Tirupathi Facts

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

I for one do not believe that the priests are to be blamed for the existing state of affairs. For every one of Tantris of Sabarimala and Guruvayoor who rake in lakhs of rupees, there are hundreds of priests who barely elk out a living. It is the priests who are responsible for maintaining the hundreds of temples scattered all over India. I have seen small temples with almost no income which survive only because of the dedication of the priests.

How can I ever forget priests like the the one in Saranatha temple in Thiruccherai who opened the temple for me and spent so much time explaining the sthala purana, the old priest who took us around the Srirangam temple explaining everything, the priest in the Mongol Chandi temple in Gowhati who took so much pains to explain the worship of Mongol Chandi. The tejas of the American priest of the Narasimha Swami temple in ISKCON temple at Mayapur which made us exclaim "here is a Brahmin". How can I forget the priest at a small Kali temple on the way from Ernakulam to Vaikom who explained Upasana. I can go on.

I have learnt a lot from my inter-action with the priests. They have taught me what real devotion is. They are the ones who keep the flag of Hinduism flying.

Yes. I have had bad experiences with priests also. But then please do understand that for many of the younger generation priests this is only a job. I tell my local pandas "for you this is a workplace. But for me this is my mother's house. A temple."

The Dharmakarthas, Mahants and other Trustees of our temples have been looting our temples for centuries. Blame them . Not the priests who were and continue to be lowly paid employees.

Thank you for your illuminating lines.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Other than records, we can say Ezhumalai is the 7th padai veedu of Lord Subrahmanya. Kundruthor aadum Kumaran, but Thiruchendur is an exception and has a story for that too whereas Mahavishnu vaasasthalam is kadal (sea). Kachchiappar has also mentioned that it is Subrahmanya sthalam. Above all this, vox populi, in many old families Venkatasubramanian is a common name. Further the place is nearest to Thiruththani, a padai veedu of Murugan. I had some material which said the place was decided as Perumaal's on and as compromise. All said and done, the place will be worshipped as Balaaji. Changing the temples and their deities is a very old game and every religion has indulged in.

 

[Iyyarooraan]

Shall we all make a concerted effort to declare that "Tirupathy" is an irreligious (or secular) temple as everybody visits it, prays there and appear to have benefited from. No doubt the lord is called 'Kaliyuga Varadhan'.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Dear Shri Nacchinarkiniyan, Greetings!

I am not sure I understand what you are getting at. Krishna Deva Raya being a Vaishnava and was associated with Thirumalai does not say anything about its possible origins, or am I missing anything.

Vaishnavites just walking into an abandoned/neglected temple and taking over seems a little far fetched, but, yes, it is possible. The Jaina claim is also possible, may even have more going for them. I forgot where I read that article, possibly Hindu. I googled the article, but nothing useful but a blog which is too polemical without good neutral references. I will keep digging and if and when I find the article I will post a link.

Unless a meticulous archeological and iconographic study is done, we will never know for sure.

Cheers!

Thank you, Prof. Nara,

In India the temples were constructed by the Kings who endowed them with land grants for maintenance. The temples were handed over to certain groups/institutions in Trust for running. This is from the Puranic times. The Kings continue to endow lands and money to ensure that the temples were maintained properly.

A tradition of gift-giving (dana) in India as a means of distributing wealth and attaining fame and prestige extends back through the Vedic period and is imbued with a legal format by the turn of the Common Ear. By this time, dana is being applied in the form of land grants to brahmanas, large gifts of cash to religious beneficiaries, and the building of alms—houses for distribution of food and clothing to the city’s needy.”— these were the original “endowments” and were used to found new institutions for any number of purposes. Furthering the goals of the institution, “undergoing personal penance, giving for purely altruistic purposes, and establishing and improving one’s reputation.”

From very early on, local governments began to take notice of and oversee the endowments received by the institutions. Reddy discusses the existence of a separated Religious Endowment Department in 15th century Andhra Desa, which supervised the functioning of religious institutions and maintained copies of original grants; similar arrangements were also made in other Hindu Kingdoms.” (cf Hindu and Muslim Religious Institutions)—this supports Derret’s theory (in Religion, Law and the State…) that modern Indian regulation of endowments is in consonance with its own traditions’ and not imitating Western ones.

The first Hindu religious and charitable endowment regulation was enacted in 1810. British continued regulation until 1830’s, “when religious groups in England began to protest their government’s involvement in non-Christian institutions.” Which also included “payments to temples whose endowments had lapsed”, “In 1843, the British government began its withdrawal from endowment regulation; all regulation was given over to local rajas, panchayats, newly-formed committees, or existing temple priests and trustees. This withdrawal produced a vacuum of authority in endowment regulation, producing mismanagement on a scale rivaling, and possibly surpassing, that of any period. The British severed all ties between the BOR and endowment regulation in the Religious Endowment Act of 1863 (Act XX), which provided for the appointment of Local Committees to replace the BOR. These Committees exercised supervision only over those temples whose trustees were appointed; temples whose trustees were hereditary were left wholly unmanaged until 1920…The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act of 1920 (Act XIV)—passed almost 60 years later—allowed an interested party to apply to a court” to get the financial information of trusts for public use—and this Act, like all preceding ones, was only for public trusts, and “private religious endowments were still wholly unregulated.”

--Religion and Law in Independent India second enlarged edition ed. Robert D. Baird.

Many temples were constructed as drought relief measure. They were used as shelters during floods, as Granary and even for stockpiling arms.

The Kings and later the British administration did decide who should run the temple.There are recorded instances when they have handed over the administration to a new party over ruling the existing administration. In Tamil Nadu. I am not quoting instances since that information would hurt the sentiments of members.

There have been hundreds of cases regarding temple administration in Indian courts where the validity of the claim has been decided by the court. This has decreased after independence.

Though strictly not relevant here, I have quoted the above because many members seem to be of the opinion that the H.R.C. E is something new.

Coming back to your point, the administration of the Thirupathi temple could not have changed without the concurrence of Krishna Deva Raya.

To see how the changes take place let us examine the case of Mahalakshmi temple, Mumbai.

It was built aorund 1785 by the Pathare Prabhu community who built another Devi temple in Prabha Devi (Mumbai, not far from Mahalakshmi) for Sakhambari devi. This community was one of the original settlers of Bombay.

But later the entire area was settled by Gujarati Hindus and Jains. Lakshmi is worshiped in Jainism also. So the local people made it a temple for Lakshmi without removing the old idols.

Peaceful transition. This is true in almost all cases.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nacchinarkiniyan, Greetings!

....Coming back to your point, the administration of the Thirupathi temple could not have changed without the concurrence of Krishna Deva Raya.

But, KDR's support for Vaishnavas does not say anything about the true origin of Thirumali temple. By his time, the temple must have been a Vaishnava one for nearly 1000 years.

Peaceful transition. This is true in almost all cases.

I am less sanguine about how the transitions may have taken place. I agree that many, or even most of the transitions took place when a king changed his allegiance from one religion to another. Bhagavat Ramanuja's hagiography includes many accounts of such conversions. But, if these reverential accounts are to be believed, these transitions were not free of violence. The story goes that in one occasion in Karnataka, Ramanuja debated some 10,000 Jains. He defeated them all and had them crushed in oil grinders. One may take this figuratively, but why can't this be literally true? Even if Ramanuja didn't ask for it, the King may have executed them fearing future uprising by the Jains.

Ramanuja himself, and his disciples, suffered horrible violence at the hands of Shivite Chola king. Even though this particular incidence that drove Ramanuja to Karnataka did not involve transition of temple administration, there was temple related dispute in Thillai Thirucchittirakootam. The popular account of the removal of Govindaraja Perumal not withstanding, the SVs believe they were forced out of the temple. The SVs of the time seemed to have complained to Ramanuja of the loss of the temple, and upon Ramanuja's initiative, a new Govindaraja temple was built in Keez Thiruppathi, away from the Chola King's influence. Here all the traditions of Thillai Thiruchchitirakootam Govindaraja perumal temple were instituted. Even today, this temple in Keez Thiruppati is called Thiruchithirakootam, a reminder to the origin of the temple.

Then, there is Thirumangai Azhavr's story, which includes an episode of burglary from a Buddha vihara in Nagappatinam of huge stock of gold with which the Azhvar is supposed to have built the outer praharam of Sri Rangam temple.

At that time the Tamil landscape must have been dotted with Budda Viaharas and Jaina temples. IMO, only a few of them must have undergone a peaceful transition. Many probably were simply taken over because they lost the patronage of the prevailing authority. Resisters would have been put to death. When Pandiya kings changed from Jaina to Sahivas it seems many Jainas were slaughtered. Much of this history is shrouded in mystery, it is really hard to get a true account what really took place.

So, I feel we cannot claim that the transitions were peaceful in almost all cases.

Cheers!

 

[happyhindu]

..the administration of the Thirupathi temple could not have changed without the concurrence of Krishna Deva Raya.

Dear Sir,

The Thirumala temple was a Vaishnava temple before the rule of Krishna Deva Raya (KDR). Maybe the administration changed under KDR's rule, because the Metla Rajas began administering this region during the rule of KDR (Metla or Metlu rajulu were so called bcoz they were administrators of the areas of the mettus or stairs, including the areas of Srivari Mettu). But the deity at this time was already Perumal.

Krishnadeva Raya ruled from around 1510 to 1530. Am giving below info from some selected inscriptions where the lord is specifically mentioned in the Vaishnavite form. This pertains to a period earlier to that of Krishnadeva Raya.

1) In 1454, one Tallapaka Thirumalacharyalu also known as Thirumala Ayyangar and known for singing various Shringara-kirtanas for Sri Venkatesa, erected a tank at Thirumala on orders from Achyuta Raya. (Source: TTDI.IV.52, Thirumala). (I don’t know if this refers to Annamayya or his son Thirumalayya).

2) An inscription dated 1413 refers to the reading of ‘Thiru Venkata Mahatmayam’ composed and presented to the Lord at Thirumala by Pasindi Venkatatturaivar alias Jiyar Rammanujayyangar. (Source: Ibid.II.95. Thirumala). In 1469 provision was made to start the recital of Thiruvenkata Mahatmayam to the Thirumala deity. (Source: Ibid.V.92.Tirupati)

3) A record of 1339 mentions that Saluva Narasimha Raya Udaiyar constructed the Vasanta Mandapam for God Venkatesa (source: Ibid II.31, Thirumala).

4) A record of 1367 mentions that the Thirupallielluchi festival was celebrated for Govindaraja Perumal of Thirupati and offerings were made for 30 days of margali month (source: Ibid.I.212, Thirumala).

5) A 1281 record mentions that one Mahamandaleshvara Mishraganda Mangideva Maharaja, fixed a golden shikhara over the vimana of Thirumaladeva of Thirumala (Source: Ibid.I.179).

6) A record of 1298 mentions some persons making offerings during Suprabhatam (which means the presence of Suprabhatam sevai in the temple was already existing in 1298). There are also many inscriptions mentioning various sevais like punugukappu, pulikappu, etc, various offerings of taligais, thirupaniyarams and naivedyams of different types and celebrations of various festivals like kaishikapuranam festival, etc.

7) An undated record mentions that the telugu Pallava king Vijayaganda Gopala made a deposit to offer camphor light to God Venkatesa of Thirumala (Source: TTDI, I.67, Thirumala).

Some more sources of Cholas and Pallavas are mentioned here: Sapthagiri

Please note the presence of a Pallava inscription dated in the 51st year of the reign of Ko-Vijaya-Danti-Vikrama Varman (that is in the year 830 AD), supposedly the earliest inscription or stone record of the lot -- it records an arrangement made for keeping a lamp burning before a processional image installed in the shrine of Tiruvenkatattu-Emperumanadigal.

By the year 880 AD this was definitely a Vaishnava shrine in which the deity was recognized as Thirumaal or Perumaal.

Apparently although Sangam literature mentions the hill Thiruvengadam, it does not mention the existence of a deity. However, Silappadhikaram by the Jaina monk Illango Adigal describes the Vengadam deity as mentioned by Nara sir in the posts above. Which means that by the time of Silappadikaram this deity was considered Perumal or Thirumal.

Interestingly there is an Adi Varaha temple (boar avatara) in Thirumala which is supposedly older than the main Perumal temple. Legends about it are somewhat obscure. Apparently there are / were many shrines on the hills some of which became dilapidated and crumbled. I wonder if the controversy may pertain to the Varaha temple or to some other temple which no longer exists.

 

[happyhindu]

Am intrigued by these verses from the Yajur Taittriya Samhita (kanda 6, prapataka 2) which says:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The sacrifice went away from the gods in the form of Visnu, and entered the earth. The gods sought him grasping hands. Indra passed over him. He said, 'Who has passed over me?' 'I am he who smites in the stronghold; who art thou?' 'I am he who brings from the stronghold.' He said, 'Thou art called he who smites in the stronghold. Now a boar, stealer of the good, keeps the wealth of the Asuras which is to be won beyond the seven hills. Him smite, if thou art he who smites in the stronghold.' He plucked out a bunch of Darbha grass, pierced the seven hills, and smote him. He said, 'Thou art called he who brings from the stronghold; bring him.' So the sacrifice bore off the sacrifice for them; in that they won the wealth of the Asuras which was to be won (vedyam), that alone is the reason why the Vedi is so called. The Asuras indeed at first owned the earth, the gods had so much as one seated can espy. The gods said, 'May we also have a share in the earth?' 'How much shall we give you?' 'Give us as much as this Salavrki can thrice run round.' Indra taking the form of a Salavrki thrice ran round on all sides the earth. So they won the earth, and in that they won it therefore is the Vedi so called”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It wud be so nice if someone can help explain these verses. Sangom Sir, please can you oblige -- is there any info where are these seven hills located (which the taitriya verses are talking about)? Does Salavrki really mean a hyena? Could this possibly refer to a conflict between the austroasiatic tribals and the IE settlers ?

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

H.H.

One single word. Your sources are all official sources. Inscriptions have been changed to suit the rulers. Very common occurance. Of course I was wrong about Krishna Deva Raya.

Nothing explains the iconography of the idol.

That is where the discussion started.

Talking about temples the Jagannath temple at Puri was also originally a Devi temple. The Devi idol is still there. Every one knows it. Local devotees pray there. The idol of Puri Jagannath is tribal in origin.

You ask the local people about the Bhadrinath idol. The face is smooth with no features. The story is that when the Buddhists took over the temple they threw the Vishnu idol into the hot springs. When the Hindus regained control, they threw the Buddha idol into the hot spring. The temple changed hands so many times that no one can definitely say whether the present idol is Vishnu or Buddha. They will tell you this and laugh. That is India. Nothing to be worked up about.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

There are many things about our temples which are inexplicable. Orissa was a center of Saivism and Sakthism. There were 1000 Siva temples in Bhubaneshwar of which more than 300 survive tody. The entire region around Puri is dotted with Devi temples. We also have the famous Sakshi Gopal temple. How did a Devi temple become a Vishnu temple in Puri? Really God only knows. No sectarian conflict involved here. Puri temple is a Smartha temple. There is a Sankaracharya Peetam at Puri. Bhadrinath again is a Smartha temple.

When it was discovered long time back that the Nagaraja temple in Nagercoil was originally a Jain temple, what happened? Nothing.

May be we are better off without knowing the history of our temples.

I think it is time to close this discussion.

 

[sangom]

Am intrigued by these verses from the Yajur Taittriya Samhita (kanda 6, prapataka 2) which says:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“The sacrifice went away from the gods in the form of Visnu, and entered the earth. The gods sought him grasping hands. Indra passed over him. He said, 'Who has passed over me?' 'I am he who smites in the stronghold; who art thou?' 'I am he who brings from the stronghold.' He said, 'Thou art called he who smites in the stronghold. Now a boar, stealer of the good, keeps the wealth of the Asuras which is to be won beyond the seven hills. Him smite, if thou art he who smites in the stronghold.' He plucked out a bunch of Darbha grass, pierced the seven hills, and smote him. He said, 'Thou art called he who brings from the stronghold; bring him.' So the sacrifice bore off the sacrifice for them; in that they won the wealth of the Asuras which was to be won (vedyam), that alone is the reason why the Vedi is so called. The Asuras indeed at first owned the earth, the gods had so much as one seated can espy. The gods said, 'May we also have a share in the earth?' 'How much shall we give you?' 'Give us as much as this Salavrki can thrice run round.' Indra taking the form of a Salavrki thrice ran round on all sides the earth. So they won the earth, and in that they won it therefore is the Vedi so called”.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It wud be so nice if someone can help explain these verses. Sangom Sir, please can you oblige -- is there any info where are these seven hills located (which the taitriya verses are talking about)? Does Salavrki really mean a hyena? Could this possibly refer to a conflict between the austroasiatic tribals and the IE settlers ?

Smt. HH,

It is yajurveda and as usual the particular portion (yajus 6-2-4) talks about scarifice and the animal thereof. There are many instances of such improbable imagery in YV and this is one such, IMO. Though it may be tempting to link this with the "seven hills" and "saalavrika" = jackal, cat or dog, to a reference to some geographical area, I feel the reference to "sacrifice" refers to sacrificial animal which escaped before being smote. The yajus seems to say, according to me, that the deekshita who performs the upaSada sacrificial ritual, should not eat more than a minuscule of curds; if he violates this injunction, the yajna will leave him, i.e., the merit will be lost to him.

The reference to hills (saptAnAm gireeNAm) does not appear to have any relation to Tirupati hills, IMO.

 

[Nara]

Dear Nacchinarkiniyan,

Please permit me to record one last observation.

May be we are better off without knowing the history of our temples.

I think it is time to close this discussion.

It is lack of proper knowledge about the antecedents of temples that politicians explot to rile up the masses. If the Hindus realize that in a distant past they themselves did what Babar did, then, may be, just may be, there will not be such passion about temples and mosques.

Cheers!

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

I agree. Hindu Kings have destroyed more Hindu temples than the Muslim Kings. We have all seen Durga idols kept in a Niche in the Tamil Nadu temples. Every one of them is from the Chalukya temples. The Chalukyas worshipped Durga.

You can not convince the masses or counter propaganda. But it is wrong to blame only the present day politicians. The Britishers laid the foundation for the propaganda by writing false histories. Divide and Rule was their policy as well as that of the present politicians.

 

[sangom]

I agree. Hindu Kings have destroyed more Hindu temples than the Muslim Kings. We have all seen Durga idols kept in a Niche in the Tamil Nadu temples. Every one of them is from the Chalukya temples. The Chalukyas worshipped Durga.

You can not convince the masses or counter propaganda. But it is wrong to blame only the present day politicians. The Britishers laid the foundation for the propaganda by writing false histories. Divide and Rule was their policy as well as that of the present politicians.

Sir,

Despite all considerations pro & con, is it not good to know the histories of different temples just as a matter of knowledge? Especially in a forum like this? I hope we should continue to get inputs from you so that we learn more and more. Will you kindly oblige?

 

[kunjuppu]

Sir,

Despite all considerations pro & con, is it not good to know the histories of different temples just as a matter of knowledge? Especially in a forum like this? I hope we should continue to get inputs from you so that we learn more and more. Will you kindly oblige?

Nacchi, pray let me second Sangom's request. thank you.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Thank you, sangom and kunjuppu.

May be a separate thread about Temple facts or something like that could be started where we could discuss about temples and their histories. I will do that.

Just now when I was surfing I saw that in a centuries old Kali temple they have replaced "firece ugra form of the Goddess to Shanta Swaroopa form" to quote the web page. It can no longer be called a Kali temple. I know the temple and used to know the Brahmins in charge of it. Sad.

 

[kunjuppu]

thank you nachhi sir.

 

[sangom]

Thank you, sangom and kunjuppu.

May be a separate thread about Temple facts or something like that could be started where we could discuss about temples and their histories. I will do that.

Just now when I was surfing I saw that in a centuries old Kali temple they have replaced "firece ugra form of the Goddess to Shanta Swaroopa form" to quote the web page. It can no longer be called a Kali temple. I know the temple and used to know the Brahmins in charge of it. Sad.

Shri Nacchinarkiniyan,

Awaiting your thread eagerly.

Here in TVPM there is one ugramoorthi (Durga) temple converted into Rajarajeswari within the last 60 or so years - the famous aattukaal devi temple, which was known as 'kannakiyamman kovil' during my college days.

Another "muthaaramman" (muthumaariyamman) temple has also become Rajarajeswari, though the original idols of muthaaramman and muthambalavanar in a lying position - the devi with small-pox clearly shwoing - was still there in front of the newly installed Rajarajeswari idol, when I visited that temple some ten years or so ago.

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

Shri Nacchinarkiniyan,

Awaiting your thread eagerly.

Here in TVPM there is one ugramoorthi (Durga) temple converted into Rajarajeswari within the last 60 or so years - the famous aattukaal devi temple, which was known as 'kannakiyamman kovil' during my college days.

Another "muthaaramman" (muthumaariyamman) temple has also become Rajarajeswari, though the original idols of muthaaramman and muthambalavanar in a lying position - the devi with small-pox clearly shwoing - was still there in front of the newly installed Rajarajeswari idol, when I visited that temple some ten years or so ago.

I will post my reply in this new thread

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/temples/6039-temples-temples-temples.html

Please close this thread.

Srinivasaa Gobinda !

Sri Venkatesa Gobinda !

Abhadbandavaa Gobinda !

Anadharakshakaa Gobinda !

Gobinda Hari Gobinda !

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Nacchinarkiniyan Sir,

Please permit me to post these video links just in case a reader may be interested in viewing them.

YouTube - Real Picture of Lord Balaji from yester years Video Archive.

[this is a more clearer one of the same video: YouTube - Lord Venkateswara swamy Abhishakam Real Rare Video ]

As regards the iconography, one thing is for sure -- this is not the idol of Neminath. Some iconography research was done by an IAS officer named Ramesh. But am not able to get my hands on that publication. Next an author named Viraraghavacharya has published the iconography details in the book titled "History of Tirupathi: the Thiruvengadam temple, Volume 1". Those who can get details from the book may share more on the new thread on Temples http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/temples/6039-temples-temples-temples.html

There is a Krishna connection wrt the Lord on the 7 hills in the Thirumala puranic legend and incarnation of Srinivasa.

However, the Vrishnis are said to have worshipped Ekanamsha or Durga. More details from here: Yadava - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is possible that the Vrishnis shifted to worshipping Krishna and thence, they gradually changed the iconography to be a form of Krishna-Durga and finally to Krishna alone. Just a possibility perhaps.

Regards.

 

[kunjuppu]

I will post my reply in this new thread

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/temples/6039-temples-temples-temples.html

Please close this thread.

Srinivasaa Gobinda !

Sri Venkatesa Gobinda !

Abhadbandavaa Gobinda !

Anadharakshakaa Gobinda !

Gobinda Hari Gobinda !

yeah!! the oracle ha proclaimed !!

 

[Nacchinarkiniyan]

I forgot to add the most important words.

Aparadha Kshamasva Purushotthama !!!