Thirumala Venkateswara Temple: From Buddhism to Hinduism
The world famous Lord Venkateswara Temple is located in Tirumala which is very close to the town of Tirupati (Andhra Pradesh). The Thirumala temple is one of the most visited places on earth. It is estimated that somewhere between 50,000 to 75,000 pilgrims and tourists visit this temple every day. Today the presiding deity of this temple is Lord Venkateswara.
Lord Venkateswara is also known as Venkatachalapathi. Venkatachalapathi according to Hindu legends is an avatar of Lord Vishnu. The followers of Lord Vishnu are known as Vaishnavites and this temple therefore is a Vaishnava temple (Vaishnavism is one of the main groups within “Hinduism” today. The other major group is Shaivism (followers of Lord Shiva). Of course there are hundreds of other groups and subgroups within each group which is why most people consider Hinduism to be a philosophy and not a “religion” in the traditional sense).
Till date no one has been able to accurately date when the current temple structure was built. Most of the scriptures in the temple complex are in Tamil (the language spoken by the native people of Tirumala and Tirupati today is Telugu. Telugu is a Dravidian language which originated from Tamil). Most of the existing structures are believed to have been built during the 10 century by the Chola kings who were mostly Vaishnavites.
But was Thirumala a place of worship for other faiths before it became the abode of Lord Venkateswara? History is always written by the winners. This is particularly true of the history of South India and to an extent that of India. Most historians agree that people in South India (including parts of Maharashtra and Gujarat) up until the 9th and 10th centuries for the most part were Buddhists and Jains.
Shaivism and Vaishnavism were unknown to most South Indians until Chola kings of the 10th century (who were mostly Vaishnavites) started to spread their religion. Many Buddhist and Jain places of worship were converted over period of time to places of worship for the Vaishnava gods like Lord Venkateswara. Although very few South Indians consider themselves to be Buddhist and Jains today the traditions of these great religions are deeply engrained in the South Indian culture and also preserved in the places of worship. This conversion of Buddhists and Jains of South India to the Shaiva and Vaishnava religions is rarely taught in Indian history classes.
One of the Buddhist traditions that is still practiced in the Thirumala temple is the shaving of the head by the devotees. Buddhism allows men, woman and children to shave their heads as part of the initiation ceremony. It is an important first step in a person’s journey towards enlightenment. Vaishnavism prohibits shaving of head except in the case of death of a close family member. Women are allowed to shave their head only if the husband dies. Vaishnava priests (modern day Brahmins) never shave their head completely.
Under Vaishnava rule the Brahmins had a different set of punishment compared to others for the same crime. The toughest punishment meted out to a Brahmin in most cases was shaving their head completely. In those days it meant that the person was excommunicated. The worship of Lord Vishnu is clearly mentioned in a Sanskrit text known as Shodas Upachar. This text describes 16 ways in which a devotee can worship the image of Vishnu. Shaving of the head (tonsure) also known as the Mundana ceremony is not one of them.
Clearly tonsure is associated with sorrow and mourning in Vaishnavism and with celebration and initiation among Buddhists. So why is tonsure of men, women and children allowed in many South Indian places of worship including Tirumala temple? It is also interesting to note that even today anyone who is a “Hindu” can perform Abhiseka to the Lord or perform Archana directly irrespective of the persons caste or sex. This practice is absolutely rare in Vaishnava temples or for that matter other Hindu temples. The local tribes known as Chenchus not only perform Archana and Abhiseka but also take part is almost all important temple festivities. The week caste and sex barriers are signs of Buddhist and Jain influence.
The Sangam period was one of the greatest periods in Indian literature. This collection contains over 2300 poems by over 473 poets. The period spanned over 900 years starting from 600 BCE to 300 CE. These poems and other texts were written in Tamil and the subjects covered were largely secular in nature which is not surprising since most of this literature was written by Buddhist and Jain monks. NOTE: The word “Sangam” is from Sanskrit and is never mentioned in a single text from that period. The actual word used is “Sangha” which is a Buddhist and Jain term for “assembly of monks”.
The works from the Sangha period (particularly Silappatikaram written by the Jain monk Ilango Adigal) talk about the Tirumala temple but many Sanskrit texts particularly the Vishnu Purana do not mention anything about the shrine (obviously the temple is not mentioned in Mahabharata or the Ramayana). Ilango Adigal claims he visited the temple. But why is the Vishnu Purana silent on one of the most important Vishnu temples in India?
The statue of Lord Venkateswara in Tirumala is a standing posture with the Lord having two hands. Traditionally the statue of Vishnu is shown lying down. Vishnu is almost always depicted with four hands (there are exceptions to these rules). Lord Venkateswara is also depicted with Mudra in both his hands. This is very common in Buddhist imagery but is rare among Vaishnavites. The Mudras are difficult to make out since Lord Venkateswara today is always shown decked in flowers and jewelry. But if you carefully view the images, you can see on the left hand the classic Buddhist Varada Mudra (it is the left hand holding the traditional Buddhist robe called the Sanghati).
It is also important to note that in the original layout Lord Venkateswara did not have any weapons. This is more in sync with Buddhist and Jain techniques. The weapon (very important for Vishnu iconography) was supposedly placed on his hand by Ramanuja (Vaishnavite philosopher).
There are many other evidences to suggest a strong Buddhist and Jain link to Tirumala. The same thing holds true for the Palani temple in Tamil Nadu and the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. I do hope that people who read this article understand the complex nature of Indian history and not view this as a Hindu vs. Buddhist or Jain issue. It is about understanding and presenting a more accurate picture of our history. This article is a small step in that direction. I am looking forward to your comments.
“There is no God higher than Truth” – Gandhi
Related posts:
- Lord Venkateswara Temple: Discrimination on the basis of Clothing
- Shree Jagannath Temple Puri: Discrimination is part of the Tradition
- Onam And The End of Buddhism in Kerala
- Tamil is Part of Indian Heritage
- Lord Ayyappan and Sabarimala Pilgrimage
Category: Culture & Religion
Cholas were mostly Saivites, there are instances where vishnavites were persecuted by Chola kings. I do not remember them being vishnavites, if you have any reference could you please provide me?
There is a claim that Tirupati region belonged to tribal people and it was an Amman temple. Later when saivism was in raise, the temple was changed into Murugan temple and again when vishnavism was in raise, the temple was changed into a vishnu shrine. But the statue was never replaced and even today it is said that the idol has a plait behind.
Buddism and Jainism always co existed in the south. Ilangovadigal was a Jain (or may be buddist, not sure). Even thiruvalluvar was said to be a Jain which is not proved.
Thank you for your response Moulee. Many Chola Kings favored Saivism but some of the Chola kings did not see themselves as Saivites alone. Check out the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_Dynasty (look under Religion). In fact the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) website under the “history” section also makes the claim that the Cholas of Thanjavur were patrons of the Tirupati temple.
Could it be that people developed the tradition of shaving their heads as a form of self-punishment seeking relief or forgiveness from their god?
Welcome Ram,
It could be. But this practice is not found in most other Vishnu temples. It is very unlikely that the orthodoxy would allow people to do what they want in a religious place (and also in a place where the rulers have made a major financial commitment). They mostly likely sanctioned this practice because people were already doing it before Vaishnavism was installed.
Hari only challenge here is discounting the theory that jainism and buddhism could travel to southern parts of india but not original hinduism (forget the distinction of vaishnavism, shaivism).
Tonsure of head is certainly fascinating aspect. It is also prevalent in many of the “palani”-sque temples? I am not sure we can just associate that with initiation.
Welcome Govind,
If we discount Vaishnavism and Shaivism what is original Hinduism? The presence of tonsure of the head ceremony in Palani and other temples in South India is an indication of the temples origins in Buddhism and Jainism (Lord Murugan and for that fact Lord Ayyappan are fairly recent entries into the Hindu pantheon. They are not mentioned in any ancient “Hindu” scriptures).
Well Muruga or Karthikeya is referenced in Ramayana. While Viswamitra takes Rama and Lakshmana to the forest for protecting his yaga, he tells them the story of birth of Karthikeya. The name “Muruga” is of tamil origin which means “Beautiful or Youthful”. So we cannot discount Muruga as not being mentioned in ancient texts
Aparajith,
There are so many versions of the Ramayana written thousands of years apart. Which version of the Ramayana does it reference Muruga or Karthikeya? There are also so many different storylines of Ramayana (the Buddhist variant of Ramayana does not indicate an abduction of Sita. The obduction of Sita shows Ravana, who is beloved by the dark skinned people, in bad light). The original version in Sanskrit (approximately 4th century BC) does not mention Murugan. The Sanskrit version is also not written in a South Indian context.
Buddhism is definitely the first great religion to travel to the south of India. This is primarily due to the missionary activities of Ashoka. Actually, Buddhism travelled all over the world : from Egypt and Greece in the west to Japan in the east !
The original Hinduism doesn’t exist. The word “Hinduism” is a relatively modern construct – first employed by the Muslims who invaded from the west to denote the religious practices of India.
Vaishnava / Shaiva / Shakti traditions were flourishing in the north for a long time before they made their advent to the south. So it is very amusing that the majority of the Hindu religious shrines stand today in South India. Those in the north have mostly been razed down, except in the remote reaches of the Himalayas.
Welcome Vakibs,
There is no question that “Hinduism” is a relatively new religion in South India. It replaced Buddhism, Jainism and other local beliefs and became the religion that it is today (particularly that of the upper caste). But Buddhist beliefs, gods, architecture and culture is all around us even today. You have to know where to look.
It is said that Buddhists were forcibly converted back to Hindus in ancient times…even the Ayyappa temple was Buddhist originally.
It is said that people with Aiah and Appa after a name in Karnataka and AP were all Buddhists before.
Yes Nalini. This part of Indian history is rarely talked about in India today.
The amount of nonsense in this article boggles the mind. So many things wrongly interpreted. No wonder mordern day Indians are confused about what ‘Hinduism’ really is.
A few salient errors:
“Many Buddhist and Jain places of worship were converted over period of time to places of worship for the Vaishnava gods like Lord Venkateswara.”
By starting the article with an assumption, you have effectively demolished the premise itself. TArkam, ie, logic, gives an example of a person assuming there is fire when he sees smoke. In reality, the smoke could be due to fire that had gone out, or could simply be mist. Hence, logic takes you only so far.
Similarly, this assumption of yours has absolutely no proof since all you are doing is banking on a few similarities (which really are not similarities, but wrongly perceived as some by you). Buddhism has been refuted philosophically in the Brahma SutrAs. And the first refutation, that drove Buddhism out of India, was not done by theists. It was done by atheists, namely, mimAmsakAs, who followed the VedA, but did not believe in God.
SrinivAsA is lauded as the parabrahman, revealed luminously by the Upanishads (Sruti SirasE vidiptE). Vedic seers have time and again established the greatness of VenkatAchalam.
Buddhism has been defeated in debates by every VedAntin. Sri VedAnta Desikan’s famous ‘para mata bhangam’, which tears to pieces all the avaIdika matams, is worth mentioning here. Every sect of Buddhism, Jainism, CharuvAkam, PAsupatam, SAnkhyam, Yoga, etc. is demolished philosophically. No wonder he is called ‘kavi tArkika simham’ (lion among philosophers).
Before calling BhagavAn’s divine form as a ‘statue’ do some research on archAvatarA, which refers to how the form of the Lord is made of knowledge and bliss, rather than material things. And refer to a vidwan belonging to the traditions of Advaita, Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita before talking about Buddhist influences on Tirumala (there are none).
“The toughest punishment meted out to a Brahmin in most cases was shaving their head completely. In those days it meant that the person was excommunicated….”
Talk about nonsense. Shaving heads has nothing to do with ex-communication. It was a cultural belief and not a philosophical belief. Let me give an example. A person says ‘Knock on wood’ nowadays. Does this qualify as a ‘religious belief’? No. It is a superstition, albeit a cultural one.
VaidikAs do not shave heads for punishments. The practice of shaving heads at TirumalA is fairly recent, and it is done only by people who have no knowledge of VedAntA (includes the Vaishnavite people of today who have absorbed the practice).
None of the achAryAs have recommended it.
“The worship of Lord Vishnu is clearly mentioned in a Sanskrit text known as Shodas Upachar.”
This ‘Shodas Upchar’ is not a VedAntic text. Worship of Sriman NArAyaNa in the archAvatarA (temple form) is described in the pancarAtrA and vaikhAnasa agamA. These two AgAmAs ALONE constitute pramAnA (authority) as they are in accordance with the VedA.
The VedA is apAurusheyA, or unauthored. Authored books are not accepted as authoritative unless they have Vedic backing. Only the agamAs have the vedic backing. Texts like this obscure ‘shodas upchar’, ‘tulsidas ramayan’, etc. followed in mordern times have never been authority for VaidikAs.
Shows that the author has no knowledge of Vedic traditions, with stuff like ‘Shodas Upchar’, whatever it is, being quoted.
” Shaving of the head (tonsure) also known as the Mundana ceremony is not one of them.”
No ShAstrA mentions that one needs to offer hair to BhagavAn. It is certainly a mordern phenomenon. The head shaving only became popular in the 1950s. No VedAntin instituted it.
Your source needs to do some research.
“Clearly tonsure is associated with sorrow and mourning in Vaishnavism and with celebration and initiation among Buddhists”
VedantA, or Vaishnavism, does not subscribe to silly beliefs like ‘shaving heads’ is sorrowful, and ‘wiggling tongues’ signify happiness. It is a rational and coherent system of philosophy based on the Shruti ParamparA.
“It is also interesting to note that even today anyone who is a “Hindu” can perform Abhiseka to the Lord or perform Archana directly irrespective of the persons caste or sex. This practice is absolutely rare in Vaishnava temples or for that matter other Hindu temples.”
This shows your complete ignorance of what is Vedic and what is not. ArcanA can be performed by EVERYONE as per the AgamAs. However, the actual practice of offering worship by chanting the VedA (Veda pArAyanam) and day-to-day services can be rendered only by archakAs (priests).
And it has nothing to do with caste. For that matter, brahmins themselves are not allowed to touch the Lord. Only Brahmin priests are allowed. The reasoning is philosophical, based on karma vAsanA and VedAdhikArA. It has nothing to do with castes, as is propagated today.
If only brahmins were allowed to do even archanA, then it contradicts the ShAstrAs whic recommend every person to have a deity of the Lord at home and perform arcanA to Him. Krishna says in Gita, ‘Patram, Pushpam, Phalam, Toyam…’, ie, that nayone can offer Him fruits, water, leaf, etc. It is only the chanting of VedA that has restrictions.
“The word “Sangam” is from Sanskrit and is never mentioned in a single text from that period.”
Sangam is a tamil word for a gathering. Andal in her tiruppavai uses the word ‘Sangam iruppAr pOle’. The Tiruppavai is from the Sangam era.
Just because the anti-hindu community in tamil nadu has effectively wiped out sanskrit and tamil intermingling does not mean it did not exist back then.
It seems like you belong to DMK or DK?
“Lord Venkateswara is also depicted with Mudra in both his hands. This is very common in Buddhist imagery but is rare among Vaishnavites.”
One hand shows His divine feet, indicating ‘Mam Ekam Sharanam Vraja’ and the other hand is kati hastham, which shows that SamsArA is only knee deep for those who understand the meanings of VedAntA. This form of the Lord is quite popular in many temples and is described in the AgamAs, but maybe you haven’t travelled enough to see it.
In any case, the AgamAs mention this. The Rg VedA itself has a direct reference to TirumalA stating ‘VikatE girim gachA’. ‘Vem-katA’ is derived from ‘VikatA’, destroyer of sins.
Your buddhist scholars failed to notice it, eh?
The kati hasthA has nothing to do with Buddhist varada mudra.
“layout Lord Venkateswara did not have any weapons. This is more in sync with Buddhist and Jain techniques. The weapon (very important for Vishnu iconography) was supposedly placed on his hand by Ramanuja (Vaishnavite philosopher).”
Ever actually read Vishnu PurAnA? It describes the tattvAs behind the weapons. In any case, there are plenty of temples like RAjamannArgudi, etc. where Lord does not have any weapons. In Badri, the Lord is in the form of a yogi.
More nonsense, as usual. Sri RAmAnujA philosophically refuted allegations of VenkateswarA being Siva, Muruga, Ambal, Buddha, etc. and then only gave the divine weapons to the Lord.
In addition, Sri AnantAchAryA has compiled a record of all the arguments used by Sri RAmAnujA in the debate to vanquish the arguments of Buddhists, Jains, SaivAs, etc. That record still exists today, and is a proof of the AchAryA’s intellectual honesty. Even the tradition of offering bilva to Vishnu (normally done for SivA) is justifed by Sri RAmAnujA using the vedic texts as authority.
“why is the Vishnu Purana silent on one of the most important Vishnu temples in India?”
1) Because the particular AvatArA of the Lord is for Kali YugA, and the PurAnA is concerned with events in previous yugAs, 2) Vishnu PurAnA is different from other purAnAs in that it is concerned with explaining the complex vAkyAs of the Upanishads, whereas other purAnAs are concerned with details of BhagavAn’s avatArAs, 3) PurAnAs in general are experiences of rishis, and each rishi has his own opinions, which are accepted once they are validated by the unauthored VedAs. If one rishi prefers Krishna avatArA and another prefers VenkatAchalam, it is no crime.
There is no binding contract that a purAnA has to talk about temple worship. The theme of the Vishnu purAnA is bhakti yOgA, and not archAvatarA.
“There are many other evidences to suggest a strong Buddhist and Jain link to Tirumala”
All these nonsensical theories have been refuted by mordern day scholars. Check your local bookstore. If a rebuttal is not available, consult a proper vidvAn, belonging to any of the three VedAntic traditions instead of coming to conclusions based on half-baked opinions.
Here is another proof of your misinformation:
“Lord Murugan and for that fact Lord Ayyappan are fairly recent entries into the Hindu pantheon. ”
Agreed about Ayyapan. But SkandA is mentioned in the Sathapatha BrahmanA of the VeDA as the son of Rudra. ChandogyA Upanishad has SanatkumArA stating ‘Aham SkanDa’ (I am Skanda) after instructing NAradA on Brahman. The idea is that by proper knowledge, just as Skanda, ie, Muruga, defeats asurAs, SanatkumArA has defeated the asurA of ignorance, which is what so many people like these buddhist scholars exhibit copiusly these days.
That being said, VedAntins do not accept SkandA as God. He is just a JivAtmA.
In totality, the sources rely on dubious misinformation, lack organisation and have little to no knowledge of VaidikA traditions (brahmins punish by head shaving…laughable!!)
Narayanan.
Narayanan,
A long winding and self contradictory answer. You are using Brahminical sources and traditions to discredit the history of the Buddhists and Jains and that of India (it is like asking the British rulers for their opinions about Indians).
Let me give you an example about your circular argument. You claim that “Agreed about Ayyapan. But SkandA is mentioned in the Sathapatha BrahmanA of the VeDA as the son of Rudra. ChandogyA Upanishad has SanatkumArA stating ‘Aham SkanDa’ (I am Skanda) after instructing NAradA on Brahman. The idea is that by proper knowledge, just as Skanda, ie, Muruga, defeats asurAs, SanatkumArA has defeated the asurA of ignorance, which is what so many people like these buddhist scholars exhibit copiusly these days“.
See how you are cleverly using the Upanishad (a Brahminical text) to equate Skanda with Muruga (a name not mentioned in the Upanishad). You are providing this as an evidence to suggest that Lord Muruga is part of the Hindu pantheon for a long time. You then say that I am relying on dubious misinformation?
It is well known that many texts of all religions have been modified numerous times by vested interests to add, delete or modify stories and characters to suit their interests.
Calling people names, throwing accusations and making assumptions about other human beings based on a one page article are all things I expect from religious fundamentalists. Your comments suggest that you are having a difficult time freeing yourself from the shackles of your sacred texts and looking at issues using an independent lens.
Addendum:
Another glaring error:
“Shaivism and Vaishnavism were unknown to most South Indians until Chola kings of the 10th century (who were mostly Vaishnavites) started to spread their religion.”
Seems like the historians need to do some research. Barring one exception at the most, the cholas were all staunch saivites, not Vaishnavas.
And Vaishnavism, being a part of the VedAntic traditions, was spread by philosophical debates, not by the power of kings.
Narayanan.
Narayanan … Today India’s Prime Minister is a Sikh. Are majority of Indians Sikhs? How do we know that the Chola kings were staunch Saivites? The Chola kingdom has many different phases. We only know for sure that many of the Kings of the Late Chola Period (1070-1279 AD) were Saivites.
But Sangam literature (many of them written by Buddhist and Jain monks) indicates that Cholas may have existed even in 200 BCE. Is there any evidence to show that in 200 BCE South India was under the influence of Saivism?
Like all religions that replace other religions, the spread of Saivism and Vaishnavism was by peaceful methods and also by violent methods including coercion. The priestly class indulged in philosophical debates while the Kings did the dirty work for them.
The average people gave up their lands. They went from a fairly caste less society to a rigid caste based society where the Shaivites and Vaishnavites were at the top of their food chain. It would be an insult to ones common sense to believe that all this happened because the Vaishnavites and Shivites won philosophical debates with the others.
Personally I have nothing against Shaivism, Vaishnavism or Hinduism. But history is history.
Interesting post.. I recently visited Muktinath in the Mustang province near the Nepal-Tibet border. I spent some time with the priests who perform the poojas there at the Shiva Parvati Temple and they said it has been so always… at the same time, it is really interesting to note that the same Muktinath Temple is also known as Chumi Gyarcha and is a buddhist religious site as well… and what intrigued me most was that young buddhist nuns open the temple gates everyday at 5:30AM and then the South Indian priests proceed onwards to perform the rites there…. The main idol also looks like a blend of the Buddha and the Shiva idols – there are distinct characteristics and features of both. And the nun ties a maroon sacred cloth after you have darshan and teertha at the temple… Amazing blend of Buddhism and Hinduism coexisting since a long time till today… Check out the pics (The right panel has the links to pics) of my travels to Muktinath and Kagbeni at http://www.DADandME.in – Im still learning and there is a lot I dont know yet about Hinduism and Buddhism – still learning a have a long way to go…Just sharing something interesting I have recently learnt…
Pradeep,
Welcome and thank you very much for taking the time to provide your input.
The information you have mentioned about the Shiva Parvati Temple in Nepal is amazing. Now I want to learn more about it. I am wondering why the priests are from South India …
Thanks for the ack Hari,
This place was a really good example that shows that, to the true seekers of knowledge / truth / divine, religion does not make any difference…
I stayed for a day with the priests there at Muktinath in the Ranipauwa Ashram near the Muktinath shrine – they were kind enough to share their quarters and also let me click their pics.
I also had a lengthy talk with the Buddhist nun at 5:30AM the next day – They all seemed so grounded in truth and in their quest for the truth. I was actually impressed with the harmony in which the day to day tasks were carried out at the temple – Buddhist as well as Hindu rituals are practised. This place attracts a few visitors – There were just 9 visitors the entire day I was there. It involves a flight to Jomsom from Pokhra and a long Jeep ride along the Krishna Gandaki river (a tributary of the Ganga that flows in from Nepal) and a trek upto the shrine. Divine experience.
Check out some pics at :
http://dadandme.in/image-galleries/20100603-nepal-muktinath
and
http://dadandme.in/image-galleries/20100604-nepal-kagbeni-jomsom-mustang
Regards,
Pradeep
Thank you for the update Pradeep. I checked out the photographs. They are wonderful.
In Nepal, we have Pashupatinath Shiv temple, whihc has got priest from south india for ages now..
Southindia and Shrilanka was the part of Ravana’s kingdom, and so does nepal and Kashmir of olden days.
May be some connections since then, I am just speculating, others can justify it may be..
Paras,
I have to disagree with you. Ravana is mythical and not real. There is no archeological or any other evidence to suggest that a person by the name of Ravana ruled what is today the Indian subcontinent.
If ravana is mythical , then what about ram, do u consider that too as mythical..
Then whole lot of hindus would be wrong, and have ram as superman in west, which is a fictitous charater created to do pure business.
I would not go into the historical facts revealed about ram being a real king.
Anyways, to discuss more on casteless society, if you know, Kashmiri pandits are casteless. As pandit is the honourary position given to someone who is highly qualified, and it is not synonomous to brahmins.
Kashmir has once the highest body of the educated class after kashi. People go to Kasmir after gets qualified from Kashi. You would find more details from panunkashmir site.
Paras,
This might come as news to you but there are many people who believe that all religions are made up by man. At this point there is no evidence for a Ram. Until there is independent evidence that a person like Ram ruled India, he will have to remain as a mythical person. If you have any evidence that Ram exists then please submit that to the archeological society of India!
A Kashmiri Pundit is an upper caste Hindu. There are Vaishnavite Pundits and Shaivite Pundits. I am not sure what you are trying to prove by saying that Pundits are “casteless”.
Buddhism request head shave only from those who want to be priest.
Hindus go to temples with their new born babies when they are 6 month old or more to shave and give the hair to the temple.
Also elder people shave their head as offering for the God’s grace on them.
Bala,
Hindus do a lot of things including shaving the heads of new born babies. The question is whether this is traditional Hindu belief or did we borrow it from other traditions. Vishnu Purana states how Vishnu should be worshiped. Shaving the head in my opinion is not one of them.
Informative, i would like to add, the period of kalabhras would most likely to be that of the Buddhist period in TN, something around 300AD to 600AD, three to four centuries were not a short period and we come to know that Kalabhra kings destroyed the existing order(caste system), their base was Thirupati and kanchipuram. Most of the Tamil literature from this period were either of Buddhist. they ruled all of the Tamil countries in their peak.
Its the new Pallavas and Pandyas after 600AD who fought against weakened kalabhra kings and who might have done the conversion of the temples to Vaishnavism and to new named Gods. The Kalabhras were called as thieves and we should think how thieves can rule or control for three centuries?
Even most of the Murugan(skanda) temples should have connection with Buddhism. Remember Murugan potrayed as Aandi and also Buddhist Srilanka has the same katirgamar temple, which Buddhists also considers as a Bhodisattva, and most of the temples in south asia during or before this period were of the God Avalokite?vara (the Bodhisattva). Even the part of the Mahabalipuram temples architecture was Buddhist.
its clear there was great Buddhist influence in the three Tamil countries and as you said some this history is hidden or changed during the later Chola period as Buddhism is against most of Brahminic and Vedic laws.
Welcome Aruna.
Thank you for sharing the information. Even a causal observer will notice that Hinduism in the South has strong Buddhist influence. There was a cultural take over of the south by Brahminical religions in our not so distant past. The evidence is all around us even today. When will our history books start teaching us our real history?
Please cite examples of forced conversions to Hinduism from Buddhism. People of those days were extremely open minded and long and tenuous debates used to be conducted in the courts of kings. Change in religious affiliations based on these debates was pretty common. This is something that’s unimaginable in these days of extreme fundamentalism which makes us think of any conversion as ‘forced’.
Buddhism and Hinduism are both extremely peaceful religions and get along really well with each other. Infact Buddhism started off in India in the very lap of Hinduism and spread high and wide thanks to emperors such as Ashoka as also historians from China that traveled to India. Such spread would have been impossible if your allegations were true.
Hindus and Buddhists really have no problem with each other. I really fail to understand what this article tries to accomplish. When there’s so much good that can be done in the world, putting out a biased article that threatens to sow the seeds of distrust is just uncalled for.
Please cite examples of “Change in religious affiliations based on these debates was pretty common”. The very same Hindus who complain about forced conversions today want the rest of the world to believe that conversions in the past were a result of some fancy debate. Were these debates telecast on CNN?
No self respecting Buddhist would believe that Buddhism started in the lap of Hinduism. It is a Hindu myth. Buddhism was the religion of ancient India long before the arrival of Hinduism.
You really believe Hindus and Buddhists have no problems with each other. How did the Buddhists disappear from India? How did the Hindu Brahmins become the upper caste and the Buddhists the SC and ST? One of the greatest components of peace is equality. This article is not sowing the seeds of distrust but it is only setting the record straight.
Your ignorance of Indian history is showing. You have a lot of reading to do.
whoa! hold your horses there mate! You make too many assumptions.
I am only too aware of ancient clashes b/w hinduism and buddhism. How you interpreted what I said as we ‘always’ got along well is a puzzle.
Anyway, that Hinduism and Buddhism get along very well in TODAY’s DATE is rather unassailable. Both religions have a lot of profound higher philosophical ideas that are very compatible with each other. I wont stoop down to the level of arguing with you on which religion is better or that who borrowed from whom. History is anybody’s playground. If there’s one thing on which both wise Hindus and wise Buddhists will agree upon then it is that discussion of the beautiful and profound philosophy enshrined in these great faiths is far more fruitful that making blind guesses in the dark recesses of ancient history.
And setting the record straight? May I remind you that it was this same argument that led to speculations of Babri Masjid being built on a Hindu Temple and from thereon to its unfortunate demolition. That incident causes a lot of heartburn even in present day’s society among people who were not even born during that time. Is all that necessary?
‘Setting the record straight’ isn’t always a good thing eh?
Getting along is different from peace or respect. The British and Indians got along pretty well for the most part. You say you do not “want to stoop down to the level of arguing with you on which religion is better or that who borrowed from whom” You felt good after you wrote this statement right?
But in your previous comment you already expressed your opinion on where you stand on this issue “Infact Buddhism started off in India in the very lap of Hinduism“.
This article is not about which religion is better or who came first. It is about the history of the Temple.
“History of the Temple” as interpreted by you :)
Would you rather prefer the Vaishnava version of the “History of the Temple”?
Hari,
I mostly agree with you in these postings but I think you are wrong in taking Ananth to task here.
Perhaps the most objective view of Indian history can be found in the travelogues of Buddhist Chinese (Faxian, Yijing and Xuanzang) who visited India between 300 and 700 CE and they do in fact vividly describe that Hindus and Buddhists have no problem with each other.
Buddhism disappeared from India mainly due to Islamic invasions. We are lucky that caste-based Hinduism absorbed Buddhism, otherwise we all would be Muslims today.
Welcome Ajay,
Thank you for your feedback. I do not dispute the idea of Hindus and Buddhists getting along. Likewise Hindus and Muslims do for the most part in modern India. But what is the environment surrounding it? Is it an environment of trust, respect and equality?
Arrival of Islam may have had an impact on Buddhism. But it was clear what Hindu scriptures was trying to do to Buddha. In a number of Hindu texts including the Puranas Buddha is considered an Avatar of Vishnu. He is depicted as a avatar that spreads the false message that there is no god and that animal sacrifice is bad.
Brahmanda Purana: “To delude the demons, he [Lord Buddha] stood on the path in the form of a child. The foolish Jina (a demon), imagined him to be his son. Thus the lord Sri Hari [as avatara-buddha] expertly deluded Jina and other demons by his strong words of non-violence“. Are Buddhists identified as demons here? Is Buddha’s message of non-violence false?!!
I do not think that the word “absorbed” would be the world the Buddhist would use to describe what happened. I am guessing that their preference would have been to retain their identity rather than fall prey to Hinduism or Islam.
Hindu scriptures are full of contradictions. Some purans like Brahmanda Puran may portray a negative image of Buddha, but others like Harivamsh, Vishnu , Bhagavata, Agni, Padma Purans etc. do quite the opposite. Why would Buddha be counted as ten avatars with Ram and Krishna in the first place if he were not a revered figure? “Geet Govind” of Jaidev praises Buddha in the first chapter just as it does other nine avatars.
Yes, Buddhism did face opposition from some Hindu groups. But its prestige/prominence suffered a mortal blow when it was seen as utterly helpless in the face of onslaught from foreign marauders. (People of east Bengal — today’s Bangladesh — were most susceptible to conversion because they were heavily Buddhists.)
I totally agree that scriptures are full of contradictions. Hinduism is no exception. The reason why Buddha is considered an avatar in some scriptures is an attempt to incorporate the Buddhist religion into Hinduism.
dear hari,
the so called upper class (by you) not only contain hindu bhramins, ther are many non bhramins in that list and they are called forward caste or open caste not upper caste.In the same way many people apart from buddhist are also there in so called lower caste (by you) and they are not called lower caste but schedule caste.
further sc st people have various concessions and many a goverm ent schemes protecting them.Now a days the forward caste people are helpless.
please dont bring caste based remarks.It always hurts everyone
Araavamudhan,
Forward caste, upper caste, lower caste etc. are terms that we use today. I agree that there are exceptions. But we all know who sits on top of the caste structure and who sits at the bottom. The 61st Round Survey by NSSO documents that 89.5% of Buddhists in India belong to the Scheduled Caste community. I am wondering how some of the oldest populations in India (genetically speaking) ended up at the very bottom?
Ambedkar in the previous centuary led a campaign to convert SC ST to Budhism in the hope of emmancipating them and to keep them in Hindu fold. Project was not as successful as conversion to Christianity or Islam, b’coz some else picks up the bill for emmancipation there. Among Hindus they were on their own. Currently, there are benefits to being branded SC ST.
Your original article is riddled with misconseption and not appropriately referenced. Such postings are mischievious and I suspect a hidden agenda in your misrepresentations. Who pays you to do this and with this vehemence?
Priya,
I am glad that people like Ambedkar contributed to India’s constitution. They understood individual liberty and freedom of expression. On almost any subject Indians will have differences of opinion (just a reminder that there are 1.1 billion of us on this Earth). Labeling my views and others like mine as mischievous and by indicating that they are paid to do this without any evidence is a smear campaign. Considering your views about SC/ST I think you will stoop to any level to get your point across.
Interesting article and not surprised that the temples could have been once buddhists or jain. In fact even Bodhidharma, the monk who introduced structured martial arts and meditation to china, is said to be a buddhist south indian prince.
But another similarity that I have personally noticed is the connection between hinduism, buddhism and islam. In the Hajj, muslim pilgrims dress in white (or some common simple colour), shave their heads, circumambulate the kaaba, make day long pilgrimages to different sites in crowds, and revere a black stone. All these customs are overwhelmingly found in Hinduism and Buddhism and most probably predated the customs long before Islam was established. Its just interesting to see how customs might have become intermingled and exchanged although I have no concrete evidence.
You are absolutely right about the Kaaba. The rituals are very similar to Hindi or Buddhist rituals. I always wondered whether the word Shai (as in Shia Muslim) and Shiva are related.
Seeing connection between Shia and Shiva is way way too silly. It reminds me of an incidence in my childhood when a Hindu preacher was claiming that rishi Jaimini founded Germany…
Wondering whether the words Shia and Shiva are connected is “way way too silly“?
Many have speculated that Mecca was a holy site for Vedic/Buddhist/Mythraic type religions before the arrival of Islam and that those religions have had an impact on Islam and its founder. Godfrey Higgin’s Anacalypsis is one of the many books that discusses this issue.
I am glad that I am not alone when it comes to these “silly” thoughts!!
The Indian culture and Gods has a lot of connection between the Gods of the Middle east, Persian and even the Romans. Trade between these places and India has a long History and many of these travelers might have settled and mingled with the local people. Anything is not pure. Indian Brahmi script has many relations with Aramaic letters and all major languages currently spoken in India took and gave words from among themselves and others.
If anyone say we are rich in culture and language and its pure, its simply nonsense. The current form of Hinduism/Islam/Christianity/Buddhism has their history of evolution. Stories, myths and rulers played their part in shaping them.
Welcome Aruna.
You are correct. There is a lot of fusion between languages and religions of South Asia and Middle East. There are a lot of similar myths. Very little as you say is “pure”.
sir ,
i read ur comments. please see to it the 4000 divya prabhandam of alwars (vaishnavates) clearly refer the temple as vaishnava temple. In south india der is another famous temple called parathasarathi temple in chennai. the lord here is vishnu and he is with two hands only. the oopliappan kovil also follows the tradition of removing hair and god pose in same way as that of tirumal god.So instead of creating such unnecessary controversies please accept the things as it is
Araavamudhan,
No one is trying to create a controversy. But we should also not accept things “as it is”. There would be no progress, no knowledge gained nor any reforms.
We should use what Divya Prabhandam’s say as evidence in this case with a pinch of salt (considering that it is Vaishnava scripture. The current form of Divya Prabhandam was documented in the 9th and 10th centuries, long after the area was a pilgrimage site for the locals). You should realize that Tirupathi, although one of the most well known Vishnu temples in the world is not one of the original 108 Divya Desams (Vishnu temples mentioned by the Azhvars that every South Indian Vaishnava hopes to visit).
I read Hari’s comment, and was wondering which the original 108 divya desams are? I wasn’t aware that there were multiple lists…
From even a cursory reading of the divyaprabhandham, one sees many verses (by multiple authors) that directly reference the Tirumala shrine by name, so these at least date to the 8th century AD…
With all this discussion of whether Tirumala was a Buddhist shrine or not, Buddhism post-dates Hinduism. It arose in objection to the Hindu practices of the day, just as the Protestant/Lutheran tradition arose out of objections to Catholicism. Now most people attribute any similarities of the newer tradition to the older one, and not the other way around. A child resembles its parent. The parent doesn’t change to resemble the child…
Welcome Amalan.
I disagree that Buddhism post-dates Hinduism (although this is what most Hindus today believe). Buddhism and Jainism were around a long time before the Brahminical religions came along. The Brahminical religions then incorporated many aspects of Buddhism which included adding Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu.
In some aspects I do agree that Buddhism predates even Buddha. The philosophical thoughts coexisted along with that of “Sanathana Dharma”. Ofcourse Buddha and Mahavira became the modern day recognisible figures for that philosophy. But stating “Bhuddhism and Jainism predates Hinduism” in India, seems a bit out of sync
Aparajith,
It is a fairly simple statement. There was no one in India who considered himself to be a Hindu before the 15th century. There were Shivas, Vaishnavas, etc. But no Hindu.
Dear Hari,
i didnt understand this “Tirupathi, although one of the most well known Vishnu temples in the world is not one of the original 108 Divya Desams” becoz 202 prabhandams were dedicated to tirumala. May be the documentations were done in 10 century.Originally they sung it very early and later it were documented. Further the thngs you said are just predictions and i dont think that there is a strong evidence or proof.
If it is available please convey to me.
How do we know that what they were singing before they documented it was about Vishnu and not about Buddha? There are a lot of assumptions on both sides of the argument. Also keep in mind that the during the same period (10th and 11th centuries) there were major disagreements between the Shaivites and Vaishnavites about the origin of the temple.
dear hari,
one more information i got is swami ramanuja didnt place the shanka and chakra.It was taken by god himself, when all the weapons were placed in his feet, the next day morning infront ramanujacharya lord hold is shanka and chakra, and this ius the history please refer.
further dont say ,how can i accept this, it was vishnu not buddha please
I am stumped!!
I think you are referring to the story in 13th century work “Sri Venkatachala Itihasa Mala”. Allow me to briefly summarize the story:
This work talks about the long dispute between the Shaivas and Vaishavas about the origins and reigning deity of the Thirumala temple (I am reminded of the quarrels between the British, Portuguese and Dutch for the control of Cochin!!). The work suggests that the local ruler was won over by the Vaishnava argument but he wanted to make sure anyway.
Weapons representing Vishu and Shiva were left inside the temple and the doors closed. When the door was opened the next day the deity was seen holding the classic Vishnu emblems, the Conch and Chakra. The legends suggest that the weapons were placed by Sri Ramanuja (himself a Vaishnavite teacher).
You are saying that the weapons were “taken by God himself”. As a skeptic I do not believe it. I think most Buddhists, Jains and Saivites would not believe this either. But what we can deduce from the story is that the deity clearly did not have weapons initially. The deity also has only two hands which is rare in Vishnu iconography.
The verses of the divyaprabhandham describe the deities in specific detail, eulogizing their exploits based on the scriptures. Whether Buddha was accepted by the Hindus as an incarnation of Vishnu as a later addition can be debated (as part of the larger issue of which came first- Hinduism or Buddhism)…
To my knowledge, the Buddhist scriptures glorify the Buddha’s actions, although they list his physical attributes which each show a particular character trait that he perfected. The pasurams of the divyaprabhandham describe Vishnu’s physical beauty, and most of these do not reference the Buddha in any way. Also, other types of poetry (madal-style poetry, or sending a messenger to proclaim one’s love) are not part of the Buddhist tradition. Multiple alwars sang in this style for the deity at Tirumala… I’m not sure how this can be explained in any other way…
Also, I can see it being plausible that Buddhism predated the Buddha. Dating Hinduism itself isn’t a easy task, and most likely, prior to the advent of the historical Buddha, there were sects of Hinduism which coalesced or gravitated to the what later were compiled as the Buddha’s teachings (and developed into what we know as Buddhism). I sense that Jainism may have appeared in a similar way, also predating Mahavir. Both traditions claim that the historical founder was one in a line of many who preceeded him, thus suggesting the antiquity of their tradition… Hari, if you have any evidence that Buddhism predated Hinduism itself (a subtle but significantly different idea from what I stated above), please do share this…
Amalan,
The historical Buddha supposedly lived around 5 BC (2500 years ago). As you rightly pointed out according to many Buddhist traditions he is one of the many “Buddha”. The word “Hindu” many believe is a Persian word that was first used around the 15th century to describe the various religions of India. As you argue aspects of Hinduism could have existed long before the teachings of Buddha and that that might have influenced Buddhism (It could be the other way around as well). But we cannot go from this to believing that Buddhism is an offshoot of Hinduism or that Buddha revolted against certain practices in Hinduism.
I do not dispute the contents of the Divyaprabhandham or any other “Hindu” scripture. But like all scriptures they are subject to editions and revisions to comply with beliefs of that day. There were disagreements between the Shaivites and Vaishnavites very early on regarding the origins of the temple. Documents like Divyaprabhandham, Vamana Purana, Varaha Purana or Itihas Mala could not clinch the argument one way or the other 1000 years ago. I do not believe that they can settle the argument today either.
There is a tendency to box and define Buddhism in a certain way (We always think about the image of Buddha and not the hundreds of gods and names of gods that exists in Buddhism. We also do not give enough credit to the different philosophies that exist within what we now know as Buddhism). Personally I do not separate Hindu scripture from Buddhist scripture based on any action. The whole confusion arises because there is no agreement on whether terms like Skanda, Kumara Swami, Venkatachalam, Kumaradhara, Swami Pushkarni etc. that are used in various scriptures refer to Shiva, Vaishnava, Buddhist or Jain deities or avatars of these deities.
Wow…why I’m even posting I don’t know…
Hari,
Did you ever notice in that Jamnadas book he never actually mentions even one piece of evidence in favor of the Tirumala murti being Buddhist or Jain.
*there is absolutely no literary evidence
*there is absolutely no archaelogical evidence
*there is absolutely no testimonial evidence
He bases the whole thing off a painting in Ajanta…and you’re taking this to be serious history?
Anyone who studies the history of ancient South Asia knows that Buddhists were much more meticulous in maintaining historical records than the “Hindus” were. And yet no one mentions this temple? I think Jamnadas tries hard to fit Potalaka as a reference to Tirumala, but the geographical descriptions don’t fit. There’s no river flowing into the sea next to mountain for starters…
Also, there are no extant sculptures with Tara emerging from the chest of Padmapani as he claims.
Second, there are quite a few Vaishnava shrines where the deity isn’t holding weapons. Also the varada hasta and katyavilambit hasta are actually described in the agama shastras. There are more than few Vishnu temples that are quite famous where the God stands in this form. Oppiliappan for example, and Thirukannapuram for another. Tirumalirumscholai is another.
(Also, the book is one hundred percent wrong when it says the statue is “two handed”. There are four hands, just without the shanku chakra)
I can concede that we don’t know for a fact the murti is of Vishnu…but we also don’t know that it isn’t or Murugan for example…or of Shiva or whomever…the truth is we just don’t know.
But the other truth of the matter is that the only evidence available is literary-and what is available almost entirely suggests that the God is Vishnu-from the Gupta’s references to Aadhi Varaha Kshetra, to almost all the Alwars referring to it as Vishnu.
And for Ilango Adigal, A JAIN, mentioning it as such as well.
At any rate, IT IS WELL KNOWN that the entire bodhisattva concept, particularly that of Avaloketiswara is based on the idea of Vishnu. Bodhisattvas themselves were introduced by Buddhist monks as a way to counter devotional Hinduism as their philosophy alone was not successful in countering the emergence of theistic based devotional movements.
Also, let’s throw out a wild proposition, ironically, perhaps at the time of Silapadhikaram the statue did have the shanku chakra, then evil Sramanic monks removed them, tried to fool the masses into believing it was a bodhisattva and introduced tonsuring until Ramanuja arrived to set the record straight…
Since you require NO PROOF whatsoever for Jamnadas’s theory, you should have no problem accepting mine…lol
BTW, if you don’t like Hinduism, then fine, butargue it on a philosophical basis, you just look sad trying to tout theories like this…
What happened to Buddhism/Jainism in South India and their temples and gods including the Tirumala temple is real. To say that the book by Jamnadas and the arguments put forth by others on this subject is without any sort of evidence or merit shows that you are not willing to be objective.
There are exceptions to every rule but clearly the image of the deity does not comply with traditional Vaishnava images as stated in Vaishnava scriptures. If we take a look at these exceptions I am confident that they have their own story to tell!!
You are willing to concede that you are not sure whether the murti is Vishnu, Murugan or Shiva. But if the deity is not Vishnu or an avatar of Vishnu then what does it say about the authenticity or accuracy of the Vaishnava scriptures that are used today to argue emphatically that it is an avatar of Vishnu?
Like many you are also trying to put aspects of Hinduism before Buddhism by claiming that the “entire” Bodhisattva concept (particularly Avaloketiswara) was based on the idea of Vishnu. This is in spite of the fact that these concepts were associated with Buddhism and well known all over the ancient word long before the temple was built and long before Vaishnavism set its foot in South India.
How do you come to the conclusion that I do not like Hinduism? It is another one of your false assumptions.
Hari
I am not replying to your comment here. But it just came into my mind, that the Temple in Down south are all having the Dome of different style then compare to temple in north (having a dome which ends to one point contact). But in South the dome ends as one line contact (Hope I am understandable) Also now if we see the buddisht temple about the globe other than india, like in japan, china, tibet, leh etc, also have their dome finishing the top as the line contact like the temples in south.
Here I am not favouring anybody, so no one should felt hurt.
I owe a lots to southern india being a north indian guy, as I studied my engineering in 1995 in Madras (now called as Chennai).
Paras,
I am glad to know that as a North Indian you feel that you owe a lot of South India. We need more North Indians like you!
Although you say you appreciate South India, you then try to stereotype South Indian architecture. South Indian architecture (Buddhist, Hindu and Jain) architecture has tremendous variety. A Hindu temple in Kerala looks very different than a temple in Andhra Pradesh.
Hari,
It seems like this discussion is very much alive and well! I would like to see more evidence for your view point. I have still not seen the original list of divyadesams that did not include Tirumala, or the evidence backing up this theory/idea. The theists will use the divyaprabhandham, and the scriptures to support their cause (as much as you may feel that these sources are ridden with bias). Do you have archaelogical evidence? Written manuscripts from foreign historians? I haven’t seen any of these so far from you. If this discussion is to progress, I think you need to produce this evidence, instead of countering ideas with even more ideas (I mean this with wholehearted respect).
I do think the rise of many traditions for Hinduism, or Buddhism and Jainism were probably more fluid than we realize. Its likely that Buddhism or Jainism didn’t orginate on the strict dates laid out by contemporary history. Many Hindus would even agree that many schools of Vedanta lent themselves more easily to a Buddhist/Jain perspective. For example, even today, Vaishnavas contend that many aspects of Adi Shankara’s Advaita were cloaked forms of Buddhist/Jain ideas of “oneness” and “Nirvana.” Although details of many of these discussions evoke strong responses from all sides, seeing all of these as parts of an organic growing and changing whole is probably more harmonizing…
Ah the question of evidence!! I have clearly articulated what I believe in the article and my comments. The issues regarding the origin of this temple is not my “view point” alone. Books have been written about it and we also know about the dispute between the Shaivites and the Vaishnavites regarding this temple over a 1000 years ago.
If it is acceptable for theists to use documents like Divya Prabandha and other Vaishnava texts to justify that this is indeed a Vaishnava temple then why should the others provide archaeological evidence and manuscripts from foreign historians to back their claims? I think different standards are being applied here.
Here is what I know about Nalayira Divya Prabandha. The 4000 Tamil verses were supposedly composed and transmitted orally before the 8th century by the 12 Alvars (Vaishnava Saints). Why was it transmitted orally during a period when written Tamil literature was flourishing is anybody’s guess (It did not exist is what I think). According to legend the verses were “collected and codified” (read compiled, edited and revised) about 400 years later by Nathamuni (coincidentally a Vaishnava scholar!!).
It is possible that the 12 Vaishnava saints like the saints of most other religions are largely mythical. So here is Nathamuni producing a manuscript that among other things makes certain claims about the Tirumala temple during the same time frame (10th and 11th centuries) as the reported dispute between the Shaivites, Vaishnavites and others about the origin of the temple (according to Sri Venkatachala Itihasa Mala).
The story of the last (12th) and most importat Alvar, Thirumangai Alvar is interesting. The myth says that he was a non-Brahmin who supposedly converted to Vaishnavism and then challenged Buddhism, Jainism and Shaivism. (Is there any evidence to show that he converted? I believe conversion or rumors of conversion of key members of society are effective strategies used when it comes to propagating a religious belief (the myth that Thiruvalluvar was a Christian comes to mind)).
The traditional date attributed to Thirumangai Alvar was the year 399 of Kaliyuga which is approximately 2702 BC (This would place him almost close to the end of the Indus Valley Civilization. There is no evidence to suggest Buddhism, Jainism and Shaivism as we know them today existed then. So he could not have fought against them. There is also no evidence to suggest that human beings were capable of sophisticated language and literature of this nature in 2702 BC. The Rig Veda was supposedly written in 1500 BC which would mean that Thirumangai Alvar lived almost a thousand years before the Rig Veda).
But this date has been moved forward conveniently. Many scholars now believe that Thirumangai Alvar probably lived in the 7th century (this would mean that he would not be the 12th Alvar but the 8th Alvar!!). A reading of “Philosophy and Theistic Mysticism of the Alvars” by S.M. Srinivasa Chari will shed light into how “fluid” and speculative in nature the dating of the Alvars are.
The Jain perspective on Alvars can be found in the book “Encyclopedia of Jainism” by the Indo-European Jain Research Foundation. Some of the verses attributed to Thirumangai Alvar are also thought to be anti-Jain (Thirumangai Alvar in addition to being an Alvar was also a highway robber and most of his victims were non-Vaishnavites. Please refer to “The Encyclopedia of Indian Literature (Volume Five (Sasay to Zorgot)). Page 4336).
So we have texts written in the 10th to 14th centuries (Nalayira Divya Prabandha, Sri Venkatachala Itihasa Mala, Divya charitam, Guruparampara-prabhavam-arayirappadi etc.) talking about and behalf of real or mythical saints who lived more than 400 years earlier.
My intention is not to hurt anyone’s religious feelings. But we have to take these documents at face value. It is not evidence but a rewrite of history. But I also understand that religion is a matter of faith and not facts.
I completely agree with your last sentence. I couldn’t have said it any better :)
So I re-read your post, and I don’t see any specifics of evidence pertaining to how Tirumala has Buddhist claims… no smoking guns so to speak… photographs, scriptures, stone inscriptions… A lot of assertions on both sides, and many comments later, here we are…
Just as you claim that the 4000 divya prabhandham may have been codified at a later point, the Buddha himself never authored a single scripture. Nor did for Jesus for that matter (at least the Christians aren’t laying a claim to Tirumala…yet!)… most of the religious scriptures of major world religions were the codified literature of devout followers. Buddhist, Jain, Hindu, and yes, even Christian traditions all have this in common… and its one of the major reasons that a dialogue between either of these traditions brings one into a quagmire (much like the thread of comments here).
Inspired literature is just that… inspired… The devout claim it is divine, and the skeptical say its fanciful at best. Faith isn’t fact. Or would it simply be science? Faith involves the proverbial “leap” whereas science is stating what can be proven. If things that are articles of faith could be proven clearly, where is the need for faith anymore? Faith is what makes all of these traditions illuminating for their respective followers.
If Tirumala were a Buddhist shrine, where are the Buddhists who you plead repeatedly have such a strong claim to the place? There isn’t even a substantial Buddhist presence in the state (except for the poor Tibetans, but they are clearly not long-standing locals!). If Hinduism derived many of its practices from Buddhism, maybe the disenchanted Buddhists can share some of the blame for caste system? How come we don’t hear this thought tossed around? To lay claim to a famous, dazzling and popular shrine is easy… Maybe the negative practices of the brahmin priesthood came from the Buddhist monastics (the Buddhists have a pseudo-caste system of their own, and monastics can be as elitist as the pop-culture of the snobby brahmin). Ever thought about that? Maybe we should just blame the Aryans for everything. Anyways, I don’t see them anywhere nowadays so they should be an easy scapegoat! Now maybe making Hinduism the older religion suddenly may seem attractive for those who hold your viewpoint…
It is alright if you do not see any specifics Amalan (although you yourself have stated “.. even today, Vaishnavas contend that many aspects of Adi Shankara’s Advaita were cloaked forms of Buddhist/Jain ideas of “oneness” and “Nirvana). I do not expect believers on both sides to see any merit in the others case. It requires an open mind. The reality is that the temple is a Vaishnava temple for about a thousand years and I have no problems with it. But it is one of the many temples in South India that has changed hands from the Buddhists, Jains and other local beliefs to Vaishnavism as Brahminical religions spread across South India.
The documents submitted in support of it being a Vaishnava temple including Nalayira Divya Prabandha were written after the fact. The evidences in support of it being a Buddhist or Jain temple and books written about it by Buddhists (the latest one is “Tirupathi Balaji is a Buddhist Shrine” by Jamanadas) have been dismissed outright. Reasonable people understand what is going on.
I do not get into a debate here on scapegoating anyone, who is to blame for the caste system and whether or not the negative practices of Brahmin priests came from the Buddhist monks. It is not about the Aryans either (My article “The First Indians” has some information on human migration to India). I do not think this is the appropriate space for this discussion.
Most South Indians continue to pray to local gods and goddesses like they did for thousands of years. Today these gods and goddesses are considered as Hindu gods or avatars of Hindu gods (Lord Balaji, Lord Murugan and Lord Ayyappan are good examples not to mention hundreds of local gods and goddesses who have no connection to Hinduism).
As you rightly pointed out you will not find a lot of people calling themselves as Buddhists in the state of AP these days except some Tibetans. This is because you are using the wrong search criteria. The Buddhists are included in the Hindu pantheon these days. I am sure you will find a lot of Hindus in AP. If you stand outside the gates of the Tirumala temple you will see about 50,000 of them paying homage to one of their favorite deities every day. True to their ancient Buddhist and Jain traditions many of the men, women and children shave their heads before entering the temple!!
It was nice debating with you.
I am a bit confused. You are refuting everyone’s claim – Be Divya Prabandham’s or the Vedic scriptures. It is like “Maybe Nathamuni made this all up” “Maybe Ramanuja created the entire myth of vishishtadvaita” — By this logic everything can be questioned. Why should anyone believe Buddha existed, Maybe just like Nathamuni someone spread a story and wrote scriptures to support his theory – Just like vaishnavism is spread out today, buddhisim also spread out – why should anyone believe Buddhisim existed before Hinduism.
Reading through your article – there is no said proof – it just shows that you strongly believe that Buddisim existed before Hinduism. You are molding your argument based on some amount of faith in Buddhist writings and scriptures.
In the same way I believe in Ramanujar and my poorvaacharya’s. I believe in vedas, I believe in Srimannarayana as my lord.
I think it is all about faith. History can be twisted and seen in any different way and your article is an apt proof. Your arguments also proves that no matter what anyone says you are not going to change your mind, because for every scripture anyone brings forth before you, you will say that it is false or was changed for someone’s benefit.
How can you argue or debate with someone when we don’t have a common ground ? I have heard from my acharya that ramanujar used to ask before every debate if the person believed in the vedas and if he didn’t then he would not debate – As his entire belief structure was the vedas, if the person doesn’t believe in it then what is there to debate about.
Venkatesh,
You are free to believe in what you want. I am not trying to convert anyone nor am I trying to win a debate. I am also not questioning anybody’s religion or faith. I am just expressing my viewpoint on this subject just like all the others have.
As a Hindu I have always challenged my beliefs and as the Buddha supposedly said I am skeptical and do not “believed in something because others said so or because the scriptures say so”. I believe that all scripture is written by human beings (whether it was inspired or not is another issue). It is important for some of us to understand the author, his/her circumstances and the audience it is written for as much as understanding the scripture itself. Others might not care about the author or their circumstances.
Today we live in the information age but we still have serious debates and differences of opinion about events that happened last year. When authors who lived in the 10th to the 14th centuries make certain claims about people and events that happened in 5th to the 8th centuries then certain “logical” questions pop up in the minds of some of us. Can we corroborate these stories from independent sources? Does the author have a vested interest in the outcome? What if some of the details in the texts are incorrect? What do other scriptures say? I do understand that for some believers these questions are not important. But asking these questions should not be confused with “refuting everyone’s claim”.
I do not addicted to one philosophy or religion. But after some reading I have come to the conclusion that the theory that Buddhism originated from Hinduism and that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu are no longer tenable (of course not many Buddhists bought into this theory in the first place). I am not the only one to come to this conclusion either.
Many religions have the tendency to incorporate the Gods of the religion they are replacing or trying to replace as minor Gods or saints in their own religion (the Saints of Christianity have resemblance to Pagan Gods, Christ is a prophet according to Islam but not the God or Son of God as he is in Christianity). Is the treatment of Buddha in some Hindu scriptures such an attempt? Are some of the Vaishnava saints’ once Buddhist/Jain Gods? These are not irrational thoughts.
The common ground Venkatesh is a nice dose of skepticism. Among other things I am also a believer in the Vedas. One of my favorite quotes from the Rig Veda:
Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He.
- Rig Veda (10.129 1 – 7)
Hi Hari,
For the first time, I feel your answered without contradicting the other person.
You can keep questioning, keep digging, but a person with doubts will never find the answer. At some point you will have to stop and start believing.
My humble advice to you – Find a guru that you respect and believe in – Learn the vedas/divya prabandhams under him – Ask him your doubts and have debates with him and believe me you will get answers that you possibly could never have imagained.
Vedas in Tamil is known as Marai – It is hidden, in plain sight it has one meaning but it’s inner meaning is completely different. Only a Guru can give you the right answers for it.
It is said that even Krishna had a Guru under whom he learned all the 64 Kalai’s – the Lord himself had a guru to show to us that we should have one and learn under one.
I agree we are in Information age – But wrong/misleading Information is very dangerous. You need to be careful of what you write.
Venkatest,
Thank you for your advice. I can never stop inquiring/doubting. As the French philosopher Michel de Montaigne once said “Wonder is the foundation of all philosophy, inquiry the progress, ignorance the end”.
I think that we are on two different journeys. You are looking for confirmation of your beliefs. I just want to learn. I am perfectly content if I am not able to find the right answers. In fact I know that I will not find all the answers. But I enjoy the journey nonetheless.
Only time will tell who is wrong and who is misleading (How do you know that Lord Krishna had a Guru when no one can prove that there is a God? The existence of god is not a settled issue and people are fighting with each other over whose God is the real God). So if I were you I would refrain from advising anyone about the quality of the information that they provide or what they write about.
Hi Hari,
I have been there where you are currently, if you are truly out there to discover, you will soon reach where I am today.
Faith is the cornerstone of every religion. I am not out there to prove anyone anything – This is what I believe. My journey is now within myself and my acharya’s scriptures are helping me in that journey.
When you strongly believe is something, you tend to advise – for your believe that you are doing good for someone else. And I think I didn’t say anything wrong – You needed a teacher all your life – from nursery to your higher studies. Why suddenly do you feel that you don’t need one for something far more complex and hard to understand.
Your article was based on multiple sources and finally your own logical thought process. So in a way you believed in all those people who you read about and then made your conclusion. Every time you will write you will have to believe…..
I have chosen my path it is only a matter of time when you will choose yours.
Hello Venkatesh,
Thank you once again for your advice. I am a student of life and will always will be. I want to wish you good luck in your journey.
Same to you too
Hari,
Have you done some research on the name “ThiruPathi” I think the name more resembles with the word “ThiruPada” or “Sri Pada”. According to Buddhist tradition Buddha was supposed to left his footprints in many places including Thirupathi. Here is the link for the one in Thirumalai.
http://inculturation.chi.ac.uk/imagebank/Easter%202006_c%201711.jpg
Aruna,
I am not very sure about how the name Thirupathi came about. Your explanation is plausible. One of the earlier names for the region according to some Sangam literature is Pullikunram (hill of chieftain Pulli). The region is also referred to as Vengadam and also as Vrishabhachala, Anjanachala and Sheshahala.
Hari,
Further i was thinking about the word “ThiruVengadam”, Ven+Kadam meaning white/pure steps, the word Kadam also meaning steps from which the sanskitized version Pat(d)i came from. In Tamil we have both Kadam and Pati(steps,footsteps etc we have “Kadantha” in Tamil) refers to the same meaning footsteps.
Interesting thing about the word “Kadam” is this word means steps in many languages including Uzbek/Kyrgyz, in Bangaldesh theres a mosque called Kadam Rasool meaning footprint of Mohammed :)
Very intriguing Aruna. If Kadam means steps in many languages then I am wondering whether all these languages belong to the same language family or are they different (Indo-European or Dravidian).
Venkadachalapati, literally in Tamil can mean
“The many steps where the pure one walked by”.
Ven meaning white or pure.
Kada means Kadantha – went by.
Chala – Could mean Good or many, ( as in “Sala Siranthathu”).
Pati means steps or footsteps.
Hari,
You have made me a researcher :) thanks.
Aruna,
You are welcome! There is nothing more exhilarating than exploration and discovery.
There are some scholars who believe that the words Venkatesh or Venkadachalapati probably originated from Vengadam. “Etymology” is a fascinating field. There is a Dravidian Etymological Dictionary that you can check out (University of Chicago).
In a book titled “hindu matam enge pokiratu?” (Where is hindu religion going?) a very well-known Vaishnava scholar and vedic expert had, inter alia, stated that he had access to seeing the Tirupati idol at close quarters and, to his dismay, found pleats of hair in the stone idol which coerroborates the view held by some that the idol was of a female deity. At one stage it was held to be Shanmukha or Muruga; there is such a reference in the stotra “sree subrahmanya karnaanritam” and I am also told in a piece of Carnatic music of Shri Muthuswamy Dikshitar, one of the trinities of Carnatic music. Even at the time of Ramanuja, it seems there was dispute as to whether it was Muruga or Vishnu and a bet was taken and lo! the next morning when the sanctum sanctorum was opened the idol had four hands and other Vishnu-like features. The Vaishnavas believe that Ramanuja, having been an avatar of the divine Adisesha, took the form of a serpent, entered the sanctum at night through the water outlet from the sanctum for the abhisheka water and fixed all the Vaishnava symbols, returned and claimed it to be Vaishnava temple!!
Sangom,
This is absolutely wonderful information. Thank you for sharing it. I was aware about the Ramanuja story but I definitely want to read the work “Hindu matam enge pokiratu” by Agnihotram Ramanuja Thathachariar.
Aruna said “Venkadachalapati, literally in Tamil can mean “The many steps where the pure one walked by”.”
First of all, Venkatachalapathi is not a Tamil word… it is Sanskrit. Venkatam has many meanings (in both Tamil and Sanskrit), aside from denoting the geographical location of this shrine itself. Achala literally denotes immovability/unchanging nature, and means mountain in this context (Bhadrachalam, Simhachalam, all denote mountain shrines with the names Bhadra, and Simha respectively). The opposite of achala, is chala, or chanchala meaning changing, quick-to-change, or in some contexts even fickle. Pathi means Lord, not footsteps which would be padi in Tamil. Overall Venkatachalapathi denotes the Lord of the Venkata Hill, and not the place itself, the way Aruna states.
Please do not mix sanskrit and tamil, even if this is done colloquially. The azhwars do not refer to Srinivasa in their pasurams as Venkatachalapathi, as the sanskrit would not have been included in pure tamil verses (they do not even call Him Srinivasa!). Instead they mention Him by various other epithets, such as Venkatavan, Alarmelmangai Uraimaarbha, etc…
As for the pleat of hair being discovered on closer inspection of the main deity in Tirumala… Many state that this evidence, combined with the lions on the corners of the golden vimana over the main sanctum denote more of Durga’s presence, than Vishnu’s. Although this seems logical, a female deity would have one very obvious attribute lacking in the Tirumala deity… breasts. No one has ever stated that the main deity has breasts, and the associated ornaments (kuchabhandham, etc). The deity is shown bare-chested which would also be inappropriate for obvious reasons if the deity were female, and had these indisputable feminine attributes. Male deities, esp of Krishna (Govindha which is the common appellation of the deity in Tirumala) can have a braid of hair, and this part of the conventional iconography is more upto the individual artist who fashions the deity, although most preferred to keep to convention…
There is another argument put forth proposing that every friday, the main deity is dressed in a madisaar sari. Even this is not so unusual for Vishnu. In another very famous and well-sung shrine, Thirumalirumcholai (popularly called “Azhagar Kovil” or “Kallazhagar Kovil”) near Madurai, the main deity always wears a madisaar sari, and this too is common knowledge…
The other oddity that conflicts with the idea that the main deity in Tirumala is a goddess, possibly Durga, is that conventional parivara devatas are completely absent in this shrine. Even famous Devi sthalams have subsidiary shrines established for Shiva, Muruga, Pillaiyaar, etc. Although Vaishnava deities are also common parivara devatas in Shaivite shrines, Garuda, and Narasimha are not such common inclusions. Varahaswamy is seen in the prakaram of the Kanchi Kamakshi temple (and this shrine is considered by Vaishnavas to be one in the 108 count of divyadesams), so the Varahaswamy temple in Tirumala may have some supporting precedent… although a parivara devata doesn’t usually have a separate temple with a shared pushkarini, and this again argues against all of these notions…
Amalan,
can you explain the meaning of the word “ThiruVenKadam” in Sanskrit?
Ven clearly means “Pure” “white” or denoting something which is total.
There are a lot of words that starts with “Ven”, VenNila,Vennai,Vengai,VenPura etc…
Kadam means “steps”, do some research on the word Kadam,
Kada-Kadavul(I assume even the word “God” should have come from this Tamil word)
Kata-Went by
Katam-Footsteps
Katakam-Ankle ornament
many more, all points to footsteps.
Its not Pathi, its Pati. Pati/Patti which is a common word used everywhere in India even in faraway Pakistan, Afghan, Bangladesh,srilanka (Pitiya) etc.In Andhra its “Pati”.
why I associate this word to Buddha is
Pati means footsteps in Pali.
Ati/Adi means footsteps in Tamil.
Pathai is way in Tamil.
some of the ancient Patnams of India.
NagaPattinam, VishakaPattinam,
Patti(punjab), Pataliputra(Patna)
Pattan(Kashmir) etc were once famous Buddhist Monasteries.
Its the literature and their possible dates that will help us find out what came first and who might have replaced with whom, a lot of myths and stories that surrounds the Gods of today were framed in a much later period of History, the earlier Tamil literature speaks a completely different picture of reality in life under war and love.
Thiruvenkadam is not Sanskrit…. “Thiru” is Tamil, and the Sanskrit equivalent is “Sri.” The original name of Srivilliputtur is Villiputtur, and not Thiruvilliputtur as is being used today (my point being “Sri” is not Tamil)…
Venkadam… Vem in Sanskrit denotes abundance of sins (not Venn denoting whiteness, fairness, or purity as you state). Kadam denotes destruction. Venkadam is the place that obliterates heaps of sins. This is the Sanskrit meaning of the name of the place where the Tirumala shrine is located. This too is common knowledge. Bouncing around ideas of other Tamil words that come to mind is a fun exercise for entertainment (an entirely respectable pursuit, esp in this current forum), but it doesn’t have any bearing on the true etymological origins of the term…
By looking at your list of possible sources for the “kadam” part of Thiruvenkadam, it seems you are tracing the source of the meaning phonetically, not etymologically. If you wish to proceed this way, then you can just look words up in a Tamil or Sanskrit dictionary and attribute their (random) meanings as possible explanations for the name “Thiruvenkadam.” It’s akin to saying that the English word “Tomato” and the Hindi word “Tamaashaa” have similar sounds, and so share some ancient source, and meaning. Clearly not so…
Ven/Venn as you mention isn’t related to any part of the word Venkadam (which is more correctly Vemkadam), much as Triplicane is a British corruption of Thiruallikeni.
Pati, Patti, and Pathi all have different letters in the devanagari and tamil scripts. A single letter change is a spelling change. Although similar sounding, the meaning differs greatly. This is why ancient Indian traditions (Buddhist, Jain, or Vedic) were transmitted orally, or at least had a strong irreplaceable oral component to their transmission.
All this being said, I think it is difficult to have a linguistic discussion in a forum that doesn’t allow for one to see the spellings of words, and fragments in their own scripts. So largely, I think this discussion will eventually prove futile…
Hari,
This is a very informative article. It goes without saying that the history of India is presented these days from a Shaivite and Vaishnavite perspective. The local traditions and beliefs have been largely ignored particularly in the case of South India. There is no question that some of the prominent “Hindu” temples of South India like the Tirupathi temple, Murugan temple in Palani, Meenakshi Amman temple in Madurai and the Ayyappan temple in Kerala have very little if not nothing to do with Vedic Hinduism.
The gods of these temples have been usurped into the Hindu pantheon. These gods have been made into avatars or secondary gods of other major Vaishnavite and Shaivite gods like Vishnu and Shiva. The devotees of these gods have been relegated to second class status in society with the Vaishnavite and Shaivite installing themselves as the priests and the upper castes.
The origin of the temple is clearly in dispute. It is well documented that the Shaivites and the Vaishnavites themselves did not agree as to whether the deity was an avatar of Vishnu or Shiva a 1000 years ago. When this is pointed out today there is a bit of laughter and mockery going on.
I also notice that there is a Vaishnavite explanation provided for every argument put forth. Why does the deity have hair? The response is “Male deities, esp of Krishna (Govindha which is the common appellation of the deity in Tirumala) can have a braid of hair, and this part of the conventional iconography is more upto the individual artist who fashions the deity, although most preferred to keep to convention”. Imagination and speculation is running wild. This is entertainment of the highest order!! Aren’t the very same guys trying to make light of others arguments?
Why is that the deity with hair is also wearing a sari every Friday? “Even this is not so unusual for Vishnu. In another very famous and well-sung shrine, Thirumalirumcholai (popularly called “Azhagar Kovil” or “Kallazhagar Kovil”) near Madurai, the main deity always wears a madisaar sari, and this too is common knowledge”. It appears as if the Vaishnavite god Vishnu can be portrayed by whichever way the “artist” who fashions the deity wants. God Vishnu can wear a sari and the proof is that Vishnu in another temple also sometimes wears a sari!! It is ludicrous to keep arguing like this.
Can you imagine a lowly stone mason or a temple administrator deciding how an important deity like Vishnu should be portrayed hundreds of years ago? We live in a country where MF Hussain was driven out of the country for a painting he did 40 years ago. But apparently 1000 years ago Vaishnava rulers and priests stood by and watched artists who had the audacity to come up with their own interpretation of how to display Vishnu!! This is a joke. In addition what does it say about documents like Vishnu Purana that has specific instructions about how Vishnu should be portrayed and worshipped?
I do notice some sarcasm in the comments of certain individuals. But as Gandhi supposedly said “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you and then you win”. Fortunately for individuals like you and the internet some aspects of Indian history that have been hidden under the carpet by vested interests are beginning to come out.
Very good points Neetu. Building a temple is not only a big religious commitment but a major financial undertaking and a source of revenue for the kingdom. I do not think that a major decision on how the deity would be represented would be left to the discretion of the “artist”. The artist is just following orders.
As you mentioned Indians slowly are beginning to learn more about their history. This history is very different from the history taught in Indian history books which are just aimed at brainwashing people and maintaining the status quo. There is a lot more to India than Vedic Hinduism (which by the way has roots outside of India).
How can the history, culture and tradition of some Indians who ancestors arrived from India over 60,000 years ago be lesser than that of those whose ancestors arrived less than 5000 years ago from parts of Europe?
I accept Sri is Sanskrit, It doesnt mean this word or every word originally came from Sanskrit. Sanskrit has a lot of loan words from other languages.
Your translation for the word looks funny. For “Ven”, I can give you hundreds of places which starts with either “Ven” or “Ben” in south India.
http://www.indiastudychannel.com/india/cities/States-34-Tamil-Nadu.aspx
Search places that starts with Ven or Ben(Karnataka).
hai ,
as quoted by Neetu “…..finally you win”. Hari you better visit TTD and claim the shrine to be Buddist with all your proof,evidence and your supporters and take it. Without doing this you are wasting your energy in writing blogs and giving comments.
If you take back the shrine, i accept that you are really a genius.
Thank you.
Araavamudhan,
Your frustration is beginning to show. No one is irrational or foolish enough to follow your crazy suggestions.
I am a Hindu. But the name or religion of a particular deity of a temple does not matter to me. I understand the transient nature of all religions and their gods. Religions and their gods come and go. It could have been a sacred Neolithic site at one point that later became a sacred Buddhist, Jain, Shaivite, Vaishnavite and now a “Hindu” site. Vaishnavism and Shaivism in addition to their own beliefs also incorporated the beliefs of religions like Buddhism and Jainism in order to spread its wings. This is natural. This is what religions do. Some individuals like me are just stating these aspects of our history.
There is no need for anyone to “take back the shrine” as you suggest. The people have already done that. The deity is neither Buddhist, Jain, Shaivaite nor Vaishnavite today. It is Hindu and belongs to us all. Vaishnavism and Shaivism and the likes are the religions of the past. A grander, much more inclusive and compassionate religion that is a better representative of the diversity of the people of India is being created right before us called Hinduism (many individuals who are Hindus, Buddhists and Jains today could not have stepped foot inside a Vaishnavite temple a few centuries ago). In a very short period Hinduism has completely absorbed the Vaishnava and Shaiva religions and their traditions in addition to numerous other indigenous beliefs. It is very possible that in a few hundred years from now people would be debating whether Tirumala temple was a Vaishnavite temple before it became a Hindu temple!! If we are alive then which side of the debate would we be on?
Science is spreading and becoming popular among the masses also. Sometime in the future the once sacred Buddhist, Jain, Vaishnavite and Hindu are could also become a sacred place for the followers of science. May I propose the name of this future god of science as Scienteshwara? Also, let it be known that I am one of his first converts and disciple!!
Rightly said, The temple and the Lord belongs to the all, but the real true history should come out and not some myths and stories that hide the truth, I am sure the transition of Hindu beliefs is not sudden like the Islamic or the Christianity in India, Hinduism had undergone an evolution of beliefs and accepted in its fold whatever comes new and still moving very strong.
Came here via Satyameva Jayate, and this is wonderful entertainment.Just shows that we Indians are the best when it comes to spinning new theories and justifying them using absurd rationalisations.
Right from the beginning, when Hari states that Telugu originated from Tamil, and throgh the article, Hari has spun a good tale, and has very admirably argued with all the commenters who differed with him.
There is no point in me rebutting those arguments again because Hari and some others seem to be convinced that Hinduism came to South India, after Buddhism and Jainism.It is the truth for them.So be it.
Btw, the temple of Sri Venkateswara Swamy is at Tirumala.Tirupati is the base camp for the final climb to the abode of the Lord.
Tirumala and Sri Sailam both actually mean the same in Telugu and Sanskrit – the abode of divinity.
Is the main deity originally in female form? or is it Murugan?Or is it a Siva temple? Why does one find a Hanuman figure etched on the stone behind the main deity?
These are good questions, but I am afraid amateur history research is not going to give us the answers.
Here’s another theory or assumption that some locals make about Sri Venkateswara Swamy – Venkateswara was originally a tribal deity, and his temple was built in one of the most powerful positive energy fields in entire South Asia.(The said positive energy field is throughout the Nalla Mala ranges, but at its peak on the sacred seven hills).The tribal deity entered the pantheon of Vedic Gods, after the end of the Mahabharata war. The locals of the area (Andhras, Nagas, Yakshas, Gandharvas etc) fought on the Kaurava side during the great Mahabharata war, and after wards, the shrine was merged into the pantheon of vedic deities.But the deity retained his/her Naga attributes in many ways, and does so even till today.This phenomenon is true not just for Venkateswara, but also for Narasimha Swamy and Subrahmanya Swamy.
Why and how did Venkateswara become so popular in the historic age (i.e. after written history began for India?) The answer lies in the nature of the competing monotheistic faiths that sprang up in India and elsewhere after man kind started writing history. In the Vedic age, one can do with nirguna deities (formless to be simplistic). In modern times, as science and civilisation expands and brings more people into the sophisticated social setup, there is a need to slowly bring the tribal sources/centres of power into the agri-urban economy and society building and nurturing.Even Siva was forced to acquire a form.And so did the mother goddess.And Venkateswara marks a kind of zenith in this iconoclasm.He has been praised and described more than any other God.He has inspired many poets and musicians.He survived and even thrived during the years of Muslim invasions and atrocities.And he is located after Buddha in the pantheon of Vishnu the protector and nurturer.
If we do not see the symbolism and the advanced society building and dharmic principles of the sages at work here, we are missing a lot.
Irrespective of the assumptions, theories and debates around him, Venkateswara continues to be one of the most popular gods, and if sanatana dharma is hopeful of a grand revival in India and the world, the branding (to use a modern term) of this divine form has a big role to play.Balaji is not just residing in Tirumala today.He can be found in Pittsburgh, Chicago, and a thousand other places globally. If there is a Buddhist linkage and it is believed by the world’s devout buddhists in Japan and China, Balaji will turn that to his advantage too.And we will have his temples in those lands as well.
So, please go on with your debates.In the end, what will remain is sanatan dharma – that which has no beginning and no end.
“Nina Venkatesham, Nanatha Nanatha”
Kumar,
I am glad you enjoyed the “entertainment”. Most skeptics believe that what we call as organized religion is for entertainment purposes only and cannot be considered as factual. But I guess you already knew this!!
You have tried very hard to play the “us versus them” divisive game (There is no point in me rebutting those arguments again because Hari and some others seem to be convinced that Hinduism came to South India, after Buddhism and Jainism. It is the truth for them. So be it). This is very uncharacteristic for someone who claims that only Santana Dharma will remain in the end. One of the beliefs within Santana Dharma is that there are no ideological divisions. So whether the diety is a Buddhist, Jain, Vaishnava, Shaiva or Hindu should not matter to you.
Unfortunately the specific nature of Lord Venkateshwara does matter to you (If there is a Buddhist linkage and it is believed by the world’s devout buddhists in Japan and China, Balaji will turn that to his advantage too. And we will have his temples in those lands as well). Your concept of Santana Dharma involves God playing interesting games in far away land to spread his religion!!
You claim that only Santana Dharma will remain in the end. But the important question is how can Santana Dharma remain in the end when Santana Dharma is that which has no beginning or end? If there is no beginning then who created Santana Dharma?
All the ancient histories, as one of our wits say, are just fables that have been agreed upon – Voltaire
if anyone bothers to read ancient tamil litrature and history …….you will find that tamils were/are animists and hero worshipers ……….. deities like murugan, iyyanar, madurai veeran etc…. have nothing to do with hinduism ……. somewhere along the way…….bramins adopted them into hinduism by saying this god of urs is a avathar of this (bramnic) god…… it was easier than conversion ….now they are part of the fold…..afterall it was the bramins who came with the story that tamil was created by agathiyar……only problem is no one has been able to trace that story beyond 500 yrs ago….. even the youngest dravidian language malayalam is older than that story !
Welcome Madhimaran.
Jesus according to some is fulfilling the prophesies of the Old Testament (mostly Judaism). In Islam Jesus is a prophet. According to some Hindus, Buddha and Lord Venkateshwara are avatars of Vishnu!!
The concept of avatars and prophets and saints have been used many times in history when one religion is taking over from another religion. Typically the God of the outgoing or defeated religions end up being the saints, prophets and avatars of the new religion.
There is nothing new under the sun!!
i have heard some ppl say Jesus is a avatar of Krishna ! unfortunate that people always manipulate others beliefs to serve themselves….. :(
as long as history is written by the victor….its hard to pin point or prove the truth in most cases.
Mathimaran,
You are partially correct, the word hero worshippers may not be appropriate instead we can say knowledge worshippers,
Murukan – One with third eye,
Munee – One who gives enlightment,
Arukan –
Kantha -
Ayyanar – God who answers(Ayyam in Tamil means question)
Ayyappan-God who answers
are all tamil words related knowledge and third eye, enlightment etc. Its been potrayed like animist faith like newer faiths.
Just analyse those words in Tamil you will see the enlightment.
Aruna tamils r hero worshippers even now …… just see how many movie stars are worshipped now a days …… remember the kushboo temple ? …
what abt worship of muthu ramalinga thevar ? how and when did he become “god” ?
the kushboos and thevars of yesterdays are the village gods ……. kula deivams of today !
I read this Thread with great interest.As I am reading a book in tamil Named :Venkatanadha Vijayam by Amarar Vishnuvardhan, I was doing a little more reading up on the history of Tirumala temple.This book is supposed to be a thousand year authentic history of the temple in a very interesting style.It reads more like a “kaviyam” rather than “Varalaru”.However, It is an interesting book.I picked up the book from reliance timeout and it is published by Varam publications. There is no reference to Buddhism or Jainism in this book,maybe because it is a thousand year history. However , it is good read. I would recommend it for its pace and the interest it evinces in a person to know more about the temple and its diety.
Welcome Indira.
Thank you for providing the information. Greatly appreciated.
Amazon.com is selling the book in the US (ISBN 978-8183686051). I have not read a 720 page book in Tamil in a long time. But I am up for the challenge!
Hari says “If you have any evidence that Ram exists then please submit that to the archeological society of India!”
I wonder why your speculation isn’t put to better use than being controversial. Maybe you should work for the archaeological society of India. Everyone might benefit as a result!
Based on your own speculation, we also have no evidence that you exist! You could be a figment of our imagination, and soon what you so adamantly distill as solid facts will be soon be (pleasantly) forgotten!
Amalan,
Being skeptical is also an integral part of being a Hindu. In the Rig Veda it says the following:
Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation’s day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
…When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He – Rig Veda (10.129 1 – 7)
It is time for you to stop your empty rhetoric and start learning!
Hi Hari
Correct me if I am wrong,
Pandit means who possess some knowledge.
It has no relevance to any caste per say. Check out the old text, geeta or vedas or any thing you trust, and if you find any mentioned of the specific caste called pandit, do let me know to awaken me.
As far as I know the india from ages nowand the whole world by now know the meaning of pandit (ENglish included it oflate in its language vocabulary, see its meaning too in grammer).
Now as I said and now repeat, that Kashmir was once hub to higher education, who so ever graduated from there has termed as Pandit, let the person be of any of the caste like brahmins, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra. Now if you say that Pandits are sub class of brahmins, then its purely your look out, but not what Kashmiri have to say about it.
Paras,
Almost every caste name in India means something. Pandit can mean knowledge but it is also the name for upper caste Hindus of Kashmir.
Most of the caste names present in India today including my caste name is not mentioned in our scriptures. But this does not mean that these castes do not exist!
I am not sure what is the point about Kashmir being the hub of higher education. You can graduate from an engineering school in India and call yourself an engineer. Caste does not prevent you from attending engineering school. Nor does it mean that everyone who graduates does not have a caste!
so what if the temples were buddhist in origin??….. thank god for thier demise in india, Infact the adulteration of buddhist concepts of non-voilence and renunciation has resulted in timidity of hindu culture… Buddhism and jainism are for cows, World has always been populated by victors not by cows…..
victors will read about cows in history books
Shiva,
I in fact like the timidity of the Hindu culture. I do not want India to be part of the “victors” group that you have in mind. All these so-called victors bite the dust eventually. Non-violence and renunciation are not the monopoly of the Buddhists or the Jains in India. Almost all religions in India have it. It is difficult to separate who got what from who.
I know u like the timidity and slavishness, its in our blood….and yes conveniently no-one knows where non-voilence and renunciation came from?..but i am sure u will be able to recall obscure facts from very obscure books to enlighten us about “who gives a damn” about the origin of hindu temples
According to you timidity = slavishness. I guess you are the macho man!
Non violence is a human characteristic and I do not think it is the monopoly of any one religion. This article is about the origins of a very important Indian temple. These are two totally different issues.
You do not have to give a damn. So please move on and don’t waste my time.
Om namo Venkateshaya
The first thing i want to reply about Head tonsuring. Shaving head is not only a part in Tirumala but also in Mecca where the Muslim brothers shave their heads. Even their are many Shiva temples in south india like Dharmastala, Nanjangud, Mahadeshwara hills etc where devotees feel satisfied to offer their hair. Why dont you claim Mecca & those shiva temples are originated from Buddhism.
next is about the idol being Lord Vishnu:
Seeing your article i feel you have missed reading about the character symbol of Lord Vishnu. Lord vishnu has a thread or Yagnopaveetam of 6 strands. one of it is cut. This is known as Somasutram. Once any idol is having this, by default its a Vishnu idol. none of the other gods have this representation.
next is lord has a crown which is of stone and is a single structure attached to the main idol. Will Buddhism & Jainism wear crowns ? Even the idol have many jewels carved on the idol. over and above, their is a hard engraved idol of Lakshmidevi seated on the chest of Lord.
Next about your point that anyone can perform Abhishekam or Archana:
For your kind information, only Vaishnavas can enter inside the Garbhagruha where the main idol is present. Then only 4 families of Vaikhanasa community (Vaishnava division) are allowed to touch the lord. no one else has touched the lord except them. Even other cannot offer tulsi leaves to lord’s feet. They have to handover the tulsi leaves to these Vaikhanasa archakas so that they can offer it to Lord.
Nagaraj,
The question you should be asking is whether shaving the head completely is part of the Vaishnava traditions and whether it is a sanctioned method of worshipping Vishnu. Shodas Upachar goes into elaborate detail on how Lord Vishnu should be worshipped and shaving ones head is not one of them. As I mentioned in one of my earlier comments shaving the head completely is one of the harshest punishments handed out to a Brahmin in ancient times (it meant excommunication from society). Many names for Vishnu and the avatars of Vishnu (like Ram and Krishna) are mentioned in the Vishnu Purana. But Vishnu as Venkateshwara is not mentioned.
The thread (Yagnopaveetam) that you describe is part of the Lord’s attire and not part of the original idol. Same holds true for the crown on the top of his head and the jewels. Did you miss the classic Buddhist Varada Mudra displayed by his hands? This Mudra is often displayed by Avalokitesvara who is a Bodhisattava. Avalokitesvara as you probably know plays a major role in Mahayana Buddhism. The idol also does not have any weapons. The tradition states that the weapons were placed on his hands by Ramanuja.
Your point about Archana is incorrect (I am not talking about the current TTD policy). Today the idols of the Lord are even carried to Dalit villages (Dalita Govindam) and the temple even has a program called Matsya Govindam to train lower caste people including fishermen on how to perform rituals. The temple also has a program called Bhakti Chaitanya Yatra where the idols are carried all over the state to spread the “Bhakti” aspect of Lord Venkateswara!
Hi Guys,
What’s this whole fuss about……if the Idol in Tirumala is Vishnu or Buddhist Idol. Is there a dire need for this topic ? Is there a deep sadistic pleasure that people derive by trying to untie the knot that has a history of more than 2000 years. In name of research and truth, one should not be blinded by such trivial matters and become numb to the obvious facts that surround him.
You seem to be a well learned person gathering from your replies and let this be where it is. You might say a hundred times, its a Buddhist Idol and I might say a million times, its a Vishnu Idol. So, where does this end ?
Tirumala is the most celebrated and most revered Shrine of Hindus, so please do not defile the sacredness of such an ancient Shrine in the name of bringing accurate facts infront of public.
This land has suffered enough by the repeated sacrilegious and barbaric acts of violence against its people and its religion in the past. So, let them be……….and do not hurt the sentiments of millions of people by writing such baseless facts based on some book written by K. Jamanadas, which was totally written with a firm single agenda to glorify Buddhism and defile Hinduism.
It might be easier for you to just present this in your blog in the name of freedom to speech and distribution of knowledge and then forget about it but hold on. Think about all the people with faith in Lord, you are just hurting their feelings.
If you are so passionate about Indian history, there are a million other things that you can write in your blog. But before doing this, there is a simple question you need to ask “what good is this going to do”. This is a very essential question that one has to pose to self in today’s volatile situation in our country. Educated people should help in reducing the gap in our society and not widen it.
I can go on and on, but guess, for wise just a pointer is enough….
Siddharth,
I completely disagree with your assessment. Indian is a democratic society and there is a lot of space in our society for debates, discussions and disagreements. For me and many others the journey (in this case the discussion) is more stimulating than the destination or the end result.
You are trying to straddle both sides of the fence. You talk about violence committed in the past in the name of religion, you do not seem to understand the fuss about whether the idol is Buddha or Vishnu and you also say that I should not hurt the religious sentiments of people. But in the very same breadth you state “do not hurt the sentiments of millions of people by writing such baseless facts based on some book written by K. Jamanadas, which was totally written with a firm single agenda to glorify Buddhism and defile Hinduism”.
Jamanadas book presents the Buddhist viewpoint. Jamanadas is also known for speaking very strongly about the oppression of the lower castes by the upper caste in India. His views and opinions, particularly if you are an upper caste Hindu, are not very easy to digest. But this does not mean that he is glorifying Buddhism and defiling Hinduism as you put it. By talking about Jamanadas’s book you are also trying to insinuate that the controversy over this temple is recent. It is over a thousand years old. If you do not care about whether the idol is Buddha or Vishnu then why do you feel so strongly about Jamanadas and his book?
Do you know what hurts my religious sentiments as a Hindu? The fact that you can pay hundreds of Rupees and have a darshan quickly while the rest of the poor people have to wait in line for hours. The fact that some of us even today proudly claim that only certain people can enter the sanctum santorum and “touch” the Lord.
You ask me what good is this going to do. I do not believe that social change and reform will happen in society by hiding everything under the carpet or by avoiding issues that may be uncomfortable to some. Keeping quite and worrying about what might happen was unacceptable to people like Buddha, Mahavir, Ramanuja and their followers. So why should it be any different for you an me thousands of years later?
Lead me from the unreal to the Real.
Lead me from darkness unto Light.
Lead me from death to Immortality.
- Ashtavakra Gita 1: 18-20
Let me clarify something that, I do care that the Idol in Tirupati is a Vishnu Idol and it is not a Buddhist Idol. And, if I did not care, then I would not even bother writing here. If you ever had darshan during the Friday Abhishekam, it can instantly be recognized that the deity is a purely Vishnu Idol. The features of the Idol strongly speak about its characteristic Vishnu features. But again, many people never get this opportunity and hence, all this confusion. But, again, it is a Vishnu Idol and not a Buddhist Idol.
Coming to democracy, I do respect the democratic view point but if in the name of democracy, religious sentiments of people are hurt, then its not democracy anymore. But automatically turns to hypocrisy.
And, I am not talking abut what Jamanadas has written about Upper cast or lower cast in his book because I am not a believer in the caste system myself but, you have to agree that he has used the book as a medium to vent out his frustration and anger against the upper caste. And, he himself being a Buddhist, he purposely calls the Idol in Tirumala as Buddhist Idol inorder to hurt the Hindu sentiments. It is ironical, that he wrote this book without even visiting the Shrine at least in his lifetime to verify the facts what he proudly presents with such confidence and pride.
I can say Buddha never existed and then collate some false information and write a book about it but it will be very untrue because there is historical proof that, He did exist. Similarly, just by collating some artificial facts and saying that the Idol was of Buddhist origin is wrong and unacceptable. In plain words, there is no proof that, Idol is of Buddhist origin and this adopted controversy is a very recent one, not the history of the Temple as you have misinterpreted.
Again, I am not a upper caste Hindu and have nothing against Buddhism. But then, this draws to a question, who are you ?
Internet is an open medium and anyone can present anything be it false or baseless but then, it does not make it right or change the facts. Its not about keeping quiet but about choosing wisely where to spend the energy, in something where there is truth. You speak of Buddha, Mahavir, Ramanuja but you are missing the important part – They were crusaders of the Ultimate Truth. And, reform can never be based on deception, concocted, spurious, forged, untruthful things.
You have named the article “Thirumala Venkateshwara Temple: From Buddhism to Hinduism”. Have you even ever try to verify the facts that proudly present here or are these just based on Jamanadas’s book. If so, then how can you talk of reform when you yourself have not verified whats the truth.
Anyways, I can write a hundred replies to yours but its a mindless chase. For people who do not want to open their eyes and see the moon, it does not matter if its a full moon day or not.
Case closed. You have seen the Friday Abhishekam (which you assume that most of us have not had) and then have proclaimed that the idol is Vishnu (and not just Venkateshwara)!
You should not speak for democracy or against hurting anybody’s sentiments any more than I do. I do not agree with you that Jamanadas is using his book to vent against upper caste people in India. So the statements you make like “he himself being a Buddhist, he purposely calls the Idol in Tirumala as Buddhist Idol in order to hurt the Hindu sentiments” are just your opinions. It is not based on facts. So you use freedom of expression, democracy and the internet to make such statements but you want others not to do it if it is not in sync with your beliefs. So instead of lecturing others you should spend sometime listening to your own lectures!
All your points about Buddha can be said about Vishnu as well. Is there evidence to show that Vishnu existed? Is there any proof that the idol is Venkateshwara and that Venkateshwara is an avatar of Vishnu?
Lord Venkateshwara is standing. He has only two hands (the Shankha and Chakra) are just placed in the imaginary third and fourth hand in the back which we can never see. It is clear from Vishnava traditions that the idol had no weapons initially. The two hands that we can see are showing Mudras that are closely associated with Buddhism (Avalokitesvara). Some of the traditions followed at the temple (like shaving head) contradict Vaishnava beliefs. The way the idol is displayed (standing with two hands, showing Varada Mudra and no weapons) also violate what tradition says about how Vishnu should be displayed. Unlike most other Vaishnava temples, Tirumala temple has no minor Vaishnava saints or deities.
The iconography governing the way Lord Vishnu is to be displayed (icons, idols and paintings) is very strict and is detailed in scripture after scripture. Yet some have claimed he can be shown with two hands and no weapons. Scriptures like Agni Purana detail 24 forms of Vishnu none of which involves depicting Him with two hands. If Vishnu can be shown with two hands (there is very little tradition or scripture to back it up) then why is the temple authorities going to great lengths to show this idol with four hands (when it has only two) and with weapons (when originally it did not have any weapons)? The answer is obvious.
The traditions and customs followed at the temple today clearly show the mixed heritage of the temple.
//The Buddhists are included in the Hindu pantheon these days. I am sure you will find a lot of Hindus in AP. If you stand outside the gates of the Tirumala temple you will see about 50,000 of them paying homage to one of their favorite deities every day.//
You mean to say that all who visit Thirumala are budhdhists?!
From your article and replies I feel that you have strong conviction about this temple being converted from buddhism to hinduism. The title itself has a proven tone. Even Wikipedia seems to contradict your basic premise of hinduism from budhdhism!
You question the fact that most of the buddhists are SC/STs. But the same question can be rephrased that most of the SC/STs are buddhists. The answer will be that the SC/STs converted to get social recognition and as a protest like Dr.Ambedkar.
Ganesh,
Clearly I am not stating that all people who visit Thirumanla are Buddhists. A vast majority of the people who visit the temple today consider themselves as Hindus. Only a small number of visitors consider themselves as Vaishnavites or Buddhists. Many who visit the temple follow traditions that reflect modern day Hindu customs in addition to Vaishnava and Buddhist customs.
I normally avoid sites like Wikipedia. Dissent and contradictory information is rarely published on this site (I tried to add information in the Wikipedia site about Kerala and Saint Thomas. The story about Saint Thomas visiting Kerala and converting Brahmins to Christianity is false. But I was not allowed to).