If some of the early Alwars used to consider Venkateswara as Shiva and Vishnu both then what's the proof of it?

Question

Venkateswara, AFAIK, is a form of Lord Vishnu. And, Alwars a group of Tamil Vaishnavite saints.

But, the article, Sri Venkateswara on the Kamakotimandali.org, says that initially, the Alwars used to see Venkateswara as representing both Shiva and Vishnu.

The hill that grants eternal bliss is Venkatachala. Or, Vem refers to sin and kata, to destroy. That hill which destroys the sins is called Venkatadri. The lord of such a hill is called Venkatesha or Venkatadrisha. From time immemorial, the formless Brahman has been worshipped in his saguNa aspect as Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu, Surya, Skanda and Ganapati. Followers of each of these forms claim their chosen deity to be superior over the rest, ignoring the lofty truth of the Upanishads, which proclaim that the Parabrahman is formless and that these murtis represent the saguNa aspect of the same Brahman.

Does Sri Venkatesha at Tirumala represent Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti or Subrahmanya? This question has been raised, answered and contested by several individuals and sects for several centuries now. Sri Venkatesha has been worshipped by Jains worshipped as Adimuleshwara, Vaishanavas as Srinivasa, Shaivas as Harishankara and Shaktas as Sri Bala Tripurasundari. There are enough reasons to associate this mUrti with Shiva, Shakti, Vishnu and Subrahmanya. I will not list the reasons why this mUrti is associated with Srimannarayana as these are already well known.

Association of Sri Venkateshwara with Lord Mahadeva and his parivAra:

1. Early Azhwars [Vaishnavaite saints] praised Venkateshwara as a blend of Hari and Hara. In some of the older pasurams of Azhwars, the lord is said to have worn Chakra and Parashu, signifying Hari-Hara-Samaikya Murti But after the advent of Ramanujacharya, this practice was severely discouraged. By this time, Shaivaites called him Shiva and Vaishnavaites called him Vishnu. This becomes clear after one reads several shAsanas in the name of a local king called Thalalu Gosina Yadava Rayalu. He was a staunch devotee of Ramanuja who beheaded 101 Shaivas who claimed Venkatesha to be Shiva. For his staunch adherence to Sri Vaishnava philosophy, he was honored by Ramanuja with the title Sri Bhashya, to be named after him.

My question is if this is true then what is the proof of it? Which texts related to (or composed by) the Alwars prove this claim?

Answer 1

No, the Alwars did not consider Venkateshwara to be both Vishnu and Shiva. The verse that people misinterpret as saying that is verse 63 of Peyalwar's Moondram Thiruvanthathi:

tAzh saDaiyum neeNmuDiyum oNmazhuvum chakkaramum
soozharavum ponnANum tOnrumAl soozhum |
tiraNDaruvi pAyum tirumalaimEl endaikku
iraNDuruvum onrAi isaindu ||

My lord who dwells in Tirumala, where streams flow down in all directions, is the same as the Lord who has two opposing forms in one - matted hair, a tall crown, an axe, a Chakra, an encircling snake, and a golden waist band.

Peyalwar is not saying that Venkateshwara has attributes of both Vishnu and Shiva. He is saying that the same Vishnu who appears in Tirumala as Venkateshwara is the same Vishnu who appeared as Shankaranarayana. Shankaranarayana is an incarnation of Vishnu who has attributes of both Vishnu and Shiva in order to show that Vishnu is the Antaryami or inner self of Shiva. Peyalwar is comparing Venkateshwara and Shankaranarayana because both of them demonstrate Vishnu's attribute of Soushilya or accessibility to devotees. Here is what the Sri Vaishnava Acharya Periyavachan Pillai says in his commentary on the Moondram Thiruvandhadhi:

The same Soushilya that Bhagavan displayed in his Shankaranarayana incarnation, that same Soushilya is shown by the Lord of Tirumala in descending on that hill and appearing visible to all. The idea is not that Alwar is saying that the Lord of Tirumala is having the form of Shankaranarayana, but rather that the Guna of Soushilya is the same for both.

The Sri Vaishnava Acharya Prathivadi Bhayankaram Annangaracharya makes clear that the Venkateshwara statue only has attributes of Vishnu, in his commentary on this verse:

tiruvēṅkaṭamalaiyil araccaiyāka eḻuntaruḷiyirukku memperumāṉ pakkal tāḻcaṭaiyumillai, oṇ maḻuvumillai, cūḻaravumillai, nīṇmuṭiyum cakkaramum poṉṉuṇumēyuḷḷaṉa

The great Lord of the Thiruvenkata mountain has neither matted locks, nor an axe, nor an encircling snake, but rather only has a tall crown and a Chakra.

The attributes of the Venkateshwara statue and how they depict Vishnu was shown in more detail by Ramanujacharya, whose arguments are summarized in the Venkatachala Itihasamala which you can read here. In any case, Peyalwar was a staunch Vaishnava; he's the one who converted Thirumazhisai Alwar, who was at the time a Shaivite poet named Shivavakya, to Vaishnavism, by showing him the futility of worshiping Devas. This is described in the 6000 Padi Guru Parampara Prabhavam.

By the way, the story of Vishnu's incarnation Shankaranarayana is given in this passage from the Kuresha Vijayam, a 16th century account of Kurathalwan's debate in the court of the Shaivite Chola king:

In the puranic age, one staunch Vishnu baktha set his journey to Prostrate Sri Ranganatha. On his way he was completely exhausted and was terribly hungry. He found a temple nearby and decided to cook the food inside the temple and do the Aradhana to Perumal before consuming it. To his surprise, he found that to be a Shivalaya (Shiva temple). Being a true Vaishnava, his conscience did not allow him to cook there and he came out. But he fainted due to starvation. At that juncture, Sriman Narayana appeared in disguise in front of the baktha and offered help. The Baktha explained the he could not cook in Shivalaya. Lord Vishnu explained that it is not a Shiva temple but the deity inside is Vishnu. He then took the Baktha inside the sanctum and showed His true form with Sanka and Chakra as Vishnu is the antaryami of Shiva. Thus the Shankara Narayana Moorthy came to existence. This is only a leela performed by Lord with His baktha.

That is why this story conveys Sriman Narayana's Soushilya, because he is so accessible to his devotees that he will even appear to them in a Shiva temple if the need arises.