teaching called the Veda ̄nta Su ̄tra. These scriptures are them-
selves interpreted by a host of commentaries and didactic
treatises in Sanskrit, and there is a corresponding, though
much smaller, group of commentaries and treatises in Tamil.
In both languages there are also a number of hagiographies
of the A ̄
̄
lva ̄rs and a ̄ca ̄ryas; greatest attention is given to
Ra ̄ma ̄nuja (traditional dates 1017–1137), who wrote only in
Sanskrit but who is represented in the biographies as com-
menting on the Tiruva ̄ymo
̄
li in Tamil and assigning his cou-
sin and disciple Pil:l:a ̄n the task of producing a written com-
mentary on this long poem. It was Pil:l:a ̄n who first called the
members of the community “S ́r ̄ı Vais:n:avas” and demon-
strated the confluence of the Sanskrit and Tamil “Veda ̄ntas.”
Three later commentaries are also considered authoritative.
By the end of the twelfth century there was an increas-
ing shift in emphasis on works of a different kind, treatises
on the secret meanings (rahasyas) of the three central mantras
(ritual formulas) that specified the spiritual path and more
fully discussed the doctrine of divine grace. These treatises
stressed the indispensable role of S ́r ̄ı as mediatrix
(purus:aka ̄ra). Since she is always full of maternal love, her
favor should be sought first; she can persuade the Lord, who
as a father must balance justice and mercy, to the side of
mercy. Similarly one first humbly petitions one’s own guru ̄,
who is already connected with the chain of grace, for his rec-
ommendation in approaching the Lord.
The various stories about the twelve A ̄
̄lva ̄rs assign them
very ancient dates. Namma ̄
̄
lva ̄r, for example, is said to have
lived some five thousand years ago, at the very beginning of
the present, evil age, the kaliyuga. Modern historical scholar-
ship places them from the sixth to ninth centuries CE. In con-
trast, the a ̄ca ̄ryas are assigned dates that are accurate within
one or two generations. The first a ̄ca ̄rya, Na ̄thamuni (late
ninth or early tenth century), received from Namma ̄
̄
lva ̄r in
a yogic trance the entire corpus of hymns; he then arranged
them to accompany Sanskrit verses in the temple liturgies.
Still more stories are told about Na ̄thamuni’s brilliant grand-
son Ya ̄muna (916–1036), but the largest part of the hagio-
graphies focuses on the life of Ra ̄ma ̄nuja.
The gradual splitting of the community into the
Vat:akalai (“northern culture”) and Ten ̇ kalai (“southern cul-
ture”) subsects is only in part related to the relative emphasis
on the Sanskrit and Tamil scriptures; the two groups under-
stand differently the relation of divine grace to human re-
sponse. Both groups affirm the primacy of divine grace in
rescuing souls from their bondage in the world and maintain
that all seekers of salvation should solemnly surrender, first
to the goddess S ́r ̄ı and then to Lord Vis:n:u. The great
Vat:akalai teacher Veda ̄nta De ́sika believed that the act of
surrender gives the Lord a pretext or occasion (vya ̄ja) for sav-
ing the soul, so that grace is not arbitrary. His contemporary,
the Ten ̇ kalai teacher Pi
̄
l
̄lai Loka ̄ca ̄rya, on the other hand,
considered it presumptuous for human beings to think they
could make any contribution whatsoever to their salvation.
Even “surrender,” he taught, is not to be regarded as such
an act; it is merely the acknowledgement of what the Lord
has already done. The nicknames “monkey-hold” and “cat-
hold” applied to the two groups come from a Ten ̇ kalai
source. The Ten ̇ kalai claim that the Vat:akalai theology likens
the soul’s position to that of a baby monkey, which has to
hang on to its mother as she swings from tree to tree, while
the Ten ̇ kalai’s own view makes the soul resemble the kitten,
whose mother picks it up by the scruff of the neck without
any effort on the kitten’s part.
For neither group does the doctrine of grace lead to an
antinomian lifestyle. On the contrary, the lives of S ́r ̄ı
Vais:n:avas are full of ritual injunctions and social obligations,
but neither their good deeds nor scholarly attainments—not
even emotional participation in intense devotion to God—
can bring about their salvation. Their ritual act of surrender
is the outward sign of a lifelong surrender of their worldly
ambitions—even quite proper ones—to God’s disposal.
Having solemnly petitioned God’s mercy, and having confi-
dently expressed total reliance on that mercy, the devotee
ought not to ask for anything else. This is clearly a difficult
ideal to follow, the more so since the majority of their fellow
worshipers at Vis:n:u temples are not initiated “surrendered
ones” (prapannas) but Hindus from all walks of life who con-
fidently ask the Lord and his consorts for all manner of mate-
rial blessings.
Much of the spiritual leadership in the community is
provided by various mat:has, which are not communities of
ascetics but groups of householder disciples of a guru ̄ who
becomes a sam:nya ̄sin after being chosen to head the mat:ha.
These guru ̄s perform the formal initiation of prapatti, bestow
spiritual blessings and deliver courses of lectures on periodic
tours to visit their followers, and frequently give individuals
practical advice in private audiences.
The key words in S ́r ̄ı Vais:n:ava worship are dar ́sana, the
reverent beholding of the image form of the Lord; smaran:a,
the remembrance of the Lord’s gracious deeds, and seva or
kain ̇karya, service to the Lord and to the Lord’s disciples.
While in their own homes S ́r ̄ı Vais:n:avas perform the lengthy
daily worship privately, in the 108 major S ́r ̄ı Vais:n:ava tem-
ples in South India (including the all-Indian pilgrimage cen-
ter of Tirupati and the central temple at S ́r ̄ıran ̇ gam), and in
many more minor ones, they are part of a mixed company.
Their joining in the Tamil and Sanskrit chanting of the litur-
gy is for them a confident anticipation of their participation,
after this present earthly life, in the eternal chorus of praise
in the Lord’s heavenly home.SEE ALSO A ̄
̄lva ̄rs; Kr:s:n:aism; Pi
̄l
̄lai Loka ̄ca ̄rya; Ra ̄ma ̄nuja;
Tamil Religions.BIBLIOGRAPHY
Buitenen, J. A. B. van, trans. Ya ̄muna’s A ̄gama Pra ̄ma ̄n:yam, or,
Treatise on the Validity of Pa ̄ñcara ̄tra. Madras, 1971.
Gnanambal, K. “S ́r ̄ıvaishnavas and Their Religious Institutions.”
Bulletin of the Anthropological Survey of India 20 (July–
December 1971): 97–187.8728 S ́R ̄I VAIS:N:AVAS