Vadagalai/Tengalai split Tengalais and Vadagalais are two subsects of Srivaishnavas, the dominant Vaishnavite sect in the Tamil country and parts of Andhra and Karnataka. They are *not* separate castes; they have almost always socialized freely, intermarry somewhat freely, and go to the same temples, honor most of the same gurus and worship mostly the same way. (Caste in any sense is a misnomer in this case, since one can be a non-brahmin Tengalai and be brahmin Vadagalai; it is not restricted to the "4-fold" caste system either). However, for a few centuries, there has existed a rivalry and animosity between certain members of the sects, so much so that they appear to belong to different traditions. The origin of this rivalry is complex, but is rooted in the expansion of Srivaishnavas after their principal acharya, Ramanujacharya (c. 11th-12th centuries AD) passed away. The split into identifiable camps, however, did not come until perhaps the 16th century, and from then on, the vitriol became quite harsh. Historical accounts indicate that the rivalry reached its peak after the British arrived, sometime in the 17th and 18th centuries, when some ambitious people realized that they could get control of temples and get temple honors through the British-introduced court system. There was a tremendous court battle over most of the major divya ksetras (holy temple sites), especially the Triplicane Parthasarathy Svami Temple. In places where a particular temple was controlled by Tengalais, prominent Vadagalai members of the surrounding community rose to challenge their authority, and vice versa. Often, court cases were filed simply over how the ThirumaN would look on the Lord's forehead. The ThirumaN is the mark traditional male Srivaishnavas place on their forehead. It represents the feet of PerumaaL and the essence of Lakshmi thaayaar. For Vadagalais, the thirumaN looks like a U. For Tengalais, it is Y- shaped, the stem of the Y extending 1/3 to 1/2 the way down the nose. Most who argue over this do not even know the philosophical significance of the thirumaN, which is that all Srivaishnavas should consider themselves the slaves of the Lord and should wear "his feet on their forehead" (a statement from an aazhvaar paasuram somewhere). However, in spite of their ignorance, it has become a source of major contention. This is quite unfortunate, since at its heights, such acrimony was motivated not by any doctrinal or intellectual difference. It was essentially a fight for power and prominence. Historians say that the deep division that is sometimes witnessed is a product of lesser minds a century or two after Manavala Mamuni's death. Manavala Mamuni is the leading acharya of the Tengalai division, and lived in the 15th century. He revolutionized and reorganized the Srivaishnava movement, especially in the southern part of the Tamil country, but gaining many followers and establishing regular worship at many temples. He is also very much responsible for popularizing Nammaazhvaar's great poem, the thiruvaaymozhi, among the masses. Anyway, more on this later. Philosophically, the differences between the two sects centers around the issue of the Lord's grace, and the nature of the soul's surrender (prapatti) to Him. However, the greatest teachers on either side had no intention of causing a split. In fact Vedanta Desika (considered the principal fountainhead of the Vadagalai), says in one of his works that "In the tradition of Yatiraja (Ramanuja), there is no division; there is only a small difference in opinion." Similarly, Manavala Mamuni (the main post-Ramanuja acharya for Thengalais, who lived a century after Desika) quotes Desika in his works and refers to him very respectably as "abhiyuktar". I believe this term was used only for respected members of one's own community. First, let me go into the origin of the doctrinal differences, and then I'll deal briefly with the differences themselves. One recent author, instead of using the words "Thengalai" and "Vadagalai", used the terms "Srirangam Acharyas" and "Kanchi Acharyas", since a difference in opinion existed long before the "---galai" words came to prominence. There are several reasons for this difference. First, Ramanuja never definitively put down his words on the nature of SaraNaagati, taking refuge in the Lord. Since Ramanuja's words were always considered final, it may have been part of his genius to leave this unresolved since it was such an intensely personal matter. At any rate, there were two sets of Srivaishnava scholars left after Ramanuja passed on. One group, located in Kanchi (where Desikar later grew up), became known for its vast Sanskrit scholarship, probably because Kanchi was a great center of Sanskrit learning of all sorts. People of all religious traditions lived there, and debate between Srivaishnava and non-Srivaishnava was probably very active and prominent. Hence, the greater of use of Sanskrit and Sanskrit ideas by the "Kanchi Acharyas", the Northerners, and eventually the "Vadagalai". The other group was located in Srirangam, essentially a purely Vaishnava center. Here, popular Vaishnavism was more prominent than Sanskrit- oriented debate with other schools. Hence, there must have been great occasion for public lecture (Katha Kaalakshepam, Upanyaasam, etc) of the Prabandhams and general bhakti literature, as opposed to the abstruse Sanskrit Vedanta. Therefore, there was greater usage of the Tamil Prabandham, language and more radical metaphors (when viewed from a Sanskrit perspective), as befits expositions of the Azhvar literature, which are more 'anubhavam' (experience) than doctrine. This is probably also why there are more Thengalais (of all castes) than Vadagalais. Naturally, with this difference in geography, intellectual climate, and language came some differences in emphasis. The Kanchi Acharyas, carefully guarding the doctrine of karma, etc., emphasized the need of the individual soul to actually perform the act of surrender to the Lord, with its associated attitudes, etc. The Srirangam Acharyas, taking many of the words of the Azhvars and the stotra literature to heart, emphasized the greatness and overwhelming grace of the Lord to "save His own", and therefore spoke more of the *attitude* than the act. The Srirangam acharyas felt that *performing an act* of surrender was an act of self- exertion, which was not in line with the individual soul's svaroopa as being completely dependent on the Lord. Furthermore, they felt that such an *act* was 'amaryaada', i.e., was disrespectful, since (i) the soul was offering itself when it in actuality eternally belonged to the Paramaatma, and (ii) not even the physical act of surrendering can force the Lord to save the soul. He saves the soul on His own initiative; rest assured that He *will* save you, but don't try to force Him. The Vadagalais counter with the argument, "If you leave everything up to the Lord, then there is no sense of fairness. The Lord can save whomever he wants at any time, without respect to merit or demerit, or whether they even wish to attain moksha. Truly this cannot be the nature of the Paramaatma." As you can see, it is a complex issue. Therefore, there is no separate 'prapatti' or 'SaraNaagati' for Thengalais, like there is for Vadagalais. Thengalais also do not admit bhakti-yoga (loving meditation whereby the soul gradually realizes the nature of the Supreme and its relationship to It) as a separate means, with the idea that it is only prapatti (which is essentially non-resistance to the grace of the Lord) that "achieves" moksha. (Thengalai Acharyas would probably even object to my usage of the word "achieve".) So this is the distinction. Naturally, many other beliefs follow from this difference, but what is outlined above is primary. The concept of caste, etc., was much more liberally interpreted in the Thengalai acharyas' works in consequence, but it appears that such doctrines did not have a lasting impact on the community. Orthodox Thengalai Brahmins are as staunchly casteist as any Vadagalai that I know.