Towards Reconciling The Soteriologies of the Tenkalais and the Vadakalais

Swatantra Chintana
-Freedom Of Thought-Lecture Series
-8th August-2009
Edifice Auditorium-D.G.Vaishnav College
-Arumbakkam-Chennai
Towards Reconciling The Soteriologies of The Tenkalais & Vadakalais
By Gnaneshwar B.Pettukola
Om Namo Narayanaya
Dear fellow travelers in life's wonderful journey of discovery of truth; I am sincerely grateful to Dr.K.K.A.Venkastachari my mentor who inspite of his immense knowledge shows great patience in gently introducing me to the SriVaishnavite tradition. It is a matter of great privilege that I share today a platform with Prof. Clooney and Prof. Young who are greatly accomplished in the research of SriVaishnavism and who are blessed by the abundant grace of the Lord.

Before we plunge into the soteriological intricacies of the two subsects namely the Tenkalais and the Vadakalais we must ponder for a moment upon the need to reconcile. The dictionary informs us that to reconcile is to bring back to friendship or union; to bring to agreement or contentment or to prove consistent. We are aware that societies that have fostered reluctance to accept with a whole hearted appreciation alien traditions or the belief's of a sub sect of their own tradition or religion that they presume that they do not belong to ; do so at their own peril. This reluctance soon turns to distrust, anger, hatred, and extremism. This therefore is the root of violent fissiparious tendencies that tears the society apart and results in its reduction to utter chaos and doom. There is no hope of a solution until the full awareness dawns that survival is solely dependent on a total and complete acceptance of the fact that all life is equally precious and that all religions attempt to bring to existence the reign of one and the same divinity.

With this in mind we will now view the soteriologies namely the doctrines of salvation of the Tenkalais and Vadakalais. To do so I rely almost entirely on the work of a great scholar whose incisive insight has been my beacon of understanding. She is the American writer Patricia Y.Mumme and her work I refer to is THE SRIVAISHNAVA THEOLOGICAL DISPUTE: Manavalamamuni and Vedanta Desika. I gratefully aknowledge her contribution.

In the 13th century the development and refinement of SriVaishnava thought in Sanskrit, Manipravala and Tamil continued unabated. However we notice a historically important development. The Acarya's in Srirangam began to specialize in lecturing on the Alwars hymns and writing commentaries and independent works in Manipravala. Meanwhile some of the more prominent Acaryas in Kanchi concentrated their efforts on Sanskrit works integrating Visishtadvaita Vedanta with logic, dharmashastra and pancaratra. They seem to have been chiefly engaged in defending Ramanuja's philosophy against the challenges of Advaitins, Nyayins, Smarthas, Mimamsakas and the like. The Tenkalai-Vadakalai schism and the breakup of the Ubhaya Vedanta synthesis began when the northern Kanchi school gave relatively more emphasis on Sanskrit sources while the southern Srirangam school stressed on Tamil scriptures. However both schools quoted frequently from the Pancaratra scriptures.Beside both Manavalamamuni and Vedantadesika who are claimed to be the acharyas who initiated the schism in the SriVaishnavite tradition never viewed their differences of opinion as basis for the formation of the two subsects. Therefore it can safely be said that their enriching dialogue was appropriated without justification to foster divisive practices and seperateness of beliefs.

In view of the fact that soteriology deals exclusively with salvation we must first turn to the characteristics the Lord possesses according to both the sub-sects. The Tenkalais and the Vadakalais have no difference of opinion whatsoever in the Lord being the sole objective and at the same time the primary means and giver of salvation. That is he is the Siddha the ever accomplished one; in this context the ultimate goal and the upaya; the one whom we ought to resort to for salvation. Both schools recognize that Brahman comprises of the five fold aspects namely, para, vyuha, vibhava,arca and antaryami thus establishing his transcendence and simultaneous immanence. Both schools acknowledge truth(sathya), incorruptible purity(amalathva) and infinity(anantha) are intergral with Him. They also agree that the Lord has his swabhava as gnanam, bala, aiswarya, sakthi, virya, tejas, gambhirya, audarya, and karunya. Both the sub-sects saw the Lord as being both the destination and the means to reach it. This may seem like stating the obvious but you will agree that those indulging in vigorous disputes ignore this reality.

With respect to the nature of the jivatma, the soul, both schools believe that it is the knower (jnata) and enjoyer (bhokta) and also an agent (karta) that is capable of exercising free will as expounded by the brahmasutras where it is said KARTHA SASHTRARTAVATTVAT. That is the Lord's edicts and commands as made known through the sastras address the jivatma and enjoin upon it to act in an informed manner thereby indicating that the jivatma does have the scope to act out of his own volition. However both schools of SriVaishnavism hasten to add the soul's agency is dependent on the Lord because of sruthi declaring the Lord to be the inner controller and cause of action (antharyami, niyantha, karayita) as affirmed by Ramunuja in his commentary on the brahmasutras when he declares PARATTU TACCHRUTEH.

The SriBhashya states in regard to all action that the paramathman who is the eternal ruler of all, first regards (apeksa) the effort or activities undertaken by the individual and then gives him permission (anumati) thereby causing action (pravarayathi). The Lord remains indifferent or impartial (udasina) with regard to the initial will and effort of the jiva whom he has empowered to act. After a soul initiates an act by his own effort, then the Lord manifests his controllership by granting his co-operative permission, without which no action can proceed. Thus and yet the jiva is entitled to the fruit of his action. Sudarsanasuri speaks of the jiva's capacity to know, will and make effort as gnana cikirsa prayatna sakthi.Of all the terms that define the relationship between the jivatma and paramatma that which figures prominently in the SriVaishnava soteriological dispute is the sesa-sesi relationship.

In the vedarthasangraha Ramanuja explains that the sesa is that whose essential nature consists solely in being useful to something else by virtue of its intention to contribute some excellence to this other thing, and this other (para) is the sesi. This subservience (sesatva) to the supreme is its sole nature(svarupa).

Thus we come to the crux of the dispute mainly the extent of independence of the jivatma and the limit such independence imposes upon the Lord's capacity as controller(niyanta).Pillai lokacharya , his brother and Manavalamamuni of the Srirangam Tenkalai school stress upon the dependence of the soul as being its essential nature (svarupa) without sacrificing its kartrtva or agency when they cite the sentence in the Brahmasutras which states (kritapryatnapekshasthu vihithapratisidda vaiyarthadibhyam) leading us to the conclusion that man himself gives rise to some knowledge, will and effort and acts by the power of autonomy (swathantriyasakthi) given to him by Iswara.3 They then go further to propound that the Tirumantra which is the essence of the sastras brings home to us the swarupayathathmya as against the mere swarupagnana. That is from being a knower and enjoyer the jivatma becomes that whose entire existence is enlivened by even the process of knowing flowing from the Lord and that whose enjoyment rests solely in the Lord's enjoyment of the jivatma as an object. This is termed by the Tenkalais as paratantriya and bhogyata respectively. This is an annihilation of self autonomy (swatantriya); egoism (ahankara) and possessiveness(mamakara) as well as the end of self effort and self purpose (swaprayojanam) even with regard to one's own salvation. In this way, they focus our attention on to that part of our soul that receives the very life force from the Lord without which we decay into insignificant and utterly useless dust. To do this the Srirangam acharyas advocate cessation of all self effort and talk about svayatnanivriti in which one makes no effort to attain the Lord. They declare as soon as one realizes that the true nature of oneself as total dependence on the Lord namely paratantriya self effort spontaneously ceases.

This is where the Kanchi school defers. Vedantadesika the foremost exponent of the Kanchi Vadakalai school discusses in the Rahasyathrayasara whether the soul's subservience to the Lord is a description of soul's svarupa essential nature or merely an attribute. That is whether it is swarupanirupaka in itself or merely nirupitaswarupavisesana. He concludes that it is both. While he agrees jivakartrtva that is agency of the soul is paradina or dependent on the Lord and that the Lord is sarvakartha that is the ultimate agent of all and sarvabhokta the ultimate enjoyer of all, he argues that it cannot be claimed there is no agency (kartrtva) in the svarupa, and most importantly that the soul's inherent kartrtva needs to be exercised during prapatti. He declares that it is not a cessation of effort as claimed by the Srirangam school. Besides he also explains cessation of self effort and self purpose is an act consisting of knowledge, will and effort, as declared by the sastras.Now at this juncture we need to stand back and view the apparently conflicting points of view carefully to analyse what each school is in effect conveying to its followers. By going beyond the literal word meanings and semantics, it would dawn upon one that the true objective of both schools is to vanquish ahankara or egoism and to eradicate it no matter how deep its roots run into our psyche.The mistaken impression one may assume when Desika stresses on jivakatrtrva that it may lead to traces of ahankara which may then grow to overwhelm the jivatma needs to be checked. For this, one needs to turn to his nyasadasakam. There he declares, "swamiswasesham swavamsam swabharatvena nirbharam; swadatta swadiya swartham swasmin nyasyati mamswayam". That is "the Lord has surrendered me, his sesa to himself by his own mind which he gave me for his purposes; I who am under his control am devoid of responsibility by virtue of being his responsibility." Desika thus emphatically puts our fears to rest with respect to encouragement of ahankara due to belief in jivakartrtva. His dependent kartrtva and Srirangam school's doctrine that claims that kartrtva reappears after salvation and is employed in serving the Lord to fulfill its true purpose achieve a substantial similarity in soteriology.Another area of dispute pertains to the comparative importance given to bhaktiyoga and prapatti which is surrendering to and taking refuge in the Lord for protection and salvation.

The Srirangam acarya's proclaim if bhakthiyoga has any salvific value it is only because it leads to or includes within it prapatti. A line from Prameyasara proclaims bhaktiyoga that includes karma and jnana becomes fruitful(phalavyapti) because prapatti stands as an anga for them.

The Acarya Hrdayam considers prapatti as one that can be undertaken by one and all for it is characterized by cessation of self effort and is prompted by the Lord himself to be engaged in, therefore conforming to the soul's essential nature. Vedantadesika sees bhakti and prapatti as equally valid independent upayas ordained by the Lord as alternative means to the same end. However he concurs with the Srirangam school that bhakti upasana requires necessary birth , knowledge, capability and endurance and that prapatti needs only akincanya that is a lack of belief in one's own ability and ananyagatitva as complete dependence on nothing other than the Lord. So once again we see some coherence amidst the dissonance; in as much as that both schools advocate the resorting to prapatti as of great importance.

Interpreting the caramasloka Vedantadesika is in agreement with the Srirangam school when he takes sarvadharman to mean "all the various forms of upasana along with their accessories which are enjoined in the sastras for the purpose of moksha" according to his rahasyatrayasara. But he disagrees with the Srirangam acaryas in taking parityajya not as a vidhi-injunction but as an anuvada-a statement of what has already occurred. Thus he does not interpret it as a command for all to abandon bhaktiyoga and the sastric dharmas. Rather parityajya refers to the state of those who have given up bhakthiyoga for lack of qualification and therefore become eligible for prapatti.It would not be appropriate for us to brush this difference of interpretation of the caramasloka under the carpet. But we need to ask certain pointed questions here in our attempt to reconcile. Does Desika restrict the efficacy of prapatti? Further does Desika consider the qualification for prapatti which he claims to be for those who are disqualified for bhakthiyoga a limited scope? Anyone who is even casually aware of his writings in which he has declared prapatti as the sadhyopaya that is the means that needs to be achieved for salvation will agree that Desika gives the pride of place to prapatti. Further when he explains that the great Arjuna himself was disqualified for bhakthiyoga because of his state of helplessness and his eagerness to attain the Lord being unable to bear any difficulties or delays, Desika cannot be accused of restricting the scope of prapatti to a limited category of souls. His attempt to interpret the partyajya as an anuvada only shows his concern for the Lord's word that the sastras are considered to be and not to render them useless in any context thus preventing antinomian implications. Viewed in this focused soteriological light one can safely conclude that both schools are not working at cross purposes.

The Srirangam acaryas have a very interesting and apparently contradicting view about prapatti. Manavalamamuni admits that prapatti is liable to be viewed as an upaya at first sight even though it has no upayatva in reality. They come to this conclusion on the strength of the fact that the soul's acceptance of the Lord (svagatasvikara) is a result of the Lord's gracious will and efforts and not a cause of them. They declare only paragatasvikara that is the Lord's acceptance of the soul is sure to yield moksha. In this light and context no one will deny Manavalamamuni's claim of the lack of upayatva of prapatti is to prevent ahamkara to enter in the prapanna'a mind even in this advanced stage.Desika of the Kanchi school does not deny that cessation of all other efforts for self protection is a distinctive aspect of prapatti done for the purpose of moksa. Such prapatti he calls rakhsabharanyasa, surrender of the burden of protection. However reducing prapatti to mere cessation is not acceptable to him for it includes relinquishing of all dharmas that are enjoined as sadhanas which he emphasizes is itself an activity done for the purpose of one's self protection.

He further states that prapatti is enjoined by the Lakshmi Tantra and Ahirbudniya Samhita sastras with its angas which are five in number and comprise of anukulyasankalpa; pratikulyavarjana; karpanya; mahavishvasa and goptrtvavarana. If one were to ask whether Karpanya which is one of the angas; which is a reflection of akincanya and ananyagatitva; prevents any trace of ahankara in Desika's rakhsabharanyasa and thereby conforms to the srirangam school's paratantrya the answer has to be in the affirmative. Thus we achieve reconciliation of one more important aspect.

With respect to the life of a prapanna and the service he renders there is remarkable consensus amongst the two schools. Desika emphasizes the three fold renunciation of agency; attachment and results taught in the Bhagavad gita. He mentions the attitude of pure renunciation (satvikatyaga). Manavalamamuni states "if one does something for no other purpose than the Lord's enjoyment then the svarupa which is the source of the kainkarya shines forth". This contains no trace of self effort. Such kainkarya will by nature not differentiate on the basis of jati and varnasrama. Desika acknowledges that there is no such thing as varnasrama in svarupa. He further states references to other deities in the nityanaimittika rites do not compromise the prapanna's one pointed devotion to the Lord as his sole upaya and upeya. He also declares that removal of prarabda karma is a speciality of nyasavidhya(prapatti) and it goes without saying that such a purpose ought not to be desired as a svaprayojanam but accepted merely as a side-effect of prapatti.

In our study of the doctrines of the Srirangam school we come across the principle of Dosabhogya. The Mumuksupati states that Vatsalya is the attitude of a cow toward her calf where she accepts its defects with relish. In the same way the Lord also accepts the soul's sins with relish, nourishes with his own qualities called virtues like milk and watches out for both friends and enemies. In the Srivacana Bhushanam it is said this is like the cow who wont graze on fouled ground yet who lovingly delights in licking off the slime on her own calf which has just fallen from her loins. There is no virtue equal to this. In the Tattvatraya it is said like a man who looks but does not see the faults of his wife and sons, the faults of the Lord's devotees do not even enter his mind. Like a man who delights in the dirt of the body of his beloved he takes their sins as delight. Surprisingly Desika in his Dayasataka, a stotra addressed to the Lord's personified compassion proclaims that divine mercy thrives on consuming sins, implying that the soul can offer his very sins as a basis of acceptance. He states, "since I am the foremost of offenders ignore those of only limited faults and fill your belly with my mass of sins. O mother, my mind eagerly offers you my former great offences in the desire to appease you".

Desika in his doctrinal works however forbids over exaggeration of the Lord's forgiving affection.With respect to the Lord's inherent Mercy and autonomy Desika in his Rahasyatrayasara is in agreement with the Srirangam school that the Lord's innate and unconditional compassion which is based on nothing outside himself is the primary cause of salvation and everything leading upto it. This conforms to the Srirangam school's nirhetukakrpa or akasmika-kataksha which literally means causeless or spontaneous glance when they cite the example of Saint Nammalwar. Though he was totally devoid of any good karma, knowledge and interest in spiritual matters the Lord seized upon him in order to use him in his plan to redeem souls. But to Desika the primary causality of the Lord's grace does not completely overrule the contribution of the soul's action and initiative.

The Srirangam acaryas view Sri the mother as one who mediates between the Lord and the soul.This role as purusakara is absolutely necessary for the Lord to award salvation, due to the Lord's unpredictable autonomy, they claim. She is also the mother of all souls with nothing but mother's pity and affection for them. Though the Lord and Sri are both merciful, Sri's nature is purely mercy, unmixed with harsh autonomy which makes the Lord inclined to punish the soul according to its karma. Desika recognizes Sri's mediating function in salvation and like the Srirangam acaryas claims Sri is an inseperable aspect of Lord himself. But he goes on further to state that Sri cannot be separated from the Upaya or Upeya. In his Dayasatakam, goddess appears to be a personification of the Lord's compassionate aspect and not a separate entity with a distinct function. It is however noteworthy that Sri's role as mediator between the Lord and the soul is equally well accepted by both schools.

The Srirangam acaryas affirm that the Lord cultivates the virtues appropriate to the soul through his relationship with the acarya and other bhagavatas. The acarya's love first makes the svarupa sprout, then makes it flower and then brings it to fruition by making the disciple realize that he is sesa to none but the lord and his disciples and that his sole refuge of delight is in them. It is the acarya who intercedes with the Lord to bring forth the atma-gunas of knowledge, devotion and distaste for worldly pleasures (gnana, bhakti, vairagya). It is said that since the acarya is all mercy with no autonomous power or authority to punish the soul for his sins, salvation through his love is without problem or fear. Here we must take note of what the Bharadhvaja samhita states. One who is thought of by the guru and one who thinks of the guru, both will certainly reach the supreme attainment. Therefore unshakeable faith in the acarya is acarya abhimana. Malavalamamuni states acarya abhimana is not outside siddhopaya but its culmination.Desika who usually stresses the need for prapatti and the like as one's effort that needs to be done directs his deep faith through the acarya and accepts that prapannas can attain salvation through acarya nishta that is by being included in the prapatti of their acharya. However he does not reduce the importance of those established by their own utterance namely uktinishta.

Therefore friends we have seen that in several aspects there is an identity of intention in the minds of the acaryas of the Tenkalais and Vadakalais. As in the words of Desika himself in his sampradaya parisudhi "Sri bhashyakarar udaya smapradayangalile yojanabhedamandri arthavirodham illai". The differences therefore lie in the interpretations only.

Further we find the popular classification of the Tenkalai doctrines as markata bhakti and that of the Vadakalais as marjala bhakti leading us to conclude that the Tenkalais much like the little one of a cat being held by the parent have no place whatsoever for the soul's kartrtva even to a limited extent and that the Vadakalais conclude, like the little one of a monkey which holds the parent have no place for Lord's effort in salvation; are both simplistic erroneous views because the Tenkalais do recognize jivakartrtva's limited scope and mention it as re-appearing after prapatti in the service of the Lord. Similarly Desika's emphasis on jivakartrtva does not limit the Lord's role. He very clearly affirms the soul's utter dependence on the Lord in his Bharanyasa concept.

The Tenkalai's extreme focus on devotional surrender and cessation of effort for swaprayojanam is a result of their orientation towards annihilating ahankara the greatest of all enemies as the sastras inform us. Their sometimes contradictory and inconsistent edicts operate on the subconscious level too. If one were to take the concept of dosabhogya literally in the conscious level it would appear sin is more virtuous than virtue in the eyes of the Lord. But if one was to look at the subconscious psyche after being informed of this, it would become clear that the ahankara arising out of ones virtues is already on slippery ground. The dosabhogya principle does not for a moment encourage sin.

Whereas Desika's orientation is the value and importance he attributes to the Lord's word that the sastras are. He prefers not to dilute that faith in the Lord. He is very clear on the dependency of agency or kartrtva. In his rahasyatrayasara he declares, "therefore even when the soul himself performs the upaya, it comes about because of the Lords grace(kataksha) when he quotes Kuratalwans varadharajastava "without your grace, indeed, oh varada even the speech of taking refuge would not arise from me." Therefore as prompted that is prerita by Him by means of organs and limbs that he gave which cannot even be extended if he does not co-operate, one does the upaya the Lord himself has shown and then looks up open mouthed like a cataka bird for the fruit that he gives. As such the direct cause of the fruit is the will of the one who has the innate power and compassion.

Friends we need therefore to look deep into the Lord's sankalpa to understand the true import of jivakartrtva. Is it possible that what appears to us as our own deepest urge, that yearning for communion with the Lord is after all the Lord's call ? Is the act of surrender carried out by us, the Lord's doing? If one comes to believe so, one realizes, to consider jivakartrtva as estranged from the Lord would be a serious crime. Such an erroneous consideration and failure to respond to the call which has actually issued forth from the Lord allows us to descend into an inertia. Truly we must guard ourselves against such an eventuality.

One may presume that the Srirangam school is averse to jivakartrtva in this context but Pillailokacharya cites Nammalwar's Tiruvaimozhi which declares "atuvum avanatin arule", hence acknowledging its efficacy while recognizing its origin.As the great English poet Tennyson declares in his Death of King Arthur, "and God fulfils himself in many ways".

Therefore we need to ponder if jivakatrtva is the medium through which the Lord actuates his will. If we agree then the whole theological dispute between the Tenkalais and Vadakalais resolves itself. Prapatti undertaken in this knowledge by the jivakartrtva without loosing any of its characteristics as laid down by Desika leads to the Srirangam school's svarupyathatmya because of this jivakartrtva's divine basis.

Friends, we can still stand rigid dwelling upon the many differences of opinion on intricate doctrinaire issues. But if we imprison our minds thus in prejudice, we do ourselves a great disservice; for the Lord stands beckoning to us all in his limitless grace and I would rather partake in His bliss than allow my distrust and disbelief in one tradition or the other prevent me from partaking in that joy. For as Mao the Chinese leader once said it does not matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mouse.

Thank you.