dayApAtra history

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

Having read the entire screed, I am so glad that he was not an AchArya who actually wrote valuable vAda-grantha-s against other sampradAya-s. Quality of arguments is very poor. Would’ve expected something more … formidable.

Presentation

• aNNangarAchArya good qualities, intro.
  • post 40-s vedAdhyayana. Good sentiments. Devotion to abhinava-ranganAtha, etc..
• His own criteria for truth.
• Verifiable lies
  • maisUru edict 1649 misrepresented - primary source not quoted. Convenient blame on unnamed kannaDa text.
  • periya parakAla-yati reign - 1677-1738(C.E.) is after this edict.
  • rAmAnuja-dayA-pAtra taniyan actually found in manuscripts (eg. Sajjana-vaibhava) - but he claims otherwise.
  • Presence of vaDakalai AchArya worship/ vigraha-s in shrines.
  • Labored misinterpretation of parAshara-saMhitA and cobra mark.
  • “deshika was tenkalai”.
    • Doctrinal dismissals clear in his texts. Here he pleads it’s a “Tough subject”.
  • Claim (in sat-sampradAyArtha-sAranidhi) that in rahasya-traya-jIvAtu, ahobila yati opposes deshika. Also, wrong access-number.
• Bad inferences
  • venkaTAdhvari’s notes on tenkalais
  • saptati-ratna-mAlikA - Poor editing is not malice.
  • improprieties in divyadesa-s as devas’ hardships. Cuts both ways.
  • Tanjore district temple conversions.
  • Where did archaka-s in shrIrangam come from if tenkalai shrIranga-shrI continues as it did? koil olugu incompletenss in 1803.
  • Avoidence of desecrated tenkalai shrines = deshika’s refusal to be adored in VK way.
• Unverifiable slander
  • parAshara-bhaTTa as an opponent of unnamed vaDakalais
  • In Ahobilam, that Mathadhipati’s efforts to efface the Tenkalai marks.
• Selective quotes & twists
  • Krishna Tatacharya’s order to destroy tenkalai mark on deshika shrine; court’s order in his favor not quoted.
  • Unnamed “Govenment records” reveal - Ahobila matha temple conversion - Tiruvellore. Contrary court order not cited.
  • Azhagiyamanavalamuni’s temporary role in kAnchI.
  • Suspicious viShNu-chittIya pATha inclusion. Source: TW
• To be checked
  • Madras Oriental Library - R. No. 104-H. 38-14 . Vedanta Desika Vaibhava Prakasika. RL to follow up; copy awaited from shaThakopa tAtArya.
• Hatred
  • Portayal of parakAla-yati, ahobila-yati
  • Glee at the plight of shrIranga archakas. “cannot prostrate… twice”
  • No Adhyayanotsava role for deshika or nAthamuni in shrIranga.
• His own statement - “bigotry makes even a learned person err”.

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

Source: TW

20th CE kAnchI PB aNNangarAchArya errs - rAmAnuja-dayApAtra hatred, parakAla / ahobila yati slander.

00:00 - Intro 01:55 - aNNangarAchArya good qualities, post 40-s vedAdhyayana. Good sentiments. Devotion to abhinava-ranganAtha, etc.. 03:40 - His own criteria for truth. 05:45 - Verifiable lies - rAmAnuja dayApAtra shloka was well over 300 years old, not as claimed. 07:30 - maisUru edict 1649 misrepresented - primary source not quoted. Convenient blame on unnamed kannaDa text. 13:05 - periya parakAla-yati reign - 1677-1738(C.E.) is after this edict. But is slandered to have invented and propagated the shloka. 18:30 - rAmAnuja-dayA-pAtra taniyan actually found in manuscripts (eg. Sajjana-vaibhava) - but he claims otherwise. 21:10 - Presence of vaDakalai AchArya worship/ vigraha-s in shrines. 22:00 - Labored misinterpretation of parAshara-saMhitA and cobra mark. (vaDakalai vs tenkalai tilaka) 30:00 - “deshika was tenkalai”. Doctrinal dismissals clear in his texts. Here he pleads it’s a “Tough subject”. 32:30 - Claim (in sat-sampradAyArtha-sAranidhi) that in rahasya-traya-jIvAtu, ahobila yati opposes deshika. Also, wrong access-number. 33:15 - Bad inferences - venkaTAdhvari’s notes on tenkalais 36:50 - saptati-ratna-mAlikA - Poor editing is not malice. 38:15 - improprieties in divyadesa-s as devas’ hardships. Cuts both ways. 39:30 - Tanjore district temple conversions. 39:30 - Where did archaka-s in shrIrangam come from if tenkalai shrIranga-shrI continues as it did? koil olugu incompletenss in 1803. 42:50 - Avoidence of desecrated tenkalai shrines = deshika’s refusal to be adored in VK way. 46:25 - Unverifiable slander - parAshara-bhaTTa as an opponent of unnamed vaDakalais 47:15 - In Ahobilam, that Mathadhipati’s efforts to efface the Tenkalai marks. 47:45 - Selective quotes & twists - Krishna Tatacharya’s order to destroy tenkalai mark on deshika shrine; court’s order in his favor not quoted. 49:25 - Unnamed “Govenment records” reveal - Ahobila matha temple conversion - Tiruvellore. Contrary court order not cited. 50:10 - Azhagiyamanavalamuni’s temporary role in kAnchI. 50:40 - Suspicious viShNu-chittIya pATha inclusion. 55:15 - To be checked - Madras Oriental Library - R. No. 104-H. 38-14 . Vedanta Desika Vaibhava Prakasika. RL to follow up. 55:40 - Open Hatred - Portayal of parakAla-yati (singular number used),
57:40 - portayal of ahobila-yati 59:15 - Glee at the plight of shrIranga archakas. “cannot prostrate… twice” 1:00:10 - Funeral restrictions too! 1:02:00 - No Adhyayanotsava role for deshika or nAthamuni in shrIranga. 1:03:40 - His own statement - “bigotry makes even a learned person err”. 1:06:40 - Conclusion.

RAMANUJADAYAPATRA CHARITRAM
OR
HISTORY OF THE VERSE COMMENCING WITH THE WORD RAMANUJADAYAPATRAM

BY
JAGADACHARYA SIMHASANADHIPATI SRIMAN
P. B. ANNANGARACHARYA SWAMI
OF KANCHEEPURAM.

An exhaustive treatise giving the complete history of the new verse Ramanujadayapatram, which has been recently created as a rival to the famous Srisailesadayapatram verse.

An eye-opener to Pandit Damodaracharya and Dwaraka Prasad Vidyarthi of Pushkar, who have indulged in unnecessarily insulting our great Purva Acharyas.

Published by: GRANTHA MALA OFFICE, L. KANCHEEPURAM.

Printed at Rathnam Press, MADRAS-1.

1954 /Price: Re. 1-0-0

---

PREFACE.

In these days, when new books are published every day, in dozens and hundreds, people have acquired a habit of quickly turning the leaves and satisfy themselves with a bird’s eye view of any book for want of leisure to go through them completely. But, some, do read them from end to end. It all depends upon the taste. We entreat our readers really interested in this subject and desirous of knowing the truth, to kindly go through the following pages, patiently from beginning to end.

Truth

While writing this book, we have been continuously reminded of the proverb that speaking truth begets many enemies. ( यथार्थवादी बहुजनद्वेषी) The Dharmasastras also lay down that truth must be told, but not if it hurts other’s feelings. (सत्यं ब्रूयात्प्रियं ब्रूयान्नब्रूयात्सत्यम - प्रियम्). But still, we had to disobey this command and write this book which might, perhaps hurt the feelings of certain people.

But, our purpose is not to hurt their feelings but only express the truth, because an occasion has arisen. About fourteen years ago, some Vadakalai Sri Vaishnavas celebrated a Ramanujadaya patrotsavam in the Parakala math situated near the Dipa-prakasa Temple at Kancheepuram said to commemorate the sixth centenary of the birth of the verse Ramanujadaya patram.

Then we felt it necessary to let the Sri Vaishnava world know the truth that this verse, which was concocted for the sole purpose of creating troubles in temples is not even two centuries old. So we wrote and published three Tamil books in which we detailed the origin of this verse, and the consequent troubles that were emanated in many temples. Some people, who tried to find fault in these books, were easily vanquished and the situation calmed down for the time.

The many, many rivalries between Tenkalai and Vadakalai Sri Vaishnavas in South India have almost come to a full stop, now. But, unfortunately, it is showing its ugly head in North India.

Sholapur trouble

For example, in Sholapur, there is a Lakshmi Narayana Mandir, which is run on very admirable lines for the last sixty years or so. This temple is Tenkalai, ever since its inception. Of course, many Vadakalai Sri Vaishnavas also take active interest in it. Devotees belonging to both the Kalais have taken great pains to learn about a hundred Tamil verses from the Divya Prabandhas, and they recite them in the temple, daily, both in the morning and the evening, in a very laudable manner. This is going on there, for about the last thirty years. Both begin the recital with the verse Srisailesadayapatram, according to the Tenkalai Samparadayam. We have been told that the verse Sriman Venkatanatharyah is also recited when celebrating Vedanta Desika’s utsavam. Thus, the Vaishnavas of this place, belonged to both the Kalais, and loved one another and took great delight in serving Lord Lakshmi Narayana and his followers, without bickerings among them.

When things were thus going on smoothly, some Vadakalai Sri Vaishnavas of the south, who went there, to earn their livelihood, poisoned the minds of Vadakalai Vaishnavas of that place and thus sowed the evil seeds of discord among those innocent, noble souls, as a result of which the temple affairs have now come to a very deplorable state.

As a result, some Sri Vaishnavas of that place, issued an appeal and sent it to several men of learning, throughout our land. In it, they detailed the original state of affairs of the Lakshmi Narayana Temple and the nature of the present agitation and sought for advice as how best to meet it.

Pushkar pamphlets

In reply to this request, two pamphlets have been published in Pushkar, under the names of one Pandit Damodaracharya and a student, by name Dwarakaprasad. These two pamphlets are replete with unnecessary indictments of our great Purva Acharyas. Why these people indulged in such thoughtless acts, when they could not understand either the head or tail of what those Acharyas taught, we fail to understand. So, this venom of Kalai-hatred has taken root and is spreading fast in North India. It ought to have been nipped in the bud; but unfortunately interested parties have been nourishing it, so much so, it has already taken an epidemic form.

Response

Many Bhaktas of that city wrote asking us to let them know the whole truth about the Ramanujadayapatram verse. So we had to write this book and publish it, in four languages—Sanskrit, Tamil, English and Hindi. While writing this book, we have not been carried away by emotion, but have on the other hand, discussed each issue calmly and impartially. The reader can appreciate the truth of this statement, by kindly going through this book calmly. So, let nobody be carried away by the impression, that we are writing this book, to defame or pick up quarrel with others. We are the last to do it.

Criticism severity

We would like to repeat once again, that it is not proper for a Sri Vaishnava to criticise or condemn our great, noble, Purva Acharyas. Any person, possessing an iota of sanity would clearly say that the authors of the Pushkar pamphlets went far beyond their limits and committed a heinous sin when writing that the great Lokacharya spread nastika or atheism, when he taught the non-performance of every kind of Karma, while commenting upon the charama sloka. Alas! how deep is their knowledge of the Lokacharya’s teachings and what are the nature of the Karmas that they are doing regularly and in accordance with the rules laid down in the Sastras?

Points

In the following pages, we have proved that the Vadakalai Vaishnavas were originally not interested in Divyasuris, Divya Prabandhams and Divya Desams and often took pleasure in criticising them, and even to this day they are placing many obstacles in the conduct of the festivals of Azhwars and Acharyas.

Some Vadakalais, now, meet this criticism by saying," whatever might have been the nature of our ancestors, we, the modern Vadakalais, do show very great respect to the Azhwars and their songs. So, can’t you bury the past and take us into your fold" Very well and good. We are only too glad to hear of this good news that they are truly devoted to the Azhwars, and are very eager to take them into our fold, if only their devotion is sincere. The touchstone of their sincerity is their unstinted love and devotion towards the great scholars, commentators and teachers of the Divya Prabandhas, like Nambillai, Periavachanpillai, Vadakkuthiruvidippillai, Lokacharya, and Manavalamamunigal but for whose efforts we could not have understood the meanings or greatness of these divine songs.

Deshika devotion

Of course, we never object to their having the greatest devotion to Desika, for the simple reason that we also consider him to be one of the greatest of our Purva Acharyas. But what we lay particular stress upon is, that they should not, even in their dreams, nourish an iota of ill-feeling against the other great Acharyas.

Similarly, they ought to bid good-bye to the imitation Patra verse which was invented with the definite idea of creating trouble.+++(4)+++

Correction invited

Upon reading all this, some people might be overcome with rage and tempted to shower curses upon us. But we request them to kindly note that the use of abusive language is no reply to the solid arguments advanced by us. Let great Vadakalai pandits like Srimat Koziyalam Swami, who can write good works without having resort to abusive language, kindly go through this work and let the world know, what they really feel about it. That will certainly be a great service to the cause of Knowledge.

Deshika praise

We wish to state outright, that we bear no ill-will against Desika’s laudations, old are new. As a proof of this, we request our readers to kindly go through the Nrisimha Priya (Hindi Edition) of the last month. There, they will have a pleasant surprise to see the Tamil Vazhithirunamam of Desika, translated by us into Sanskrit, at the request of the Editor.

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

How could he slander ahobila maTha and still be allowed to publish in nRsiMhapriya? I suppose they found deshika-praise from one such as him “valuable badge”.

Nobody can say that our Acharyas should not be praised by new laudations. There is absolutely no harm in it. But, what is important is, that they should not be allowed to work to the detriment of others.

The present volume has been brought out, to let the world know the complete history of this new Patra verse. So we request our readers, once again to kindly go through this book dispassionately and appreciate the force of the statements made herein.

THE AUTHOR.

---

॥ श्रीरस्तु ॥

श्रीशैलेशदयापात्रं धीभक्त्यादिगुणार्णवम् । यतीन्द्रप्रवणं वन्दे रम्यजामातरं मुनिम् ॥

रामानुजदयापात्रपद्यचरित्रम् ॥

THE HISTORY OF THE “THANIAN” (INVOCATION VERSE) COMMENCING “RAMANUJADAYAPATHRAM”.

Early taniyans

1. The practice of chanting the Tamil Vedas, also called “Divya Prabandas” (the tamil songs of the Azhwars or the South Indian Vaishnavite Saints) in the Vaishnavite Temples has been in vogue from the time of Srimannathamunigal, i. e. for the last about 1300 years. This came to prominence at the time of Sri Ramanujacharya. It was in his time that the custom of singing certain invocation verses (“Thanians”) before starting the chanting of the Tamil Vedas was initiated. Till then only Thanians of particular saints whose verses were chanted on particular occasions were recited first, each time. During the time of Sri Ramanuja, the four common Thanians beginning with the words “Lakshmeenatha Samarambam,” “Yo nithyamachutha,” “Matha Pitha Yuvathayah” and “Bhootham Sarascha” were ordained to be sung before the commencement of the chanting of the Divyaprabhandas. This was ordered to be sung by Kurathalwan.

ranganAtha grant

2. During the time of the renowned Acharya, Manavala Mamunigal a great miracle happened in the temple of Srirangam. Sri Ranganatha, the presiding Deity of the temple, was so captivated and thrilled by the wisdom and exposition of the Acharya and his method of discourse on the Divine wisdom of the Vaishnavite Saints that He (the Lord Himself) appeared before the Acharya as a beautiful young disciple in the midst of the vast concourse of devotees. It was on that occasion that He gave unto this world the famous Thanian, “Srisailesa Dayapathram” for Manavala Mamunigal and ordained, as a mark of His gratitude to the Acharya, that this should be sung at the commencement of the chanting of the Divya Prabhandhas even before the other (common) Thanians are sung, not only in all temples but also in the houses so that this unique incident might be remembered for all times throughout the Sri Vaishnavite world.

Vazhithirunamams

From that time onwards, the Srivaishnavite world has been observing this as a rule in all places from the Cape to the Himalayas. In pursuance to and consistent with such a commencement, the disciples of Manavala Mamunigal had composed during his life-time itself “Vazhithirunamams” (verses of praise) to be sung at the close of the chant of the Divyaprabandhas and these are sung even to this day in temples and houses.

Thenkalais

3. Those who are called Thenkalais (followers of the Southern Tamil Culture) are Vaishnavites who have held that the Divyaprabhandas of Southern (Tamil) Saints (Azhwars) are their sole refuge. It is on account of their staunch attachment to the South Indian (Tamil) mystics and their inspired utterances (Divya Prabhandas) that they are specially known as Thenkalais. From time immemorial, it is these Vaishnavites who have been chanting the Tamil Vedas of the Azhwars (Divya Prabhandas) in all temples and other places with an attachment and reverence which exceed their respect for the Sanskrit Vedas.

Vadakalais

The Vadakalais (followers of the northern Sanskrit culture) were either hostile or indifferent towards the Tamil culture (Divya Prabhandas) as they held that it was somewhat foreign to their own culture (Sanskrit). The Vadakalais hated not only the Divya-prabandhas, their hatred extended to Divyadesams extolled by Azhwars, the main reason being the low origin of some Azhawars. The whole bent of the Vadakalais was towards the Sanskrit Vedas and they spent their time in learning and chanting the Sanskrit Vedas only, and rarely they devoted themselves to temples. As most of their time was spent in observing the duties (Karmanushtanam) enjoined in the Vedas for Brahmans, they could find no time, nor had they the taste, to go to temples and be engaged in any kind of service therein. (It should be remembered here that the Divya Prabandhas are mainly related to the Deities in temples or Archa - Avatara or the beautiful forms in which the Lord is making Himself easily accessible to all).

Even on the rare occasions when the Vadakalais resorted to temples, such as during some special festivals, they stopped short with joining the Vadaparayana goshti, chanting the Sanskrit Vedas and would have nothing to do with the (Tamil) Divya Prabandhas.

Distinction and mark

4. The distinction as Thenkalais and Vadakalais arose as stated above owing to the identification of the one with the Southern (Tamil) culture (Divya Prabhandas) and of the other with the Northern (Sanskrit) culture (the Vedas). The wearing of the particular caste-mark on the forehead (as “Y” and “U” as the Britishers dubbed them) had originally nothing to do with the true distinction between them.+++(5)+++ But as time passed by, the distinction come to be associated with the wearing of the castemarks in particular ways. Those who wore the perpendicular mark (Oordhva Pundram) entirely above the nose were called the Vadakalais (“U” mark) and those who wore it from the nose onward (“Y” mark) were called the Thenkalais. This distinction between the Then-kalais and Vadakalis which is evolved from the method of wearing the marks on the forehead has become a settled affair in the minds of all as the distinguishing difference. +++(4)+++

Divya Parbandha interest novelty

Be this as it may, the fact that it is the Thenkalais that are really the staunch followers of the Divya Parbandhas and the South Indian Saints’ culture and the Vadakalais were indifferent to the same can be seen anywhere even to this day. None can deny this. It is true that, out of the one hundred and eight Divya Desams (Temples sung and hallowed by the Dravidian Saints), the Vadakalais have shown interest in Divya Prabhandas in a few places like, for instance, Trivellore, Tiruvaheendrapuram, Kumbakonam etc., and even this only recently, but how this has happened will be dealt with later.

Litigations

5. Many may like to know when and how the litigations started in temples, what for, in which places. The answers to these questions are being given by Advocates of repute in the legal profession. Litigations started in such famous temples as those in Kancheepuram, Tirupathi etc., and reached the High Court and were decided there many a time. Certain litigations went even to the Privy Council. The Kancheepuram case went up to the Privy Council about seventy years ago. The Thirumalai-Thirupathi case has been decided in the Privy Council very recently, about eight years ago.

The facts appearing from records of courts and their decisions in some temples will be dealt with in a note by lawyers who appeared in the cases or are acquainted with them and this will be added as an appendix separately. Hence it is quite clear that the Ramanujadayapatra Thanian was newly started mainly for temple dispute, that it was checked everywhere and those who disobeyed the orders were subjected to severe punishments.

Vadakalais and divya-prabandha

6. We shall now briefly deal with some essential truths that must be known on matters relating to Sampradaya. That the Vadakalai group had no connection with the Tamil Vedas from time immemorial is explained here from the very words of the Vadakalais themselves.

Venkatadhvari

(About three hundred years ago there was a great Vidwan by name Arasanipalai Venkatadhwari belonging to the Vadakalai group. Among his many works “Viswagunadarsa Champu” was one and it is well known like Raghuvamsam, Meghasandesam and other classical Kavyas.) It is also studied as a text book in some places and published widely in various scripts and with commentaries. It was published also by Nirnaya Sagara Press, Bombay, years ago and spread to Northern India.

(In this work, two Gandharwas, by name Krisanu and Viswavasu are supposed to have an aerial flight to several places and the author describes the good and bad qualities of different places through these Gandharwas, making Krisanu describe only the faults therein, while the other character Viswavasu speaks only about the good qualities. In point of fact there is no such person as Krisanu or Viswavasu. The author gives his own opinion through these imaginary characters.

While describing Sriperumbudur (the birthplace of Sri Ramanuja), certain customs and manners about the Srivaishnavites of the place are revealed through the mouth of Krisanu. Mostly the Thenkalai group lived in this place and certain faults and lapses are attributed to the people of that place, such as that they had left off the Vedic rites like Vaisvadevam, were doing Pranamam by prostrating only once, and were not using a bell during the performance of puja to the House-Deity. These characteristics are associated with the people of Thenkalai group even to this day and not with those of the Vadakalai group. Therefore it is clear that Krisanu’s speech here referred only to Thenkalai people.

7. While finding fault with them that they were indifferent to Sanskrit Vedas, while showing special interest in Tamil Prabhandas, the sloka

“नैषां न्याय्य इह द्विजान्वयजुषां भाषाप्रबन्धे श्रमो
वेदे विश्वपुमर्थसाधनविधौ बद्धादरे जाग्रति ।”

can be noted. What is stated here is that it is not proper for persons born as Brahmans, to bother about Tamil Prabandhams while the Sanskrit Veda which is the only means to all ends, is available.

It is therefore clear that the author of Viswagunadarsam made it known without any ambiguity that the sect, which practised Vaiswadevam and other Vedic rites which prostrated many times while doing the Pranamam and which used a bell during Puja to the House-Deity, supported only Vedas, ignoring Tamil Prabandhas, while the opposite sect spent its time only in Tamil Prabhandas without paying attention to the Vedas.

It is worthwhile considering whether this author of Viswagunadarsan would at all have said anything like this if Vadakalais who practised Vaisvadevam had also then really taken to Tamil Prabandhams. Everything actually noticed by him he has recorded, as though simply holding mirror to the then existing facts. It is now 250 years since that book was written.

It is a known fact that the Vadakalai group now dominate certain temples. The Viswagunadarsan refers to these also. But there is no mention whatever of any Vadakalais in those temples. Under such circumstances is it not true to say that at that time the Vadakalais were unknown in any Divyadesam? +++(नैवम्!)+++

There is another matter to note in this context.

The same author Arasanipalai Venkatadhwari has written another big work by name Lakshmisahasram which consists of 1000 slokas in praise of Shri Mahalaxmi. In the Aisvarya Sthabaka (ऐश्वर्यस्तबक) thereof there is a Sloka (14) beginning with the words “Srimad Ramavarajasaranim” श्रीमद्-रामावरज-सरणिम् in which certain Acharyas belonging to the school of Ramanuja are stated to be holding that the nature of the soul of Srimahalakshmi is atomic (Anu) instead of being infinite (Vibhu).

As to who can be such Acharyas, the Vadakalai group people themselves have written and published commentaries in which they have mentioned that Bhattar (son of Kurathalwan) and other acharyas hold such views. From this it follows that this group also held Bhattar, who is an acharya as great as Ramanuja, as an opponent. +++(नैवम्!)+++

Litigation

8. There is a recent authority besides. Sriman V. V. Srinivasa Iyengar, a leading advocate of Madras (also a High Court Judge for sometime) and who is a prominent member of the Vadakalai sect, wrote an article in the Swadesmitran of 22nd. July 1938 under the heading “Ramanujadayapatra Mahotsavam”. Therein he has written as quoted below:

“It is very deplorable that the Vadakalais have shown indifference to Divyaprabandhas for a long time”

and published it widely everywhere. This ocular proof along with the other authorities quoted above establishes the fact that

Vadakalai group of people had no taste in Divya Prabbandams. Even now the Vadakalai group are endeavouring to stop the festivals celebrated in honour of the Azhwars and this fact can be established from records in Kancheepuram.

Novel interest

9. The present day Vadakalais may argue that “Whatever might have been the former state at present some of them atleast are believers in Divya Prabhandams”. It is not necessary to deny this. It is good that taste in good things arises at some time or other. Nor is it relevent in this context.

Relevance

What is mainly sought to be established herein is that from the time this group began to take part in Prabhandas after having remained indifferent for a long time, they have been only creating disturbances which have been growing from day to day without any break. We shall now explain in detail without leaving anything as to how this Vadakalai sect left off despising Prabhandas and began to participate in them. The devotion of the Vadakalai group to the Tamil Vedas can be said to be sincere only after they completely give up their Ramanujadayapatra Thanian which is a mere innovation with no sanctity attached to and hence has been condemned everywhere. +++(नैवम्!)+++

periya parakAla svAmI

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

The story presented here does not make chronological sense. periya parakAla-yati reign - 1677-1738(C.E.) is after the edict mentioned here. Source: TW

It is said that he did prapatti under the thiruvaDi of Abhinava Ranganatha Parakala Yati. This doesn’t seem credible given that he portrays periya-parakAla yati as a cunning manipulative fraud. So, likely to be some self-consolation by some. Others say - There is a Telugu work of his detailing his experiences with svAmI.

Intro

10. About 200 years ago the Maharaja of Mysore of the time desiring to spend his time always in Godly Pravachanas, invited a Thenkalai Jeer Swami from Melkote and was listening to his discourses in the mornings on Eedu i. e. Tamil Veda meanings.

One Vadakalai Sanyasi, Periya Parakalaswami who was staying in Mysore itself was going to the Maharaja in the evenings and was giving the Pravachana on Ramayana and other Ithihasas and Puranas.

Finding that this Vadakalai Sanyasi, (Peria Parakalaswami,) had no acquaintance in Tamil Veda, the Maharaja thought that it would be good for this erudite scholar of a Sanyasi to acquire the wealth of Tamil Veda knowledge and requested him to attend the morning discourses in Tamil Veda that were held daily in order to create an interest in him.

Learning

After listening to a few lectures, the Sanyasi also felt a desire to listen to the same daily and accordingly he heard for many days. The more he heard the more interested he became and in due course came to the conclusion that all the knowledge he had acquired before was really no knowledge at all and the knowledge which the Thenkalai Sanyasi possessed was of a superior kind and therefore should be acquired also by him.

From that time he solicited the Melkote Sanyasi Swami and began to learn by heart all the Four Thousand Stanzas of Divya Prabhandas and also began to study under him their commentaries. Within a few years, the able man he was, he became proficient in the Tamil Vedas and began himself to give discourses thereon to the Maharaja who rewarded him suitably.

Commentary

He went further; he also wrote a commentary on Thiruvoymozhi by name “Pathinennayirapadi” (Eighteen thousand word commentary). This has been published both in Tamil and Telugu characters. At the commencement of this work he has composed a sloka. As stated by himself he has written the commentaries adopting the very words of Thenkalai Acharyas.+++(5)+++ In some places he has decried them, but, he says “Thenkalai Acharyas have written very interesting commentaries on this Thiruvoymozhi but there are a few differences in interpretation. I have omitted those differences and used the same holy language in my work”.

As stated by himself he has written the commentaries adopting the very words of Thenkalai Acharyas and in some places he has decried them also.

“व्याख्यानं शठकोपदिव्यवचसां यद् दाक्षिणात्यैः कृतम्
श्रीभाष्यादिविरुद्धमेव तदिति ख्यातं यतः प्रायशः ।
स्वारस्यं परिगृह्य तद्-गत-मतस् तुष्ट्यै सतां धीमताम्
त्यक्त्वाऽन्यत् परकाल-संज्ञ-यतिना तत्संग्रहो लिख्यते ॥”

इति ।

He has written commentaries also to certain other Prabandhas and they have also been published.

Participation

Without stopping with writing commentaries, he started another kind of activity. Desiring not only to take part in the assemblies of Prabandha chanters in temples and wishing to introduce his desciples in such assemblies, he taught certain important Prabandhas to some of them.

Ramanujadayapatram

Thereafter under the guise of going on a pilgrimage to South Indian Kshetras along with his disciples, he first went to Melkote and made his disciples enter the assembly of Sadhu Srivaishnavas who were chanting Divya Prabandhas before Lord Selvappillai and started an innovation by reciting a newly composed “Thanian,” the present “Ramanujadayapatram”

11. Then it was that a dispute arose, for the first time in that Kshetra regarding the new song. One thing the Vadakalais themselves have written in this connection viz., that the Thanian of “Ramanuajadayapatram” [ रामानुजदयापात्रम् ] was born in Melkote, is indeed true, (i. e. the place of birth though the time of its origin was changed. It was the Sanyasi’s) desire to sing the new Thanian of the Acharya Vedantha Desikar in competition with the Thenkalai Acharya’s Thanian viz: “Srisailesadayapatram” [ श्रीशैलेशदयापात्रम् ].

The old and time honoured Thanian of Vedanta Desika, however, is “Sriman Venkatanatharyah Kavitharkika Kesari, Vedanthacharya Varyo-may Sannidhatham Sada Hridi " [ श्रीमान् वेङ्कटनाथार्यः कवितार्किककेसरी । वेदान्ताचार्यवर्यो मे संनिधतां सदा हृदि ॥ ] and it was composed during the lifetime of that Acharya himself and is in use since then.

Because there was much difference between these two Thanians i.e. of Manavalamamunigal and of Vedanatha Dasikar both in respect of sound and rhythm, they thought if they sang the Sriman Venkata Natharyah…… Thanian, the difference would be conspicuously noticeable. Therefore they did not sing this Thanian but composed a new Thanian viz “Ramanujadayapatram Jnana Vairagya Bhooshanam, Srimad Venkatanatharyam Vande Vedantha Desikam” and tried to sing it in competition. For sometime they sang it inaudibly and started chanting loudly thereafter.+++(4)+++

maisUru dispute

Then disputes arose and the Thenkalais petitioned to the Mysore State authorities. As the officers who were then there, did not properly appreciate the true sentiments involved, they appear to have decided thus:

“We do not understand which is old and which is the innovation; but whoever raises objections leading to disturbance will be punished”!

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

This is false. 1649 (not 1709, where king was a deaf/ dumb infant under tk care) kaNThIrava narasarAja actually says -

मेलुकोटॆ चामैगॆ बरसि कळुहिद निरूप आदागि -
मेलुकोटॆ तिरुनारायण-स्वामियवर सन्निधियल्लि
मॊदलाद सन्निधिगळल्लि
प्रबन्धानुसन्धानगळु
देवरायनवर अरभ्य, नम्म कर्तारय्यनवर दिवसद वरॆगु
रामानुज दयापात्र तनियन्नु आव रीतिगॆ नडॆदु बन्तुय्
इगलु अदॆ रीतिगॆ
रामानुज-दया-पात्र-तनियन्नु नडॆसिकॊण्डु बरुवुदु

The new Thanian, “Ramanujadayapatram”, thus began to be recited, but only along with and not to the exclusion of the old Thanian Srisailesa Dayapatram.+++(5)+++ These incidents have been noted in some detail in a Kannada book and that is our source for the above.

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

Notable that this source is not named.

prachAra

12. Thereafter that Sanyasi travelled also to several South Indian kshetras and took great pains to introduce that “Ramanujadayapatram” Thanian in different places. He came to Kancheepuram and stayed in Sannidhi Street, for sometime, and tried very hard to introduce it in Sri Devarajaswami Temple and in the temple of Deepaprakasa Swami at the birth-place of Sri Vedantha Desika. He could not however make any headway.

At that time, as the family of Thathachariars held the right of commencing the Prabandhams only with the Thanian - “Srisailesadayapathram”, as of old, the Sanyasi who wanted somehow to change it approached one prominent member of that family and solicited him to accept the Thanian “Ramanujadayapatram” which he sponsored and applied great pressure upon him. As that Thathachariar did not yield in any manner, the Sanyasi cursed that family and broke his Kamandalu at the threshold of his house before leaving it, and this incident is known all over Kanchi-mandalam.+++(4)+++

This Sanyasi was the first to sow the seeds of disturbances that occur in temples. Due to his great efforts this Thanian of “Ramanujadayapatram” began to enter one or two Kshetras then. The Thathachari who refused to accept the new Thanian then at Kancheepuram remained steady for some time, but later, due to ill-advice, left aside the Thanian of “Srisailesadayapatram” and tried to sing this new Thanian.

Litigations grew therefrom and it is well known that that sect altogether lost their right of reciting Prabandhams. It is not possible to count the number of court orders that have been issued prohibiting the singing of this Thanian “Ramanujadayapathram”. How many were the judgments embodying permanent injunction orders, how many were the sentences and punishments that were awarded to those who shouted that Thanian in contravention of such orders! All this will make a Mahabharatham.

taniyan Origin story

13. To say that this Thanian, which was in fact specially composed to serve for creating disturbances in temples in this manner, and that only 200 years ago, had come into existence in the life time of Vedantha Desika himself, some 600 years ago, as stated and published by that sect at the present day, is a great pretence and wholly untenable. We shall give out the real truth about this in detail.

One taniyan per AchArya

(In Srivaishnava Sampradaya, there is only one Thanian for each Acharya. There can be any number of slokas in praise of an Acharya but only one is considered and recognised to have the status of his Thanian. No Acharya has two Thanians though there may be many slokas in his favour and praise. For Vedantha Desika, the Thanian “Sriman Venkatanatharaya–” is the only true one. That is the one which rules the day everywhere even to this day. While that was in vogue, for what purpose did they set it aside and compose a new one, viz: “Ramanujadayapatram,” is a mystery. We shall unveil it; and as it is of importance, please follow attentively.

Omitting first words

While commencing Tamil Prabandhams, it was the long established custom to commence the first song by leaving off the first word thereof i. e. by starting to sing from the second word of the first song.

That is, the first song “Pallandu Pallandu Pallayirathandu” [पल्लाण्डु पल्लाण्डु पल्लायिरत्ताण्डु - பல்லாண்டு பல்லாண்டு பல்லாயிரத்தாண்டு] is commenced with the words “Pallayirathandu” (பல்லாயிரத்தாண்டு - पल्लायिरताण्डु). Similarly the song “Margali Thingal Madiniraintha” is commenced with the words “Thingal Madi-niraintha”, the song “Kanninun Chiruthaambinal” is thus commenced with the words “Chiruthaambinal”, “Uyar Vara Uyar nalamudayavan” is commenced only with “Nalamudayavan.” Whichever Prabandham is started, the first one or two words of the first stanza are left out at commencement. (The idea is the author-saint himself is supposed to commence the chant and the first word or words are left to him for being commenced out of respect.) This custom is observed in some places even to this day.

In the same way it was usual to commence the Thanian Srisailesadayapatram” with the words “Dayapatram” leaving out the words “Srisailesa”. Only after disputes started in this respect, the chanters have been commencing it with the first word “Srisailesa” also. Even to this day this old custom of commencing with the words “Dayapathram” is observed in Kshetras like Vanamamalai (Nanguneri) where no dispute has arisen so far. In the days when they commenced only with the word “Dayapathram” the Vadakalai people who began to join newly, in order to pretend not to commence with a new text and to show that they were also commencing with the same words, viz: “Dayapatram”, composed a new verse containing the words “Ramanujadayapatram” and showed that they were also commencing with the same words “Dayapatram”. After commencing with the same words, as the other sect did, they followed it with new words by and by.

14. Having begun with the same words, they have been uttering different words further and later they began to argue that it was customary to recite verses in praise of their respective Acharyas. Considering that serious objections would be raised if they commenced with the Thanian, “Sriman Venkatanadharya”, which was conspicuous in its difference at the very commencement, that Sanyasi composed an entirely new Thanian which would not sound much different at the commencement. This is the real reason for composing this new Thanian, and they invented this cunning device in order to join Thenkalai Goshti while reciting Prabandhams without raising suspicion.

Closing stage difference

While commencing Divya Prabandas, the difference is only in the “Pathram”. The differences are greater during the closing stage (Saathumurai).+++(4)+++ Even for the verses required for closing, they later on composed such new verses as to resemble, in metre, rhyme, and other poetic qualities, very closely following the old established closing verses, and began to recite these newly composed verses. We shall take this point for explanation later, as it is necessary first to take up and deal with the dispute regarding “Pathram” which is at the root of all the disputes.)

Antiquity

15. (The contention, of the Vadakalais, is that the Thanian “Ramanujadayapatram” has not been newly composed for the sake of starting a quarrel, and that it has been in vogue since the time of Vedanta Desika and has also been in usage. We shall now prove convincingly how this contention cannot hold water. This is the most essential part of this work of research. Fair minded persons can see for themselves that the facts stated herein cannot be questioned in the least.

Sriman Venkatanatharya ok

The period of Manavala Mamunigal was later than that of Desika. He was born in the year next to that in which Desika’s demise took place.+++(4)+++ Therefore every one would think that the Thanian of Desika is older than that of Manavala Mamunigal. This is indeed true. Desika’s Thanian is only “Sriman Venkatanadharya….” There is no doubt about the fact that this Desikar Thanian is older than that of ‘Sri Sailesadayapathram’ the Thanian of Manavalamamunigal, and there is no dispute about this. Nor there is any dispute about that Thanian, viz. ‘Sriman Venkatanatharya’.

The reader should not forget now for what ulterior motive the Thanian, “Ramanujadayapathram”, was newly composed, (This has already been explained in para 15 above.) They say that, that Thanian also was composed during the time of Desika. That is hopelessly untrue.

16. The question would then arise as to why it was necessary to compose a Thanian, when there was already the great ‘Sriman Venkatanadharya’ Thanian available and in vogue. Different Vadakalais have given different versions to explain this, but we shall show easily that all these are false.

Atreya rAmAnuja not motivation

17. They have written that the Thanian ‘Sriman Venkatanadharya’ does not contain any words in praise of Desika’s Guru, and to make up for this defect it was necessary to compose the ‘Ramanujadaya’ Patra Thanian, and that the name Ramanuja in this latter Thanian is supposed to refer to Desika’s maternal uncle and Guru who was known as Kidambi Appullar or Athreya Ramanuja and that, by the introduction of this name, the defect was rectified.

If we accept this statement it follows that the Thanian, ‘Sriman Venkatanatharya’, was considered defective and therefore unsatisfactory. If that is so, this defective Thanian should have gone out of use after the birth of the new and faultless Thanian, Ramanujadayapathram. But that is not so.

We see that most of the Vadakalais are using ‘Sriman Venkatanatharya’ Thanian with the exception of a few quarrelsome people who shout it only to incite quarrels. Even to-day there are many Vadakalais like the savant Sriman Vidvan Navalpakkam Swamy, who disapproves this ‘Ramanujadaya’ Thanian.

Even if it is contended it is not so, and all are supporting it without any dissent, we are tempted to ask “Why are you still sticking to ‘Sriman Venkatanadharya’ which was considered defective by you?”. There can be no reply to this natural question. As a matter of fact it is wrong to say that a Thanian is defective because it does not contain the name of the Guru.

It is true that the Thanian Manavala Mamuni contains the name of his Guru, but there are many other Thanians without it. It is sacriligious to find fault with all those Thanians not containing the name of the Guru which are several in number.

kumAra-varada’s disciple?

18. Still others would have the story this wise: Desika’s son and Brahmathanthraswathanthra Swamy were taking lessons in Vedantha Granthas under Desika. While they were about to commence Dravida Vedanta, Brahmathanthra Swathanthra Swamy absented himself. When Desika asked for the reason for absence, he Brahma tantra replied that he had an earnest desire for discipleship under Desikar’s son and therefore he wished that his son should take the lessons on Dravida Vedantha. And from the son the Brahma tantra intended to learn afterwards as a disciple.

The story goes that on learning this Desika appreciated the steadfast devotion of the Brahmathanthra Swatantra Swami and was immensely pleased.

They have further invented a story that when, the Brahmathanthra Swatantra Swami started lessons on Dravida Vedantha under Desika’s son, he composed this Ramanujathayapatra Thanian and used it himself and directed others also to observe the same. We shall dwell upon this, in more detail. Please follow clearly.

Doddayachar book

19. The Vadakalais with devotion honour the book “Vedantha Desika Vaibhava Prakasika” stated to be written by Sri Sholingapuram Doddayachar Swami. There is in that book a sloka to the effect that both Nayanachariar, the son of Desika, and this Brahmathantra Swatantra Swami both took lessons, simultaneously under Desika himself. Therefore, it is established beyond any doubt that the vertion which falsifies this book is an innovation.

These people have invented this imaginary “Itihyam” in the most improper manner. As this is a vital part of the controversy we shall deal with it here in full detail.

Guruparampara Prabhavam

There is a book printed long ago called “Guruparampara Prabhavam” alleged to have been written by Thritheeya Brahma Thanthra Swami. The book has been brought out in the kali year 4793 representing Prajothpathi and has spread extensively and it is not in that book (vide p. 105) the story relating to the birth of this Ramanujadayapatra Tanian is to be found, in detail. That book tells us that Brahmatantra swatantra Swami studied Bhagavadvishaya (the meaning of the Divya Prabandhas, especially, Sahasragiti), not under his great teacher Desika, but under the latter’s son and that he composed this verse (the new Tanian) at that time.

Let us listen to the tale further. According to this book then, some disciples of Desika brought this Tanian to his notice. The teacher was greatly pleased with it and exclaimed that it excelled his original Tanian Sriman Venkata etc. Then his disciples begged of him, “Respected Sir, which of the two Tanians are we to adopt?” Desika replied,

“The Sriman Venkata Tanian is old and has been appreciated by the great Srutaprakasikacharya; so it cannot be abandoned. Nor can this Patra Tanian be discarded, because I like it very much. So, let me make a compromise between the two. While studying the Sri Bhashya and other Sanskrit works, adopt the Sriman Venkata Tanian. But recite this new Tanian, when learning Bhagavadvishaya, Rahasyas and other Tamil works”.

The story further states: The disciples and others assembled there, applauded this arrangement and began to follow this advice. All this happened in Melkote. Ten years later, Desika went back to Srirangam. At that time the great annual Adhyayanotsavam ensued.

Some people embracing other faiths raised serious objections to the recital of Divya Prabandhams and as such the festival could not be held as usual. It then fell to the lot of Desika to vanquish them all, by quoting the proper Sastraic authorities and establishing the greatness of them. Then only could the festival be conducted properly.

In appreciation of this service, Lord Ranganatha ordered that this new Patra Tanian of Desika and the concluding benedictory verses attached to it (called vazhi-tirunamam) be regularly recited at the beginning and end of the Prabandhas.

In fact, He ordered His Araiyar (the Court-Singer who sings the Divya Prabandhams to tune, in the Lord’s presence) to sing these verses to Him and was immensely pleased upon hearing them. He then ordered that this procedure should be given effect to, forthwith, in every temple, math, and Vaishnavite house” This then, is the story that is related in that book. No sane person will have any difficulty in realising that all this is mere fiction and nonsense.

Dismissal

For, at no time has this Tanian been sung in the temple at Srirangam, or for the matter of that, in any temple throughout the length and breadth of our land. Nay, much more! Whenever and wherever this new Tanian was tried to be introduced into temples, it has met with serious resistance and untold disgrace, and has failed to secure entrance into any one, including the one at Tuppul, the birthplace, of Desika himself. Would the Sri Vaishnava world have discarded Lord Ranganatha’s order so categorically? Therefore it goes without saying that all this cock and bull story is simply concocted by these people to deceive the unaware masses.

Azhwars & plagiarism

In the same book, (i. e. the Guruparampara prabhava) are also related the lives of the Azhwars. These people (Vadakalais) who had, for generations, nothing to do with Azhwars, and found pleasure in disparaging them, began, of late, to study the Tenkalai Guruparamparaprabhava and other literature and started writing and publishing similar duplicate works for their own sect, all in competition: for, they have merely copied the Tenkalai works, but taking care to make some alterations here and there, in order to conceal plagiarism and make them appear original. All this is recent history.

Absence in Pracice

20. These Vadakalai people proclaim vociferously that the new Tanian was specially created, in spite of the former one (Sriman Venkata), with the definite object of reciting it at the commencement of the Tamil works. They also say (as explained above) that Desika himself ordered his disciples to recite it on such occasions. If all this is true, these people ought to have carried out the commandment of their guru, properly. But, alas! as we will be presently showing, not a single person of the older generations, belonging to this sect has ever cared to follow this. All the Tamil works of Desika (like his Sanskrit ones) are available in palm leaf manuscripts and in printed volumes. In each and every one of these books—both Tamil and Sanskrit—we, to this day, do find the original Sriman Venkata Tanian, written, in the beginning. The new Patra Tanian can be found in not even a single book. +++(नैवम्। )+++

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

Again, this is a lie. For example, both the Sajjana-vaibhava that we found in GOML Madras has RDP taniyan in the beginning. - RL

Details - Palm leaf, grantha, sanskrit, NO. OF FOLIO 121. PAGES 44. 58 a to 796. Record number 1078. Acc No SD.2255. DEC NO D: 5395.

Let us explain this more clearly. To begin with, take the case of palmleaf manuscripts. The Government Oriental Library in Madras, has quite a large number of manuscripts collected from various sources, at various times. Any member of the public is welcome to visit it and make use of them at his will and pleasure. The officers in charge of the library are always ready, to help the visitor get at the book he desires to see.

In that library, one can find all the Rahasya granthas of Desika and all his poetic compositions too, that go by the name of Desika Prabandha. We implore the generous reader to get at these books and kindly see with his own eyes, what the introductory Tanian is. In each and every one of these books, without a single exception the Tanian Sriman Venkata alone is to be invariably found. Not only in this library, but in all libraries that exist in our land—public or private—we bet, it is impossible to pick out a single manuscript bearing this new Patra Tanian. We make this assertion after having inspected many libraries, in many places such as Melkote and Mysore.

Every Tenkalai Rahasya Grantha begins with the invocation Srisailesadayapatram, no matter where it is found. In a similar manner, each and every one of Desika’s works invariably begins with Sriman Venkatanatharya.

Vaibhava Prakasika fiction

There is another interesting point to be noted down carefully. The book called Vedanta Desika Vaibhava Prakasika is also available in manuscript and in print. The printed book, alone, contains all the fiction about the Patra Tanian, whereas the manuscript is noteworthily silent about it. If the curious reader cares to go to the Madras Oriental Library and goes through the manuscript bearing R. No. 104-H. 38-14, he will be astonished to find that no mention is made in that book, of this new Tanian at all.

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

Can someone crosscheck if these errors mentioned below are found there??

(Caveat - In many cases his given numbers themselves are fake. Like wrt Rahasyatraya jivatu.)

Printed works

21. These facts will be sufficient to convince the reader that the new Tanian was unknown in olden times, when the printing press was yet not introduced in our country. Even afterwards, Consciencious Vadakalai Pandits never thought of introducing this intruder of a Tanian into their editions. We request our readers to kindly go though each and every one of the printed Tamil works of Desika and find out for themselves, which of the two Tanians they contain. If they take the trouble to do so, they will be mystified and perhaps even horrified to find that even these editions—editions printed long after the imaginary story of the Patra Tanian came to daylight in print—contain the original Taniyan and not the imitation.

Let us cite a few examples. These people hold that the Rahasyatrayasara is the most important among Desika Rahasyas. This work, along with five glosses was printed by one Tuppul Venkatacharya, a Vadakalai Pandit residing in Bangalore, about 70 years ago, in three big volumes, in Telugu Characters. This book does not contain the Patra Tanian. It has, on the other hand, the original Tanian, Sriman Venkata, and it also appears that this verse was introduced, not by the publisher, but by one of the commentators, viz., the author of Saraswadini, the most important of the five glosses. This same Rahasyatrayasara, along with two glosses, is published by some Vadakalai Pandits of Tirucharai in Tamil characters. Again, the new Patra Tanian has not found a place in this edition, too!

Another edition of Rahasyatraya Sara, text alone, was brought out, about 60 years ago, by two Vadakalai Pandits, Villiambakkam Gopala Tatacharya and Tomdri Pattappa Tatacharya under the guidance of the foremost among Vadakalai Vidwans, viz., the famous Mahamahopadhyaya Tirupputkuzhi Appaswami of Kancheepuram. But even this edition has remorselessly discarded the new Patra Tanian by not caring to welcome it, but sticking to the original Tanian!

Another great Vadakalai Sanyasin, one Terazhandur Andavan Swami, popularly known as Srirangam Andavan Swami, has also not thought fit to welcome the new Tanian into his edition of Rahasyatrayasara, brought about some 25 years ago, through a Vadakalai Pandit of Kumbakonam, named Chinnamu Srinivasa Pattaracharya!

22. Now, can it be seriously maintained that, if Desika had really made an arrangement about the use of this new Patra Tanian, as claimed by the modern pandits, all these people, i.e. the writers of the manuscripts and publishers of the printed volumes, were utterly ignorant of it, or did not care to follow it? It is only very recently that some publishers of Desika Rahasyam have thought it proper to introduce this Patra Taniyan, and even that, along with the original Taniyan and not in its stead.

Motive for later inclusion

The logical conclusion that can be drawn from this fact is, that when these people failed to introduce the new Tanian into the temples they began to give it a place in their new publications. They consoled themselves by saying, “Well! if the new Tanian is not fortunate enough to gain admission into temples, let it at least see the light of day in printing.” Because, unlike the temple, the press strictly obeys its patron and never refuses to print anything. Thus, the arguments advanced by us so far, will suffice to convince the shrewd reader that all the tales so cleverly woven by the modern Vadakalais to prove that the new Patra Tanian was indeed born during the lifetime of Desika himself, are, one and all of them, entirely false and as such worthless.

Deshika a tenkalai

Tenkalai promotion

23. By the by, we will disclose another interesting secret. Sri Vedanta Desika is undoubtedly a great teacher par excellence. It is no exaggeration to say that words cannot properly describe his spiritual greatness and scholarship. (We will prove at a later stage that he too, was a Tenkalai Acharya, and never a Vadakalai one, as claimed by these moderners.)

(There are many instances to prove, that it is the Tenkalai Sri Vaishnavas, that recognised and propagated his greatness, extolling it in their books and in many other ways.

On the other hand, the Vadakalais were for many generations indifferent, if not antagonistic, to this great teacher too, and have begun to entertain devotion towards him, but recently.

Ever Since, they have been persistently proclaiming that Desika is their exclusive teacher. This proclamation is, to say the least, meaningless. Let us explain, how.

Forgeries

Vaibhava Prakasika forgery

These people have published a small book containing 165 Sanskrit verses, by name Desika Vaibhava Prakasika and have claimed that it was composed by Chandamarutham Doddayacharya Swami. The latter was, undoubtedly a Tenkalai Sri Vaishnava. His descendants are to be found even to this day in Sholinghur, near Kancheepuram. He was a very great scholar, well versed in all the four Sastras. He was a sincere devotee of Desika, too. He has written an extensive commentary called Chandamarutha (whence his surname Chandamarutham Swami), upon one of the most important and terse of Desika’s works, viz., Satadushani. Therefore, it is neither impossible nor improbable that he should have written a biography of the great teacher.

But unfortunately the Desika Vaibhava prakasika, which is now published by the Vadakalais under his name, is so replete with filthy grammatical mistakes that it cannot claim the authorship of this great scholar. Let us give an example or two. Verse 117 contains the phrase Padyais Sahasriah (पद्यैस्सहस्रैः); verse 119 contains Granthais Chatussaptatibhis saharaih (ग्रन्थैश्चतुस्सप्ततिभिस्सहस्रैः). Even a novice who has just begun to study the first primer of Sanskrit grammar will laugh at these expressions. In the former place the correct expression is पद्यैस्सहस्रेण or पद्यानां सहस्रेण. Even in English we say “thousand verses” and not “thousands verses”. The word thousand, though it denotes many is used in the singular number only. If used in the dual or plural numbers, it denotes not one thousand, but two or many thousands. So it is a very grave mistake to use the plural, and it can never be permitted.

24. In the second verse mentioned above, what does the phrase चतुस्सप्ततिभिस्सहस्रैः (Seventy fours thousands) mean? No grammarian on the face of this earth can possibly defend this phrase, nor explain its meaning. Both the words Seventy four and thousand are here used in the plural number, whereas they are definitely ordained to be used in the singular.

As such, this phrase can never convey the meaning, it is sought to convey. Even the Vedas, which are not bound by the hard and fast rules of grammar, and often use very queer words and phrases, have not dared to use such utterly meaningless phrases but have used the correct expressions only. e.g.

शतेन पाशैः - त्रयस्त्रिंशतं च त्रिभिश्च शतैस्सहोदैत् ।

Saptatiratna malika errprs - PB

These Vadakalais have published another small book called Saptatiratna malika, supposed to have been composed by our ancestor Sri Prativadi bhayankaracharya. There is no necessity to deny the authorship of this work because, he was, in all reality, a true devotee and admirer of Desika. But, the work now published contains awful mistakes and therefore could not have been written by that great scholar.

For example, the word प्रौढिम् occurring in the verse यत्संस्कृतकवितायां प्रौढिम् is wrong; it ought to be प्रौढि. +++(4)+++

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

प्रौढिम्नान्वेति कूरनाथ-सुतम्

इत्येव लभ्यते ऽन्यत्र।

Motivation

Are there, then, no pandits in the Vadakalai sect? If there are, do they not recognise all these awful blunders? Why, pandits there are many, and they do certainly know the truth. But, alas, Sri Yamunacharya Swami has pointed out, bigotry makes even a learned person err. +++(Look in the mirror! 5)+++

What does all this mean? It means that these people have either published the works of inferior Pandits in the name of great teachers or have made numerous interpolations in the original works of ancient Acharyas. Why have they done so? Because, they became devotees of Desika, but recently, and want to deceive the world by trying to prove that their devotion was really old.

25. Alas! they have only exposed their ignorance, by the story of the patratanian. Had they written that Desikar had ordained to chant ‘Sriman Venkata’ thanian during Ubaya Vedantha Grantha Kalakshepams, and the pathra thanian for purposes of temple disputes, one could have no occasion to seek assistance in the research of palm leaf manuscripts, and even they could have scribbled these lines on the leaves and process them to look old, in a day or two and established their contention. But concocting tale about a non existant thanian bestowed no benefit on them but confirmation of their lying.

brahmatantra composition tale

26. The reader, who has followed our arguments, using his discretion all the while, will have, by now, fully realised the truth about the myth propagated by modern Vadakalais that the Patra Tanian was composed by Desika’s disciple Brahmatantra Swatantra Swami, when he studied Bhagavad Vishayam at the feet of Desika’s son.

We will now explode the other myth, too, that has been created in this connection. As already stated, these people have stated that certain disciples of Desika approached him and asked him which of the two Tanians they should adopt.

Multiple verses ok

This question, in itself, is a very silly one, and need not have been raised at all. For what on earth prevented them from reciting both the verses? We find, for example, that people reading the Ramayana recite many introductory verses in praise of the author, Valmiki, Hanuman etc. Two verses in praise of Thirukkachinambi are attached to his Devarajashtaka. Three verses in praise of the author are recited before commencing Yamunacharya’s Stotraratna, and yet another is recited at the end. Such examples can be easily multiplied. Consider, how many Tanians are attached to each one of the Divya Prabandhas. So, it is meaningless to say that the disciples of Desika were at a great loss to decide which of the two Tanians they were to adopt.

Aesthetics

It is further absurd to say that they approached their teacher himself and requested him to show them a way out of the tangle. Again, who can contain his laughter when he reads that Desika bestowed unlimited praise upon this Tanian? What beauty does this verse possess, as to deserve the unreserved praise of the great teacher? Does not this verse cut a sorry figure, when placed side by side with the grand Sriman Venkata verse? Is it necessary to demonstrate this fact? People who can make proper use of their critical faculty and good aesthetic sense in appreciating poetic beauty, can, by themselves discern the difference between the two.

In fact it is a sin to say that the beautiful Sriman Venkata Tanian failed to impress Brahmatantra Swatantra Swami, and that he found defects in it and so created a rival Tanian. If in fact, that teacher was not much pleased with the original Sriman Venkata Tanian, his should have been such a grand verse which would excel it in beauty and gait.

For example, look at the grand Tanian ‘yas madasmabhi’ यस्माद् अस्माभिर् एतद्-यतिपति-कथित-प्राक्तन-प्रक्रियोद्यत्, composed by Desika, in honour of his own guru. How majestic it is, in style! should not the new Tanian be comparable to this. if not more majestic? unfortunately this new Patra Verse is a miserable composition, being the work of a third rate writer. No person with an iota of intellect would be prepared to concur with the tale, that Desika praised this unimposing verse. Nor can anybody deny that this verse was created in imitation of the Tanian Sri Sailesa dayapatram, which has been welcomed and held in high esteem ever since its inception, everywhere.

27. But, alas! as we have already explained, not a single person ever cared to carry out this so called special Command of Desika. Ah! what a calamity! Again, it is a matter for great regret that the book published by these very people under the title Vedanta Desika Vaibhava keeps notoriously silent about this Patra Tanian, and thereby proclaims to the three worlds that all the cock and bull stories appearing in later books are no more than inventions and utterly false.

Direct Studentship

To add fuel to the burning fire, that same work, i.e. Vedanta Desika Vaibhava, tells us, in unmistakable terms, that Brahmatantra Swatantra Swami studied Bhagavd vishaya at the feet of Desika himself (i. e. not under his son as proclaimed by later spurious works!)

shrI shailesha originality

28. Some people might be tempted to argue that the Sri sailesa dayapatram verse itself, is a replica of the Ramanuja daya patra verse with little changes here and there. If Desika had only one Tanian and that was Ramanujadayapatram, i.e. if the other Tanian Srimaan Venkata, was non-existant, then it could have been argued, that the Srisailesa Tanian was copied after it. There could, possibly be no gainsaying that. But this is not the case at present.

As already explained, the universally recognised Tanian of Desika is Sriman Venkata, and the new verse does’t find such recognition. So Manavalamamunigal’s Taniyan could not have been copied from the other.

shrImAn ranganAthArya

In this connection, we are tempted to mention an interesting incident. A certain Vadakalai Pandit, named Tuppul Venkatacharya, of Bangalore, published, many years ago, various Vaishnava Stotras in a single volume. In that book, he placed the verse Sriman Venkata at the beginning of Desika Stotras, and at the top of the Stotras composed by Manavalamamunigal and his disciples, he printed a new sloka reading Sriman Sri Ranganatharya—

श्रीमान् श्रीरङ्गनाथार्यो
वेदान्तद्वयकेसरी ।
मुनिः कान्तोपयन्ता मे
सन्निधत्तां सदा हृदि ॥

purporting to be a Tanian of Manavalamamunigal. On seeing this, some others also followed suit. In course of time, some Tenkalai Acharyas began to recite that new verse under the impression that it was also an authentic Taniyan.

When this fact came to our notice, we lost no time in curtailing its propagation. Therefore, let it be understood that in establishing the truth we have no fear, or favour to person.

Propagation failure

29. All their turning heaven and earth to slight the Sri-sailesa thanian which had never been dishonoured in any of the Dhivyadesas as an imitation, only helps to establish its greatness, on still firmer grounds. The improprieties that have begun to appear in some Dhivyadesas since some time past, can only be considered as one among the mysterious ways of God, resembling the hardships that the Devas had to undergo as narrated in the Vedas.+++(4 विपरीतपक्षे ऽपीदं घटते।)+++

Can’t we find out in a trice, the date of the introduction of the new patratanian in those temples?

The records which speak of the steps which Srimad Ahobilam swamy took to alter the mode of beginning Srisailesa thanian at Evvul Kidandan sannadhi and the miseries he had to undergo on account of that, have not yet perished. Some of them have even been published. +++(सत्यम्??)+++

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

There were thenkalais also in thiruvallur once upon a time. Is referring to that - shrIvAsaH

Replacements

30. These people have created not only this Patra Tanian, but many more. The Tenkalai Acharyas recite certain Sanskrit and Tamil verses as Taniyan, at the beginning and close of reciting the Divya Prabandhas. Out of these Tanians, the Vadakalais have substituted some with others while retaining the rest, as they are. They have replaced two Sanskrit and three Tamil verses by new ones and retained seven Sanskrit verses in their original form.

Concluding verse

Of the two Sanskrit verses they have substituted in place of the original ones, one of course is, the Patra verse. Let us now examine the second. While concluding the Divyaprabandha, it is customary to invoke, first, Srisailanatharya or Tiruvoymozhippillai, Manavalamamunigal’s guru by the verse, namas Srisailanathaya

नमः श्रीशैलनाथाय
कुन्तीनगर-जन्मने ।
प्रसादलब्धपरम-
प्राप्य-कैंकर्यशालिने ॥

and then recite the verse Srisailesadayapatram.

The word Srisailesa occurring in this verse refers to this teacher of Manavalamamunigal. The Vadakalais have concocted another verse to replace this particular one. too. That is, Namo Ramanujaryaya —

नमो रामानुजार्याय
वेदान्तार्थप्रदायिने ।
आत्रेयपद्मनाभार्य-
सुताय गुणशालिने ॥

This verse which is said to be the Tanian of Sri Ramanujacharya, the maternal uncle and guru of Desika is also referred to in the Patra Taniyan. That this Tanian too, is a later concoction, can be very easily seen.

For, Desika himself has composed a grand verse यस्माद् अदस्माभिर् एतत् in praise of his teacher, which is honoured and recited on all occasions, such as in the Samasrayana guru parampara (समाश्रयणगुरुपरंपरा) and Kalakshepa Parampara (कालक्षेपपरंपरा).

Therefore, it follows that this new Tanian is an imitation one, concocted later on for the sole purpose of shouting in the temples, as the original thanian beginning with ‘Yasmathasmabi’ was too long to imitate the little sloka ‘Srisailanathaya’, and that if chanted would easily be found out.

Now, let the reader ask them, “who composed this new verse, when and why?” Of course they have also weaved out a story that Desika himself composed it. It is a hopelessly false statement, because Desika had already written the majestic sloka, Yasmadasmabhi in honour of his guru, and as such there is no reason to create another tanian.

Vazhi Thiru manam

31. Let us now discuss about their tamil Vazhi Thiru manam. The thenkalai poem in venba metre begins with “Vazhi Thiru-voymozhippillan mathagavol vazhum”. The parallel line in the vadakalai verse is “Vazhi iramanajappillan mathagaval vazhum”. The ending in both the verses is “Therumbadi uraikkum seer”.

Missing subject

Now, how to find out which is original and which imitation? Therumbadi means, help to attain salvation. The question naturally arises as to who should attain salvation. The former verse specifically mentions “Manilathor (the people of the world) therumbadi”. When we ask as to where the subject is in the second verse, they cannot but keep mum.

32. Some may say, that even without the subject, the meaning could be understood and that this is not a big point for objection. Let alone that.

Meaning

Let us seek the judjement of an impartial tamil pandit as to which of these is original. If we separate the metre according to tamil grammar, The former verse could beautifully be separated as, vazhi-thiruvoi-mozhippillan-mathagaval, Vazhum-manavala mamunivan. Again, they may ask, what if there is no beauty; Does it conform to grammatical rules or not? What was the necessity to compose a verse, in a metre which necessitates separation so awkwardly, like “Nujappillan, and mandhaguru”.? What prevented them adopting a different metre, except that it be to imitate the former one?

Srirangam

33. Let us examine the lines chanted in the end. Both claim, their verses were born at Srirangam. To connote this as well as to be an apt tamil rendering of the sankrit thanian “Sriman Srirangasriyamanubadhravamanudhinam samvardhaya” the thenkalai line is “Aranganagar vazha” (may Srirangam last for ever!) No body would have bothered if the imitation verse didn’t make mention of any town at all. But they have substituted “managaril” in its stead. There is no place by the name managar.

But, in Thiruvoimozhi and Acharyahridaya this term has been used to denote Thenthirupperai, What other reason for the mention of that place in this Vazhi thirunamam could be advanced except their dislike to mention the same words “Aranganagar vazha” as found in the original verse?

mAran

34. The ending of Manavalamamuni’s vazhi thirunamam viz., “Sadagopan thandamizh nool vazha” (long live the tamil works of Sadagopa) is in consonance with its beginning. thiruvoimozhipporulai." (the meanings of the thiruvoimozhi “Maranchanted by Maran) is imitated by “Maran maraiumiramanujan bashiamum” (the tamil veda of maran and Sri Bhashya of Ramanuja), but does not end with, “Managaril maran maraium bashiamum vazha”.

Some may plead, that there is no hard and fast rule that this should be so. Why all these roundabout arguments?. Let them plainly accept that the venba metre was not found suitable for the consistent ending.

Then, the counter query arises as to what was the sanctity of that metre, to be stuck to, inspite of this shortcoming. What other answer can they give except that they had no other go, but to adopt the venba metre to facilitate their chanting those hymns, in the goshti unnoticed, because, the eulogising verses on Manavala mamunigal was also in that metre?

35. These imitations in metre and words, as well with many others repeated without any change what so ever in their modern verses, the prevalent customs in the Dhivya desas, the fact that these are not to be found in palm leaf manuscripts and our other proofs, aid us to come to the correct conclusion the truth of about its authenticity Dare they still cling to the statement, that Ramanujadhaya patram is six hundred years old? Let them convince the world if they can with pramanas as their bases.

Other pAtra-taniyans

36. Behold! how many are the patrathanians they have composed, probably assuming the Dhivyaprabanda invocation thanian should contain the word ‘patram’. The tanian of Adhivan satagopaswamy, is well known. “prapathye niravadyamam” is the sloka. This is recited in Samasrayana as well as Grantha parapmparas among matathars, to date, and finds place in their tanian books also.

At the time, when these people requisitioned Ramanuja Dayapatram to their rescue they also composed another thanian on their swamy, beginning with “Kesavarya krupapatram”. It is said that a dispute has arisen, as to which of these two patras should be chanted foremost, and still remains unsettled. That in the sishya villages of the mutt, Srisailesadayapatram was originally prevalent, and later was replaced altogether by Ramanujadayapatram, which also, was neglected still later, but, to compromise with another group within their sect, was added after “Kesavarya Krupapatram”, and that still they have not come to any settled decision regarding its status is thought provoking.

Order

When we compare all the thanian books of the mutt we could find some, beginning with Ramanuja dayapatram, some others placing this after “Kesavarya krupa pathram”, and still others, without Ramanuja dayapatram at all; and seeing these, when we try to find out the reasons for such confusion, with Trivellore temple records to our aid, we shall certainly get at the truth. Their mischiefs are endless indeed!

37. Who can deny that the original thanian of Ahobilaswamy is very different from that, which is now prevalent. If it is a fact that God and acharya have ordained Ramanuja dayapatra to precede the prabanda parayanam in temples, (as they themselves claim in their writings) should not the present patrons of Ramanuja dayapatra chant this even before “Kesavarya Krupapatra”? Can anybody deny that they are now acting according to their sweet will and pleasure? From all these, it is established that these peoples’ love towards Dhivya prabandam and their recitation of the prabandam in temples and houses, are of very recent origin.

38. Even to-day among the vadakalais, a few disciples of Ahobila mutt only, possess an admiration for Dhivya-prabhanda and are also well versed in the same. We can firmly state that the reason for this, is their Thenkalai origin.

Substitute verses

tenkalai order

39. Now we will come to the history of the unchanged Tanians. While commencing the recital of the Divya Prabandhas the Tenkalai Acharyas recite the following five verses in-succession: (1) Srisailesadayapatram, (2) Lakshminatha, (3) Yonityamachyuta, (4) Mata Pita and (5) Bhutam Sarascha.

The Vadakalais, who have created a new Patra verse in place of the first, recite the next four without alteration. This is another conceit. We will explain how. These verses are recited by the Tenkalai Acharyas not only in the beginning of the Prabandhas, but on all occassions when Sanskrit or Tamil Scriptures are to be studied and in the Samasrayana guru-parampara also. This can be ascertained by going through their guruparamparas.

Alleged replacements

But the Vadakalais have no connection with these verses; for, in their guruparampara, they have adopted substitutes for these. For example, the verse yonitya machyuta is Sri Ramanuja’s Thanian; but the Vadakalais do not recite this on any other occasion, but have adopted another verse, Pranamam Lakshmana munih. Similarly they have replaced Mata Pita, Nammazhwar’s Tanian by the verse, Yasya Saraswatam sroto. So, these two verses, Yonitya, and Mata Pita, are not, in these people’s opinion, the Tanians of Ramanuja and satakopa. It follows as a corollary that the other two verses, Lakshminatha and Bhutam sarascha, also, are not recognised by these people.

When this is the case, why do these people repeat these verses while commencing the Divya Prabandhas alone? Perhaps, they think that there is nothing so serious to be objected to, in these verses.

But this is another link in the chain of proofs to show that these people had, for generations, no connection with Divyaprabandhams and took to their study, but recently; for, if they were used to it from the beginning, they should have had their own special Tanians for these and ought not to have blindly copied the Tenkalai Acharyas. Some people might try to say that the Vadakalais also were, in olden times, reciting these four Tanians on all occasions, and that it is only recently that they use other verses. This takes them only from the frying pan to the fire, because it proves our own statement that for some time past, these people have been making new and yet new interpollations.

Terminal verses antagonism

40. At the end of Divya Prabandhas, Tenkalai Archaryas recite the following three verses among others—1) Sarva desadasakaleshu, (2) Ramanujaryadivyajna (3) Sriman Srirangasriyam. These verses are repeated in the same way by the Vadakalais also. They are working under the impression that these verses contain nothing objectionable to them. What a delution! To tell the truth, these three verses are far more antogonistic to them than the divine verse Sri Sailesadayapatram itself, which by no stretch of imagination can really hurt their feelings. This betrays only their utmost ignorance.

Let us explain this. These three verses are recited by Sri Vaishnavas only at the conclusion of the Divya Prabandha Parayana. Before Sri Ramanuja’s time, the Divya Desas (temples sanctified by the hymns of the Azhvars) were in a very deplorable state. This great sage and teacher, made numerous reforms in them. In fact, one of the most important services rendered by him to humanity, during the best part of his long life of twelve decades is, this elevation of the temples to the high position that they have ever since been occupying.

Rightly does the Nall Pattu or verse commemorating his birthday, proclaim “மன்னிய தென்னரங்காபுரி மாமலை மற்றுமுவந்திடு நாள்” i. e., Sri Ramanuja’s birth-day is hailed by Srirangam, Tirupati and other Divya Desas (because he made them prosper). This, then is Ramanujarya Divyajna.

Temple conversions

41. The Vadakalais themselves have published the datewar details of the Divya Desas subjugated by them. For example, two temples in Tanjore District, viz. Tanjaimamanikkoil and Tirukkandiyur, which we had witnessed in Tenkalai, in our twentieth year, have been, very recently converted into Vadakalai.+++(4 नैवम्)+++

रविलोचनः

The tanjai mamani temples are under the management of Tanjore rajas. They have 22 Vishnu temples under their management of which a few are tk and rest are vdk. If they were changing kalai of temples, why did they leave some of them to remain tk? Thanjavur and Kumbakonam temples have been mostly vdk only even historically. To claim that these were changed to vdk in 1900s is a bold faced baseless lie. If it was changed so, what were these tenkalais doing? They were filing cases left right and centre at kanchi during this time. Should we presume that they simply lied silent when the change occurred?

In certain places, the number of Tenkalai residents diminished, for various reasons and Vadakalais increased. Seizing this opportunity, the latter converted the temples, too. But all this happened recently, that is, from the latter half of the nineteenth century. Before that time, there were no two sects, at least as far as temples were concerned and it is needless to add, there were no conversions too.

Govenment records reveal, when the Ahobila math, which was originally Tenkalai was converted, certain temples which were under its administration also turned creed.+++(4 नैवम्।)+++

Similarly, that institution of north India, which calls itself Uttara Ahobila Math, was orginally Tenkalai, but later on, changed its Kalai and began to preach Kalai-hatred. +++(4 नैवम्।)+++

In yet other places, especially in Andhra, Some Vaikhanasa Archakas, among whom there are also Vadakalais, contrived to convert the temples also to their own Kalai, by methods, which were anything but fair.

42. Let it be known that we do not make these statements in the hope that the temples and other institutions thus converted into Vadakalais, will return to the original creed. Our object at present is to describe the actual state of these institutions in successive generations and allow the reader to arrive at his own conclusion.

Alwar temples kalai

43. It is an admitted fact, or rather, a self-evident truth that the birth-places of the Azhwars or Divyasuris and Acharyas, who are held in the highest esteem by every Sri Vaishnava, are all—each and every one of them—Tenkalai, to this very day. Let us show this in detail. (1) Saroyogi or Poygai Azhwar was born at Yathokthakari temple, Kancheepuram; (2) Bhuta-Yogi at Mahabalipuram or Tirukkadalmallai; (3) Peyazhwar at Mylapore, Madras; (4) Bhaktisaramuni at Tirumazhisai, near Madras; (5) Nammazhwar at Azhwar Tirunagari; and (6) Madhurakavi at Tirukkolur. Temples situated at all these places, wherein the idols of these saints are installed and worshipped to this day, are all Tenkalai. (7) Kulasekhara Azhwar’s birth place in Malabar, belongs to neither Kalai.. (8) Sri Villiputtur, the birth place of Periazhwar and Andal (alias Godadevi), (9) Tirumandamgudi where Bhaktanghrirenu was born, (10) Uraiyur or Nichulapuri, where Tiruppanazhwar was born and (11) Tiruvali Tirunagari, where the great Kaliyan or Tirumangai Azhwar was born, are all Tenkalai. There is no doubt about this. The Vadakalais have got, not even the shadow of a connection with these celebrated birth places of the divine saints or Azhwars.

44. Even the birth places of Acharyas, beginning from Nathamuni and right upto Manavalamamunigal, are all, invariably Tenkalai. There is another important point to be noted in this connection.

AchArya worship

Among Ramanuja’s desciples, Srivatsachihnamisra Swami (Kurathazhwan), Govindaswami (Embar), Dasarathi Swami (Mudaliyandan) and others belong to one line of descendants; whereas Kurukesa Swamy (Tirukkurukaip-piran-pillan), Kidambi Achan and others belong to another line. The Vadakalais claim, that, of these two paramparas (or lines) the latter is their guruparampara. Be it so. But, there is no temple dedicated to these Acharyas, anywhere in our land, whereas the idols of the Acharyas mentioned in the former group have been installed and worshipped, not only in their birth-places, but in numerous other places, too.

Now, if we ask the Vadakalais, “why are your gurus not worshipped in the same manner as the Tenkalai Acharyas?”, they will scratch their heads and look blank for a while, and whisper with a deep sigh, “Oh! that is because originally we were not interested in the temples and kept at a safe distance from them; So, we could not think of installing their idols.” +++(4)+++

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

सन्त्येव देशिकादेर् विग्रहाः।

No other reply can possibly be given.

Vishnuchitta choLiya

45. There is one more point to be noted. According to the Vadakalais themselves, one Vishnuchittarya (Engalazhwan), the famous commentator upon the Vishnupurana, and the celebrated expounder of the Sri Bhashya, is Desika’s Paramacharya or guru’s guru. He is also the Paramacharya of Sudarsanacharya, the author of Srutaprakasika, the well-known commentary upon the Sri Bhashya. This teacher i. e. Engalazhwan, belongs, without a shadow of doubt, to the Choli or Puraschuda community (who keep their sikha or chuda, i. e., the tuft of hair, in the front part of the head and not behind, as others do) In this community, not a single person can be found bearing the Vadakalai mark. Many Azhwars and Acharyas belong to this community and Engalazhwan is one of them. He was a very great scholar and lived in Tiruvellarai. He is even now worshipped there, in the idol form, and bears of course, the Tenkalai mark. If he really were a Vadakalai, his idol would not have been installed and worshipped at all.

Therefore it follows, that, he along with his disciples including Desika himself, was Tenkalai. We will deal with Desika’s case in great detail at a later stage and show that he, in his lifetime, as in the idol form, wore, but the Tenkalai mark. Thus the statement, that all the Azhwars and Acharyas were certainly Tenkalai, remains proved and stands unchallenged. The Vadakalais have nothing to do with these places and personalities.

Simhasanadhipatis

46. Now we shall deal with the most salient point of our argument. It has been stated that Ramanuja appointed many of his disciples, (in fact, seventy four of them), Simhasanadhipatis or heads of great missionary institutions, authorised to propagate religion. He made them reside in such centres as Srirangam and asked them to primarily supervise the affairs of the temples situated there, and enjoy in return, various honours.

Temple dominance

Srirangam

Especially in Srirangam, where Ramanuja lived, he appointed these Acharya Purushas and personally saw that they served the Lord as ordained, and received the many and varied honours specified by himself. Now, what we lay stress upon in this connection is, that all these Acharya Purushas are invariably Tenkalai, without a single exception.

Except that in the board of trustees, along with Tenkalai Vaishnavas, Smartha or Madhwa Brahamans, and members of a fourth cast Vadakalai, also is found, they have no other connection what soever with Srirangam temple affairs.

The Archakas, who wear Vadakalai mark upon their foreheads, cannot even dream of introducing any Vadakalai custom into the temple. That is Ramanujarya Divyajna! They cannot prostrate before God, twice in the temple. If they dare to do so they are liable to be punished. +++(4)+++

Changes

Srirangam Archakas can prostrate even times before Namperumal Purappadu and they do that. Was restricted earlier. Now they are free to do if they wish. - mAlolaH

In 1800s, Tk sthalatthars in srirangam also kept a rule that all SVs inside saptaprakArams incl Vks should recite SDP or they should allow only tks to recite DP even during funerals. - shrIvAsaH

Other divya-desha-s

Not only in Srirangam, but in almost all the sacred Divyadesams, the Acharya Purushas and other permanent servants that enjoy permanent hereditary honours, are all Tenkalai. Not a single Vadakalai can be found. Let us mention a few among them.

There are, for instance, the descendants of the following great teachers: - Perianambi, Tirukkottiyur Nambi, Tirumalai Andan, Embar, Kurathazhwan, Amudanar, Tirumalai Nallan, Mudaliyandan, Kandadai Swami, Arulalapperumal Emberumanar, Anandazhwan. Varavaramuni, Koil Annan, Prativadibhayankaram Annan, Kidambi Swami, Erumbiappa, Doddayacharya and so on and so forth. These people have been appointed Acharya Purushas, in many temples thoughout our land, right from the time of Ramanuja himself, and some at the time of Varavaramuni, and have been ever since, enjoying various hereditary temple honours.

Can a single Vadakalai be pointed out among these? Emphatically not.

Conversions

Here again, some people may be tempted to point out at the changes that have been made in a few temples, at recent times. We are not interested in them; for, as already explained, we are bent upon looking into the original state of affairs, centuries ago, and therefore, the recent conversions only go to prove the authenticity of the original. In the temple at Srirangam for instance, no change has taken place. +++(Where did the archaka-s come from then??)+++

In that sacred temple of Lord Ranganatha, Ramanuja himself appointed many Acharya Purushas, selected from among his guru’s descendents and from among his own disciples and arranged for numerous honours to be awarded to them. These are in vogue even to this day. If the fact, that not a single Vadakalai is included among these, is considered carefully, one is sure to arrive at the irresistable conclusion that at the time of the great Ramanuja, these Vadakalais, if they existed at all, were leagues distant from the temples and never cared even to have a good look at them. We fully realise that we will be the target of many angry looks for having dared to expose this naked truth. Nevertheless we cannot help it.

Mathadhipathis

47. Let us illustrate another point. It is a well-known fact that Sri Ramanuja appointed certain mendicants, as Mathadhipathis, in many temples charging them to supervise and assist in the temple services. Even a casual examination of the list of these Yatis will show, that they are all Tenkalais. Sriranganarayana Jeeyar at Srirangam, the two mathadhipatis at Tirumalai Tirupati and connected temples, Azhagiyamanavalamuni at Kancheepuram, and the many other Sanyasis at various places like Melkote, Vanamamalai, Tirukkurungudi, Azhwar Tirunagari, Srivilliputtur, Tirumalirumsolai, Tirukkovalur, Sriperumbudur and so on, have all been ordained to serve in the temples and are receiving worthy honours to this day.

रविलोचनः

Contemporary role - jeeyar has no rights. Sometime in the 16th century, they were srikaryam for a decade when Tatacharyas were in Vijayanagar. Later Tatacharyas took direct control of the temple. From inscriptions it is clear that Tatacharyas were srikaryam even in 14th century. So all one can say is that when TTs left for vnagar, jeeyar was handling affairs for about one decade (most probably with their permission). Tk vdk lafda is quite recent. There was no such bad blood back then (at max it was restricted to some philosophical differences)

Here again, some of these noble mathadhipatis have been obstructed from receiving their honours; but, that is recent history. The fact to be noted down here too, is, that not a single Vadakalai Yati is included in this category, too. Some people might be again tempted to say that there is a Vadakalai Mathadhipati, too. But, alas! they will have to hang their head down, when the direct question is put to them, “When did that Mathadhipati cast off his original Tenkalai creed and adopted the new one, please?” We will deal with this matter, in detail, at a later stage. So, it is clear, that all the Mathadhipatis appointed by Ramanuja are Tenkalai.

Araiyars

48. In some temples like Srirangam, Melkote, Srivilliputtur, Azhwar Tirunagari and Tirukkurungudi, there are certain people appointed to sing the Divya Prabandhas before god in what is called Devagana. These people are called Araiyars and were mostly appointed by Nathamunigal himself. By this great saint’s order they wear ceremonial, beautiful, silk caps decorated with shining Tenkalai marks, and they sing Divya Prabandhams and many other laudations before God to the accompaniment of tala and they receive various temple honours.

In particular, these Araiyars at Srirangam, recite many detatched sentences in praise of Lord, on many occasions, such as when commencing or concluding the recital of the Divya Prabandhas, or even in the middle of the recital. We will here give the gist of some of these exceptionally beautiful sentences:-

Hail! Oh Lord Ranganatha! That art praised by Lokacharya, the celebrated author of Srivachanabhushana! O Lord, Ranganatha! Thou didst take pleasure in yearning for the discipleship of the noble teacher, Varavaramuni! O Lord, Ranganatha! Thy heart swelled in wild ecstasy on listening to the discourses upon Sahasragiti delivered by the great teacher Varavaramuni! O Lord, Lord of lords! Thou didst listen to the sweet exposition of Sahasragiti by Varavara Muni, and out of joy, proclaim the verse, Srisailesadayapatram…… in praise of him!”

Such wonderful praises, are a regular feature of the Araiyar Seva at Srirangam. Not only these Araiyars, but certain other people also recite such exquisite laudations, there. When, for instance, Lord Ranganatha is taken out in procession, the descendants of Dhanurdasa, alias Pillai Urangavillidasar (the famous devotee disciple of Ramanuja), hold silver maces in their hands and proclaim Jayakara in a melodious tune, in chaste Tamil and Sanskrit sentences:—

“Hail! O Lord, Ranganatha! All prosperity to Thee! Mayst Thou be victorious for ever! Thou didst listen to the beautiful lectures upon Sahasragiti, delivered by Varavaramuni, a second incarnation of Ramanuja, and overcome with joy at that, didst proclaim him to be Thy Acharya!”

Do not the Vadakalais hear these praises, too? Of course, they do. Such praises, sung and proclaimed in Srirangam, are not one, two, eight or ten in number, but many a hundred.

49. When Sri Ramanuja rennovated the temple at Melkote, he appointed fifty two persons, called Aimbattiruvar, to conduct the services, properly, there. The various duties allotted to each of these, are vividly described in a book called Niyamanappadi, or the order of Sri Ramanujacharya. In fact, they were made virtually the masters of the temple and their descendants continue to perform many important services in the temple, to this very day. They are all, Tenkalai.

Of course, in recent years, i. e., about the beginning of the last century, many of their powers were curtailed and other people installed in their places. But the fact, nevertheless remains that Sri Ramanuja appointed only Tenkalais to look after the affairs of that temple. The Archakas of that place, it must also be noted, were appointed by the great teacher himself and they are Tenkalai, even now.

श्रीरङ्गश्रियम्

50. These, then, form Ramanujarya divyajna, common to all sacred shrines which are blessed and, whose continuation is prayed for in the verse रामानुजार्यदिव्याज्ञा वर्धतामभिवर्धताम् - etc. The next verse श्रीमन् श्रीरङ्गश्रियम्… refers to Srirangam alone. Yet it is recited in all temples, because Srirangam is the birth-place of Sri Vaishnavism, and the various Deities consecrated at other shrines, are all considered to be lord Ranganatha’s different forms. And now, dear reader! we have already described, in great detail, that the Vadakalais have no connection whatsoever with the Ramanujaryadivyajna mentioned in the former verse. In fact, it is quite antagonistic to them and as such they ought not to pray for its prosperity and continuity. The latter prayers, too, ought not to be repeated by them, for similar reasons. For, what is after all, Sriranga Sri? After what all is said, is it really necessary for us to repeat the whole story once again? If it is really to be done, we will do so.

Hark! Sriranga Sri represents the grand honours enjoyed by the Acharya Purushas, who are all adorned with the Thenkalai mark and stand in rows in front of the lord to receive that divine grace. Those fortunate people are Sriranganarayanamuni and the descendants of Parasara Bhattarya, Vedavyasa Bhattarya, Vadhula Rangacharya, Varadanarayana guru, Mahapurna Swami, Embar, Gomatam Swami, Prativadibhayankaram Annan, Baladhanvi Swami, Kandadai Bhavanacharya, Kidambi Swami, Ayanar, Kandadai Ramanujar officiating for Dhanurdasa, Araiyars, Tiruvarangathamudanar, Uttamanambi, Mudaliyandan’s sarvadhikaris and Adhyapaka Sri Vaishnavas. When such is Sriranga Sri, who can pray for its prosperity and continuity.

Only, those happy and blessed souls, who enjoy that Sri in all eagerness and earnestness can pray for its continuation. These Vadakalais, who can never have the pleasure of enjoying that Sri, even in their dreams, and consequently cannot go into raptures over it, continue to repeat श्रीमन् श्रीरङ्गश्रियम्…, without understanding the true significance of that blessed verse!+++(4)+++ This resembles the prayer made by the demons, “All glory and prosperity to the gods!"+++(4)+++

Yet, these people who have taken great pains to alter the Taniyan of Manavalamamuni and his guru, have thought it proper to retain these verses, intact, under the delusion that they are alright, for the very simple reason that they do not mention Varavaramuni! Is this not sufficient to prove that these people have no connection whatsoever with Divya Desas and Divya Prabandhas?

51. Thus, we have described, in detail, how these Vadakalais have changed some of the Tanians, that are recited along with the Divyaprabandhas, while retaining certain others, all without understanding their proper significance.

Desika tenkalai

52. Let us now consider Desika’s real Kalai, both in his human and idol forms, and find out if he really has any connection with the new patra Tanian and Vadakalai.

Dipaprakasa

It is admitted on all hands that Desika was born in Kancheepuram, near Lord Dipaprakasa’s temple. In that place, there is a shrine dedicated to him also, which was adorned with huge Tenkalai marks in brick and mortar ever since its inception. The Vadakalais destroyed that mark, in the year 1874. This fact is borne out by government records.

In the Srirangam temple also, there is a shrine dedicated to Desika, in front of Sri Ranganayaki’s shrine, and it is, even to this day, adorned with Tenkalai marks.

Similarly the Tenkalai mark in the Kancheepuram temple existed until 1874. Let us explain how it came to be destroyed. There was a very great Vadakalai Pandit in Kancheepuram, by name Sri Krishna Tatacharya alias Tirupputkuzhi Appaswami. He expired about 63 years ago. He is the author of many books including Ratnapetika, a commentary upon the Nyaya Siddhanjana of Desika. This gentleman ordered some of his disciples to destroy the brick and mortar Tenkalai mark found along with Sankha and Chakra, on the Desika’s shrine. This was executed, stealthily. +++(??)+++

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

And when they Thenkalais appealed to court this bluff was ignored and all charges removed. No proper evidence of a long standing thenkalai mark in thiruthanka nor of its destruction by Thirupputkuzhi Swamy. - mAlola

They went to court and lost the case. Where they won, he would say court is right. Where they lost, he would say court is wrong. Of course it is possible. But for that he should be neutral about facts. He is anything but neutral. Just a rabble rouser. - RL

On coming to know of this, the Tenkalai Acharyas instituted criminal proceedings against this Krishna Tatacharya and others, in the court of the joint magistrate at Chingleput before Mr. Kurul, Sub-collector. That suit bore, number 72. The following is an extract from the deposition made by Krishna Tatacharya before the magistrate

“It is true that the Desika’s shrine attached to Dipaprakasa temple was adorned with Tenkalai marks….About six months ago, when I was out of station, I heard that some Vadakalai people destroyed it. It is only the Tenkalai Acharyas that recite Divya Prabandham there, and they begin with the invocation Srisailesadayapatram. The Vadakalais never recite the Tanian, Ramanujadaya patram there”

Thus it could be seen that Srisailesadayapatram, alone was being recited here from the beginning, and even to-day, this holds the ground because the new Patra Taniyan has not gained admission at all.

53. When the Tenkalai mark there, was destroyed by these people they tried to shout out the new Patra Tanian also. The result of all these endeavours is not far to seek. It is well known and preserved permanently in government records. The courts strictly restrained these intruders from reciting that verse, and those who dared to break the law were duly punished.

Thus the old custom of reciting the Sri Sailesadayapatram Taniyan, continues without any hindrance. We ask the reader to try to find out if the recital of this Srisailesadayapatram Tanian has met with any objection, any where throughout our land. Nowhere it is objected to. Of course we do not deny that in a few places, which these Vadakalai people have managed to seize by means, other than fair, they have been reciting the new Patra verses, of late. We have already explained that these people were able to usurp control of temples on account of various reasons, one of them being that the number of Tenkalai Acharyas residing in those places, gradually dwindled down, when the other sect increased in number.

That these Vadakalai people had originally, nothing to do with the Divya Suris, Divya Prabandhas and Divya Desas, which they criticised and hated originally and that it is only very recently that they have begun to show peculiar interest in them, and that ever since, they have been persistenly following practices contrary to established ones have been proved in the foregoing pages.

Deshika connection

54. Let us now prove that these people had, originally, no connection even with Desika, and that it is only very recently that they have begun to show devotion towards him. We will prove this in two ways:—first, by showing that they are not devoted to Desika installed in Divya Desas, in times of lore and second, by explaining, how they are holding and propagating doctrines, which mostly run, counter to Desika’s teachings. In these two ways, we will prove beyond all doubt, that their connection with, or devotion to, Desika is very modern and as such unnatural.

Temple marks

Desika, as everybody knows, was born at Kanchi and lived mostly at Srirangam. We have already seen the state at his birth-place, in Kanchi. About Srirangam no proof is needed. Any one can witness it even to-day. Of affairs there, the shrine of Desika, situated in front of Sri Ranganayaki’s temple is even to-day adorned with Tenkalai marks in brick and mortar very prominently. Anybody will be satisfied that they are many centuries old. They are not carved making deep surfaces in the stones, but are all in relief, i. e. the marks bulge, outside the surface of the stones. They ought to have been done while dressing the stones themselves, and are impossible to be carved out afterwards. Huge stone pillars that are yards stout and belonging to very ancient times are thus adorned with Tenkalai marks, not only in the temple at Srirangam, but in many other places, too, such as Ananta Sayanam (Trivandrum) Jagannathapuri (Puri), Srikurmam, Simhachalam etc. Even in those temples which were converted into Vadakalai in the 19th century, we find Tenkalai marks which could not, and cannot be destroyed even now.

In Ahobilam, that Mathadhipati’s efforts to efface the Tenkalai marks found in the shrine spending huge sums of money (a very noble act indeed for a Srivaishnava) were of no avail.+++(4)+++

मालोलः

No thenkalai naamam is found in shrines of Ahobilam both Hills and in Lower Ahobilam. Random rocks in the forest and mandapas have them. Can remove them if needed now at no cost by the matha still as they are too insignificant no one cares.

Old inscription with vaDakalai mark seen in shrine. Source: TW

shrIrangam

Needless to add that the idol of Desika, within the shrine at Srirangam also, bore the same marks, originally.

When the Vadakalais changed it, a big quarrel ensued as a result of which, Desika ceased to be taken out in procession, along with the other Azhwars and Acharyas during the festivals, such as the famous Adhyayanotsava.+++(5)+++ So long as he wore the original Tenkalai mark, he enjoyed much pomp and splendour, all of which came to a full stop, when the change of Kalai took place; so much so, he is now no better than the Archamurti or static Idol.+++(4)+++

Nowadays these people have erected many new shrines for Desika in the outskirts of the temple precincts and find consolation by repeating the new Patra Tanian and others. If the reader takes some pains to count the number of Desika temples constructed recently, in the outskirts of the temples, he will be dumb-struck.

kAnchI

55. The story is the same at Kanchipuram too. There also, the Vadakalais in utter disregard to the Desika of his birthplace have constructed a new temple just outside the original shrine, where they celebrate his festival by crying hoarse the new Patra verse.

Another old shrine of Desika in the temple of Lord Varadaraja, also had been disregarded by them and a new temple in an out-of-the way lane near the Vegavati river has been constructed of late! Why so? Because, they have had no connection with the original shrines and as such cannot find privilege to their peculiar creeds.

tenkalai deshika shrines disregard

In many other Divya Desas, like Tiruvallikkeni (Triplicane, Madras), Sriperumbudur, Thiruvindalur and so on, where the idols of Desika within the main temple, are worshipped duly, they have paid scant respect for them, and taken all the trouble to erect new shrines, for the sole pleasure of reciting the new Patra verse. These all happened, within the last sixty years or so.+++(4)+++ Before that time, there were no competitive shrines. Even in such places as Tirucherai and Tirukkottiyur, these out-of-the way shrines were constructed, in very recent times.

If we ask them point blank, “why have you discredited the original shrines of Desika by multiplying imitation ones?” we are sure to get the reply expressed or implied,

“why, the original idols of Desika consecrated in the main temples of these Divya Desas, wear the Tenkalai mark and appear to feel jubilant over listening to the Taniyan Srisailesadayapatram, and refuse to be worshipped by us according to our will and pleasure. So we have discarded them and created new shrines in the outskirts of the town and console ourselves by exhibiting all this pomp and splendour”

No other reply can possibly be given.+++(नैवम् - भवद्-बलात्कारापकरणम् इष्टम्। )+++ I

f these people were really true devotees of Desika and had really worshipped him in the original shrines, where alone he was installed six centuries ago, there is no reason on earth to believe that they had cut off their connection, all on a sudden either voluntarily or by pressure. Therefore the newly erected shrines go to prove that they have begun to express admiration of the great teacher only of late. Is there any other Acharya with similar duplicate shrines?

puNDra

56. Many people want to know when the difference, in the Urdhwapundram, between the two Kalais was created, by whom, where and why? There is no evidence to show when the difference cropped up. As both these types have been ordained in the Sastras, it is possible and probable that both are very old. But, the fact that we lay emphasis upon, is, that none of our Purva Acharyas, ever created this difference. It is an unchallengeable truth, that all our Acharyas, including Desika, wore the same mark, viz. Tenkalai; there was no exception to this. The Vadakalai pundra was in vogue under the name Kirunamam, meaning line-mark. Many Vaishnavas, not belonging to Ramanuja’s system are wearing such marks, even now. Our Acharyas never wore it.

deshika’s prescription

This we can safely conclude, because of the statement of Desika himself, who says in his Sachcharitra raksha (see page 73 of our edition of the same, Vedanta Desika Grantha mala), that according to the Sastras, Urdhwapundra can be made in many forms such as those of the candle flame, the lotus bud, blue-lotus, fish, tortoise, conch, surpa, Dhattura flower, tamarind leaf and so on, and that nevertheless these forms are meant for ordinary Vaishnavas, whereas Bhagavathas or out and out Sri Vaishnavas must take to Haripadakara, i. e., resembling the Lord’s feet.

57. We will now illustrate these forms with the help of suitable figures. In the sets of figures, illustrated in the following pages the first figure in each set shows the actual picture of the model, like kurma etc., and the second figure shows the final nature of the Urdhwapundra made to resemble it, with the Srichurna rekha in the middle. It is obvious that we cannot do all the drawing to exactly reproduce the original model upon our forehead; we can only follow the rough outline. It will be seen that each one of these marks develops into the present Vadakalai mark.

58. Desika has stated in his Sachcharitraraksha, quoting extensively from the Parasara Samhita and others, that though certain Sastras do mention these forms for the Urdhwapundras, nevertheless, they are intended for ordinary Vaishnavas only, and that Ekanti Vaishnavas or Sri Vaishnavas of the highest order have to make their Urdhvapundras similar to the Lord’s feet, only. This means that the great teacher never had a soft corner for the Vadakalai mark. Of course, he did not and could not decry them outright, because they were mentioned in the Sastras. Nevertheless he propagated that they were not meant for the followers of Sri Ramanuja.

tenkalai mark authority

59. We will next proceed to discuss the nature of, and authority for, the Tenkalai mark, with the help of suitable figures. Figures 1, 2 and 3 in page 53 show the different stages of development of this Urdhvapundra. According to certain Pancharatra texts, the mark must be made in the form of the Lord’s feet, taking its root from the nose. हरेः पादद्वयाकृतिम्….। नासिकामूलमारभ्य…। The root on the nose is again described in those Sastras as meaning a third part of the nose. So it comes to this, viz. the marks have to be made beginning from the third part of the nose and resembling the two feet of the Lord. This form is illustrated in Fig. 1. It will be seen that in strict conformity with this rule, we will have to cover up a part of both the eyes, too. So, for convenience, a portion of the marks that cover the eyes is deleted. The shape resulting out of this correction is shown in Fig. 2. Again, certain other texts ordain that the Urdhvapundra must be beautiful to look at and should not contain any loose lines, etc. The final perfected form after these modifications is shown in Fig. 3. These Urdhvapundra marks are made not only upon the forehead, but also upon many other parts of the body, such as the stomach, chest, neck, shoulders etc. In these places, there are no eyes to obstruct a part of them and so no modification is necessary. This explains why, in these places, they are worn in a form different from that on the forehead. The marks made on the walls, towers etc. of temples, are yet made to resemble the mark on the forehead, because, the face is the most important part of the body.

Parasara Samhita

60. The Parasara Samhita, explicitly lays down that a pada, two angulas in length, must be made on the nose (नासादौ द्व्यङ्गुलं पादम् ।).

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

नासादौ द्व्यङ्गुलं पादं
मध्यं सार्धाङ्गुलं भवेत् ।
पार्श्वावङ्गुलमात्रौ
सुस्पष्टं धारयेत् द्विजः ॥

The word Pada occurring in this passage seems to give some difficulty to certain people, who try to interpret it as meaning feet and then argue that it refers to the two marks made on the forehead itself, and not on the nose. +++(5)+++This is not the correct interpretation of the text in question, because, in that case, the word नासादौ meaning ‘at the root of the nose’, becomes meaningless. The word द्व्यङ्गुलम् means two angulas (an angula means a length equal to a finger’s width). The mark on the forehead is, to be sure, not confined to two angulas in length. So the word pada must have a different meaning. It means root, according to the Upanishat which describes the Urdhvapundra as a tree, having a root, one angula in length—एकाङ्गुले पुण्ड्रतरोस्तु मूलम् । Even in classical Sanskrit, the word pada means root. That is why trees are called padapa (पादप) because they drink water with their roots and the Vatavriksha or banyan tree is called Bahupat or Bahupada because it has many roots. So, the Parasara Samhita and the Upanishat quoted above lay down that the Urdhvapundra in the face, is to be treated as a tree and must be made to stand upon a root, which is situated on the nose and is one or two angulas in length.

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

अहो व्याख्या-चमत्कारः 😛।

Cobra mark

Certain other texts lay down that the Urdhvapundra is to resemble the two feet of the Lord, placed upon the hood of a coiled serpent,

कुण्डली-कृत-सर्प-स्थ-
हरि-पाद-द्वयाकृतिम् ।

Some people again, try to interpret this text, as meaning, the mark of the Lord’s feet which are to be seen on the hood of the Cobra. (The cobra has a mark upon its head, which is supposed by some to be the mark of lord Sri Krishna’s feet, made when he danced upon the fierce cobra Kaliya, who was doing havoc in the waters of the Yamuna.) This is not the correct interpretation of the passage in question, because, in that case, the word Kundalikrita which qualifies the sarpa becomes meaningless. The text lays down that the serpent must be a coiled one. The mark also is said to be Sarpastha and not phanastha, i. e., resting on the serpent and not ‘seen on the hood’. So, the mark upon the hood is not referred to here. On the other hand it means that the two feet of the Lord must be placed on the head of a coiled serpent. Of course, the serpent has to be placed on the nose, and the feet upon the forehead. Here again the serpent’s ‘coils have to be modified, lest the eyes should be covered. The resultant form is shown in Fig 4. In the other parts of the body, where no obstruction can be caused by the eyes, the coils are not modified at all, and the resulting form is shown in Fig. 5.

Lotus and feet

61. Some other texts have ruled that the two feet of the Lord have to be placed upon a lotus flower (उत्फुल्ल-कमल-स्थायि-हरि-पाद-द्वयाकृतिम्) or upon an Ashtami Chandra or half-moon (अष्टमीन्दु-कलाधार-हरि-पाद-द्वयाकृतिम्). Here the lotus or semi-circle is placed upon the nose and the two feet rest upon them. The resulting form is shown in Fig. 6 and 7. Thus it will be seen that all these forms of Urdhvapundra bearing resemblance of the Lord’s feet develop into the Tenkalai mark, and that there is good cause for difference in forms in the face with those in other parts of the body.

62. Let the reader kindly take note of the fact that in discussing and describing all these matters we have stuck to such authentic works as Parikara Vijaya of Chanda marutham Doddayacharya Swami.

Doctrines

63. Now it remains to be shown how these Vadakalais hold doctrines quite antagonistic to the teachings of Desika, who never deflected in the least, from the path followed by other Acharyas. Since this is rather a tough subject, it has to be dealt with at some length. So we have thought it fit to leave it out, in this volume. We request the curious reader, however, to kindly refer to the following books of ours:—The Sanskrit and Tamil editions of this book, Ramanujadayapatram, Tennacharya Sampradaya, Brahmavyaptiparishkriya, Lakshmitatwa nirnaya, Adrishtartha Sarwaswam, Abhinava dayasatakam, Vatsalyartha prakasika and so on.

विश्वास-टिप्पनी

Tough subject because you’ll be caught?? If anyone gets the sanskrit edition, plz share.

Conclusion

64. Any person, who has taken the trouble to go through these paras, is sure to arrive at the conclusion that these Vadakalais, originally, had no connection whatsoever with Desika, and that they have recently taken to Desikabhakti, not out of any realisation of the intrinsic merits of that great teacher, but merely for the pleasure of creating a rival to Manavalamamunigal and through that way, trouble in temples.

65. Many judicial records, regarding this new Patra Tanian and Vadakalai mark, are being selected and edited by Sri V. N. Venkatavaradacharya, Advocate, Madras, and will illustrate, in detail, how these Vadakalai people have created untold trouble in temples at Srirangam, Tirupati, Kancheepuram, Sriperumbudur and so on, and how civil and criminal proceedings against them have been instituted in many courts including the Privy Council. These records will be published as a separate volume, shortly.

Tiruvellore change

66. Many Government records, in Tamil, pertaining to the temple at Tiruvellore, which is under the management of the Ahobila Math, have already been published by us. In that temple, the head of the Ahobila Math used to begin the recital of the Divya Prabandhas, beginning with the mantram Srisailesadayapatram. Recently, however, he changed the custom. This gave birth to many litigations as is evident from many Government records. But finally the new Patra gained ground mainly because the number of Tenkalai residents of that place dwindled considerably. That is a different matter.

Government orders prohibiting the recital of the new verse show that these people effected this deliberate change only recently and in spite of the prohibitory orders.+++(??)+++ What is the Math’s explanation for this? They wrote last year, “See the present; why bother about what happened one or two generations ago?”

मालोलः

A false claim. No proof except an affidavit filed by Thenkalais for this and the court didn’t conclude so in the documents I’ve gone through.

The temple has a very prachina Vedanta Desika shrine and prominent old sculptures of VK Urdhwapundra otoh.

The only relationship that has records of TKs and thiruEvvul is a TK Asuri family holding some tirthakara rights in the temple which Ahobilamatha removed for them after a kalai quarrel.

67. This only goes to prove our case, that in olden times they had no connection with Divya Prabandhas, temples or Desika. We are not interested in the changes—or rather forceful conversions that have been made recently. Our purpose is only to show the nature of things as they originally existed, and in this matter our arguments and conclusions stand unchallenged.