11

Sri Venkateswara temple at Tirumala follows Vaikhanasa Agama. Can it be considered a Sri Vaishnava temple?

3 Answers3

3

Yes.

The term Sri-Vaishnava in common parlance refers to followers of Nammazhvar (Sharanagati) and Ramanuja (Savisheshadvaita philosophy). Both in Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa temples throughout India one can find idols of the Azhvars and Ramanuja. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that Vaikhanasas consider themselves followers of Nammazhvar and Ramanuja, hence are Srivaishnavas.

Nevertheless, here is a statement from Mahamahopadhyaya Srivatsankachar in the introduction to Uttamur Swamy's Vaikhanasa Vijaya which makes it clear that he considers Vaikhanasa as Srivaishnava:

śrīvaiṣṇava āgamāḥ dvividhāḥ - pāñcarātram vaikhānansam iti

netradvayamiva āgamavibhāgadvayamapi viśiṣṭādvaitinām

There are two types of "Srivaishnava Agamas" - Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa. For Visistadvaitins these two Agamas are like the two eyes.

hashable
  • 3,645
  • 18
  • 33
  • The following link says that Vaikhanasas are not Sri Vaishnavas - https://ramanuja.org/sri/BhaktiListArchives/Article?p=jul2001%2F0072.html&anchor= –  Feb 16 '19 at 15:18
  • There is no formal definition for the term 'Sri Vaishnava' as far as I am aware. The author of that page is wrong though to claim that Vaikhanasas do not worship Azhvars. Even Pancharatrins did not worship Azhvars until Nathamuni, Yamunamuni and Ramanuja established the tradition. Every Vaikhanasa temple I have visited (over 30 in Tamilnadu and Andhra Pradesh) have shrines for Azhvars and Ramanuja. Vedanta Desika has utmost respect for the Vaikhanasas. He even says that Vishnu should only be worshipped using either Pancharatra or Vaikhanasa rituals. – hashable Feb 16 '19 at 18:31
  • Is it possible that the alwar, Sri Ramanuja shrines are due to pancaratra influence? If you can read Telugu, please read this - https://te.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/వైఖానసం The site claims that Sri Ramanuja could possibly have had a hand behind killing of Vaikhanasas. I am not saying the claim is true. But I wonder why Sri Ramanuja converted many temples from Vaikhanasa to Pancharatra. Also, Sri Vaishnavas seem to treat vaikhanasa as inferior to pancharatra. Why would any vaikhanasa follower accept that he/she is inferior? –  Feb 19 '19 at 18:24
  • I am unable to copy that wiki link properly. If you know Telugu, search for "vaikhanasam telugu wikipedia" and click the Telugu wiki link. –  Feb 19 '19 at 18:31
  • While the article doesn't cite any source other than a defunct website, it doesn't say that Ramanuja "converted" Vaikhanasa temples to Pancharatra. It says that he made organizational changes to temple labor practices such as expanding the number of roles from 5 to 10 providing opportunities for the 4th varna to participate in activities such as collecting flowers for the temple. Note that Ramanuja made these kind of changes to Pancharatra temples as well, Srirangam in particular. – hashable Feb 19 '19 at 19:46
  • 1
    The inference is that while Ramanuja merely changed temple practices to be more inclusive, he didn't "convert" anything, at least in temples that already followed Pancharatra/Vaikhanasa. – hashable Feb 19 '19 at 19:49
  • But that is orthogonal to the point. If you consider a Pancharatrin as a Srivaishnava, then the same logic would apply to a Vaikhanasa also because both Pancharatra temples and Vaikhanasa temples were influenced by Ramanuja (and Nathamuni/Yamunacharya) in the worship of Azhvars and inclusion of divya prabandhams as part of routine worship. – hashable Feb 19 '19 at 19:54
  • I don't think Srivaishnavas consider Vaikhanasa inferior to Pancharatra. Like I said, Vedanta Desika has high regard for Vaikhanasas. I will update the answer with some more references. – hashable Feb 19 '19 at 20:03
  • That Ramanuja favored pancharatra worship is mentioned here - https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/19453/why-did-ramanuja-try-to-impose-pancharatra-mode-of-worship-in-all-vaishnava-temp –  Feb 20 '19 at 02:41
  • Vaikhanasa is treated as inferior to Pancharatra in the following link in the comments section - https://narayanastra.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_34.html?m=0 –  Feb 20 '19 at 02:46
  • The following question treats Vaikhanasas and Sri Vaishnavas as different - https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/questions/9212/are-there-any-low-caste-vaikhanasa-priests –  Feb 20 '19 at 02:49
  • The question you link to cites Salagram.net which is neither a scholarly/reliable source nor does it cite one for the claim that Ramanuja favored Pancharatra over Vaikhanasa Agama. On the other hand it actually says that Tirumala - a Vaikhanasa temple was influenced by Pancharatra due to cross pollination occuring from its housing of the Ranganatha Utsava Murti (and Srirangam priests) during the period when Srirangam was under Muslim attack. – hashable Feb 23 '19 at 06:05
  • I don't interpret the narayanastra website as "treating Vaikhanasa as inferior". All it says is that since Pancharatra is authored by Narayana whereas Vaikhanasa is authored by Sage Vikhanas, the former scores some points. This is not unlike all Astikas giving preference to Vedas over Smritis in the order of precedence. However one would not say "Smritis are inferior to the Vedas". – hashable Feb 23 '19 at 06:20
  • The treatment of people outside a group as inferior is not new. Some Vadakalais and Tengalais treat each other as inferior. Several non-Pancharatrins treat Pancharatrins as inferior. Tamil iyengars treat Karnataka iyengars as inferior. I am not surprised that some Sri Vaishnavas treat Vaikhanasa Bhattacharyas as inferior. I have myself heard of Vadagalai Pancharatra Bhattacharyas as inferior to other Vadagalai Iyengars. These are not issues in the philosophy / theology / sampradaya but people being people everywhere. Note that similar differences exist among Iyers subgroups as well. – hashable Feb 23 '19 at 06:24
  • Here is a website which cites references - https://sreenivasaraos.com/tag/vaikhanasa-temple-worship/ Check out 68.3. It says 11th century, that's when Ramanuja came into the picture. Again, the site seems to treat Sri Vaishnavas as different from Vaikhanasas. –  Feb 23 '19 at 19:10
  • Here is from the narayanastra website - "In consequence of this, the pAncharAtra undoubtedly has the superior clarity of thought and contains several sections which explain the tattvas more clearly and clarify confusing Upanishadic statements. The vaikhAnasa, though in accordance with the Veda and pAncharAtra, is not as clear in its thoughts and it's glorification of bhagavan is not as striking either. The temples using pAncharAtra agama invariably have more colorful festivals and rituals to glorify the Lord than the vaikhAnasa ones." Seems to be showing inferiority of vaikhanasa clearly. –  Feb 23 '19 at 19:13
  • This website again makes the same claim, that Ramanuja replaced Vaikhanasa with Pancaratra - http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia/kbhtml/Vaikhanasa.html –  Feb 23 '19 at 19:19
  • Actually, this is what I heard - Even Srirangam was a Vaikhanasa temple, converted to Pancharatra by Ramanuja. Ramanuja either could not or did not convert Tirumala into Pancharatra. I dont know the truth of the former claim. –  Feb 23 '19 at 19:30
  • (1) Any body can create a website and put up some information but that doesn't make it credible. Without scholarly sources, let's not debate hearsay be it on the ibiblio website or on what you hear about Srirangam temple being Vaikhanasa in origin. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. – hashable Feb 23 '19 at 19:57
  • (2) While in 68.3 sreenivasaraos.com makes a claim, it doesn't substantiate it with evidence. That is a 14000 word essay with numerous claims but other than point out 9 sources in his references at end of page, the author makes no effort to substantiate any claim. While virtually the entire essay is about Vaikhana, of the 9, only 1 appears to be actually related to Agama, 7 are related to Tantra and 1 is about tribal roots of Hinduism. And the single reference to Agama is actually a 10+ vol encyclopedia. Clearly the author didn't intend the reader to be able to go and verify their claims. – hashable Feb 23 '19 at 19:57
  • (3) The website sreenivasaraos.com has a bunch of mistakes in it. E.g. it claims Pancharatrins consider Nathamuni/Yamuna/Ramanuja as part of their guru parampara which is simply not true. Pancharatrins are born into their clan just like Vaikhanasas are. The website is conflating Pancharatrins by birth (Sukla-Yajurvedic temple-priests aka Pancharatra Bhattacharyas) with the overwhelming majority of Ramanuja sishyas that are not born in the Panchratra clan yet perform worship of Vishnu (at home, or at a modern temple) using Pancharatra rituals. These two are simply not the same. – hashable Feb 23 '19 at 19:58
  • (4) For people that are not born into Pancharatra or Vaikhanasa clans, there is no doubt that Ramanuja recommended the following of Pancharatra rituals for home worship. However keep in mind that the Vaikhanasa system doesn't permit the initiation of an non-Vaikhanasin into Vaikhanasa system whereas the Pancharatra does. So it is not like Ramanuja had a personal preference. Rather he just went by scripture. Vishnu worship (either at home or a public place) by a non-Pancharatrin non-Vaikhanasa by birth can only be done in the Pancharatra style (among the two styles). – hashable Feb 23 '19 at 19:58
  • (5) You're free to have your subjective opinion that the narayanastra website depicts "Vaikhanasa as clearly inferior". We can agree to disagree on that. Meanwhile I hope you can agree that Vedanta Desika from the past and sistas like Uttamur Swamy and Srivatsankachar from modern times have applied the adjective "Srivaishnava" to Vaikhanasas. – hashable Feb 23 '19 at 19:59
  • Alright, we have my original question on whether Vaikhanasas are considered Sri Vaishnavas or not. There seem to be some differences in the history of Tirumala, as mentioned by Vaikhanasas and followers of Ramanuja (hope I can use Sri Vaishnavas to refer to this group). I dont know whether a Sri Vaishnava temple would allow smArtas to sing suprabhAtam, but this is permitted in Tirumala temple. Also, the naamam for main deity at Tirumala temple is neither a Y nor a U. –  Feb 23 '19 at 20:18
0

Yes: both Vaikhanasa & Panacharatra agamas are Sri Vaishnava agamas.

(Source 1, Source 2)

CDR
  • 3,403
  • 2
  • 9
  • 32
Venu
  • 41
  • 3
0

Sri Venkateswara temple at Tirumala follows Vaikhanasa Agama. Can it be considered a Sri Vaishnava temple?

It is a vaikhanasa temple as per skandapurANa-venkatAchalamahAtmya :

chapter 1 :

45. Kṛṣṇa, the destroyer of the agony of devotees, (is present there) along with Balabhadra. He is always propitiated by Vaikhānasas (‘recluses’) and groups of sages.

96. On the western bank of Svāmipuṣkariṇī, honoured by all the worlds, remains seated the Lord having the face of Boar. He is worshipped there by the leading sages, Vaikhānasas of great magnificence, noble souls on a par with Brahmā.

Chapter 9 :

  1. On seeing Śrīnivāsa thus Raṅgadāsa was much surprised. He thought, ‘I shall make a park for this Lord.’ Taking this decision in his mind thus, the intelligent devotee stayed at the root of the tree. He made the Vaikhānasa prepare the Naivedya offering to Viṣṇu everyday.

  2. On seeing him arrive after the period of worship was over the Vaikhānasa asked him, “Friend, why are you late in coming? The garlands too have not been wreathed by you. What were you doing in the park?”

chapter 10 :

48. After saying this to King Toṇḍamān the Lord of Śri became silent. On hearing the words of the Lord and after building the rampart wall he worshipped the Lord along with the sages born in the families (beloṅging to the group) of Vaikhānasas. Everyday the king came by the sub-terranean path and bowed down to the Lord. The excellent king ruled the kingdom virtuously, enjoying excellent pleasures.

ekAntika
  • 1,577
  • 7
  • 14