnavi Sampath

 

Vote for the stars of 's next ad campaign!