Ramanisblog

I have written two articles on Vadakalai and Thenkalai Sampradaya of Sri Vaishnavam.

The following article provides more information. .

I have been postponing writing about the Perceived sub divisions in Hinduism as it is likely to be misinterpreted by vested interests.

However it is necessary to record facts about Hinduism, without prejudice.

Before understanding about the divisions in Hinduism,one must first study the Vedas,the highest authority in Hinduism.

None of Hindu sects question the Authority of the Vedas,Sruthi as a means of Knowledge.

Knowledge,to Hindus,is of two kinds.

Para Vidya and

Apara Vidya.

Para Vidya is Real Knowledge or Absolute Knowledge.

This is transcendental.

It is not relative Knowledge.

Apara Vidya is the knowledge that relates to our daily activities.

This is Relative knowledge.

Here the knowledge is not Absolute.

It is dependent on various factors.

https://ramanisblog.in/2018/08/12/ayyangar-vadakalai-thenkalai-vaishnavam-history-part-1/

There are no references in the Vedas, Upaniṣads, Brahma Sūtras, or early Śrīvaiṣṇava scriptures that explicitly mention “Vadakalai” or “Thenkalai.”

These denominations emerged several centuries after Ramanuja, primarily between the 13th and 15th centuries, through the teachings of Vedanta Desika and Manavala Mamunigal and their respective lineages.
Therefore, one cannot cite a Vedic mantra saying “Vadakalai doctrine” or “Thenkalai doctrine.” What can be done is to examine the Vedic and scriptural passages that each school uses to support its theological positions.

I. Common Vedic Foundation
Both schools derive authority from the same Vedic corpus.
Upaniṣadic Mahāvākyas
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 6.18
यो ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्वं
यो वै वेदांश्च प्रहिणोति तस्मै ।
तं ह देवं आत्मबुद्धिप्रकाशं
मुमुक्षुर्वै शरणमहं प्रपद्ये ॥
Translation
“I seek refuge in that Divine Being who created Brahmā in the beginning and who imparted the Vedas unto him.”
This verse is frequently cited by both traditions as a Vedic basis for prapatti (śaraṇāgati).
Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.23
नायमात्मा प्रवचनेन लभ्यो
न मेधया न बहुना श्रुतेन ।
यमेवैष वृणुते तेन लभ्यः
तस्यैष आत्मा विवृणुते तनूं स्वाम् ॥
Translation
“The Self is not attained through discourse, intellect, or much learning; it is attained by the one whom He chooses.”
Thenkalai theologians frequently emphasize this verse as evidence for the supremacy of divine grace.
II. Scriptural Basis Used by Thenkalai
The Thenkalai school strongly emphasizes nirhetuka-kṛpā (unconditional grace).
Bhagavad Gītā 18.66

Full verse:
सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज ।
अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः ॥
Translation
“Abandon all dharmas and seek Me alone as refuge. I shall liberate you from all sins; do not grieve.”
Thenkalai commentators often regard this as the supreme scriptural statement establishing complete dependence upon God.
Tiruvāymoḻi of Nammāḻvār
The Thenkalai tradition places extraordinary emphasis on the teachings of:
Nammalvar
For example:
புகல் ஒன்று இல்லா அடியேன்
உன் அடிக்கீழ் அமர்ந்து புகுந்தேனே
“I have no other refuge; I have entered beneath Your feet.”
Many such verses are interpreted as demonstrating total helplessness (ākincanya).
III. Scriptural Basis Used by Vadakalai
The Vadakalai school does not deny grace, but places greater emphasis on scripturally mandated effort (sādhana).
Bhagavad Gītā 6.5
उद्धरेदात्मनात्मानं
नात्मानमवसादयेत् ।
“Let a man raise himself by himself.”
Vadakalai scholars cite such passages to show that spiritual effort remains meaningful.
Bhagavad Gītā 12.6–7
ये तु सर्वाणि कर्माणि
मयि संन्यस्य मत्पराः ।
अनन्येनैव योगेन
मां ध्यायन्त उपासते ॥
Those who worship with dedication are protected by the Lord.
This is interpreted as involving both divine grace and human participation.
IV. Śrī Sūkta and the Role of Lakṣmī
One of the important historical disputes concerns the theological role of Śrī Mahālakṣmī.
Both schools accept:
Śrī Sūkta
हिरण्यवर्णां हरिणीं
सुवर्णरजतस्रजाम् ।
and
चन्द्रां प्रभासां यशसा ज्वलन्तीम् ।
Both accept Lakṣmī as eternal and inseparable from Nārāyaṇa.
However:
Vadakalai theology often emphasizes Lakṣmī as an active mediatrix who participates in granting liberation.
Thenkalai theology places stronger emphasis on her role as compassionate intercessor but ultimately subordinate to the Lord’s saving grace.
These interpretations arise from later commentarial traditions rather than direct Vedic statements.
V. Vedic Basis of Prapatti
A major area of debate concerns whether prapatti is an independent means to liberation.
Taittirīya Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad
नारायणः परो ज्योतिः
आत्मा नारायणः परः ।
Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad
नारायणाय विद्महे
वासुदेवाय धीमहि ।
These and similar passages are cited by both traditions to establish Nārāyaṇa’s supremacy.
The dispute is not over the verses themselves but over their interpretation.
VI. Vedānta Deśika’s Scriptural Works
Key Vadakalai texts include:
Rahasya Traya Sara
Nyasa Dasakam
Nyasa Vimsati
Tattva Mukta Kalapa
Example from Nyāsa Daśakam:
अहं मद्रक्षणभारो
मद्रक्षणफलं तथा ।
न मम श्रीपतेरेव
इति आत्मानं निक्षिपेत् ॥
“The burden of my protection and its fruit belong not to me but to the Lord.”
VII. Maṇavāḷa Māmunigaḷ and Thenkalai Sources
Important Thenkalai texts include:
Upadesa Ratna Malai
Tiruvaymozhi Vyakhyanam
Acharya Hridayam
These works elevate the Divya Prabandham as the direct expression of Vedic truth in Tamil.
VIII. What the Vedas Actually Say
The Vedas themselves teach:
Supremacy of the Supreme Being.
Necessity of surrender.
Importance of devotion.
Divine grace.
Ritual action.
Knowledge.
Examples include:
Ṛgveda 1.22.20
तद्विष्णोः परमं पदं
सदा पश्यन्ति सूरयः ॥
“The wise ever behold the supreme abode of Viṣṇu.”
Nārāyaṇa Sūkta
नारायणः परो ज्योतिः
नारायणः परं ब्रह्म ॥
“Nārāyaṇa is the Supreme Light; Nārāyaṇa is the Supreme Brahman.”
These are accepted equally by both traditions.
Conclusion
From a historical and textual perspective:
Vadakalai and Thenkalai are post-Vedic developments.
No Vedic mantra explicitly mentions either school.
Both derive authority from the same Vedas, Upaniṣads, Bhagavad Gītā, and Brahma Sūtras.
Their differences arise from later interpretations concerning prapatti, divine grace, the role of Lakṣmī, and the authority of Tamil Prabandham.
The primary textual debate is found not in the Vedas themselves, but in the medieval Śrīvaiṣṇava works of Vedānta Deśika, Piḷḷai Lokācārya, Maṇavāḷa Māmunigaḷ, and their successors.

Part 4 follows.