vadakalai vs thenkalai Iyengars and their on going fight

[natkaushik]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear shri Vasudev,

I can understand your anguish, as I have felt like an unwanted person when I (Iyer) visited Triplicane, Srirangam ,T.Nagar temples.

 

[Govinda]

Technically the same Atma pervades everyone/everything....so everyone is of the same value..it is just that some have better marketing skills and project themselves as valuable!

Renuka,

Acc. to your logic, both the offenders and the victims are of same value, but different just in their skills - former with sex or crime skills (part of brain) and latter with the lack of physical skills or confidence skills! So, shouldn't we treat them equally?

Then, why do the justice/law system, give punishments to the offenders becos they committed voluntary criminal acts.

Now explain, what do you mean by same value? or same Atma?

 

[biswa]

The existence of evil is a classic argument against an all-powerful God.

If we believe in an all pervading Paramatma, we should also believe that Raavan was created by him for a reason.

The reason for the existence of evil is to draw a stark contrast with the good. God has decided to leave some challenging puzzles for his creations.

 

[Govinda]

The existence of evil is a classic argument against an all-powerful God. If we believe in an all pervading Paramatma, we should also believe that Raavan was created by him for a reason. Biswa, How did Ravana suddenly got created? Do you mean the Delhi rapists were created by God? That looks like the idea of SATAN

 

[Govinda]

The existence of evil is a classic argument against an all-powerful God.

If we believe in an all pervading Paramatma, we should also believe that Raavan was created by him for a reason.

The reason for the existence of evil is to draw a stark contrast with the good. God has decided to leave some challenging puzzles for his creations.

Biswa,


How did Ravana got created suddenly? Do you mean the Delhi rapists were created suddenly, to attack the victim?

This sounds like the SATAN ideology.

Do you mean to say, God purposely created the evil for the good people to realize? So, only evils are illusion. Then, are good ones REAL?

 

[biswa]

Govinda,

I understand this is a difficult point of debate. I go to a Geeta class taught by a Swamiji of Chinmaya Mission He was teaching the chapter which says God is in everything, animate or inanimate. I assume you believe in the story of the Narasimha avatar. God was even in the inanimate pillar, so why is it hard to believe God is in all humans, after all nobody is 100% good or 100% evil. According to the Guruji, this is the second level of consciousness. First we have to see God in good things, then later we may be able to see God in all things.

The second thing to note is that Hindu dharma has no concept of Satan. Even Yamaraj presiding over Naraka is not Satan. First lets see if we agreement on this, then I am happy to discuss further.

It is true, that this point of creation of evil is rather subtle.

 

[renuka]

Renuka,

Acc. to your logic, both the offenders and the victims are of same value, but different just in their skills - former with sex or crime skills (part of brain) and latter with the lack of physical skills or confidence skills! So, shouldn't we treat them equally?

Then, why do the justice/law system, give punishments to the offenders becos they committed voluntary criminal acts.

Now explain, what do you mean by same value? or same Atma?

Dear Govinda ji,

In my reply to Sarang ji..there was no talk about crime and punishment.

So I fail to see the relevance of your question but anyway since you asked the question I will answer you.

At the Atmic level there is no difference from human to human..I think this needs no explanation cos I think you should also be knowing this.

Ok the Justice system is to maintain law and order for any crime or misdeed done!

Ok now the doer is only the Body and NOT the Atma.

So the punishment is for the body as we know that the Atma can not be cut by weapons..cannot be burnt by fire,cannot be wet by water or be dried by wind.

Now coming to value..each Atma is from the original source Paramatma and obviously of the same Atmic make up cos when you remove a portion from the original portion..you still get the original portion and what remains is verily the original portion.

 

[krish44]

My understanding of the difference between Vadakalai and Thenkalai is from reading articles in internet sources. May not be adequate for scholarly discussions.

The differences are based on doctrinal interpretations. "The Vadakalai follow the doctrines of Vedanta Desika and Ramanuja, while the Thenkalai follow the doctrines of Manavalamamunigal and Ramanuja".

Vadakalais emphasize the need of Some positive gesture of the individual soul (Jeevathma) to deserve the grace of God and attain moksa. the Vadakalai holds that man has to win god's grace through his efforts and he has to cling on to god, like an infant monkey clinging on to its mother. Which is called "markata nyaya"

Tenkalais emphasize the greatness and overwhelming grace of the Lord to "save His own",He saves the soul on His own initiative; and the devotee should not try to force Him. Lord's grace is spontaneous and He can grant moksa to anyone He wishes.The Thenkalai holds that devotion is all that is necessary and that god will on his own initiative carry the devotee to salvation, like a cat carrying a kitten, which is called "marjara nyaya".

There are about 18 such points of differences (ashtadasa bhedas) with varying degrees of insignificance based purely on interpretation of scholars.

In fact, most people know only this difference regarding the application of the caste marks in the form of 'U' by the Vadakalai and 'Y' by the Thenkalai sects. This is an example of how over- enthusiastic fanatics could blow up insignificant and inconsequential distinctions to abnormal proportions to the level of transfering to animate and inanimate things and taking the dispute to highest Courts of Law.

bigthanks . I got educated. pl elaborate ashta bhedas. I appreciate your scholarship

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear Shri Nara,

Apart from the doctrinal differences between the two "kalais", thereis a rather widespread view that one of the two Kalais represents, people fromthe lower castes who converted to vaishnavism as also brahmin status whereasthe other kalai represents original (smartha) brahmins who converted tovaishnavism and visishtadvaita. I have heard this from one Iyengar sourceitself. Though you had, on an earlier occasion, rebutted the legend of Ramanujaclimbing the gopuram and calling upon all and sundry to convert, etc., my pointis, is there any possibility of lower castes having gained acceptance into thevaishnavite brahmin group?

Looking at the differences even now practised among christians, muslims etc.,based on pre-conversion caste status, it looks to me that the reason for suchdeep-rooted differences between the two "kalais" could not have beensimple philosophical disputes but has to be one of caste-based prejudices.

Lets get one thing clear - Never in history has there been a caste conversion & no King has ever ordered such conversions!! Brahmin control over the Kings were total, so our ancestors maintained complete exclusivity.

Infact as and when Brahmins moved away to other religions, they were not identified with Brahmins there after. For eg. Lingayats in Karnataka were orginally Brahmins, & when they moved away/started following Basavanna, they were no longer identified as Brahmins. But you can see many Lingayats will say they were originally Brahmins.

So if you read my earlier posts – Brahmins are a separate race – mix of Romans + Greeks + Jews+ Dravidians. The Alexander soldiers took the local dravidians mostly the dravidian royalty as their wives. After the initial intermix, the Brahmins have maintained absolute exclusivity to this day. Because they took the dravidians as local wives, you will find approx 50% fair skinned & 50% Brown skinned in all Brahmin sects & sub sects.

So how did theThankalais & Vadakalais orignate. There were 3 migrations of Brahmins from Karnataka – Trojan Kingdoms – Kingdom of Ravana & Kauravas !

First (small) migration happened prior to the Ramayana war from the Trojan empire to Tamil Nadu Kingdoms & they were performing the rituals, poojas working for these Kings.

Second (Major) migration happened after the Ramayana war, so Brahmins from Troy/Lanka migrated to Narasimhavarman’s kingdom & settled in Kanchi. Kanchi - capital of Narasimhavarman kingdom is also known as Brahmeespuram & controlled all Vedic studies, philosophyetc.. in all through to this day !

Third (Major) migration happened after the Mahabharata war from the Karnatic (Kauravas/Karna) Kingdom to the Pandian King. These Brahmins carried the Carnatic music with them.

Thats why - you will see some Brahmin families with carnatic music and some only restrict to study of Vedas !!

Some of the people from this first migration aligned with their Kings & they started exclusively identifying with Narasimha – Vishnu God – these are theThenkalais & hence they control a large portion of the temples.

After the Second/ third migration, some of the Brahmins who embraced Vaishavism along with Ramanujam who was an Iyer Vadama himself were called “Vadakalais”!


This came up in an earlier discussion with Brahmins worshipping Madura Kali Temple at Sirivachur where the priests are NBs but you find a lot of madisar wearing Brahmins coming here. Not sure if people know that ShankaraCharya Periaval’s family diety is Sirivachur MaduraKaliamman temple !!. Kannagi before she burns down Madurai, tells – spare the brahmins, innocents ... so the brahmins who were spared by Kannagi worship her to this day. The NB priests are the descendants of the Sherperd family where Kannagi & Kovalan stayed prior to the incident.

So again there was/is never any converts into Brahmins. In short, the Brahmin exclusivity was so high, and even if some of the NBs had converted to Brahmins (I dont agree this ever happened becos there are no written inscriptions nor any Sanskrit texts talking about such conversions, but lets assume based on others assertion) during Ramanujam's time, they were NO longer identified as Brahmins after Ramanujam similar to what happened after Basavanna.

 

[Jaykay767]

More importantly how could a NB convert to a Brahmin in ancient times without knowing Vedas, strong lineage of Brahmin ancestors, rituals & traditions. Our Gurukkals never allowed any NB to come in & learn Vedas. Given our elaborate arranged marriages with horoscopes, ascertaining the boy or girls lineage/ancestors, rituals etc... they will not give their sons & daughters for marriage. so in ancient times, this was impossible.

 

[sangom]

Lets get one thing clear - Never in history has there been a caste conversion & no King has ever ordered such conversions!! Brahmin control over the Kings were total, so our ancestors maintained complete exclusivity.

Infact as and when Brahmins moved away to other religions, they were not identified with Brahmins there after. For eg. Lingayats in Karnataka were orginally Brahmins, & when they moved away/started following Basavanna, they were no longer identified as Brahmins. But you can see many Lingayats will say they were originally Brahmins.

So if you read my earlier posts – Brahmins are a separate race – mix of Romans + Greeks + Jews+ Dravidians. The Alexander soldiers took the local dravidians mostly the dravidian royalty as their wives. After the initial intermix, the Brahmins have maintained absolute exclusivity to this day. Because they took the dravidians as local wives, you will find approx 50% fair skinned & 50% Brown skinned in all Brahmin sects & sub sects.

So how did theThankalais & Vadakalais orignate. There were 3 migrations of Brahmins from Karnataka – Trojan Kingdoms – Kingdom of Ravana & Kauravas !

First (small) migration happened prior to the Ramayana war from the Trojan empire to Tamil Nadu Kingdoms & they were performing the rituals, poojas working for these Kings.

Second (Major) migration happened after the Ramayana war, so Brahmins from Troy/Lanka migrated to Narasimhavarman’s kingdom & settled in Kanchi. Kanchi - capital of Narasimhavarman kingdom is also known as Brahmeespuram & controlled all Vedic studies, philosophyetc.. in all through to this day !

Third (Major) migration happened after the Mahabharata war from the Karnatic (Kauravas/Karna) Kingdom to the Pandian King. These Brahmins carried the Carnatic music with them.

Thats why - you will see some Brahmin families with carnatic music and some only restrict to study of Vedas !!

Some of the people from this first migration aligned with their Kings & they started exclusively identifying with Narasimha – Vishnu God – these are theThenkalais & hence they control a large portion of the temples.

After the Second/ third migration, some of the Brahmins who embraced Vaishavism along with Ramanujam who was an Iyer Vadama himself were called “Vadakalais”!


This came up in an earlier discussion with Brahmins worshipping Madura Kali Temple at Sirivachur where the priests are NBs but you find a lot of madisar wearing Brahmins coming here. Not sure if people know that ShankaraCharya Periaval’s family diety is Sirivachur MaduraKaliamman temple !!. Kannagi before she burns down Madurai, tells – spare the brahmins, innocents ... so the brahmins who were spared by Kannagi worship her to this day. The NB priests are the descendants of the Sherperd family where Kannagi & Kovalan stayed prior to the incident.

So again there was/is never any converts into Brahmins. In short, the Brahmin exclusivity was so high, and even if some of the NBs had converted to Brahmins (I dont agree this ever happened becos there are no written inscriptions nor any Sanskrit texts talking about such conversions, but lets assume based on others assertion) during Ramanujam's time, they were NO longer identified as Brahmins after Ramanujam similar to what happened after Basavanna.

Shri jaykay 767,

What you say above is either complete legend — like Ravana's kingdom, and that too prior to Rama's time, which means during Treta yuga or even the earlier yugas and Ramanuja and/or Pillai Lokacharya were not even thought of by Brahma himself.

Secondly, you give a refreshing view contrary to what many veterans and fierce brahminists in this forum have been opposing all these years and which is my view also, viz., Brahmin control over the Kings were total, so our ancestors maintained complete exclusivity. If only you can provide some convincing supporting references for both these statements, it would be very nice.

FYKI, I know of a thenkalai iyengar (Y naamam) who was my senior in workplace and some of the staunch Vadakalai Iyengars (U naamam) used to confide was not acceptable as their equal since the thenkalais originated from NBs, even if a thousand years ago. This thenkalai man's mother (aged widow) was living alone in some village in TN and she was making flower garlands for the local deity and the son admitted to me that it was the duty of their family for many, many generations; the vadakalai friend said to me that they must originally have been the gardener caste who got converted to brahmin caste and iyengar status too.

I understand from studying history that kings/rulers could, with the consent of the powerful Rajaguru (who often happened to be a braahmana) and his brahmin ministers and other influential members from the brahmin community, grant "braahmana" caste status to any chosen group of people for political or even other reasons and that such caste ascendency has happened in history. Even the instance of "konkanastha" (chit pavan) brahmins is said by historians to be one instance.

I shall therefore be very obliged if you will kindly provide supporting evidence/s for your statements.

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear Sangom,

First off, I am a Vadamal Iyer so have no bias in this debate either way.

I have been analyzing history for many many years now (though part time – it has been a fairly detailed study), have not come across a single instance of NB conversion to B in any of our texts or in written inscription.

I am happy if you can prove my analysis is wrong. King Ravana is known as the only Brahmin King & no-one else in all our Sanskrit texts, this shows that the Brahmins had their own Kingdom led by him before the fall. The fact that Troy (& Pulekeshi/Narasimhavarman war, written inscriptions in Kannada, Tamil) mirrors every single event of the million events recorded by the Victors & Vanquished to me is more solid proof than some imagined Aryan migration pushing the Dravidians to south etc… and the tretayuga timelines J.

How can you prove the timelines given by the historians???? or that you don’t want to question it becos these are full time researchers who spent a lifetime doing it ???? and somehow have more authority in what they are saying ?

What you have mentioned are all oral legends & if you come to us Iyers, many of us will say the same thing about Iyengars - that theyare mixed community, that they will allow anyone into their clan. Will you agree to it ???

So to me, it has to be a solid proof. It is simply not possible in ancient times for NB’s to be converted to be Brahmins let alone beTemple priests. Pl note, Brahmins had enormous traditions, Vedic studies, philosophical leanings, etc.. in the ancient times, it was much more strict for us Brahmins !!. so tell me how can a NB convert into a Brahmin in those days ?

Thenkalais control many of the Vishnu temples & if they were not Brahmins, it will be impossible for them to hold it so long. Vadama Iyengars have all the time been fighting with them, they would have wrested control long back. I can show you many Thenkalais who are fair skinned & similarly many Vadakalais who are brown skinned !!

All the Kings had Brahmins as their Royal Priests & the power wielded by them was enormous. See the influence Sambandhar had on thePandian King, he not only re-converted him back to Shaivism, also punished the Vaishanvites.

In the ancient times, the Brahmin Rishis were super powerful, that even Karna lost all the power because he told Parasurama he is a Brahmin when he was a Kshatriyan. If a Kshatriyan cannot convert to a Brahmin,how can a gardner ?.

All I am saying, pl show me some proof instead of the oral comments, I will simply accept & rest my case.

Cheers,

 

[Jaykay767]

Dear Sangom - Let me also clarify. I have absolutely NO interest in showing off that the entire world is wrong about history, if it were, I would have published this to all. Many of my findings were observed by many others in the past. for eg, in the case of Jesus Christ & Krishna, it was a Russian researcher who first made the comparison which led to speculation that Jesus was in India. so all I have done is to connect all these dots !! I also believe some researchers particularly the Germans did actually come to the same conclusion leading to that Evil Hitler proclaiming himself Aryan & make the swastika as his symbol. so all I am saying is that my analysis is not a fantastic legend has been written by many others in the past and this really may be the truth !!. of course, I am happy to be proved wrong. Cheers,

 

[Jaykay767]

And if you are saying that the brown skinned Thenkalais were NB converts, then what about the brown skinned Vadakalais ??? And if this were the case, then are you saying anyone could just walk in & become a Brahmin & then start a family tradition of Vedic studies, Carnatic Music, Poojas, Daily & Yearly Rituals, etc.. and our Brahmins were more than willing to teach Vedas to everyone. Have u forgotten the DMK fight saying the Brahmins deliberately denied the knowledge of Vedas to NBs ?. And will there not be at-least one written inscriptions, or one such case in our puranas or Sanskrit texts about such conversions ? when there is so much of discussion about who belonged to which caste in our puranas etc..? when even Jainsim & Buddhism records contains extensive reference to each & every Guru saying whether he is a Brahmin or not & from such a great lineage etc...

 

[renuka]

So to me, it has to be a solid proof. It is simply not possible in ancient times for NB’s to be converted to be Brahmins let alone beTemple priests. Pl note, Brahmins had enormous traditions, Vedic studies, philosophical leanings, etc.. in the ancient times, it was much more strict for us Brahmins !!. so tell me how can a NB convert into a Brahmin in those days ?

Thenkalais control many of the Vishnu temples & if they were not Brahmins, it will be impossible for them to hold it so long.
Cheers,

Dear JK,

I have noted that when I was in India that Thenkalais tend to be tall and well built and more muscular as compared to the rest of TBs.

Even a temple priest who I called for my son's naming ceremony was a Thenkalai from India and he was tall and muscular like a Thangaballi of Chennai express.

I used to wonder why they seemed to be having body built of a Non Brahmin.

 

[Jaykay767]

Hi Renuka - I can understand your views. But unless we have a written inscription or Sanskrit text talking about this, we cannot assume that they are converts. Cheers,

 

[renuka]

Hi Renuka - I can understand your views. But unless we have a written inscription or Sanskrit text talking about this, we cannot assume that they are converts. Cheers,

BTW even if they were really Non Brahmin converts...what is the problem? After all our cavemen ancestors did not lead any religious lifestyle right away.
Even Gayatri Mantra recitation I assume existed only after Vishwamitra coined it.

I was just wondering the other day..when foreign workers come to another country..we have intermarriage and new off springs are born of the inter racial kind.

So we humans have been around God knows since when..so how on Earth can anyone claim to be a pure breed of any kind..there are no Sanskrit inscriptions to show which caveman visited which cavewoman in which cave!LOL

BTW there are no Sanskrit inscriptions that say Dinosaurs existed but Dinos existed!

So going by Dino Logic..so may be Thenkalais could have been Non Brahmins too and as I asked earlier..what is so wrong with that??

 

[Jaykay767]

Hi Renuka,

Agree with you! I have absolutely NO problem if some of the Bs are NB converts. In-fact it will help our cause saying we did not discriminate against the NBs as claimed by many others.

All I am saying is that there is no mention of such conversions anywhere from all my years of analyzing history. In-fact not even the Sangam Tamil texts talk about such conversions.

Anyways, I don’t have any problem if it did happen.

Cheers,
JK

 

[Jaykay767]

Secondly, you give a refreshing view contrary to what many veterans and fiercebrahminists in this forum have been opposing all these years and which is myview also, viz.,

Brahmin control over the Kings were total, so ourancestors maintained complete exclusivity.

If only you can provide some convincing supportingreferences for both these statements, it would be very nice.

Dear Sangom,

Let me clarify on this. I am NOT in conflict with any of the veteran brahminists here. Just because the Brahmin Royal Priest had total control over the Kings does NOT mean they discriminated against all others.

I only pointed to Sambandhar to show the kind of influence the Royal Priests had, hence they would NOT have allowed any conversion because of the sway they held over the Kings.

Also just because a few Brahmins (< 1% - I mean there were at-best 500 kings in the country, so 500 Royal priests with their assistants J) did mistakes does NOT mean everyone did, so I am in absolute agreement with the Veterans / fierce brahminists !!

As I said in my reply to Renuka - I don’t have aproblem if some of the Bs are NB converts !!

Cheers,
JK

 

[vikrama]

Please visit this blog and see if you could find any useful information from my guesses on the topic.
அந்தணர்களும் சைவமும் - Blogs - Tamil Brahmins

சைவமும் வைணவமும் - Blogs - Tamil Brahmins