JOURNAL OF VAISHNAVA STUDIES

Avatāra

Tracy Coleman/ Avatāra: An Overview of Scholarly Sources

Raj Balkaran/ The Essence of Avatāra: Probing Preservation in the
Mārkaṇḍeya Purāṇa
Naamleela Free Jones/ The Avatar and its “Incarnation” in a
Postmodern World
Barbara A. Holdrege/ Beyond Avatāras: The Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava
Taxonomy of Kṛṣṇa's Divine Forms
Satyanarayana Dasa/ The Source of All Sources: Śrī Kṛṣṇa as
Svayaṁ Bhagavān
André Couture/ The Avatāra Kṛṣṇa: “A Child Whose Actions are Not
Those of a Child”
Gerald Surya/ To Emancipate, Empower, and Enrapture: The Bhagavad-
gītā’s Early Formulation of the Avatāra Doctrine
JOURNAL of
Manasicha Akepiyapornchai/ Brahman or Avatāra? Kṛṣṇa in the
Literature of South Indian Śrīvaiṣṇava Theologians
VAISHNAVA
Priyanka Ramlakhan/ The Birth and Play of Rāma Avatāra in STUDIES
Trinidadian Hinduism
Knut A. Jacobsen/ Many Kapilas and the Kapila Avatāra: Plurality

VOL. 26, NO. 1/ Fall 2017

of Traditions and Multiplicity of Interpretations
Bradley S. Clough/ Buddha as Avatāra in Vaiṣṇava Theology:
Historical and Interpretive Issues
Steven Tsoukalas/ Avatāra and Humanity: Kṛṣṇa, Christ, and the
Problem of Identification
Suganya Anandakichenin/ A Note on the Importance of the
arcāvatāra for the Medieval Śrīvaiṣṇava Acharyas
Book Reviews

VOL. 26, NO. 1/ Fall 2017 • Published Biannually / ISSN: 1062-1237

 A Note oN the ImportANce of the arcāvatāra
for the Medieval Śrīvaiṣṇava acharyas

Suganya Anandakichenin

koṇṭal vaṇṇaṉai+ kōvalaṉ āy veṇṇey

uṇṭa vāyaṉ eṉ+ uḷḷam kavarntāṉai
aṇṭar kōṉ aṇi ~araṅkaṉ eṉ+ amutiṉai+
kaṇṭa kaṇkaḷ maṟṟu+ oṉṟiṉai+ kāṇāvē.
(Amalaṉ āti pirāṉ10)

[My] eyes that have seen

my Nectar, Him from the decorated Raṅgam,
the King of gods, Him who stole my heart,
Him whose mouth ate butter as a cowherd,
Him of the hue of the clouds,
shall not see another thing.

T he Tamil saint-poets, the Āḻvārs (6th–10th c.), have sung about Nārāyaṇa in
His many forms: He is the One who lies on the serpent-bed that is located
on the milk ocean; He charms them as Rāma and Kṛṣṇa; He enters their
hearts and minds, taking up abode there; and most of all, He lives close to them,
in a physical location on this earth, where He abides permanently: in the Temple,
as an image. The Śrīvaiṣṇava acharyas, following the Pāñcarātra school, referred
to these avatāras (‘emanations’) as vyūha, vibhava, antaryāmi and arcā, respectively.
The fifth, which usually tops the list and which is not considered as an avatāra, is

203
204 Journal of Vaishnava Studies

the Lord’s para form, which only those who have access to Vaikuṇṭha can see.1
Some Āḻvārs cherish the arcāvatāra (‘manifestation as an image’) so much that
they remind themselves that the arcā of the Lord they see in front of them is the
One who appeared as Rāma or Kṛṣṇa; some compare His reclining in Śrīraṅgam to
His sleeping on the milk ocean; and others, like Tiruppāṇāḻvār,2 have composed
a pādādikeśavarṇana, a description of the arcā of the Lord in a shrine from foot to
head, thus expressing the overwhelming emotions that they feel at perceiving its
beauty. A few centuries later, the Śrīvaiṣṇava acharyas, like Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai,
Piḷḷai Lokācārya and Aḻakiya Maṇavāḷa Perumāḷ Nāyaṉār (13th–14th c.), explicitly
praise the superiority of the arcā over the other types of avatāras.
In this short article, we shall look at some of the points that they make and see
how the arcā still holds a place of importance in the tradition.

1. The Arcā Form as God Himself

The Śrīvaiṣṇavas do not take the arcā to be a mere representation, but as a real
form of God. Thus, in temples like Śrīraṅgam, the temperature of the water that
is used for bathing Namperumāḷ, the utsava-bera (‘processional image’), is strictly
controlled; when it rains, He is not taken out in procession; when it is too sunny,
measures are taken so that sunlight does not touch Him, etc.3
One may claim that the arcā lacks certain qualities characteristic of real per-
sons, such as interaction with humans, which another ‘real’ manifestation (e.g.
vibhava) might have. But the Śrīvaiṣṇavas believe that God takes up a voluntary
arcā-samādhi (‘the silence of the arcā’4) in order to maintain a certain decorum that
is appropriate for that form. And yet, many stories are told in which He excep-
tionally breaks the rules that He had Himself made so that He can interact directly
with the devotees. Thus, Piṉpaḻakiya Perumāḷ Jīyar’s Guruparamparāprabhāvam,
a circa 13th c. hagiographic text in Tamil-Sanskrit Manipravāḷam, narrates
how Rāmānuja, who had theological doubts, approached an acharya known as
Tirukkacci Nampikaḷ (also known as Kāñcīpūrṇa): a non-Brahmin who fanned
Varadarāja (the Deity of the main Viṣṇu temple in Kāñcī)—Nampikaḷ was known
to have direct conversations with the Lord. The Latter’s answers to those ques-
tions via Nampikaḷ, now known as tēvapperumāḷ āṟu vārttai (‘the six words of Deva
Perumāḷ’5), are said to have cleared Rāmānuja’s doubts.6
The Lord in the arcā form can also move about when He chooses to do so. Thus,
in the following passage from the same hagiographic work, an utsava-bera called
Rāmapriya is described as joining Rāmānuja’s lap, as he spots Him among the pos-
sessions of the daughter of the sultan of Delhi:
 Arcā atāra and the r ai a a Acharyas 205

There, Rāmapriya sees Uṭaiyavar [Rāmānuja]. With love for those who have
taken refuge to appear, [Rāmapriya] came – [adorned with] the cloaks that
were put on [Him], the small string of bells that was fastened, the sacred
musk mark that was put on [His forehead], the fragrant kohl-coloured
tuft of hair that was tied, the curly hair that was curled in ringlets as the
cuṭṭi-jewel7 swayed and swayed -, [and] readily jumped so that the strings
of bells [made of] superior gold tinkled (. . .) and sat on the sacred lap of
Uṭaiyavar in such a way that everybody saw [all this]. And Uṭaiyavar, as
tears of happiness sprang forth, became immersed in the ocean of nothing
but happiness and had his whole body bristle with joy and [his] chest and
shoulders swell [with pride]. He took [Him] up, saying ‘Is this my cherished
child?,’ and graced to embrace [Him].8

This description is the culmination of a Muslim princess’s story, in which

she falls in love with the above utsava-bera. A similar story involving the arcā of
Śrīraṅgam can be found in the Kōyil Oḻuku, the chronicles of this temple.9
To come back on the very real nature of the arcā, we can see that according
to the following sūtras from Piḷḷai Lokācārya’s Śrīvacanabhūṣaṇam (SVB), which
insists on the absolute sacredness of the arcā, it is inappropriate to even think of
this manifestation in terms of the material that was used to make the icon. What
renders this passage special is the parallel that is drawn between the arcā and the
devotee:

194. bhāgavata-apacarām tāṉ aneka-vidham.

195. atilē ~oṉṟu avarkaḷ pakkal janma-nirūpaṇam.
196. itu tāṉ arcāvatārattil upādāna-smṛtiyilum kāṭṭil krūram. (SVB 194-196)
194. The offences against the bhāgavatas (‘devotees’) are of many types.
195. One of those is ascertaining their births.
196. This is indeed more wicked than thinking of the material [composition] of the
arcāvatāra.

The arcā form is thus, according to the Śrīvaiṣṇava acharyas, the very body of
God. But why did the Lord choose to manifest Himself in this way? And why do
the Śrīvaiṣṇava acharyas think it a delightful form, and a most appropriate one for
human worship?

2. The Lord’s Saulabhya and the Arcā

One of the main virtues of the arcā is that it makes the performance of devotion
easier for the devotees, as the Lord is less intimidating in this form than in any
206 Journal of Vaishnava Studies

other, and is also open for worship in any way that suits his human worshipers.
Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai, the medieval Śrīvaiṣṇava commentator, explains this in his
commentary on Kulacēkara Āḻvār’s Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi:10
Since God is perfect, there is indeed no means for him [i.e. the devotee] to
behave favourably [towards Him]. It is indeed so that [the devotee] does not give
up [the effort], saying that there is no means [for it], that [God] has set Himself
up for them11 in [this] manner: by having as His sacred body the material that is
pleasing to him, by having a sacred bath when he performed the sacred bath, by
eating when he fed Him [and] by fasting when he did not [feed Him]. If it were
not thus, there would be no means for [the devotee] for doing any service to the
perfect One. (PTM 2.0)12

Piḷḷai points out that it is out of His saulabhya, the highly praised quality of
being ‘easily accessible,’ that the Lord brings Himself down to the level of the dev-
otee, willing to be pleased by any form of worship, something that is not entirely
possible in His other forms, i.e., the para or the vyūha ones.
Besides, as pointed out by the extract quoted above, qualities such as compas-
sion are useless in Vaikuṇṭha, as its inhabitants tend to be perfect, and therefore,
have no need for it. It is here, where the erring humans live, that such qualities
are both needed and valued. And they are indeed bestowed upon the human
beings by the Lord while in the form of arcā, being forever accessible in the tem-
ple, and eager to be pleased.
In his Mumukṣuppaṭi (MM), Piḷḷai Lokācārya sums up the link between saulabhya
and the arcā form:

saulabhyattiṟku ellai-nilam arcāvatāram (MM 139)

‘The farthest extent to the accessibility (. . .) is the arcāvatāra.’ (tr. Mumme 1994: 122)

In his Śrīvacanabhūṣaṇam, Piḷḷai Lokācārya, while dismissing the existence of

geographic or temporal restrictions for taking refuge in God, insists solely on the
quality of the Object of surrender, before concluding that the arcāvatāra, being full
of all qualities, is the best option for prapatti (‘surrender’) (SVB 34). Following this,
he points out that the Āḻvārs themselves chose this option:

āḻvārkaḷ pala iṭaṅkaḷilum prapatti paṇṇiṟṟum arcāvatārattilē (SVB38)

It is in the arcāvatāra that the Āḻvārs took refuge in many places.13

Is it only because an arcā is accessible that it is the best? Or does it have other
qualities that support this claim?
 Arcā atāra and the r ai a a Acharyas 207

3. The Lord’s Other Qualities and the Arcā

The teṉkalai Śrīvaiṣṇavas14 believe that three qualities of God stand out among
the many He has: His saulabhya (‘easy accessibility’), which we just focused on, His
saundarya (‘beauty’) and His paratva (‘state of being supreme).15 And the arcā has all
three of them, making it indispensable for humans, who cannot otherwise easily
or freely experience those qualities.
In fact, it is not just His saulabhya but also His saundarya, i.e. the beauty of His
arcā form, which is essential in attracting and seducing indifferent people into
becoming His devotees. And the latter is an important raison-d’être for this kind of
manifestation: thus Aḻakiya Maṇavāḷa Perumāḷ Nāyaṉār, in the introductory part
of his commentary on the Amalaṉ āti pirāṉ, says the following:
Because He is such that even those who are indifferent to Him can see and enjoy
[Him], and not just those who rejoiced in Him [i.e. His devotees], [He] has here
the superiority derived from [His] affability. It is indeed an abundance of quali-
ties that makes the excellence of an object. And it is indeed here [on this earth/
in Śrīraṅgam] that qualities are valued high.16

There is even an orally-transmitted story about Tirumaṅkai Āḻvār, to whom

the Lord had to show His beautiful form in the temple of Tiruvāli in order to
attract him into His fold, as the Āḻvār was someone who appreciated beauty. The
arcā and its beauty therefore have a functional purpose.
And another important reason why there is a need for Nārāyaṇa to come down
to this earth as an image is given by Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai in his commentary on
Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi 5.5:

paramapadam kalavirukkaiyāka svāmyattai nirvahikkaikkāka

~aṉṟō iṅku vantu eḻuntaruḷi ~irukkiṟatu.

Even though the supreme abode [i.e. Vaikuṇṭha] is a pleasant place,

is it not for establishing [Your] lordship that [You] have graciously come here and taken
up abode [here]?

But just because He is easily accessible and seeks out the devotees does not
mean that the Lord in His arcā form is totally deprived of the quality of being the
Supreme Being. Therefore, Nārāyaṇa takes up this form also for His own sake,
namely, to claim His kingship over this world.

4. The Arcā and the Lord’s Other Forms

208 Journal of Vaishnava Studies

The Śrīvaiṣṇava acharyas have also compared this form with the other four,
and come to the conclusion that it is superior to them. The parallels that they
draw are interesting in themselves.

bhū-gata-jalam pōlē antaryāmitvam; āvaraṇa-jalam pōlē paratvam; pāṟkaṭal-pōlē vyūham;

perukkāṟu pōlē vibhavaṅkaḷ; atilē tēṅkiṉa maṭukkaḷ pōlē arcāvatāram (SVB 39).

The state of the antaryāmi is like the water that is under the earth [i.e. it is not
easy to access]; paratva is like the cosmic waters [i.e. it is highly inaccessible];
vyūha is like the milk ocean [it is not easily reachable]; the vibhava [avatāras] are
like flooding rivers [i.e. they are gone too soon]; among these [forms], arcāvatāra
is like the full pools.

Once again, the question of easy accessibility is referred to and used as a yard-
stick to measure the greatness of Nārāyaṇa’s different manifestations.
A second parallel is given here, and this time, it is one that uses these different
forms, including the arcāvatāra, to establish a classification of various scriptures
and texts:

paratvam pōlē vedam; avatāram pōlē itihāsa-purāṇaṅkaḷ;

arcāvatāram pōlē tiruvāymoḻi (SVB 89).
The Vedas are like paratva; the epics and the Puranas are like the [vibhava-]avatāras; the
Tiruvāymoḻi is like the arcāvatāra.

The superiority of Nammāḻvār’s Tiruvāymoḻi—which contains beautiful verses

in praise of Nārāyaṇa and which has been made easily accessible thanks to the
language in which it was composed, i.e. Tamil—over the more difficult Sanskrit
Vedas and other texts is thereby highlighted by this comparison.
The easy accessibility of the Lord in the arcāvatāra, which is highlighted time
and again, can be attributed to the fact that He can be seen by human eyes:

itutāṉ (arcāvatāram) para vyūha vibhavaṅkaḷ pōl aṉṟikkē kaṇṇāl kāṇalām paṭi irukkum
(Mumukṣuppaṭi 140)
This, unlike his supreme (para) and evolutionary (vyūha) forms, or his incarnations (vib-
hava), is visible to the eye. (tr. Mumme 1994: 122)

Even the more conventional incarnations do not always fit into this category,
because not everyone can witness one when it ḥappens, His vibhava manifestation
being limited in time and space:
 Arcā atāra and the r ai a a Acharyas 209

avatārakālattil iḻantār iḻavu tīra vantu sulabharāṉa periyaperumāḷ (…).

(. . . ) Periya Perumāḷ, who is easily [accessible], having come [to Śrīraṅgam] so that [the
feeling of] loss of those who missed [Him] during the time of His avatāras ends.
(Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s commentary on Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi 2.4)

Furthermore, the arcā, besides being better than the other forms of Nārāyaṇa,
is precisely so due to itself being the other manifestations and possessing all their
qualities:
Just as Periya Perumāḷ [Lord Raṅganātha in Śrīraṅgam] Himself became [for His
devotees] all these, [i.e.] the sacred Vaikuṇṭha, the sacred milk ocean, the sacred
places of birth, the sacred lands that He graciously rejoiced in [i.e. divyadeśas],
it is possible to see in Periya Perumāḷ all the beauty, qualities, sports, etc. that
exist in each of those places. Periya Perumāḷ’s beauty, sovereignty and all are
like buds in the Supreme Abode; [they are like plants with] two blades that
have come out in the avatāras; they grow luxuriantly after coming here. (. . .) It
[Śrīraṅgam] is the place where it is possible to enjoy the Lord of all, who is not
reachable for the Vedas that say ‘For which there are no words,’ like seeing a
portion of the river water in the river.17

The arcāvatāra is thus the most simple, hence the most adapted form of God
when it comes to human beings, according to the Śrīvaiṣṇava acharyas.
What made the difference between the pre-Āḻvār devotion and the Āḻvārs’, is
their capacity to see God as accessible, as intensely human-like while still being
the Supreme Being. While God, as mentioned in the Vedas and the Upanishads,
was far-away and not easily reachable, the Āḻvārs found theirs very close to them
indeed, just like their mother tongue, in which they poured out their hearts
(Ramanujan 2005: 134-139).
In fact, the temples in which the arcā was praised by the Āḻvārs in their corpus,
now known as the Nālāyira Tivviya Pirapantam, are now part of the hundred-and-
eight divyadeśas, ‘divine lands,’ which dot the Indian subcontinent, thus creat-
ing an important Hindu pilgrimage route.18 Thus, the arcā, which enthralled the
Āḻvārs and enchanted the medieval Śrīvaiṣṇava acharyas, continues to exert its
charm on present-day devotees as well.

Endnotes
1. Mumme (1994: 122) translates these words thus: para (‘supreme’), vyūha (‘evolu-
tionary’), vibhava (‘incarnation’), and arcā (‘image’).
2. Hagiography (e.g. the chapter ‘Tiruppāṇāḻvār vaibhavam’ in the Guruparamparāpra-
210 Journal of Vaishnava Studies

bhāvam) tells us that Tiruppāṇāḻvār was an untouchable man who used to sing the praise
of the Lord of Śrīraṅgam standing on the banks of the Kāveri. Once, lost in his bhakti, he
did not move away for a Brahmin priest from Śrīraṅgam. The priest threw a pebble at him
to make him give way, went to the temple and realized the Lord had a wound just where
it had hit Tiruppāṇ. Commanded by the Lord Himself, he carries the devotee on his own
shoulders inside the temple. As soon as Tiruppāṇ sees the icon of Raṅganātha, he sings ten
verses in His praise, describing Him from foot to head, and unwilling to see anything else
after that divine sight, he gives up his life then and there.
3. Personal communication from B. Ramanujam, a traditional Śrīvaiṣṇava from Śrī-
raṅgam, who is involved in the temple activities (15/10/2016).
4. samādhi can be translated in many different ways; but the contemporary Vaṭakalai
Śrīvaiṣṇavas do understand it as ‘silence.’
5. Nārāyaṇa is known as Perumāḷ in Tamil. Pointing out that the word perumāḷ (perum +
āḷ) is equivalent to the Sanskrit mahā-puruṣa (‘great man’), a rūḍhī (‘[. . .] popular or conven-
tional meaning of words’ Monier-Williams) of Nārayaṇa, Vankeepuram Rajagopalan (2009:
74) suggests that it could also be an equivalent of the Sanskrit puruṣottama, ‘the best among
men.’
6. The story is narrated in a chapter called Iḷaiyāḻvār vaibhavam (‘The Glory of Iḷaiyāḻvār
[Rāmānuja]’), pp. 149-150.
7. The cuṭṭi is a ‘small ornament worn by women and children on the forehead’ (Tamil
Lexicon).
8. aṅkē rāmapriyarum uṭaiyavarai+ kaṇṭu āśritavātsalyam tōṟṟa, iṭṭa caṭṭaiyum, kaṭṭiṉa ciṟu+
cataṅkaiyum, iṭṭa kastūri+ tiru nāmamum, muṭitta mai vaṇṇa naṟum kuñciyum, taṉ mukattu+
cuṭṭi tūṅka+ tūṅka neṟitta kuḻalumāy, sajjaiyilum kutittu (. . .) cem poṉ cataṅkaikaḷ calacala ~eṉṟu
olikka akhilarum kāṇumpaṭi vantu uṭaiyavar tiru maṭiyilē ~irukka, uṭaiyavarum ānandāśrukkaḷ
paṉippa ānandaikārṇavāntarnimagnarāy+ pulakitanikhilāṅgarāy mārpum tōḷum pūrittu ‘eṉ+ uṭaiya
celvappiḷḷaiyō!’ eṉṟu eṭuttu aṇaittu+ koṇṭaruḷiṉār (Guruparamparāprabhāvam, chapter ‘Iḷaiyāḻvār
vaibhavam’)
9. These Śrīraṅgam temple chronicles, collected between the 14th and the 18th centuries
(Orr 1995: 109), were re-written at the beginning of the 19th c. (Jagadeesan 1977: 30). These
writings, which have recorded both mythologies and the ‘historical’ events connected to
the temple, contain interpolations and chronological errors.
10. This is part of the Nālāyira Tivviya Pirapantam (also known as Nālāyira Divya Praband-
ham), which is composed of roughly four thousand verses by the different Āḻvārs.
11. The original text mixes the singular and the plural forms when mentioning the
devotee(s).
12. bhagavadviṣayam pūrṇam-ākaiyālē ivaṉukku ānukūlyam paṇṇukaikku tuṟai ~illaiyiṟē.
ippaṭi+ tuṟai ~illai ~eṉṟu ivaṉ kaivāṅkāmaikkiṟē ivaṉ ukanta dravyamē taṉakku+ tirumēṉiyākavum,
ivaṉ tirumañcaṉam paṇṇiṉapōtu tirumañcaṉam paṇṇiyum, amutu ceyya paṇṇiṉapōtu amutu
ceytum, allātapōtu paṭṭiṉiyum āmpaṭiyiṟē avarkaḷukku+ taṉṉai amaittu vaippatu; ippaṭi ~āyttatu*
illai~ākil paripūrṇaviṣayattil ivaṉukku+ kiñcitkarikkaikku+ tuṟai ~illaiyiṟē (Periyavāccāṉ Piḷḷai’s
commentary on Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi 2.0).
 Arcā atāra and the r ai a a Acharyas 211

13. vedam pōlē mutal āḻvārkaḷ mūvarum paratvattilē maṇṭi arcaiyaiyum toṭṭukkoṇṭu
pōntārkaḷ; śrīvālmīkibhagavāṉai+ pōlē śrīkulaśēkharapperumāḷ rāmāvatārattilē praravaṇarāy
arcāvatārattaiyum anubhavittār; śrīparāśarabhagavāṉaiyum, śrīvedavyāsabhagavāṉaiyum pōlē,
nammāḻvārum, periyāḻvārum, āḻvārtirumakaḷārum kṛṣṇāvatārattilē maṇṭi arcāvatārattaiyum
anubhavittārkaḷ; tirumaḻicaippirāṉ (. . .) dēvatāntaraparatvanirasanattilē tatpararāyiruntār.
tirumaṅkaiyāḻvār (. . .) paratvattai+ kāṟkaṭai+ koṇṭu, arcāvatārattilē iḻintu atu taṉṉilum ōr iṭattil
iraṇṭu* iṭattil aṉṟikkē, (. . .) tāṉ ukanta ~ūr ellām taṉ tāḷ pāṭi+ (. . .) paraparappāy+ tirintār.
periyaperumāḷaiyum allāta tiruppatikaḷ ōpāti «kaṇṭiyūraraṅkam meyyam kaccipēr mallai‘
(tirukkuṟu - 19 ) eṉṟu kōl tēṉāka anubhavittār ittaṉai ~iṟē; atu tāṉum, (. . .) periyaperumāḷuṭaiya
vibhavadaśaiyil pācuraṅkaḷ upadeśamāy+ koṇṭu tan tiruvuḷḷattilē ūṟṟu* irukka, (. . .) tiruvaṭikaḷai
anubhavitta ~aḷavu* iṟē ~uḷḷatu. (. . .) ivar aṅṅaṉ aṉṟiyē (. . .) paratvādikaḷāl pūrṇarāṉa
periyaperumāḷaiyē anubhavikkiṟār. (. . .) (Aḻakiya Maṇavāḷa Perumāḷ Nāyaṉār’s introduc-
tory part in his commentary on Amalaṉ āti pirāṉ).
Just like the Vedas, the first three Āḻvārs, being engrossed in the paratva, [occasionally]
touched upon the arcā too. Like Śrī Vālmīki Bhagavān, the revered lord Kulaśēkhara, being
inclined towards the Rāma avatāra, also enjoyed the arcāvatāra. Like Śrī Parāśara Bhagavān
and Śrī Vedavyāsa Bhagavān, Nammāḻvār, Periyāḻvār and the Āḻvār’s divine Daughter
[i.e. Āṇṭāḷ or Godā], being engrossed in the Kṛṣṇa avatāra, also enjoyed the arcāvatāra. The
lord of Tirumaḻicai remained devoted to rejecting [those who believed in] the supremacy
of other deities (. . .). Despising paratva, (. . .) Tirumaṅkaiyālvār descended [deeply] in the
[enjoyment of] the arcāvatāra, and roamed fitfully, singing His feet, not in one or two plac-
es, but in all the towns that He desired [i.e. divyadeśas]. (. . .) He [Tiruppāṇāḻvār], unlike that,
enjoys Periya Perumāḷ, who is complete with [qualities] beginning with supremacy.
14. Differences of opinions surfaced amidst Rāmānuja’s followers a few centuries after
his passing away (ca 13th to 15th centuries), as the teṉkalai (‘Southern school) or Śrīraṅgam
acharyas (Piḷḷai Lokācārya and Maṇavāḷa Māmuni inte alia) and the vaṭakalai (‘Northern
school’) or Kāñcīpuram ones (especially Vedānta Deśika) held diverging views on impor-
tant theological issues, e.g., the nature and role of Śrī, the means to achieve liberation,
etc. The differences became crystallized from the 18th c. onwards. For more on this topic,
see for example Patricia Mumme’s The Śrīvaiṣṇava theological dispute: Maṇavāḷamāmuni and
Vedānta Deśika (1988) or Srilata Raman’s Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism: Tamil
Cats or Sanskrit Monkeys? (2007).
15. See for example Velukkudi Krishnan’s oral lecture on Maṇavāḷa Māmuni’s Tiruvāy-
moḻi Nūṟṟantāti 11, which is a part of his lecture on the īṭu, a medieval commentary on the
Tiruvāymoḻi (īṭu, audio file BV458), composed by Vaṭakku Tiruvīti Piḷḷai, based on the lec-
tures given by his teacher Nampiḷḷai (14th c.?).
16. taṉṉai ~ukantār anubhavikkai ~aṉṟikkē, ‘tāṉ’ eṉṟāl vimukharāy iruppārum kaṇṭu*
anubhavikkalāmpaṭi ~irukkaiyālē nīrmaiyiṉālē vanta ēṟṟamum iṅkē ~uṇṭu; guṇādhikyattālē ~iṟē
vastuvukku utkarṣam; guṇam vilai peṟuvatu iṅkēyiṟē.
17. śrīvaikuṇṭham, tiruppāṟkaṭal, tiruvavatārasthalam, ukantaruḷiṉa tiruppatikaḷ ivai ~ellām
periyaperumāḷē ~āṉāppōlē avvō ~iṭaṅkaḷil uṇṭāṉa saundaryaguṇaceṣṭitādikaḷ ellām periyaperumāḷ
212 Journal of Vaishnava Studies

pakkalilē kāṇalām. periyaperumāḷ aḻakum aiśvaryamum ellām paramapadattilē mukuḷitamāy

irukkum; avatārattil īrilai pōrum; iṅkē vanta piṉpu taḻaittatu. (. . .) ‘yato vāco nivartante’ eṉṟu
vedaṅkaḷukku* eṭṭāta sarveśvaraṉai āṟṟil taṇṇīr ōpāti āṟṟukku* uḷḷē kaṇṭu* anubhavikkalāmpaṭi
~irukkiṟa ~iṭamiṟē. (Aḻakiya Maṇavāḷa Perumāḷ Nāyaṉār’s introductory part in his com-
mentary on amalaṉ āti pirāṉ.)
18. The Śrīvaiṣṇavas consider the shrines lauded by the Āḻvārs as being of special
importance among all the sacred places: 108 of them, called divyadeśams (or ‘sacred lands’)
have been made part of the list, including 40 from the Cōḻa land, 2 from the ‘middle land,’
22 from the Toṇṭai region, 11 from the ‘northern’ land, 13 from the ‘mountain land,’ 18
from the Pāṇṭiya country and 2 that are not of this world (namely, the milky ocean and
Vaikuṇṭha). This classification may have come into existence in the medieval period. For
a detailed study on the divyadeśas and the Āḻvārs’ description of these lands, see Katherine
Young’s Śrīvaiṣṇava Topoi: Constructing a South Indian Sect through Place in Gillet, ed.
2014: 335-364.

Bibliography

Primary Sources
Amalaṉ āti pirāṉ. See Nālāyirattivviyappirapantam.
Amalaṉ āti pirāṉ Commentary. Amalaṉātipirāṉ vyākhyānaṅkaḷ. Edited by R.
Balaji. Trichy: Kiñcitkāram Trust, 2009.
Guruparamparāprabhāvam. Āṟāyirappaṭi Guruparamparāprabhāvam. Composed
by Piṉpaḷakiya Perumāḷ Jīyar and edited by Kiruṣṇasvāmi Aiyaṅkār.
Triplicane: Cē. Kiruṣṇamācāriar patippu, 1975 [1927].
Īṭu/Īṭu vyākhyānam. (2016). Tiruvāymoḻi īṭu muppattāṟārāyirappaṭi. By Veluk-
kudi Krishnan. Chennai: Dayasindhu Associates [CD].
Kōyiloḻuku. Kōyiloḻuku—Śrīraṅgamahātmyam eṉappaṭum śrīraṅgam kōyil varalāṟu.
(Part 1, subpart 1). Edited by Śrīvaiṣṇavaśrī A. Kiruṣṇamācāryar. Tirucci:
Śrīvaiṣṇavaśrī, 2005.
Mumukṣuppaṭi. Mumukṣuppaṭi of Piḷḷai Lokācārya with Maṇavāḷamāmuni’s Com-
mentary. Translated by Patricia Y. Mumme. Ananthacharya Indological
Research Institute Series No. XIX. Bombay: Ananthacharya Indological
Research Institute, 1994.
Mumukṣuppaṭi. Mukti rakasya viḷakkameṉum mumutcuppaṭi. Edited by Mārutitāsaṉ.
Ceṉṉai: Narmatā Patippakam, 2011.
Nālāyirattivviyappirapantam. The Sacred Book of Four Thousand: Nalayira Divya Pra-
bandham Rendered in English with Tamil Original based on the Commentaries
of Purvacharyas. Translated by S. Bharati. Chennai: Sri Sadagopan Tiruna-
rayanaswami Divya Prabandha Pathasala, 2000.
 Arcā atāra and the r ai a a Acharyas 213

Nālāyirattivviyappirapantam. Nalayira Divya Prabandham. Edited by Srivatsan. 2

vols. Chennai: The Little Flower Company (LIFCO), 2005.
Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi. See Nālāyirattivviyappirapantam.
Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi Commentary. Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi & Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi Vyākh-
yānam. (1997) Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi vyākhyānam. By S. Kiruṣṇasvāmi Aiyan-
gar. Trichy: Śrī Vaiṣṇava Śrī.
Śrīvacanabhūṣaṇam. Śrīvacanabhūṣaṇam of Piḷḷai Lokācārya. Translation and Com-
mentary of Maṇavāḷamāmuni. Critical Evaluation of the Theo-philosophy of
the post-Ramanuja Śrīvaiṣṇavism. Edited by J. Rangaswami. Delhi: Sha-
rada Publishing House, 2006.

Secondary Sources
Gillet, V. (Ed.) (2014). Mapping the Chronology of Bhakti: Milestones, Stepping Stones,
and Stumbling Stones. Proceedings of a Workshop Held in Honour of Paṇḍit
R. Varadadesikan. Pondichéry: Institut Français de Pondichéry & École
Française d’Extrême Orient.
Jagadeesan, N. (1977 [1940]). History of Sri Vaishnavism in the Tamil Country: Post-
Ramanuja. Madurai: Koodal Publishers.
Monier-Williams, Ernst Leumann, and Carl Cappeller. (1980). A Sanskrit-English
Dictionary Etymologically and Philologically Arranged with Special Reference to
Cognate Indo-European Languages. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
Mumme, P. (1988). The Śrīvaiṣṇava theological dispute: Maṇavāḷamāmuni and Vedānta
Deśika. Madras: New Era Publications.
Orr, L. (1995). “The Śrīvaiṣṇava Community at Śriraṅgam: the Testimony of the
Early Medieval Inscriptions.” Journal Of Vaiṣṇava Studies, 3.3, 109-136.
Rajagopalan, V. (2009). Kulasekhara’s Perumal Thirumozhi (A Psychic Approach to reli-
gious Mysticism. Chennai: RNR Printers & Publishers.
Raman, S. (2007). Self-Surrender (Prapatti) to God in Śrīvaiṣṇavism: Tamil Cats or Sanskrit
Monkeys? New York: Routledge.
Ramanujan, A. K. (2005 [1981]). Hymns for the Drowning : Poems for Viṣṇu. New Delhi:
Penguin Books India.
Tamil Lexicon. Madras: University of Madras, 1924-1936.