A reply to Dr. Jamanadas' essay on Sati

Dr. Jamanadas has the habit of vilifying the Brahmins and Hinduism (normally without any proper evidence) for every social evil which has ever prevailed in India.
As an example, let us turn our attention to ‘Sati was Started for Preserving Caste’ written by him. The true origin and nature of Sati is clarified by us and the wrong conclusions made by Jamanadas are pointed out.
Various wrong statements (words in quotes) made by him are countered in this article.

0. “BUDDHIST LAW WAS THE NATIONAL LAW OF INDIA, BECAUSE FROM THE HISTORICAL PERIOD, THE RELIGION OF INDIA WAS BUDDHISM. IT WAS THE MAIN STREAM”
This shows his perverted thinking. Does he say that there was no historical period before the Buddha? Or does he say that the Vedic period is not a part of Indian History. He is wearing colored glasses and hence, he seems to have lost balanced view. Buddhists were not in a complete majority in India at any point of time. At no point of time was India a Buddhist nation. Though many rulers professed Buddhism, Buddhists never outnumbered the Hindus. Similarly, no single law (leave alone Buddhist Law) was ever implemented in India on the national level. Even the Manu Smriti was never completely implemented. To say that Buddhist Law was the national law is highly ridiculous.


1. “To get some idea of what was The Buddhist Personal Law, we quote from Ms. Shastri”
Personal Laws followed by Buddhists of various regions are a result of social activities, customs and culture. They have nothing to do with any Buddhist Sacred Law or the Buddha per se. Jamanadas cites the Buddhist nations as the proof for any Buddhist Personal Law which he claims to exist. He does not consider that there are many differences in the Personal Laws of various Buddhist nations and that these Personal Laws are based on the social customs of those nations and not Buddhism.
Moreover, he does not cite any Buddhist scholar or text for such a proof but he cites Ms.Shastri whom he calls a ‘Vedic scholar’!!

2. “But it must be said that at one time when Buddhism was a living religion in India, they influenced, not to a small extent, Hindu culture and the legal literature, Kautlilya admits divorce by mutual consent as did the Buddhists”(cited from Ms. Shastri by Jamanadas)
Any Sanskrit scholar will tell us that Kautilya’s ‘Arthashastra’ is a purely Brahminical literature and that he does not follow any non-Brahminical text in any place. He does not even mention the presence of Buddhists. Being so, to claim that Kautilya’s concept of divorce is taken from the Buddhist Law is misleading and completely wrong. The reason why Jamanadas is citing this work is very clear: Ms.Shastri seems to know very less about Brahminical Laws’ origin and her writings (which seem to have some fundamental flaws) are such that they can be used to vilify Hinduism as such when a cut-paste technique is adopted.

3. “The earliest of these stelae is found in Eran in Sagar District in M.P. and is dated 510 A. D. Thus the practice of Sati was coming to vogue in sixth century A.D.”
I don’t understand why many ‘scholars’ consider sixth century as the period when Sati was coming into vogue. It seems they do not know about the Sangam Literature in Tamil. Normally, people call the Sangam literature as the exponent of ‘Dravidian spirit’. Let us see what they offer us about Sati:
A queen chastises the courtiers for not [apparently] performing sati and tells them that she would rather join her beloved husband in the pyre than lead the Spartan life of a widow. Not for her, says she, is the life of a widow who eats one meal of rice mixed with gingili oil and neem leaves, and who sleeps on the bare floor. May you not commit sati, the queen tells the courtiers, rather sarcastically, but for me the cold water of the lake is not different from the fire of the pyre. And the very next song confirms that she did commit sati. [Purananuru 246]
Another Tamil woman implores the potter to make her husband’s burial urn large enough to hold the widow as well. [Purananuru 256] [Note that burying alive was not practiced in North India. This shows that the concept of dying along with husband must be a Tamil practice which was later accepted by the Indian society in general. (In Silappadhikaram, we find that the Pandya queen fell dead, immediately, on knowing that her husband had died.)]
Even the earliest Tamil grammar text, Tolkappiyam, speaks about Sati. Tolkappiyam says that the highest glory that a woman can aspire for is to join her husband’s funeral pyre. [Tolkappiyam, Poruladhikaram 77]
Manimekhalai has an interesting narrative where the chaste Adhirai wrongly concludes that her trader husband had died and attempts to commit sati, but the fire refuses to engulf her. Then her husband returns and they live happily ever after! [Manimekhalai XVI]

A woman wasn’t forced to commit sati. A Sangam song says134 that after her son’s father departed, the widow’s head was tonsured and her bangles were removed. Then onwards, lily with rice became her staple food. [Purananuru 250]
[Note that Manu does not recommend tonsuring the head of widow. But ancient Tamil society seems to have practiced this custom.]

The case being so, I wonder why the likes of Jamanadas are hell bent on accusing the Brahmins. As he himself states, ‘Sati/Anumarana’ is found only in the later Smrti texts (like Vishnu Smrti) and not in the Manu Smrti. Similarly, we can see that tonsuring the head of widows is not found in Manu Smrti but it is found in the Sangam Literature. We can safely conclude that Sati and widow’s life of austerities are Tamil concepts which were exported to the rest of India. To blame the Brahmins for these customs is nothing except venomous anti-brahminism.

4. “Thus we find that excepting the solitary instance mentioned by Diodoras, which occured in a foreign land, and the persons involved were perhaps from foreign tribes settled in India during those times, the practice started from the time of decline and ultimate fall of Buddhism after seventh century.”
Neither do I know nor am I able to verify the work of Diodoras. But from what Jamanadas says, it shows that Sati was prevalent in 316 BCE. He has cited Sati stelae of Eran which is dated to 510 CE. Then, to say that Sati started only after the seventh century is contradictory. We can say that Sati was always prevalent in India. Perhaps the practice of erecting memorials was a later development. We must note that Sati was not compulsory in most places. As we have shown above. Sati was practiced by Tamils even during the Sangam age. Therefore, the above statement of Dr.Jamanadas is baseless.

5. “Still we find Banabhatta (7th century) in the court of Harshavardhana and later Medhatithi (9th century) condemning the practice.”
Jamanadas has carefully left out the name of Swami Sahajanand(Swami Narayan) who openly opposed Sati. He has elsewhere mentioned the name of Raja RamMohan Roy. If Banabhatta and Medhatithi condemned the practice, it could have been because the practice was not mentioned in the early Smritis or Dharmasutras (Medatithi opposed it on the basis that suicide is anti-Vedic) or that they did not believe in the practice. Also, one must keep in mind that India had a variety of philosophies and philosophers. Therefore, mere condemnation of a practice does not mean that the practice is new. Yagnas were condemned by Buddhists and Jains but it does not make Yagna a new practice. The condemnation simply shows that not everyone accepted the practice. Finally, we see that Medatithi opposed Sati but such opposition is not found during the medieval period after Muslim invasions. The impact of Muslim rule is one of the prime reasons for the all around acceptance and glorification of Sati.
[Note: I have not referred the work of Bana mentioned by Jamanadas but I have considered the claims made by him about those works to be true.]

6. “All these customs were imposed by the brahmins in order to prevent transgression of caste rules. This was explained by Dr. Ambedkar as early as in 1919, ["Castes in India", W&S. vol. I, p. 5 ff.] while dealing with genesis and mechanism of Castes. The following are the salient points from it.”
Sati was not at all essential to maintain the purity of castes. Manu and others (including Kautilya) has clearly laid down that the son of a Brahmin woman and a Sudra man will be a Chandala. Pratiloma marriages were discouraged. Where does the necessity for Sati arise here?? Mere anti-brahminism is the root cause for all these vicious and false propaganda.

7. “When a Tomar King in Gujrath died, his 90,000 queens were requested not to commit sati. They consulted their Kula-brahmana, who advised them to commit sati as Veda verse 18/877 mentions "Agne" and not "Agre", just for the sake of golden coins, thus condemning these 90,000 women to flames.”
Now, Jamanadas has not provided any proof for the above accusation. He speaks about an ‘unnamed’ King. It is highly unlikely that a King had 90,000 ‘queens’. Also, he accuses the ‘unnamed’ Brahmin to have urged the ‘queens’ to commit Sati for a few golden coins. Once again, blatant anti-brahminism with its venomous fangs is clearly exposed. Even if the above incident is true, it is a singular incident and the character of one individual cannot be held as the normal behaviour of an entire community. It has become a common practice to conduct a spit and run campaign against Brahmins without even caring to show any evidence.

Sati was committed by the Rajput women not because they were forced into it. Most Sati cases were voluntary. Only in a few cases, was a woman forced to do Sati. Rajput women committed Sati voluntarily. In general, they were not forced to do it. The case of Vijayanagar queens is an excellent example. They considered it as a sacred duty and were not afraid of committing Sati.

Even among the higher castes, Sati was very rare among the people of South India from the medieval periods. During the British rule in Bengal presidency(1813-1828), the average number of sati cases per year was only 600. While Sati was most prevalent among the Brahmins, many Brahmin widows followed a life of austerities and the number of Brahmin women who committed Sati was very small. This is further proof of the fact that Sati was not compulsory but a voluntary act. Brahmin widows always existed and hence, the argument about forced Sati is wrong.

Italian Traveler Pietro Della Valle has documented a Sati which he witnessed in the town of Ikkeri in November, 1623. He states that the Sati was voluntary. The other two wives of the deceased person did not commit Sati.

Today, we have grown out of such acts. But that does not mean that we have to blame a particular community for Sati when they, certainly, did not invent it. It was a custom accepted by the society at large and most certainly, was not thrust upon the society by the Brahmins. It seems to be a social practice which was adopted from the ancient Tamil culture.
Finally, if one goes through the pages of Indian History, he/she could see that Sati like practices became widely prevalent only after the Muslim Invasion of India. Large scale Jouhars were held to escape from the clutches of the Muslim army’s hands. Every Hindu woman (of all varnas) participated in such Jouhars (see Kanhadade Prabandha of Padmanabha Pandita). This will make clear the reason for the sudden rise in the spate of Sati and its glorification. That Sati was made a normal practice to enable the women to face mass Jouhars with courage appears to be the most probable reason. Even then, we see that Sati was not at all compulsory. Therefore, the reason for the sudden increase in sati cases was not preservation of caste but preventing Hindu women from falling into the Muslim harem. [This practice was not uncommon in the medieval world. We have heard that the Muslims of Baghdad killed their female relatives to prevent them from being raped or taken away by the Mongols.]
Conclusion:
1. Sati, most probably, originated in the Tamil country.
2. Brahmins did not invent Sati.
3. Caste system was no reason to enforce Sati.
4. Generally, Sati was not compulsory. It was a voluntary act.
5. To blame the Brahmins for Sati is both illogical and baseless.
6. Sati was a social custom which was adopted by the medieval Hindu society at large.
7. Muslim Invasions were a prime reason for the sudden increase in the number of Sati and its glorification.

Tirupati is not a Buddhist Shrine - An Answer to Dr. Jamanadas

The folly of most ‘intellectuals’ of modern India is that in their zeal to kill the mosquito, they hurt the man on whose head the mosquito is sitting.

One such ‘intellectual’ is Jamanadas. He is opposed to caste system and his writings reveal that he is an Ambedkarite. He squarely blames the Brahmins for all the evils in the Hindu society. Above all, he accuses their forefathers of having usurped many Buddhist shrines by force. The title of his book ‘Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine’ reveals the crux of his arguments. Let us deal with this ‘masterpiece’ of Jamanadas and see what merit it has in it. Dr. Jamanadas (hence forth referred as ‘J’) argues that the murti at Tirumala must be that of Avalokiteshwara/Padmapani.


In the ‘Author’s Preface’ he says:
“During the process which went on for centuries, many Buddhist shrines were converted for Brahmanical use. The purpose of this writing is to show that the great shrine of Tirupati was one of them, a claim which was not made by any previous author. Many ancillary subjects are discussed besides this main theme, and many new directions are shown for the scholars of tomorrow to pursue. Certain new claims have been made, e.g. the Rathas of Mahabalipuram are thought to be Buddhist, the Kalabharas are thought to be supporters of Buddhism, the traditional story of Alvaras describing the Murthi of Lord of Tirumalai is disputed, the evidence of Silappadhikaran is shown to be of no use, the importance of tonsure in Tirumalai is stressed and Rathayatra is shown as a Buddhist tradition.”


The selective blindness of the author is seen here. He dismisses all those sources which prove the claim of the Vaishnavas that the shrine was that of Vishnu. Then he invents some ideas and plants them on the readers as truth. The claims of the author shall be reviewed in this critic one by one. In some cases, where I do not have adequate knowledge, I shall deal with them in short leaving it to other competent persons.


The book has 30 chapters. We shall consider the merit of these chapters taking one at a time.


Chapter 1:

The author claims:
“It is a well known fact that Lord Buddha had revolutionized the old Vedic religion and the whole country was once Buddhist.”

Does it ring anything?? The very first sentence of the chapter is baseless. When was the country Buddhist?? At no point of time was the Vedic religion completely overwhelmed throughout the country. The author says that ‘the fact(?)’ is very well known. No proof to substantiate this ‘well known fact’!!

He continues:
“However, there was a counter-revolution and Brahmanism gained ground and the religion of
Buddha, declined the country of its origin. The Bhikkus were killed and the remaining were compelled to migrate to foreign lands, taking with them some religious literature.”

Once again, the same ‘secularist’ (pseudo) lie is parroted again and again. Where is the proof?? Buddhists remained in India. They were not driven out of the country nor was there any general persecution of Buddhist Bhikkus. E.g. Nalanda was functioning very well in India. No Hindu ruler ever thought of destroying Nalanda. It was destroyed by the Islamic invaders. The author appears to be hell bent on deriding the Brahmins and he does not even worry about providing proof because he claims that his claims are ‘well known facts’.


His next claim:

“On the point of absence of Buddhist texts Chaudhari has observed:
"... In a region where the philosophic doctrines of Buddhism and Jainism flourished for over three centuries, the absence of literature seems inconceivable. PERHAPS there was a king of literary vandalism at the hand of literary vandalism at the hands of Hindu zealous..." [Chaudhari:1984:50]” (caps and bold are my additions)


What a wonder! His proof is a quote from Chaudhari and that proof begins with ‘Perhaps’! Muslims destroyed the library at Nalanda. Buddhism suffered from its own rigid customs and ‘shunya vada’. No lay man could understand or practice their philosophy which is based on ‘shunya vada’. As Buddhism lost the hold on its followers, there was no one to preserve the palm leaf manuscripts. Even many Hindu scriptures have been lost. Many Vedic shakas have become lost. Shall we say that the Buddhists persecuted the Brahmins and destroyed their Vedas?? Palm leaf manuscripts are bound to be lost even under extreme care. Then what to speak about those Buddhist manuscripts which had no one to care for them. Buddhism lost its hold on masses due to the Bhakti movement. It was not destroyed with sword.


He also adds:

“Most of the important ones were appropriated by the Brahmins and converted for Brahmanic use. It is already shown by many scholars that the Lord Jagannatha of Puri, Lord of
Badrikeshvara, and Vithoba at Pandharpur in Maharashtra were once Buddhist.”


As far as I know, the murti of Badrinath / Badri Narayan has Discus and Conch. I have not been to Jagannath Puri and Pandharpur. I leave it to some competent person to write about these places in detail. The case of Badrinath shall also be dealt in detail by persons who know about its history very well. I’ll confine myself to those parts of Southern India of which I have some knowledge.




Let’s go to his next claim:

‘It goes without saying that the present day Hinduism is mostly influenced by Buddhism. Let us see what the scholars have to say about the influence of Buddhism on Hinduism and its residual effects which are seen even now, L. M. Joshi, observes: "In his speeches and writings Swami Vivekananda has often noted the diverse Buddhist influences on Hinduism. He had observed that "Modern Hinduism is largely Pauranika, that is, post-Buddhistic in origin." He pointed out that Buddhism was mainly responsible for stopping or lessening the customs of drinking wine
and killing living animals for sacrifice or for food in India. He rightly traced the origin of Hindu images and temples to Buddhist models. About the relation of Vaishnavism to Buddhism, he was declared that "Buddhism and Vaishnavism are not two different things. During the decline of Buddhism in India, Hinduism took from her a few cardinal tenets of conduct and made them her own, and these have now come to be known as Vaishnavism." It should be noted here that Vaishnavism does not consist mainly of a few cardinal tenets of conduct. The Swami is briefly referring to moral principles and practices, such as ahimsa, karuna,maitri, respect for the guru, control of the mind and the senses of yoga, etc. which Buddhism transmitted to Vaishnavism. The Bodhisattva ideal and the idea of Buddhavatar also became integral parts of Vaishnava theology." [Joshi:1977:348]’



I am reeling under ‘laughter stroke’. Some quotes from Swami Vivekananda and then some wholesale ‘ideas’ of some Joshi is cited as proof. Let us consider them one by one.

While Vivekananda was certainly a great Hindu saint, many of his thoughts were influenced by the then ‘researches’ of the colonial masters. This must be kept in mind while dealing with his sayings.

The dates of Puranas are largely unknown. Chandogya Upanishad (III.4-1) speaks about ‘Itihasa Purana’. Therefore the claim that the Puranas are post-Buddhist (as made by AIT/AMT and Communist Historians) is baseless. The Puranas definitely existed during the Later Vedic period (or even earlier as Athatvangiras are said to have derived their sustenance from the Puranas). They are stratified texts and hence they could contain some texts which may be later additions but to paint the entire Puranas as post-Buddhist is clearly wrong.

The claim about temples and images is also wrong. The garuda stambha of Heliodorus, shows that the doctrine of Pancaratra(Bhagavata doctrine) existed even in the 2nd century BCE:
“This Garuda-column of Vasudeva (Visnu), the god of gods, was erected here by Heliodorus, a worshipper of Vishnu(Bhagavata), the son of Dion, and an inhabitant of Taxila, who came as Greek ambassador from the Great King Antialkidas to King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, the Savior, then reigning prosperously in the fourteenth year of his kingship."

I think the above proof is more than enough. We could add the cases of Ghosundi, Nagari (Chittorgarh District), Mora well inscriptions etc. The excavations undertaken by Sri Khare in Bedsa have brought to light a temple dedicated to the ‘Five Heroes’ (Panca Vira – Krishna, Balarama, Pradyumna, Aniruddha and Satyaki). We must remember that worship of Buddha’s murtis was a later development. Ashoka did not build any Buddhist temples with Buddha’s murtis. This shows that the Buddhists borrowed the concept of temples and murtis from the Hindus and not the other way around. Moreover, the early Buddhist theology did not recognize Buddha as a God or any Devata worthy of worship.

Similarly the Guru-shishya parampara is found from the Vedic period. We know that Vedas were transmitted from generation to generation under this method. To say that Guru shishya parampara is borrowed from Buddhism is both baseless and wrong. Similarly yoga is found in the brahma vidyas of the Upanishads and Brahma Sutras.

As for ahimsa, Jain Tirthankaras practiced Ahimsa from time immemorial. Buddha Himself must have copied it from Jains. Being so, to claim that Brahmins copied ahimsa from Buddhists is clearly misleading.

‘Karuna’ and ‘maitri’ are inherent principles of most religions as they are basic human emotions. One need not ‘copy’ it from any religion.

The author has not cited any primary source. Secondary sources do not form strong proof. Even the secondary sources cited by the author are largely ‘opinions’ and ‘ideas’ of various people.



Let’s go to his next claim and proof:

‘About the ideals and morals taken up by Brahmanism to make it stand among the people of this country, L.M.Joshi further observes:
“Speaking of Buddhist ascetic ideals and institutions, Swami Vivekananda has said that the monastic vow and renunciation began to be preached all over India since the time of the Buddha, and Hinduism has absorbed into itself this Buddhist spirit of renunciation. The ochre robe found a lasting home in Hinduism also. The Hindu teacher not only accepted the Buddhist institution of monks. They occupied the Buddhist monasteries also. The many monasteries that you now see in India occupied by monks were once in the possession of Buddhism. The Hindus have only made them their own now by modifying them in their own fashion. Really speaking, the institution of Samnyasa originated with the Buddha. In conclusion the Swami has stated that Hinduism has become so great only by absorbing all the ideal of the Buddha. Swami Vivekananda has been a pivotal figure in modern Hinduism and his
opinions are representative of the educated Hindus.” ‘


Once again, Swami Vivekananda’s ‘opinions’ form the proof. We must remember that the Vedic lifestyle ordains sanyasa as the final ashrama. As such one can say that Buddhism copied ascetism from Hinduism. The above claims made by J have no proof whatsoever. One must keep in mind that ascetism was a part of Jaina religion as well. Also, red robes and monastic order are mentioned in Maitrayani Upanishad.

The opinion about ‘monasteries’ is also wrong. Can anyone say which Buddhist monasteries were occupied or usurped by Brahmin monks after driving away or killing the Buddhist monks?? These opinions are based on colonial concoctions about Indian history. Till now, the author has not provided any solid evidence for any of his claims. Mere quotes from Vivekananda’s sayings are not enough to prove anything.


In this chapter, he has cited a lot from Joshi. Let us see some other quotes:

“On the other hand, Buddhism opened the doors to higher religious life and the highest goal for all those who sought them, including the members of the lower strata of society. Although Buddhism was not directly concerned with the abolition of castes, it strongly opposed the caste system and repeatedly taught the evils of casteism.On the other hand, Buddhism opened the doors to higher religious life and the highest goal for all those who sought them, including the members of the lower strata of society. Although Buddhism was not directly concerned with the abolition of castes, it strongly opposed the caste system and repeatedly taught the evils of casteism.”


Buddhist scholars and Buddha were more concerned with liberation (moksha) and not with normal social situations. The Buddhist doctrine expounds the Karma theory. If someone is born to a slave, it is because of his karma. Joshi himself states that Buddhism was not directly concerned with the abolition of castes. Untouchability was practiced and advocated by Buddhists themselves. Let’s see what Fa-Hien says:

“The only exception is that of Chandalas. That is the name for those who are wicked people and they live apart from others. When they enter the gate of a city or a marketplace, they strike a piece of wood to make themselves known, so that men know and avoid them and do not come into contact with them……… Only the Chandalas are fishermen and hunters, and sell flesh meat.”(Chapter XVI)


Even a cursory view shows that Buddhists treated the Chandalas who engaged in meat trade as untouchable. Fa-Hien does not condemn the practice. This shows that even Buddhism supported and practiced untouchability. This is a primary source. May we know the esteemed opinions of our ‘intellectuals’?


Another quote from the esteemed Joshi:

“Buddhism along with Jainism but unlike Brahmanism gave the equality of opportunity in religious culture to women. Some of the female members of the earliest ascetic order known to history were the Buddhist Theris or nuns whose religious poetry has come down to us in the Theriagatha. The eminent position attained by large number of women in Buddhist
history, viz. Khema, Patacara, Dhammadinna, Subha, Kisa, Sujata, Visakha, Samavati, Ambapali, Upplamanna, and Soma, etc. shows that Buddhism had done much for the emancipation of women in Indian society.”


It seems our author does not know that Rg Veda has many women Rsikas. As for moksha, anyone can attain moksha under Hindu pantheon. The Bhagavad Gita is accessible to everyone and the way for moksha is open to all as per the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita. Remember that the Bhagavad Gita has no Buddhist influence. It is essentially a condensation of various Upanishadic teachings along with some improvements to them.





Another quote from J:

“It is already shown by Dr. Ambedkar that many among the Buddhists were condemned to be untouchables. If proper study is made, we feel that it is possible even now to recognize the population groups who got converted to Hinduism. Some minor groups are identified by Joshi:”


We have shown that Buddhism itself practiced untouchability. To say that Buddhists, who converted to Hinduism, were condemned to be untouchables is baseless. If Buddhists who converted to Hinduism were considered as Untouchables, then why would any Buddhist convert at all? Surely, forcible conversions were not done in a large way (all available evidence show that such a thing never took place).



Another quote from his book:
“Nagendranath Basu has investigated the forest areas of Mayurbhanj and discovered the people there, being Buddhists”

Does this mean that all the tribals were Buddhists? No. Bengal-Bihar belt had significant Buddhist population even until the 11th century CE. Mere attestation of one Buddhist tribal group in the ancient Buddhist belt does not mean that all the tribes of India were Buddhists. Many tribes are Hindus. Shall we say that all the tribes were Vedic people in the past? It has to be noted that most tribes are non-vegetarian. This is against the character of Indian Buddhism.


His criteria for identifying descendants of ancient Buddhists are as follows:

“(1) One of the clues could be that all those groups for whom derogatory remarks and various hidden, and not so hidden, abuses are showered in the medieval Brahmanic texts, did in fact belong to Buddhist sects. (2) The other clue could be all those groups of people who are and were successful in getting educated, and acquiring literacy in spite of opposition of Brahmins during the middle ages could be conveniently recognized and identified as Buddhists of olden
times. (3) Many groups in higher castes also who are not given status of equality within the same caste, can be identified as Buddhist of olden times.”



Many medieval Brahminical texts are full of derogatory remarks against the Mleccha Turushkas. Shall we say that they were Buddhist??

Does the author say that only descendants of Buddhists will be able to counter the so-called Brahmin hegemony and that purely Hindu people do not have the ability? By the way, the Brahmins were not opposed to any person getting educated. They denied Vedas to the non-Dvijas and other than that everyone had access to normal education. A cursory view of Dharampal’s works is more than enough to understand the literacy level among the masses.

The final point is a great comedy. In Tamil Nadu, the Sri Vaishnava Brahmins are generally divided into two broad categories: 1. Chozhiya and 2. Non-Chozhiya. Each of them considers the other to be lower in status. Shall we say that both the sects belonged to Buddhism?? Similar case is found among the Smartha Brahmins who are divided into 4 categories.

Basic pragmatism is found lacking in the above mentioned criteria.


J has the following to say about tirtha yatras:
“L. M. Joshi observes:
"The practice of visiting the holy places (tirthas) possibly originated with the Buddhists. In the Maha parinibban sutta visit to the spots sanctified by the Buddha is recommended. In the Vedic texts, a tirtha was understood to mean a place where animal sacrifices were performed. But in the Epics and Puranas, which teach the cult of tirthayatra or pilgrimage, killing of animals in sacrifice in holy place is prohibited. The eighth chapter of the Lankavarara sutta perhaps contains the strongest exposition of vegetarianism which became central feature of Vaishnavism in medieval India." [Ibid:337] Shri K. A. Nilkanata Sastri acknowledges this fact as follows:
"...The temple and the palace are both indicated by one word koyil in Tamil, and prasada in Sanskrit, and it universally recognized that temple - worship was not part of the original Vedic religion..." [Sastri:1966:64]
It is usually accepted that the first image that was manufactured in India for the purpose of the worship was that of the Buddha. Whether it was first manufactured at Mathura or in Gandhara could be a debatable point, but that the images of Vishnu and other Hindu gods were manufactured later than the image of Buddha, is universally accepted by scholars.”



Even in the Rg Veda, certain rivers (Sarasvati, Ganga, Sindhu etc) and places (Kurukshetra – mentioned as Ilayaspada) are often eulogized. The roots for tirtha yatra are found in these very hymns.

Vegetarianism is attested even more strongly in Jaina religion. Of course, some ancient Vedic seers were probably non-vegetarians. But it must be remembered that Vedas form the first step in the evolution of the Hindu religion and that subtler values were added to the religion at each and every phase of its development. Vegetarianism could have been developed by Hindu scholars themselves. There is no compelling evidence which shows that vegetarianism was borrowed by Hinduism from Buddhism or vice versa.

No one is claiming that Vedic seers worshipped at temples. But it is entirely wrong to state that Brahmins borrowed temple worship from the Buddhists. As shown earlier Vishnu temples were in existence in the 2nd century BCE. Kautilya’s ‘Arthashastra’ (4th century BCE)(Arthashastra 2.4.17, 2.4.18, 2.4.19, 2.5.6, 2.36.28 etc) mentions Hindu temples. Arthashastra(2.4.17) mentions deities like Aparajita, Jayanta, Vijayanta, Shiva, Ashvins, Sri etc. Thus, temple worship must have been borrowed by the Buddhists and not by the Hindus. In the original Buddhist philosophy, there is no room for any sacrifice or worship. On the other hand, temple worship could have easily evolved out of fire sacrifice. Instead of sacrificing in fire, they could have offered the items to their deities in temples.


The King was considered as ‘Nara deva’. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in referring to temples and King’s palaces with the same word.



J has the following to say about the origin of image worship:

‘The worship of Buddha was started with the emergence of Mahayana, which is a fact accepted by almost all scholars. We will only see what L.M.Joshi has to say:
“….From about the beginning of the Christian era images of the Buddha began to come into existence, and revolutionized rituals of worship not only in Buddhism but also Brahmanism. In place of sacrificial rituals temple rituals now become popular..." [Joshi:p.158]

In contrast to this, the worship of Brahmanic images started mostly from Gupta period.’


J conveniently ignores those evidences which attest the presence of Hindu temples much before the beginning of the Christian era. His claim that Hindu murtis came into existence from the Gupta period is entirely false.

We have shown evidences from various inscriptions, Arthashastra etc which attest the presence of Hindu temples in the centuries BCE.


Then J cites Dr. Ambedkar:

“The Buddhist rejected the Brahmanic religion which consisted of Yajna and animal sacrifice,
particularly of the cow. The objection to the sacrifice of the cow had taken a strong hold of minds of masses especially as they were an agricultural population and the cow was a very useful animal. The Brahmins in all probabilities had come to be hated as the killer of the cow in the same as the guest had come to be hated as Goghna, the killer of the cow by the householder, because whenever he came, a cow had to be killed in his honour. That being the case, the Brahmins could do nothing to improve their position against the Buddhist except by giving up the Yajna as a form of worship and the sacrifice of the cow." [Ambedkar: Untouchables: 1969:146]”


Dr. Ambedkar was influenced by the wrong translations and interpretations made by the Western Indologists of his period and those who preceded him. Two wrong claims are made by him:

He wrongly claims that Hindus had to give up Yagna due to Buddhism. This is entirely wrong. Buddhism was routed in dialectical process by a Karmakandin Brahmin, Sri Kumarila Bhatta. He emphasized the importance of Yagna and advocated the performance of Yagnas. Yagna was not given up. Instead, its validity was upheld.
Following European translators, he claims that Brahmins killed cow in the honour of guests. He cites the word ‘Goghna’ as proof for this claim. Ms. Sandhya Jain has shown how the word was misinterpreted by Western Indologists. (‘Did Vedic Hindus really eat cow?’ – Dainik Hindustan 12th December, 2001). She shows that ‘Goghna’ means ‘receiver of cow’. Killing of cow is forbidden in the Vedas. The most common animal of sacrifice is ‘goat’ (chaga). It was goat and not cow which was sacrificed in yagnas like ‘Agnishtoma’.

Great protection is given to cow in the Vedas. Rg Veda (10-87-16) prescribes cutting off the head as the punishment for killing cow (applies to the murder of a human and killing of horse as well).

Let us go to chapter 2 now.

In this chapter, J claims that various Buddhist viharas and chaityas were usurped by Hindus. He gives the apsidal shrines of Amaravati, Ter, Chezarala etc as examples.

The method by which these ‘usurped shrines’ are identified is not based on solid facts. It is based on an assumption that apsidal shrines are of Buddhist origin. This assumption is unnecessary and has been proved wrong. Prof. Himanshu Prabha Ray, in the paper ‘The Apsidal Shrine in Early Hinduism: origins, cultic affiliation, patronage’ in World Archaeology Volume 36 Issue 3, has established that the apsidal form was part of a common architectural vocabulary widely used from the 2nd century BCE onwards not only for the Buddhist shrine, but also for the Hindu temple and several local and regional cults. Therefore, any claim made on the basis of apsidal shrine can be dismissed.

Similarly, the claim about Anantasayana temple at Undavalli is based on the three-storied structure of the temple. The claim is made because the structure is similar to the ‘Teen tal’ at Ellora. As said above, this is no proof. Hindu architecture is not completely different from Buddhist architecture. They developed side by side and followed the techniques which were in vogue during that period. Buddhism vanished from the scene and hence, the later developments are not found in Buddhist art. This does not prove that the early art forms were ‘Buddhist’. Instead they form part of the common ‘Indian’ art tradition.

Before the 19th Century CE, no one claimed that these temples were built on Buddhist monasteries. Hindus do not have any legend which speaks about usurping Buddhist shrines for Hindu purposes. This is more than enough to prove the wrong assumptions made by the European Indologists of the 19th Century. Other iconoclastic religions like Christianity and Islam have numerous legends about ‘Satanic shrines’ pulled down or occupied. There is no epigraphic or literary evidence which speaks about the early Buddhist character of these shrines. Mere assumptions made on wishful thinking do not prove anything.

Much speculation is made about the ‘Dasavatara cave’ (Cave no.15) at Ellora. The reasons why the cave is identified as ‘originally Buddhist’ are:

The complex is very large.
There are Buddha murtis at the top of pillars in the top storey of the cave.

Let us consider these ‘reasons’.

The cave temple at Dasavatara shows a new leap in the architectural history of India. It is the first monolith structure carved out of a single massive rock. Therefore, the size of the temple is no issue. It is a development in the architectural skills.

The presence of Buddha murtis does not prove ‘Buddhist character’ of the cave. It must be understood that Hindus had assimilated Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in representing Buddha at the top of pillars. The claim made by Yazdani that the Buddhist murtis were chiseled out does not stand the test of common sense because if that was the case, Buddha murtis at the pillars would have been chiseled out as well. Also, we do find a lot of Hindu murtis throughout the walls. These cannot have been made after chiseling out Buddha murtis as they do not appear to be so. Finally, we do not find any such place in the temple where we could find any trace of Buddha murti chiseled out. Such traces of Shivaite murtis chiseled out can be found at the Ramanuja Mandapam (this cave has nothing to do with Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja) at Mahabalipuram. The lack of such traces at Dasavatara stands against the claims made by Yazdani.

Then J cites Majumdar who claims that Buddha murtis are worshipped as Siva or Vishnu at various places in Bengal. The individual cases are not cited here. Even then, I do not know much about Bengal and I have never visited Bengal and Orissa. Therefore, I do not wish to write about these claims. I leave it to others, who have adequate knowledge about Bengal, to write about this.

Then, J writes about Badrinath. He says that Badrinath was a Buddhist shrine usurped by Hindus and shows two ‘proofs’:

Caste barriers are not strict.
Murti is in Padmasana posture and is identified as Buddha by L.M.Joshi.

The first ‘proof’ is no proof at all. Caste restrictions are strictly followed with respect to entry into the sanctum. The ‘Rawal’ of the temple cannot be touched by anyone. The greatness of the temple and murti is the reason why ‘Prasad’ of the murti is considered to be not polluted by touch of Chandalas. This does not mean Buddhist connection in any way. As shown above, Chandalas were ‘untouchable’ in Buddhism as well (Fa Hien mentions it).

The second ‘proof’ merely considers one aspect of the murti. I have visited Badrinath and I remember seeing the murti with four hands – the upper hands have discus and conch while the lower hands are in yoga posture. All pictorial depictions of the murti show him with four hands. Does J say that Buddha has four arms with weapons held in two? Finally, Narayana was a Vedic Rsi. He is the seer of the Rg Veda hymn 10-90. Therefore, there is nothing amiss in depicting Him as a yogi. After all, yoga was practiced even in the Indus Valley Civilization. The lack of any epigraphic or literary evidence supporting his claim shows that he is simply offering some baseless speculations as evidences.

I don’t know much about Orissa or Ayodhya. But I.K.Sharma, cited by J, says that these shrines were converted after the decline of Buddhism. Hence, aggressive iconoclasm is ruled out by I.K.Sharma. Therefore, J cannot say that the ‘evidence’ which proves ‘Hindu iconoclasm’ is not considered by me. I have serious misgivings about the various ‘Buddhist’ findings below Hindu temples. Sita Ram Goel has proved that such claims made about Mathura are wrong (Hindu Temples: What Happened to Them, Vol.2: Chapter 5). It must be remembered that Hindus and Buddhists shared the same art tradition and hence, there was much in common between their arts. Therefore, one cannot claim any Hindu temple to be ‘originally Buddhist’ without any epigraphic or literary evidence supporting such a theory. Also, no Hindu temple can be claimed to be standing upon a Buddhist shrine based on some remains of a Buddhist shrine found near by. It is more probable that the shrines stood adjacent to each other. Many Vaishnavite and Shaivite temples are found adjacent to each other. At Khajuraho, we find various Hindu and Jain temples at the same area. At Ellora, we find Buddhist, Hindu and Jain caves near each other. Goel has shown that the Buddhist remains found at Mathura belong to a shrine which stood next to the Krishna temple. He has proved that the Krishna temple was not built over the Buddhist shrine.

The claim made about Sringeri being a Buddhist shrine is not based on any solid evidence.

Next, J cites Lokhande to prove that Bodh Gaya was under Saivites. Yes. It is true. But the Shaivites did not claim the murti to be Siva. They identified the murti as Buddha. There were no Buddhists at Bodh Gaya after the Muslim invasion and the murti was maintained by the Saivites for many centuries. It is not a case of usurpment by Hindus but a case of maintenance done by Hindus. They cared for the murti in the absence of Buddhists and they never changed the identity of the murti. The Buddhists must express their gratitude for this service. They enjoy a say in the affairs of the temple as they maintained it through many centuries of trouble and turmoil.

Regarding J’s claims about Sarnath, Delhi and Nalanda, I wish to state that I do not know much about them. I do not write about anything of which I lack knowledge. I leave it to other competent people.

The claim about Guntepalli Siva temple being a Buddhist shrine is not based on any evidence. As pointed by us, mere presence of Buddhist remains/inscriptions in the area adjacent to any Hindu temple does not mean that the temple is standing on Buddhist ruins or was usurped from Buddhists. Hindus and Buddhists lived together in ancient India and hence, their shrines are bound to occur near each other. I would like to add that I have not visited that place and have countered J’s claims based on the evidences presented by him. These evidences do not relate to any finding of epigraphic or literary evidence.

Finally, J cites L.M.Joshi who claims that Puranas were written to strengthen the occupation of Buddhist shrines by Hindus and to assimilate the Buddhist principles and Buddha.

Our answer is this: the claim made about the occupation of Buddhist shrines and the use of Puranas to validate them is baseless. Sthala Puranas were written to increase the aura of the temple and places of pilgrimage. If the Buddhist shrines were occupied by force, epigraphs and folk tales about such occupation would exist to glorify the ‘iconoclast’. The absence of these evidences proves that these claims are wrong.

In chapter 3, J claims that Puri Jagannath was a Buddhist shrine. He claims many things about the famed temple. As I stated before, I do not have much knowledge about Bengal and Orissa. But I can definitely counter one of the speculations made by J. J, on the basis of Gopinath Rao’s writings, speculates that the murti of Jagannath contains the tooth relic of Buddha. This speculation is entirely wrong because there was only one tooth relic in Kalinga and it was taken to Sri Lanka in the fourth century CE. The tooth relic is now found at Kandy.

In chapter 4, J claims that Panduranga is Buddha. He says that there is a deep rooted tradition in Maharashtra about Panduranga being Buddha. He cites some examples from old almanacs and other books which represent the ninth avatar, Buddha, as Panduranga. But this is no evidence at all due to the following fact:

The actual ninth avatar was Krishna. When Buddha was assimilated into the Dasavatara, he was slowly given the place of Krishna and Krishna was raised to the level of Narayana. Panduranga is a form of Krishna. As the popular deity, He would have been represented as Krishna. Later, when Buddha was established as the ninth avatar in Maharashtra, the picture was not changed. The reason for that is also easy to understand: Buddha was considered as Mayavatara and hence, generally He was not worshipped. His murti cannot replace the popular Panduranga. Hence, Panduranga was retained as the ninth avatar representing Buddha. That the tradition does not identify Panduranga as Buddha is attested by the fact that in some cases, Buddha avatar was represented by Panduranga along with Rakumayi(Rukmini).

The next evidence is this: saints have identified Panduranga as Buddha avatar. But J fails to note that He is also identified as SriRamachandra. He is identified as Krishna in a great number of verses. He is also called as ‘Narayana’ and ‘Vasudeva’. The verses which identify Him as ‘Buddha’ are based on the Puranas which had assimilated Buddha by then.

Then, J reads much into the Lord being called ‘mouni’. The actual reason for calling Him so is that the Lord in ‘archa avatara’ (murti form) does not speak to the devotees. This is simple logic. J’s claim that the term refers to Buddha, whose sayings were not accepted by Brahmins, is mere speculation. Buddha was assimilated in the local traditions as an avatar who came to establish morality and non-violence (see Jayadeva’s poems). That was why the medieval saints call Panduranga as Buddha who came to correct these things and ‘silence’ refers to the silence of the murti. J has let his imaginations run wild. Mere speculation is no evidence.


The points made out by Kulkarni that Krishna and Panduranga are different lacks any knowledge of the Hindu practices. There is no rule that there must not be a Krishna temple near another Krishna temple. I don’t understand which verse of Sri Gnaneshwar that Kulkarni is referring to. But the identification of ‘Madhava’ with Krishna and ‘Vitthala’ with Panduranga is not based on any solid evidence. Madhava is not a name of Krishna alone but it is a term which refers to Vishnu in general. The claim that some people visit only the Krishna temple and not Panduranga temple is also wrong. When I asked some local persons, they told me that all people visit the Panduranga temple. The most probable reason for not visiting Pandharpur daily will be the excessive crowd there. Such a thing happens at Tirumala, Sri Rangam etc as well. People avoid visiting the main temple daily as they find it very crowded.

J, comically, claims that ‘pundarika’ shows Buddhist connection. It shows complete lack of knowledge about the Vedic and Puranic literature. ‘Pundarika’ is mentioned in Chandogya Upanishad. Vishnu’s eyes are compared with lotus throughout the Hindu literature. Vishnu is closely connected with lotus as He is shown with a lotus in His navel, standing on a lotus, holding a lotus etc.

Speculations of J and other people are based on the wide popularity of Buddhism in Maharashtra during the early centuries CE. That does not prove Panduranga as ‘Buddha’. Vitthala is a very recent coinage. Therefore, one need not read much into it.

In chapter 5, J tries to appropriate Lord Ayyappa as well. These neo-Buddhists seem to be hell bent on claiming all famous Hindu shrines as Buddhist. One can see that among the list of temples given by them, most of the temples are very popular and rich. We can understand the ‘actual evidence’ for their claims.

The ‘evidences’ offered by J are comical. One must know about the various features of a region before making conclusions. J fails to understand that none of the village deities are mentioned in the early Sanskrit or Tamil literature. Even as late as the 17th century, we find very few literary works which praise the village deities. Ayyappa is no exception. There are village deities to the north of Vindhya as well. But we do not know about them in South India. Most of these village deities of South India have a connection with the Vedic deities. Ayyappa is no exception. In Tamil Nadu, He is worshipped as Ayyanar by the lower caste people. In Kerala, He was given a place in the temples by Brahmins.

Before classifying the deities as ‘Aryan’ or ‘Dravidian’, one must consider a few facts. The Vedic deities became pan-Indian symbols of Hinduism. Even among them, the various forces of nature were slowly stripped of their importance and the place of honour was occupied by the principal deities like Shiva, Vishnu, Shakti and their parivars. Beyond this, each region developed some deities unique to that region. This had nothing to do with ‘Aryan’ or ‘Dravidian’. Such deities are found throughout India. At some places, these deities were adopted by the Brahmins. Ayyappa is one such deity. At Tirumal Irun Cholai, we can find Lord Karuppa being worshipped by Brahmins in the temple. Various Amman temples have Brahmin priests and the Brahmins do worship these deities. The only deities who are not worshipped by the Brahmins are those in whose temple/courtyard animal sacrifices are performed. Even here, this habit of avoidance began due to the abhorrence of flesh which became prominent among the Brahmins (esp. of South India) within the last few centuries. Hence, it is entirely wrong to classify the deities as ‘Aryan’ or ‘Dravidian’. The only method of classification should be on the basis of region. J fails to note that many Brahmins of Tamil Nadu have the local deities (especially Ammans) as their kula devata.

The next evidence offered by J is the name ‘Dharma Shasta’. J claims that ‘Dharma’ is Buddhist. Perhaps, J does not know that ‘Dharma’ is a Sanskrit word of Hindu origin which was simply used by the Buddhists as well. There is nothing particularly Buddhist or un-Hindu about the word ‘Dharma’.

J makes a lot of noise about the story of Ayyappa’s birth not found in the Puranas. But that is exactly the mark of local deities. We do not find the story of Yellamma, Mariamma, Ayyanar, Karuppasamy, Munusamy etc in the Puranas because they are restricted to an area and are not pan-Indian. Brahmins are custodians of the pan-Indian religion while the local people take care of the local deities. Many local deities are worshipped by the Brahmins of that locality.

J mentions about the lack of caste barriers at the temple. But he fails to note that the lack of caste barriers is not complete. Only a Brahmin can become the priest of the temple. Also, lack of caste barriers does not mean Buddhist shrine. Temples of local deities are generally free from rigid caste barriers though these barriers are found to some extent. Ayyappa is a local deity, who became popular later, and hence the temple lacks very rigid caste barriers. J cannot claim all local deities as Buddhist because animal sacrifices are offered to many local deities. Mere presence of some peculiar features does not make a temple un-Hindu. Exceptions to general rules are found in many temples in various forms. [In a Vishnu temple of Tamil Nadu, on a particular day, the deity is smeared with ashes. This cannot make the temple a Shaivite one.] J must understand this basic truth.

The final ‘evidence’ offered by J is the ‘Vajradanda’. J claims that ‘Vajra’ is a weapon of Bodhisattvas. But it is also a weapon of Indra, an Aryan deity (in the terms of people like J). Vajra is mentioned as Indra’s weapon in the Vedas. There is nothing un-Hindu about Vajra. Just because the Buddhists copied it from the Hindus, Vajra cannot become un-Hindu.

In chapter 6, he speaks about a place of which I have no idea. But I would like to point out that J simple cites some speculations as archaeological evidence. The speculation that five Lingas must be five Ayaka stambhas is repeated by J. But J fails to note that they may also refer to the five elements. As pointed by us, J and people cited by him do not care about the fact that Hindus and Buddhists followed the same art tradition. Hence, there will be much in common between them.

In chapter 7, J sets his eyes upon Srisailam. ‘Evidences’ shown by him:

It was a temple of tribal people. J claims that tribal people were Buddhists. This is a baseless claim. Most tribes are non-vegetarian. They do not follow Buddhist principles of non-violence. They hunt animals. How in the world does J identify them as Buddhists? If J claims that they changed habits after conversion, then how does he claim that tribal shrines were Buddhist? The tribal people could have built those shrines after their conversion. Either way, this ‘evidence’ is no evidence at all.

Finally, the claim made by J that Nagarjunakonda and Srisailam temples were Buddhist shrines and that Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavadpada destroyed the Buddhist centres is entirely baseless. The claim made about local tradition is also wrong. Tradition has it that Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavadpada defeated the Buddhists in a philosophical debate. It does not speak about destruction of any temple. The local tradition about Srisailam temple is that the Chenchus had built this shrine. Perhaps, that is why caste barriers are not so strict and everyone is allowed inside the sanctum (I have not visited the temple. But I consider the claim made about entry to all castes as true). This does not mean that it is Buddhist shrine because such a practice is found at Pavana Narasimha temple at Ahobilam. Also, if the shrine was converted to Hinduism as claimed by J, then the priests would have erased Buddhist practices. Hence, the claim made by J that lack of caste rigidity as Buddhist legacy is a baseless speculation.

Here after, we move to J’s speculations about the nature of Tirumala murti.






Avalokiteshwara and Venkateshwara:



The murti has ‘Srivatsa’ mark, Lakshmi on chest and also, the sacred thread (yagnopavitha) on His body.

J argues that ‘Srivatsa’ mark is found on the Buddha murtis as well. He claims that Lakshmi is a Buddhist Goddess who was usurped by the Brahmins. He also points out that some Buddhist murtis have the sacred thread.

He also claims that the murtis of Vishnu and Avalokiteshwara are very similar and that the only difference is that Avalokiteshwara has no weapons while Vishnu has. Because the murti at Tirumala has no weapons, he claims that the murti is that of Avalokiteshwara.

The problem with J is that he considers only those works/parts of some works which appear to be favourable to his preconceived notions. Also, he cites only secondary sources and has not cited any primary source of information. Hence, he has made wrong inferences.

Let us examine his arguments one by one.

J does not mention the fact that ‘Srivatsa’ is not found on ‘all’ Buddha murtis while it is universally found on ‘all’ consecrated Vishnu murtis. Also, he has failed to note that the normal Buddhist Srivatsa mark (as found in Tibetan murtis) is an ‘endless knot’ or swastika. While the Srivatsa on Vishnu murtis is depicted as a triangle or something like lotus. Similarly, there are Buddha murtis without the ‘Srivatsa’. The ‘Srivatsa’ mark is not so common to the Padmapani images in India but it is the most common feature of all Vishnu murtis. There are Vishnu murtis without Vyjayanti mala but no consecrated Vishnu murti exists(in South India) which does not have ‘Srivatsa’. The difference in the depiction of ‘Srivatsa’ must also be remembered.

[Note: Sangam work Paripaadal (1st song, line 35) (4th song, line 59) calls Vishnu as ‘one with Srivatsa on His chest’. Thus, ‘Srivatsa’ is an attribute of Vishnu which was copied by the Buddhists just as they copied the sacred thread from Hindu deities.]



2. The murti at Tirumala has Lakshmi on His chest. J claims that Lakshmi is a Buddhist Goddess who was usurped by the Brahmins. He also claims that Lakshmi was inducted into Vaishnavite fold only after Alavandar’s time. He also expresses a doubt whether Lakshmi was carved in the murti at the behest of Alavandar’s orders. Hence, he finds nothing wrong with the depiction of Lakshmi on the chest of an Avalokiteshwara murti. But the fact is that this depiction of Lakshmi on the murti’s chest signals death blow to J’s theory. Let’s see how:

a) Lakshmi and Sri are identified as one and same in the Sri Sukta of Rg Veda Khila (2.6).
b) Temples dedicated to Sri are mentioned in the Arthashastra (2.4.17) of Kautilya (4th Century BCE).
c) From the above two facts, we can say that Lakshmi was very much a Hindu Goddess who was taken into the Buddhist fold just as Indra, Brahma etc were usurped by Buddhism.
d) J’s claim that Lakshmi was not considered as a consort of Vishnu in South India before Alavandar’s time is made hollow by the following references:

a. Nammazhvar, in his Tiruvaimozhi (6.10.10), describes Lord Venkateshwara as the deity on whose chest Lakshmi always resides. Lakshmi is called as ‘Alarmel mangai’ by Nammazhvar. Hence, we can conclude that he is referring to the features of the murti at Tirumala and not just singing the praise of Vishnu. Because, only at Tirupati, Lakshmi is known by the name ‘Alarmel mangai’.
b. Periazhwar, in his Periazhwar Tirumozhi (1.1.2), refers to Lakshmi on the Lord’s chest.
c. Paripaadal (1st song, line 8) says that Sri dwells in the chest of Vishnu. Note that Paripaadal is a Sangam work.
d. Paripaadal (3rd song, lines 81-82) speaks about the four Pancaratra murtis. Pancaratra texts extol Lakshmi as a consort of Vishnu and Lakshmi Tantra is one of the most popular and ancient Pancaratra texts.
e. ‘Vasudeva’ is a name of Vishnu which became popular by means of Pancaratra texts which identify ‘Vasudeva’ as one of the four murtis (‘Vasudeva’ is rarely used in Vedas).
f. Ashtadhyayi (4.3.98) of Panini (not later than 5th century BCE) refer to Vasudeva as a deity of worship. Thus, we can say that Pancaratra texts must have existed then and hence, Lakshmi was definitely identified as a consort of Lakshmi at least from the period of Panini.
g. The inscriptions found at Besnagar, Mora Well, Ghosundi etc also testify that Pancaratra texts, Vishnu temples and Bhagavata system definitely existed in the last centuries of the 1st millennium BCE.


e) Moreover, Avalokiteshwara/Padmapani murti does not sport Lakshmi on His chest. This can be seen from the murti cited above.
f) The first quote in (d) shows that Lakshmi existed on the murti’s chest even during the Azhvar’s period.

Finally, J’s doubt that Lakshmi was carved into the chest later is a baseless one. Lakshmi, on the chest, protrudes from the chest of the murti. Lakshmi is not shown as a depression. J must give clear reasons as to why he considers Lakshmi to be a later addition without showing any solid evidence. The reason seems to be the fact that presence of Lakshmi does not suit his theory and hence, he claims it as a later addition.



3. The third argument about the ‘sacred thread’ (yagnopavitha) is considered here. Once again, J has failed to note the peculiar features of Vishnu and Buddhist murtis. While some Buddhist murtis do have the ‘sacred thread’, there is an essential difference between them and that of Vishnu murtis. The peculiar feature of Vishnu murtis is that the Yagnopavitha’s individual threads are distinct and clearly visible. Such is not the case with Buddhist murtis in general. Very rarely do we find the individual threads distinctly visible in Buddhist murtis.


Even if any Avalokiteshwara murti is found with the individual threads distinctly visible, that will be an exceptional case and not a normal one (in Vishnu murtis that is the normal case).

Finally, it must be remembered that Padmapani is a two armed form of Avalokiteshwara. Avalokiteshwara murtis, normally, sport a ‘namaste’ posture in two of His hands (with a gem held in between) when there is more than a pair of hands (See Tibetan Thangkas and murtis).


Of course, it can be argued by J that the particular murti is a peculiar one of Avalokiteshwara. But the same argument is valid for the Vaishnavite claim that the murti is a peculiar one of Vishnu. Therefore, we shall consider some other evidences before delivering our verdict.




One more point on which J raises some doubt is that the pedestal of the deity is covered. He doubts that the pedestal may contain some Buddhist formula and that was why the pedestal was covered. He is unable to accept any idea that the deity was without any pedestal when it was discovered because no murti can stand without a pedestal.

Let’s consider this point:

The pedestal must be built in proportion to the height of the murti and the temple and as such pedestals are changed whenever there is some substantial renovation of the temple.
The Tirumala temple has been renovated many times over and thus, the pedestal must have been changed a few times at least.
Hence, we can definitely say that the doubts about the pedestal containing some Buddhist formula are unfounded.
The only reason for the pedestal being covered could be providing additional protection to the murti without altering the size of the pedestal. The murti enjoys a very exalted position in the Sri Vaishnava tradition and hence, it is more than probable that the pedestal is strengthened with some extra layers protecting it.


In chapter 8, J simply states some legends surrounding the Tirumala temple. In the final sentence, J claims that the start of the cult around the beginning of the Christian era (as claimed by Aiyangar) would only mean worship of relic and not any murti. This claim is based on the wrong conclusion that Hindu murtis came into existence only after 4th Century CE and that Buddhist murtis came into existence during the 1st Century CE. We have proved that Hindu murtis were worshipped even in the 4th Century BCE. Hence, the claim made by J in the final sentence of this chapter is wrong.


J, in Chapter 9, claims the following:

“Unfortunately, the scholars dealing with the subject of Tirupati have taken refuge
under this theory of self manifestation to explain away the historical fact, such as:
*. 1.Why one need not discuss the attributes of Murthi
*. 2.Why there are no parivar devatas. Why it is the only ek-devata temple in whole of India.
*. 3.Why the murthi does not conform to the Agamic rules.
*. 4.Why there was no regular worship in this Temple, till 966 A.D.
*. 5.Why the various murthis are not recognized in this temple by their Agamic names.”


Let us answer these questions one by one:

We are already discussing the attributes of the murthi. The attributes were discussed during Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja’s time as well.
Is it necessary that all ekadevata temples must be Buddhist temples? In fact, there are many such temples within Tamil Nadu. For example, the deity at Thulaivillimangalam near Azhwar Tirunagari is the only devata in that temple. The deity’s name is Devapiran. It is a Vishnu temple. Many other examples can be shown. It seems J has not visited these temples.
The murthi is easily identifiable as that of Vishnu based on some Agamic rules. It will be explained in detail later. Some ‘so called’ peculiar features are found in some other old murtis of Tamil Nadu. Hence, they represent the style of Tamil artists. It has nothing to do with Buddhism.
This is baseless. We find regular worship at the temple from the time of Silappadikaram and the period of Alvars. (J’s objections to these evidences from literature are hollow and baseless as shown below).
Many south Indian temples have local Tamil names for the murtis. The case at Srivilliputtur near Virudhunagar is a classic example. The Sarangapani temple and Oppiliappan temple at Kumbakonam also belong to this list. It seems J does not know these simple facts about Tamil temples.


Let’s see how his mind works:
“These stories of self manifestation are constructed by the learned few and are incorporated in daily rituals,for ignorant many.Several sthala puranas and stories are compiled for this purpose, and incorporated in various Puranas. The purpose of these stories was not only to attach the divine importance to the shrine but also to explain to ignorant masses how they happened to come across a new image overnight. Historically speaking, it only means that the person who wrote the sthalapurana either does not really know who manufactured the murthi or does not really know who manufactured the murthi or does not want to mention it because of his vested interests, even if he knows. In plain language it existed before the sthala puranas were compiled.”


This is a great discovery! Many murtis are simply called as ‘svayamvyaktha’ just to increase the prestige of the temple and the murti. Sri Rangam, Rameshwaram and even many small Hindu temples claim to be ‘svayamvyaktha’ or ‘self manifested’. Being so, why does the author invoke some conspiracy theories? The only sensible way of explaining these ‘svayamvyktha’ stories is that some Pundits brought a new murti to an area and claim it to be ‘self manifested’ to increase its prestige among the masses (including other Brahmins). Another way of explaining it is as follows: at those places where Buddhism/Jainism flourished, Brahminical temples fell into disuse. Later, when the Buddhists/Jains were converted, the murtis discovered were dubbed as ‘self manifested’ (the latter will not apply to Tirumala as it is in existence atleast from the 2nd century CE and continuous worship has occurred).

Another claim of J:

“But none of the Buddhist kings was so intolerant to Brahmnical images so as to let it suffer such a fate.”

The intolerance of Ashoka is recorded in Ashokavadhana. It is mentioned that Ashoka killed several thousand Nigranthas. I think that this one example is more than enough to prove the author wrong.



J adds:

“On the contrary, there is a definite historical evidence that Brahmnical kings persecuted the Buddhists and Buddhists had to abandon their shrines, with the result that no bhikshus were left to look after their viharas, Hiuen Tsang has given many examples where the local deities protected themselves. L.M.Joshi has observed:
"Although Buddhism in South India during the 7th and the 8th centuries had ceased to receive royal patronage, since the Pallavas and their rival dynasties were followers of Brahmnical religion, yet it continued to face the rising opposition from Jainism and Saivism." [L.M.Joshi: 1977: 38]
"In Dhanyakataka or Dharanikota on the Krishna, many Buddhist monasteries were not in ruins when Hsuan-tsang visited the province. Still about 20 of them were occupied by about 1,000 Mahasanghika monks. The famous Purvasaila and Avarasails monasteries near the capital city (modern Bezwada) as also Amaravati, were still extant, but without any monks. In the time of Hsuan-tsang only 'the local deities guarded the monasteries.'" [L.M.Joshi: 1977: 38]”


Once again, a blatant lie is repeated shamelessly. There is no historical evidence that Hindu kings persecuted Buddhists. There was no large scale persecution of Buddhists. Buddhists lost the battle of intellect against intellectual giants such as Kumarila Bhatta, Adi Sankara etc. Their dry philosophy of ‘shunya vada’ was rejected by the people in favour of the Bhakti movement started by Alvars and Nayanmars. Buddhist monasteries fell into disuse because Buddhists converted to Hinduism. To put the blame on Hindu kings shows the perverted thinking of J.



In chapter 10 of his book, J claims that the earliest temple to Vishnu was built only in the Gupta age and that previous temples were dedicated to His avatars and not to Vishnu Himself. We will consider this claim:

The term ‘Vasudeva’ does not refer to Krishna alone. In fact, it refers to Vishnu proper as the Pancaratra texts mention. Vasudeva, Samkarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are the four Pancaratra murtis. The very name ‘Vasudeva’ became popular due to Pancaratra.
Of the above four, Vasudeva is the most prominent one. Hence, we can safely assume that the term ‘temple of Vasudeva’ refers to a temple of Vishnu Himself.
The garuda stambha of Heliodorus shows that the doctrine of Pancaratra (Bhagavata doctrine) existed even in the 2nd century BCE:
“This Garuda-column of Vasudeva (Vishnu), the god of gods, was erected here by Heliodorus, a worshipper of Vishnu(Bhagavata), the son of Dion, and an inhabitant of Taxila, who came as Greek ambassador from the Great King Antialkidas to King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra, the Savior, then reigning prosperously in the fourteenth year of his kingship."
Based on the above mentioned facts, we can conclude that temples for Vishnu existed alteast from the 2nd century BCE.


Even if we consider his claim to be true, there is nothing in it which denies the Vaishnavite character of Tirumala shrine. The murti is also considered as ‘punar avatara’ of Krishna. Also, there is nothing wrong in labeling the earlier Krishna murtis as Vishnu. Sangam literature calls the murti at Tirumal Irun Cholai as Krishna but today the murti is worshipped as Vishnu. J fails to note these facts.

Next, he claims that the earliest depiction of Vishnu is in the ‘Seshasayee’ form. Most ancient temples of North India have been destroyed. We certainly do not know anything about the innumerable temples which must have existed in ancient India. Thus, a far sweeping claim as made by J is untenable. As shown above, ‘Vasudeva’ referred to Vishnu and we know for sure that Vasudeva is, normally, depicted in a standing or sitting posture. Therefore, the claim that the most ancient forms of Vishnu were that of Seshasayee alone is wrong. Moreover, most ancient Vishnu murtis that have been found are few and far in between. Therefore, one cannot derive any conclusion from them without looking at the epigraphic evidences available. While it is true that the form of Vishnu worshipped by Devas in Hindu Puranic lore is the ‘Seshasayee’ form, other forms of Vishnu are also mentioned throughout the Puranas.

Prof. Ghurye’s words about the ‘Seshasayee’ form are misused by J. Prof. Ghurye, himself, says that the ‘seshasayee’ form is perhaps the earliest depiction of Vishnu. Ghurye, himself, makes it plain that he is not sure. It was a mere speculation made by him. J has taken this speculation as solid truth. He has not considered or gone through any primary source. The view of Indian history is undergoing a major change with the new archaeological discoveries and interpretations. Hence, relying upon old secondary data without comparing them with the primary data is unacceptable and is bound to effect wrong inferences.

The final point raised by J about the murti is that the murti has no weapons in His hands. As mentioned earlier, J considers it to be a very important proof for his claim that the murti is Avalokiteshwara. He claims that VIM attests that there were no weapons on the murti before Ramanuja’s period. This claim is contestable. Weapons are not found on the murti. They are additions. To claim that these additions were never present before Ramanuja’s period will be wrong because there is no evidence which supports this claim. Instead, we can say that weapons were worn on the murti in ancient times. Because the mula murti had no weapons, Shaivites contested with the Vaishnavites just to undermine the popularity of the resurgent Vaishnavite movements. The episode mentioned in VIM includes miracles and hence, the account is not entirely reliable.

This must be compared with all the above points raised. The presence of Lakshmi in the chest of the murti can be held as an important proof for establishing that the murti is Vishnu. The two upper arms of the murti are in ‘weapon bearing’ mudra and this mudra is not found on any Padmapani/Avalokiteshwara murti as far as I have verified. But it is the most common ‘weapon bearing’ posture in the South Indian Hindu murtis.

Therefore, the absence of weapons can be held as a peculiar feature of the murti. There is no compelling evidence which proves the murti to be Avalokiteshwara/Padmapani. Neither is there any evidence which proves that the murti is not Vishnu.

Finally, let us consider one point. Normally, Padmapani is depicted with two hands only. I have not found any painting or murti of Padmapani which has more than two hands. Avalokiteshwara is depicted with four hands (normally) though His form with one thousand hands is also found at many places (especially Tibet). But a major feature of Avalokiteshwara is that generally He is shown with two of His hands in ‘Namaste’ posture. The murti at Tirumala does not depict any such ‘namaste’ posture. In fact, a very old murti of Vishnu is given below and it is shown that the murti resembles the Tirumala murti in certain peculiar features like ‘ek-devata’, ‘varada posture’ in right hand.(Sri Vaishnavas call that mudra of right hand as ‘Vaikunta hastha’. It is different from the normal Buddhist ‘Varada’ mudra as the Vaikuntha hastha point towards the feet and not outwards. Also, in the Vaikuntha hasta position, the elbow is bent.).

The murti of Tirumala is a peculiar one. Being so, various evidences from epigraphy, literature, history etc have to be considered to establish its identity.


[Note: J claims in Chapter 10 that the murti at Tirumala is considered as that of Vishnu and not any of His avatarsTradition has it that the murti at Tirumala is a ‘punar avatara’ of Krishna and that His mother Vakula Devi was Yashoda in her previous life. Thus, tradition identifies the murti as not just Vishnu but as one of His avatars as well. As told above, the murti at Tirumala is a peculiar one. Just because a murti is peculiar, it does not mean that the murti does not represent what He is thought to represent. Peculiar Vishnu murtis are found at more than one place in Tamil Nadu. Therefore, there is nothing which is highly extraordinary with the murti at Tirumala.]




Let’s see what J says in chapter 11.

He tries to argue that because the murti does not entirely conform to the Agamic rules, the murti need not be that of Vishnu. Also, he reads a lot into Sitapati’s observation that the murti resembles the Padmapani figure at Ajanta.

As said above, Padmapani does not sport Lakshmi in His chest. Neither do the hands of Padmapani are held in the traditional (South Indian Hindu) ‘weapon bearing’ posture as the upper hands of the murti are. Even after altering the Padmapani image a lot, such an image will not exactly resemble the Tirumala murti as Padmapani does not have Lakshmi in His chest.

Also to be noted is the fact that Devapiran temple at Tholaivillimangalam near Tirunelveli, Varadarajaswamy temple at Kanchi etc are Vishnu temples where the Vishnu murti is the only murti in the sanctum.

We can also see that the lower right hand of the murti at Tholaivillimangalam is held exactly in the same manner as that of the murti at Tirumala. We make it clear that the Tholaivillimangalam murti existed during Nammazhvar’s period as Nammazhvar has sung about this murti. It must be remembered that the murti at Tirumala is identified as Vishnu by Nammazhvar and he also says that Lakshmi always resides in the chest of Tirumala murti. Hence, we may conclude that this form of murti must have been a way of representing Vishnu in the Tamil country.

J does not accept the argument that the murti can be pre-Agamic. He also argues that if the image existed when the murti was considered as Vishnu, the features of the murti would have been taken into consideration as well. Hence, he speculates that the murti cannot be a pre-Agamic murti of Vishnu. But he fails to note one thing: Agama texts do not govern the murtis of those temples which are based on some special legends and hence, such murtis and their features would not have been considered during the composition of Agamas.

Also, this argument made by J is very interesting. The same argument can be made against the identification of the murti as ‘Avalokiteshwara’. No image of Avalokiteshwara is shown with Lakshmi on His chest. The presence of Lakshmi clears any doubt about the identification of the murti.

Also, the fact that ‘Ek-devata’ temples are found in Tamil Nadu must be taken into account. Thus, the non-observance of this rule is not something extraordinary.

The Andal temple at Srivilliputtur does not conform to any of the forms which Sitapati has mentioned for standing murtis under the Vaikhanasa Agama. This in itself is a proof for the fact that many Vaikhanasa temples do not conform to the forms mentioned in the Agamas and such things happen when the temple is built based on some legend. The Tirumala temple has innumerable legends around it. Hence, such temples and murtis have many features which are peculiar to those temples and murtis. Such murtis do not comply with the Agamic rules. Therefore, the argument made by J based on the non-compliance of some rules does not fit here.

Even then, let us see what sorts of rules are not followed with regard to the Tirumala temple and whether any Vishnu murti has similarly not followed those rules.

Sitapati’s observations about ‘Nagabharanams’ on the murti is not entirely correct. The ‘Nagabharanams’ are removable just like the weapons are.

The non-compliance of rules regarding the lower right hand is also not acceptable because such postures are found at Tholaivillimangalam (as shown above), Kumbakonam Oppiliappan temple etc. No such murti of Padmapani/Avalokiteshwara exists which exactly resembles the ‘hand postures’ of the Tirumala murti.

In fact, some very peculiar Vishnu murtis are found at many places in Tamil Nadu. One or the other rule has not been followed. We regret for repetition but it has become necessary to clear the unnecessary doubts.

It must be remembered that the Tirumala murti has a feature which is very peculiar to Vishnu: Lakshmi in the chest. The ‘sacred thread’ on the body of the murti is very much peculiar to Vishnu in the Hindu pantheon with the three threads distinctly visible. The ‘weapon bearing’ posture of the upper arms of the murti is distinctly Hindu. Such a posture can be seen in the Tholaivillimangalam murti shown below. In fact, almost all chaturbhuja Vishnu murtis have such posture but this posture is not found in any of the Padmapani/Avalokiteshwara images that I have seen. Let’s see a sample image below:



Devapiran at Tholaivillimanagalam


Thus, we can see that the murti does not resemble that of Avalokiteshwara but it resembles a Vishnu murti of Tamil Nadu. There are other ancient temples which also house similar murtis.

The only feature of the murti which is very much unlike other Vishnu murtis is the lack of weapons in the upper hands. But this can be explained away as a peculiar feature of the murti. Because a host of other evidences universally attest the murti as Vishnu. Also, it must be remembered that various Vishnu murtis with very peculiar features are found in Tamil Nadu. These murtis have such features to suit the legends surrounding the murti. Tirumala temple also has numerous legends surrounding it.

One more thing which attests the fact that the murti cannot be that of Padmapani is found in a quote from Sitapati’s work cited by J in chapter 11:

“The Lord's image has on the shoulders marks resembling 'scars made by the constant wearing of the bow and a pack of arrows'."


The marks resemble 'scars made by the constant wearing of the bow and a pack of arrows’ as identified by Sitapati. This is something which cannot be found in any Avalokiteshwara murti. But it is a strong proof for the Vaishnavite claim. The murti is recognized as that of Vishnu and Vishnu as Lord Rama was a great archer. Such physical traits of Vishnu’s avatars are found in Vishnu murtis of Tamil Nadu. E.g. one individual thread of the ‘sacred thread’ of Vishnu murti at Tirupperai (near Tirunelveli in Tamil Nadu) is shown as a broken thread and legend has it that the thread was cut during Ram’s battle with the Rakshasas.


Based on the above discussions, we can decide that the murti must be Vishnu on the following points:

Lakshmi in the chest of murti. Even the earliest Tamil literary works clearly say that Lakshmi resides in the chest of Vishnu. Avalokiteshwara does not have Lakshmi in His chest. Even Tara was born out of His tears and She is not sported on the chest of His murtis.
The scars made by constant wearing of bow and arrows identify the murti’s connection with Lord Rama. Avalokiteshwara does not sport bow and arrows.
The non-observance of some Agama rules is not extraordinary and it does not invalidate the claim that the murti is Vishnu.
There are many other ek-devata temples in Tamil Nadu.
The presence of sacred thread (with the individual threads distinctly visible) and srivatsa mark are general attributes of Vishnu. These are present in the murti. These are not found on all Avalokiteshwara / Padmapani murtis.
The weapon bearing posture of the two upper hands.
The posture of the lower right hand is found among some other Vishnu murtis in Tamil Nadu.


In chapter 12, he reads a lot into the Shaiva-Vaishnava dispute over the murti which occurred during Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja’s period. He speculates that the murti was lying neglected and that the Shaivas and Vaishnavas disputed over the murti to claim it as their own. He further says that the Buddhists left that murti and temple under the attacks of Shaivas and Vaishnavas.

But J fails to note that there was no dispute over the identity of the murti until the 12th century CE. 10 out of 12 Azhvars have identified the deity as Vishnu. No Nayanmar has sung about the deity at Tirumala nor have they identified Vengadam as a Shaivite shrine. Silappadhikaram identifies the murti as Vishnu. No literary, archeological or epigraphic evidence identifies the murti as some non-Vishnu deity. Also, the murti was not an unimportant one as J claims. But it held a very exalted position in the Vaishnavite pantheon. Finally, no literary work or epigraph identifies Vengadam as a Buddhist centre.

The historical circumstances under which that dispute occurred are overlooked and not considered by J. As we have seen above, the murti was unanimously recognized as that of Vishnu until Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja’s period. It must be noted that during that period Shaiva-Vasihnava rivalry was at its zenith. Shaivas were aggressively countering the spread of Sri Vaishnavism. The Chola emperor removed a Vishnu murti from Chidambaram temple and threw the murti into the sea. He also mutilated two Sri Vaishnava scholars.

The Tirumala murti held a very special position in the Vaishnavite religion. Hence, the Shaivas tried to usurp the murti by pointing out some abnormal features of the murti (just as J is trying to do now). But that attempt was put to an end by Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja. Thus, the very assumption of J that the identification of the murti was under dispute before the period of Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja and that the murti was not worshipped before that period is wrong. Therefore, his speculation that the murti must be non-Hindu is baseless because the murti was never neglected by the Vaishnavas.

J, in chapter 13, cites Sitapati and points out the claims made by Shaktas and the lion idols on the Vimanam are also mentioned. Devi Bhagavatham is a later Purana. Also, the Shakta tradition recognizes a female form in every male deity. E.g. Gopala Sundari in Krishna. It must also be noted that the claim that the murti is Shakti is a very recent one. Such a claim was never made until the late 19th Century CE. The reason for the renewed controversies surrounding the temple is the great wealth and income of the temple. The temple has become a pan-Indian Hindu symbol and hence, many sects wish to claim it as their own. After all, money and fame are sought by everyone. People like J target only the rich Hindu temples. We can understand the motive behind their writings. They wish to bring fame to the Buddhist religion and one of the ways is to usurp the rich and widely revered Hindu temples and murtis.


Next, let us consider the issue of lion idols upon the Vimanam. Vaikhanasa scholars mention that Vishnu temples shall have Garuda/Lion upon the Vimanam. After all, Narasimha is one of the avatars of Vishnu.

We are not concerned with chapter 14 as we do not consider the murti as ‘Hari-Hara’. In our opinion, these hypotheses are made to bring together various branches of Hinduism under some form of comprehensive ‘monotheism’ as an answer to the missionaries. But we do not subscribe to any such theory nor do we consider it to be the right way to counter the missionaries.


Chapter 15 is about the value of ‘Venkatachala Itihasa Mala’. J argues that the Mala has historical value and the stories mentioned therein cannot be discarded. He does not accept the argument of Sri Veera Raghavacharya that the Mala is a book of fables and cannot be relied upon as a historical document. While the visit made by Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja to Tirumala is not contested, the claims about the alleged miracles and the lack of weapons before his visit are definitely contestable. Many such miracles and fables are added to the biographies of Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja, Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavadpada etc just to increase the fame of the concerned person. Many such fables have been proved to be false [E.g. the claim that Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja visited a Delhi Sultan and retrieved a Vishnu murti from him (there was no Muslim Sultan at Delhi during his time), the claim that Sri Adi Sankara Bhagavadpada defeated various scholars who are not contemporaries etc]. Hence, the claim made by J that there were no weapons on the murti before Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja’s period based on the Venkatachala Itihasa Mala is unproven. Even if the case was so, it does not disprove the Vaishnava claim as shown above. It is just a peculiar feature.


Chapters 16-19 make us titter in laughter. Could anyone be sillier? The way J tries to argue is comical. He claims that those very pieces of evidence which support the Vaishnavite position bolster his hypothesis.

J speaks about the evidence provided by the Azhvars. We can see that he has not cited any original source nor has he cared to refer them. He uses secondary sources and cites only some selected sentences and then twists their meaning.


Let’s consider what he says in chapter 16.

He doesn’t even know what the Shaivite saints are called. He calls them as ‘Nayanaras’. They are actually called as ‘Nayanmars’. This is more than enough to show that he has not even seen the actual primary sources of evidence/information.

Passing on to Azhvars, he claims the following:

“Murthi existed before the Alvars, and it can not be considered as Harihara Murthi only by Alvars' praying as such.”

No Azhvar claims the murti to be ‘HariHara’. It seems J has not gone through the relevant commentaries made by Sri Vaishnava scholars. When it is known that 10 out of 12 Azhvars have sung the murti as Vishnu, we can definitely say that the murti was identified as Vishnu during their times. J claims that most Azhvars did not visit Tirumala. But he does not understand one important thing: the Azhvars should have known about the murti as that of Vishnu and it must also be remembered that the murti is the second most favourite murti of the Azhvars after Sri Rangam Sri Ranganatha.

Therefore, we can say for sure that the murti was a very popular one during their period and it was a Vaishnavite shrine. Perhaps, a simple example would make him understand. A Buddhist will know that Bodh Gaya is a Buddhist place of pilgrimage even if he does not visit it. When we cite a monk’s writings about Bodh Gaya, one cannot say that because the monk did not visit Bodh Gaya the evidence offered by him identifying Bodh Gaya as a Buddhist centre must be discarded. Instead, it will be strong evidence in favour of the Buddhists because the place has been so famous that even monks who did not visit the place identified it as a major place of pilgrimage and praised its sanctity. Perhaps, J, in his zeal to usurp the murti, did not even think about this basic fact. Hence, J’s claim that most Azhvars sung about the murti without even visiting the shrine very much bolsters the Vaishnavite claim.

J cites Ragavacharya to prove his position. But J does not understand (or does not care) that Raghavacharya’s opinions are merely opinions and do not form evidence. J must have looked at the original source but he has not done so.

Next, he cites Sitapati. J, once again, fails to understand that Sitapati’s claims about the nature of the murti and temple are long contested and proved wrong as also his interpretations of Azhvars’ hymns.

Sitapati’s claim about the so called ‘Shaiva’ character of the murti based on some facts like worship with bilva leaves, presence of lion on the Vimanam, lack of Garuda sannidhi until the 15th century and some wrong information on nagabharanams, jata juta etc is fit for a laugh and nothing more. J has cared to cite Sitapati but he has not cared to meet any Sri Vaishnava/priest who has close relation with the temple.

We’ll point out how wrong the claims of Sitapati are:

Worship with bilva leaves was instituted by Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja. Bilva is sacred to Lakshmi and hence, Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja advocated the use of bilva as Lakshmi resides on the murti’s chest.
As pointed above, lions can be set atop the Vimanam as per the Vaikhanasa Agama.
Lack of Garuda Sannidhi does not mean any Shaivite connection. Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja would have ordered the construction of a Garuda Sannidhi if it the lack of it was against Vaishnavism.
The nagabharanams are removable and not a part of the murti.
Jata is not peculiar to Shiva. The very name ‘Keshava’ suggests that Vishnu/Krishna has jata. Rama is also said to have kept jata during his vanvasa. Also, ‘jata’, if present, is not even big as we cannot see it clearly even during Abhishekam.


Now let’s go back to J’s own words:

“What exactly is meant by saying that the verses of Alvars had gone into oblivion, should be understood. The poets were non- Brahmins, preaching an egalitarian religion like those of Buddhists. Naturally, elites did not care to pen these down, but the masses remembered the songs and sang them. That is how they were preserved. Later elites wished to use these songs for propagating their religion, after the fall of Buddhists, and they resurrected these verses.”


The cat is out of the bag. J is obsessed with Buddhism and tries to see shades of it even in places where it does not exist. Azhvars were preaching an ‘egalitarian religion like those of Buddhists’? Funny claim. Buddhists were more concerned with moksha rather than removal of castes. Azhvars were not opposed to casteism. In fact, they were supporters of Vaishnavite religion in its entirety. Also, not all Azhvars were non-Brahmins. 4 out of 12 Azhvars were Brahmins. One was a Kshatriya. Only one of them was an untouchable. As for J’s speculation about the method by which their hymns were preserved, it is completely baseless speculation. Legend has it that Sri Nathamuni recovered all the hymns through yogic powers. These hymns were not collected in phases by different Acharyas as claimed by Raghavacharya (cited by J in chapter 16). The most acceptable claim would be that Sri Nathamuni recovered the hymns from old manuscripts collected by him. Because Sri Nathamuni came to know about the existence of the hymns through ‘Brahmins’ and then set upon collecting them. He is said to have visited a Brahmin at Tirukkurukoor(Azhvar Tirunagari) and came to know about the way to recover the hymns.


J has not even cared to refer to the Sri Vaishnava chronicles in original. He cites some secondary source which states that Sri Nathamuni did yoga for 340 years which is baseless and is not supported by any authentic Sri Vaishnava chronicle.


Also, the reasons cited by J for commentary on Tiruvaimozhi (based on casteism) are wrong and baseless. Even a cursory view of that work will show that the hymns are highly mystic and contain a lot of codes which can be decoded and understood only by a great philosopher. Commentaries are made to make the meaning clear. Will J say that commentaries were made on the Vedas, Upanishads and Brahma Sutras to give them authority? The very idea is ridiculous. J has cited Raghavacharya to put forward his pet theory: that Nammazhvar was denied the status of Kulapati because he was a Shudra. How ridiculous? Even Mahabharata shows that knowledge must be respected where ever it resides. The story of a butcher teaching a Brahmin is very popular. Nowhere is it stated that Nammazhvar was looked down due to his caste. In fact, his first and foremost disciple was a Brahmin scholar who has composed a hymn of 11 verses in his praise. It forms a part of the ‘Divya Prabhandam’. J cites some sayings of a Shankaracharya to substantiate his pet theory. But it has nothing to do with Vaishnavism which gives respect to all great Vaishnavite saints irrespective of their birth. But it must also be remembered that Vaishnavism was not against caste as it advocated the followers to pursue their own duties and maintain the Varnashrama dharma.


Next, J claims that the evidence of Azhvars is unreliable as history. Let us see the way in which he handles the evidence given by Azhvars:

“We have seen that they had considered the murthi as of Vishnu in general terms, which is natural for them. We need not be concerned with their conceptions. We want to know what they said about the weapons in the hand and presence of Devi etc., i.e. the physical features of the murthi rather than their conception of it; that is what matters for our purpose.”


The completely biased nature of J is evident here. Even the way in which he handles the evidences is very biased.

J is not concerned with the identification of the murti as Vishnu. He is concerned only with the presence/lack of weapons, Lakshmi etc. But this method is completely flawed. Because from the evidence offered by Azhvars, we find that the murti was the second most popular one among the Tamil Vaishnavites.

Hence, we can say that the murti was considered as Vishnu atleast from the 6th century CE. Next, regarding the attributes of the murti, we can say the following:

Azhvars praise the murti in the following ways:

Normally, they praise the various murtis based on Vishnu’s various avatars and leelas.
Sometimes, they refer to the attributes of the murti as well.


Nammazhvar refers to a peculiar attribute of the Tirumala murti:

“Goddess Alarmelmangai always resides at the chest of Tirumala murti.” (Tiruvaimozhi 6.10.10)

‘Alarmelmangai’ is the name of Lakshmi at Tirumala and Tirupati. Hence, we can definitely say that Lakshmi was present in the murti atleast from the time of Azhvars.



Let us ask J certain questions:

Can J point out any peculiar Buddhist feature on the murti?
‘Lack of weapons’ is no evidence. The murti has ‘weapon bearing’ posture. Why is it that J has not considered this crucial point?
Can J offer any literary or archeological or epigraphic evidence which identifies the murti as Avalokiteshwara or points out to Buddhist activity on Venkatam?


Next, we consider a quote which is cited by J:

“As most of the Alvars belonged to Shudra caste, it is said that they abstained form ascending the hill which was considered sacred. At least the reason put forward for not putting the images of Alvars in Tirumalai is said to be Alvars' hesitation to set foot on the hill. [Aiyangar: I,151]”


Once again, a secondary source is cited. J has not even cared to verify the primary sources. 4 out of 12 Azhvars were Brahmins. One was a Kshatriya. No Azhvar was an untouchable except Tiruppanazhvar. Hence, all the other Azhvars had the right to enter the temples. The theory put forth by Aiyangar is ridiculous and J has, once again, cited a secondary source without even verifying the primary sources. The actual reason for the absence of Azhvars on Tirumala is this: initially, there was no provision for murtis of mortals to be installed in temples under the Vaikhanasa Agama. These were later added to their practice in order to accommodate Sri Vaishnavas. But Tirumala was the stronghold of Vaikhanasas and hence, they were not forced to give up their ancient traditions too often. The only mortal who has a shrine within the temple walls is Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja who enjoys a special position at Tirumala due to his role in laying down the rules for worshipping the murti.

In chapter 17, he cites various secondary sources and has not cared to go through the original works of the Azhvars. He simply depends upon secondary sources. Also, it is clear that he does not understand or even care about the mystic hymns of Azhvars. Azhvars identify any Vishnu murti with His various avatars. They are not archaeologists who describe the physical features of the murti. They sing in devotional ecstasy.

The greatest evidence offered by the Azhvars is that the murti was considered as Vishnu during their period. Moreover, the place was very popular as a Vaishnavite shrine even during the times of Azhvars. The fact that Nayanmars have not sung about the murti shows that there was no dispute about the identity of the murti during their period.

J does not care about any of these facts. He dismisses the various pro-Vaishnava evidences on flimsy grounds. But he upholds his theory even when he cannot show a single piece of direct evidence. This is hypocrisy at its extreme limits.

In chapter 18, J cites Raghavacharya and claims that Azhvars copied Buddhist principles with regard to caste-abolition and equality of women. Azhvars never opposed caste system. They were valiant supporters of this system. But they considered a Vaishnavite Shudra to be better than a non-Vaishnavite Brahmin. This was due to the importance accorded to philosophical tenets. Among Vaishnavites, caste system and caste hierarchy were accepted by the Azhvars. My advice to J is that he must go through primary sources before claiming anything.

J accepts that Azhvars were anti-Buddhist. Then he says that we could not rely upon the evidence offered by Azhvars because they will not identify the murti as a Buddhist one.
It seems J has been so much blinded by his preconceived notions that he has failed to apply his mind properly.

Azhvars were not only anti-Buddhist but they were opposed to all non-Vaishnava religions (including other Hindu sects like Shaivism). They clearly state that they would not worship any deity other than Vishnu. No Azhvar will claim any Buddhist murti as Vishnu because they just cannot bear to worship any non-Vishnu murti. If the Azhvars needed a murti, they could have made a new one. The Hindus knew how to make murtis. There was no need for them to usurp any Buddhist murti. Therefore, the very fact that the they have sung about the murti is a powerful evidence for the fact that the murti is Vishnu. J fails to note the above points.

Also, in chapter 18, J cites some Sharma who claims that Tirumangai Azhvar had a friendly meeting with Jnanasambandar at ‘Shiyali’.

Now, we know what kind of ‘scholars’ are cited by J. The name of the place is ‘Sirkazhi’ and not ‘Shiyali’. Also, there was nothing ‘friendly’ in the meeting. It is said that they competed against each other as to who is the better poet among the two. Sharma’s claims that Janansambandar told Tirumangai Azhvar about an old Vishnu murti in a priest’s house is also baseless. Vaishnavite chronicles do not speak about such a thing.

J completes Chapter 18 as follows:

“Tirumalai was a compromise site
Alvars had to join hands with Saivite saints to fight Buddhism. The selection of Vengadam was a compromise site. The important point that is missed by the scholars is why Tirumalai was a compromise site? Raghavacharya observes:
"...when faced with the spread of Buddhism and Jainism they (Alvars) were put to necessity of postulating a God and a religion which was neither rank Saivism nor rank Vaishnavism, Tiruvengadamudaiyan was thus represented as the only true God who combines in Himself all the Murthis..." [Ibid.:I,39]
Why Vengadam was thought to be neither rank Saivism nor rank Vaishnavism? Is it not a natural conclusion that it belonged neither to Vaishnavites nor to Saivities, it was recently usurped by these people and not founded by them. That is why it was treated as if it was no man's property, that is why the worship was not settled, that is why Alvars postulated a mixed claim, that is why some of the verses of Alvars can be interpreted as combination of Siva and Vishnu, that is why a new silver replica with sankha and chakra had to be installed, and that is why Sitapati and his friends keep on saying 'vyakta Vishnu, vyakta- avyakta Siva'. The so called main evidence of this theory, the evidence of Alvars, is discussed above and no valuable inference can be derived from Alvars' verses and the theory of vyakta Vishnu, vyakta-avyakta Siva is a false and misleading myth which has no historical background, and it needs to be abandoned forthwith. “



The very claim of Raghavacharya is baseless. J’s inferences are based on these baseless claims.

The claims made by Sitapati or Raghavacharya are themselves modern which is a result of the recent attempts at compromise between Shaivites and Vaishnavites (who are arch rivals in South India except Kerala). J cannot show any piece of literature before the 18th Century which supports the claim made by them. Nor can he show any piece of evidence even from the works of Azhvars themselves. The verses which are considered by the above two as referring to Harihara have been wrongly interpreted by them. Many verses of Azhvars identify Vishnu as everything. Nammazhvar, in his Tiruvaimozhi(10.10), identifies Narayana as the Trimurtis. Only a person with basic idea about the mysticism of Azhvars’ hymns can understand their meaning.



In Chapter 19, J reads a lot of meaning into the Vaikuntha hastha of Tirumala murti. He compares the vaikuntha hasta with the varada mudra of Buddhist murtis. But he fails to note that varada mudra of Buddhist murtis normally face outwards and not downwards towards the feet neither do they have their elbow bent at right angle. The vaikuntha hasta (of Tirumala murti) point towards the feet and the elbow is bent at right angle.


Next he speaks about the Srivatsa mark which has been already dealt by us. He reads a lot into the katyavalambita pose but he fails to note that the pose is found in Agama texts itself. Next, he writes about the lack of Vaijayanti mala on the Tirumala murti. But he fails to note that it is not found on many Vishnu murtis. The presence of Lakshmi is more than enough to establish the identity of the murti.

In chapter 20, he writes his ‘opinions’ on the presence of Lakshmi. We have already dealt with these arguments. But I would like to add a few words here:

Brahmins did not copy Bodhisattvas. They simply assimilated Buddha. But even this assimilation was done later.
But Buddhists took into their fold various Vedic deities.
An example is given: Chapter One of Lankavatara Sutra mentions ‘Sakra(Indra), Brahma and Upendra(Vishnu).
Lakshmi is also one such adoption from the Vedic religion.


In chapter 21, he cites information about Avalokiteshwara murtis and their supposed similarity to Vishnu murtis. He himself cites that Avalokiteshwara was worshipped from the 4th century CE. But we have shown above that the Tirumala murti is being worshipped atleast from the second century CE. Also, we have shown that murti worship was done by the Hindus even during the 4th century BCE. Buddhists indulged in murti worship only from the period of Kanishka. Thus, Buddhists copied murti worship from the Hindus just as they had copied Vedic deities. Any similarity between Bodhisattvas and Hindu murtis is due to the fact that the Buddhist copied them from the Hindus.

The Tirumala murti was present in the second century CE itself. Hence, the murti cannot be that of a Bodhisattva. The evidence offered by Silappadhikaram and the credibility and date of the text establishes this clearly.

J also expresses his views on the pedestal of the murti in this chapter. These views have been countered by us.

Next, he cites one Dhere who claims that the ‘namam’ is worn on the deity to cover the third eye. This claim is wrong as the murti can be seen with a very thin ‘namam’ during ‘netra darshanam’ and no third eye has been seen by anyone during the weekly Abhishekham of the murti. J, based on Dhere’s claim, imagines that the third eye/ crescent mentioned in VIM could be the wound after removing Dhyani Buddha from the murti. J is imagining things which are based on some unproved/wrong claims. The crescent mentioned by some people is simply a decorative line on the crown and it does not resemble the crescent exactly. Nor does it look like any wound.

Finally, J speaks about ‘vajralepa’ being performed on the murti. J claims that some contradictory findings are there in the murti. Before this presumption, he has asked certain questions:

“There are cetain points which are not properly explained by the historians. It is sure that worship of Lakshmi was started not before the days of Alvander, in South Indian Vaishnavism. In North it was much later. In such conditions, how do we find presence of Lakshmi on the Lord's chest? Was it there since the beginning of manufacture of the murthi or was it carved later on?
Was the srivatsa mark on the chest present on the murthi since beginning?
Nagbhushanams are mentioned by Saivites in their claim and it was accepted by Ramanuja, as per Venkatachala Itihasmala as we have already seen. Are they still there? P.Sitapati, writing in 1972, mentions them to be present as we have already seen [Sitapati: 19] but T.T.K.Veera Raghavacharya avers with equal force, in 1951, that they are not there. [Raghavacharya: I,294] Both these authors are intimately connected with the temple.
Silappadhikaram describes a bow. Was it there? If it was, why was it removed? It cannot be argued that bow was against Vaishnavism and hence it was not necesary to remove it. Was it really a bow that was described or was it a long lotus stalk whose flower is broken?”



J exposes his hypocrisy very clearly in these sentences. The blatant lie written by J about Lakshmi in Vaishnavism has been exposed by us. J tries to classify all the Vaishnavite attributes of the murti as later additions. As for the Nagabhushanams, it must be noted that they are not integral parts of the murti and that they are removable like the weapons.

But the height of hypocrisy is exposed in his imagination that the bow mentioned in Silappadhikaram could be a lotus stalk. If that is accepted, it must also be accepted that the murti had discus and conch as well. It seems, in his zeal, J has not even cared to think about this implication.

There is no evidence which says that the murti was ever altered. J tries to dismiss all pro-Vaishnavite features as later additions based on ‘nil-evidence’. But we can also make counter claims that the weapons on the murti were removed to suit the sthala purana which was written later. But any such hypothesis would be wrong because there is no evidence for any such change effected in the murti.

Finally, we shall point out some interesting cases:

Some very peculiar Vishnu murtis are found in Tamil Nadu. These are so made to suit the legends surrounding them:
The Yathokthakari temple at Kanchi where the murti is found lying with the head on our right side. This is opposite to the normal depiction.
The murti at Tirupperai has a broken thread in the sacred thread.
The murti at Sri Rangam has the mark of being tied with a rope at the waist.
The Utsava murti of Triplicane (Chennai) has wounds on His face.
The Narasimha murti at Singa Perumal Koil has three eyes.
The Sarngapani murti (Seshasayee) at Kumbakonam has the head in the ‘rising up’ (uttaana) posture.


Next, we are considering chaper 22.Here J identifies Nagas with Dasas and Dasyus. Mere repetition of some theories formulated by someone does not become valid evidence. Dasas and Dasyus referred to Iranian people. They called themselves Daha and Dahyus. Also, the conflict between Indo-Aryans and Iranians can be identified in the Rg Veda as the Deva-Asura conflict.


The word ‘Nagas’ does not refer to Dravidians. Nagas are mere mythical beings. This is attested by the entire corpus of ancient Buddhist and Hindu literature. A mere look at the depiction of Ramagrama stupa by Buddhists artists at Amaravati will confirm it.

The claims made on the basis of the extent of Ashoka’s empire in South India are mere speculations. Ashokan edicts do not speak about any Buddhist centre at Venkatam nor do any other Buddhist text of Sri Lanka or India.

It is true that most of the ancient inscriptions of Tamil Nadu are Buddhist or Jain in character and they are found at those places which were the residence of monks. But this does not mean, in any sense, that these two religions were the major religions of the Tamil country in that period due to the following reasons:

As pointed out by Iravatham Mahadevan, Tamil script is derived from Brahmi which was brought into this part of the country mainly by Buddhist and Jain missionaries.
The practice of making edicts/epigraphs was started by Ashoka. No emperor before him is known to have issued rock edicts.
Buddhists and Jains followed this policy.
The Sangam literature belongs to pre-Kalabhran era and it clearly points out that the society was predominantly Hindu. Jainism and Buddhism were later introductions.
The Sangam literature does not speak about any rock cut inscriptions / epigraphs prevalent at that time.
Even the Buddhist and Jain inscriptions are found only at some isolated places which had monasteries and this stands against the claim that Buddhism was widely prevalent.
The claim made by J that Sangam literature belongs to a period later than these inscriptions is baseless. As pointed out by us, Sangam corpus belongs to pre-Kalabhran era.
As the edicts, pointed out by J, do not mention much about the various rulers of the period, we can conclude that the rulers were not benefactors of these religions during that period. This fact also stands in opposition to J’s claim that Buddhism was the dominant religion.


Finally, we may ask J a question: Do the inscriptions speak about any Buddhist shrine at Tirumala? The answer will be ‘no’. Being so, I don’t understand why J is speaking about these inscriptions. The purpose of his book is to show that Tirumala murti is Avalokiteshwara. This cannot be proved by these inscriptions. Even if J believes that Buddhist activity was predominant in the region, it does not mean that Hindu temples would not have been built. Surely, he does not expect Jain/Buddhist monks to write about Hindu temples in their monasteries??


Then J quotes Barnet:

“About the early history of South India, Barnet rightly observes:
"Even in the first entry of Christian era the south seems to have felt little influence from the Aryan culture of Northern India. Some Brahmin colonies had made their way into the south, and in a few cases Brahmins had gained there a certain position in literature and religion; but on the whole they counted for little in the life of the people, especially as their teachings were counter balanced by the influence of the powerful Buddhist and Jain churches, and Dravidian society was still free from the yoke of the Brahman caste system..." [Barnet L. D.: I, p.540] ”


Note the words – ‘Barnet rightly observes’. How does J decide that Barnet is right in his observation? A look at the Sangam literature will show that the four Varnas and Vedic religion were well-established among the Tamil people. Tamils were essentially Hindu. The only source of evidence which points out the social situation of ancient Tamil society is the Sangam literature. The most ancient Tamil kings like ‘Pandiyan Emperor Palyagasalai Mudukudumi Peruvazhuthi’ are shown performing a number of Vedic sacrifices. Buddha or Mahavira is not mentioned even once in Puranaanuru which speaks a lot about the Kings and the social structure of ancient Tamil society. But Puranaanuru does speak about the various Hindu deities, incidents in Ramayana, Vedic sacrifices, Varna system etc. Barnet says ‘Brahmins counted for little in the life of the people’. How does he arrive at this decision? A look at Puranaanuru shows that Brahmins occupied an exalted position in the society.


J cites Kosare who claims – ‘Nanaghat inscription of Naaganika (Journal of Bombay Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 13, 1870, p.311) mentions yajnyas being performed by Gotamiputra Satkarni. The nature of these Vedic yajnyas must be considered as a political act of a Kshatriya to raise ones own political prestige, status and glory as an Emperor. These yajnyas had absolutely no
Brahmanic effect on the republican style of their social culture in Satvahana times. Similarly, there are no records to show that any other king of Satvahana dynasty performed any Vedic sacrifices. On the contrary, it appears that Buddhism flourished and developed to a great extent during the Satvahana period”


Does it ring anything? A’Buddhist’ king did ‘Vedic sacrifices’ do increase his prestige?! But there arises a basic question: how could a Buddhist king perform Vedic sacrifices for increasing his prestige? Buddhism, in its essence, stands against such sacrifices. There are many other ways to increase a king’s prestige. Ashoka did not perform any Vedic sacrifice after his conversion to Buddhism. A person must not, in his zeal to prove his theory, indulge in deriving wrong conclusions. As for the claim that no other Satavahana king was a Hindu, we ask a question: what does the religion of other kings has to do with Goutamiputra Satakarni? He performed Vedic sacrifices and hence, he was a Hindu king. As additional information, I would like to point out that King Satakarni of second century BCE also performed Vedic sacrifices and there is no evidence which says that all Satavahana Kings other than Goutamiputra Satakarni were Buddhists. On the contrary, Buddhist influence increased only after his period during the 2nd Century CE (towards the end of the dynasty) when Acharya Nagarjuna was lived in the kingdom. Thus, we can say that Satavahana dynasty had both Hindu and Buddhist rulers. The Buddhist Kings contributed a lot to Buddhist art and architecture. But one important thing to note is this: their art was aniconic (i.e.) they denied any representation of Buddha in human form even in highly descriptive scene. Hence, we can conclude that Satavahanas would not have built any Buddhist temple with murtis.

Even here, I wish to ask some questions: is it necessary that no Hindu temple would be built under a Buddhist ruler? Do the Satavahana inscriptions speak about a Buddhist shrine at Venkatam? What does Satavahana Empire has to do with Tamil country when we know that they did not rule the Tamil country?

Next, J writes about the rule of Ikshvakus of Sriparvata. Even here, the first ruler was a Hindu who did Vedic sacrifices. Only the later rulers were Buddhists. Also, the whole dynasty lasted for 57 years only.

Next, J tries to identify Tondaimandalam as land of Nagas. But as we have pointed above, Nagas are ‘mythical’ beings. Does J say that people with serpent heads / people who can perform magic and live underground or underwater lived in Tondaimandalam? I request J to consider various sources of evidence before arriving at a conclusion.

Then, J says that Vengadam was the land of ‘Pullis’. We would like to point out that Pulli is the name of a particular king/chieftain. It is not the name of a dynasty. Vengadam was called ‘Pullikunram’ because Pulli was ruling over it during that period. In Puranaanuru (Song 385), we see that Vengadam (or Venkatam) is mentioned as the place of Pulli. J’s claim that the ancient name of Venkatam was ‘Pullikunram’ is baseless and entirely wrong.

Next, J cites K.Aiyangar and claims that the rulers of Vengadam were Kalabhras who were Buddhists. We wish to point out that Vengadam is never mentioned as a place of Buddhists in any Sangam work nor do they identify Pulli as a Buddhist. The identification of Kalabhras with the people of Vengadam is a mere theory without any evidence. We would like to point out some inconsistencies in this identification:

Kalabhras were not identified with any known people by the Tamil people. They certainly knew about the tribes of Vengadam and they would have mentioned them had it been that the Kalabhras were tribes of Vengadam.
Kalabhras did not title themselves as Tamil or belonging to the Tamil country. Pulli was a Tamil chieftain. Vengadam was the northernmost region of Tamil country.

Then J gets back to his pet theory. He claims that the Kalabhras fought against Brahmin supremacy and hence, were abused by Brahmin epigraphists once their rule ended. So, whenever any ruler harasses the Brahmins, they fight against the ‘Brahmin supremacy’. But when a ruler opposes the Buddhists, he is a tyrannical ruler. J would not say that the ruler fought against the monks’ high-handedness. What sort of ‘unbiased’ scholarship is this?

We would like to mention that the Kalabhras were ruthless conquerors who destroyed the fabric of Tamil society. They can be called as oppressors of Hinduism due to the fact that even Brahmadeya (lands given to Brahmins as fees for performing sacrifices) were confiscated by them and thus, the Brahmins were denied their source of livelihood. Oppression of Brahmins would result in oppression of Hinduism as Brahmins form the torchbearers of Hindu religion just as the monks form the root of Buddhism.

J says:

“Strangely enough, even the modern scholars such as Sastri like to call this period as `dark' only because it was an anti- Brahmanic age, not withstanding the creation of the excellent literature. This is the psyche of Indian scholars. Nothing appears great to them unless it is done for bettering the cause of chaturvarnya.”

The creation of excellent Tamil literature had nothing to do with Kalabhran Kings. These were the works of Buddhist and Jain monks and some Hindu scholars as well. They do not mention much about the ‘great Kalabhran’ Kings. Any grants or support from these kings are not as frequently mentioned as grants from the Tamil Kings. Therefore we can say that the Kalabhras were not interested in Tamil and its literature unlike the earlier Kings and this is also a reason for terming their rule as ‘dark’. Sastri (whom J cites) is wrong in claiming that Silappadhikaram, Manimekhalai etc belong to the Kalabhran period. They speak about Chera, Chola and Pandya Kings. They do not mention anything about the Kalabhras. Also, Pandya kings did not exist during the Kalabhran rule.

Then, J claims that Kalabhras were Buddhists. We do not contest this claim entirely. But we would like to point out that there were both Jains and Buddhists among them. Digambara Jain Kalabhras were dominant in Pandya kingdom. The number of Buddhists among the Kalabhras must have been very low. That was why Jainism flourished in that place and many Hindu shrines occupied by Jains (these shrines were later reclaimed by the Hindus. See the works of M.Arunachalam esp. ‘The Kalabharas in the Pandiya country and their Impact on the Life and Letters there, University of Madras, 1979.’).

Also, J fails to mention that there is no history of any persecution of Buddhists by Tamil Hindus. While Jain monks were persecuted in some isolated incidents in the Pandya country, nowhere in Tamil Nadu were Buddhists monks persecuted nor were Buddhist shrines usurped by the Hindus. The single incident of Sri Tirumangai Azhvar stealing from a Buddhist vihara is not a case of persecution of Buddhists. He simply stole an image. Neither did he set fire to the vihara nor did he harm any monks. He is shown to have indulged in highway robbery as well. Thus, it was merely a case of robbery and not a case of persecuting the Buddhists.

J says that the mention of festivals at Tirumala but the non-mentioning of any murti stand against Tirumala being a Buddhist shrine. J must understand that Sangam poets do not mention the temples of every city about which they sing. It is done rarely. Therefore, the non-mentioning of temple does not mean absence of temple. Also, the evidence offered by Silappadhikaaram is very clear. Hence, we can be sure that the temple existed in the 2nd century CE. Moreover, ‘Vengadam’ was the name of a small country as well. The country was named after the most prominent hill of that country. Hence, J’s views that the festivals were held on the mountain-top are uncalled for. We do not know whether they were held at the foothills or at the mountain top. Even if the festivals mentioned were held on the mountain top, they would have been held at the temple as the existence of the temple is proved by Silappadhikaaram.

Finally, J tries to argue that the ‘Sravana festival’ held on the hill could be the Sravana festival of Buddhists. This is what happens when people who do not know about the terms used try to comment upon them. The festival mentioned is ‘Tiruvona thiruvizha’. ‘Tiruvonam’ refers to Sravana nakshatra and this festival is held in Purattasi month (Bhadrapada). Even today, the Brahmotsavam is held at Purattasi Tiruvonam in Tirumala. This has nothing to do with the Sraavana month festival of Buddhists. ‘Sravana’ nakshatra is sacred to Vishnu. Vishnu is the deity of that nakshatra. ‘Tiruvonam’ festival is mentioned in Sangam work, Maduraikkanchi (590-591). J must have taken a look at the primary source before deciding whether ‘Sravana’ is ‘Sraavana’ month or ‘Sravana’ nakshatra.

In the next paragraph, J claims that the murti was installed during Kalabhran era. We have proved that the murti was in existence during the pre-Kalabhran era as Silappadhikaaram – a pre-Kalabhran epic – mentions it.

Then, J claims that Tondaiman mentioned in the Sthala Purana is a myth. He says that he cannot be identified with Sangam Age Kings as there was no murti then. We have shown that the murti was present in the pre-Kalabhran era. Then we would like to mention about one Tondaiman of Puranaanuru (Song 95). In our opinion, it is possible that he could be the Tondaiman mentioned in the Puranas. Though, it is also possible that the temple was built by some other Tondaiman who lived long before this Sangam song. We cannot conclude anything about his identity as we do not have a list of rulers belonging to various dynasties which ruled in the Sangam and pre-Sangam age. But to claim that the Tondaiman of Sthala Purana is a myth is not based on any solid evidence. Judgement on his identity cannot be made due to lack of evidence.

J’s another argument runs as follows:

“……….secondly the prayer of Tondaman to wear the weapons invisibly, as mentioned in later Puranas, indicates that this Puranic story mentioning the absence of weapons is definitely a later introduction to justify the absence of weapons.”

This need not be the case as will be pointed out below:

1) The Yathokthakari temple at Kanchi where the murti is found lying with the head on our right side. This is opposite to the normal depiction.
2) The Sarngapani murti (Seshasayee) at Kumbakonam has the head in the ‘getting up’ (uttaana) posture.

In the above cases, the murti’s peculiar features are connected with a bhakta. In the first case, the Lord is claimed to have come out of His temple on a bhakta’s request and then decided to lie in the opposite direction to prove to the future generations that He came out of the temple.

In the second case, the Lord is said to have lifted up His head on a bhakta’s request.

Based on these above two cases, we can say that the claim made by J is unnecessary and does not suit to South Indian temples. In many temples, the murtis have peculiar features and these are explained as later developments due to bhaktas’ prayers. Hence, J need not speculate that the murti must have been non-Vishnu and that these stories were formed only to usurp it. Further, I would like to clarify that the bhakta in the above two cases is a historical character – Tirumazhisai Azhvar. Hence, one cannot even say that Tondaiman cannot be a historical character due to the miracle involved.

J has also claimed that Vengadam was occupied by Buddhist tribes. We would like to point out that there is not even a single piece of evidence which says that Vengadam was occupied by Buddhist tribes.

Then J claims that Pulli and Tiraiyan belong to the same ‘Kalabhran’ tribe. As pointed above, Kalabhras cannot belong to any of the two dynasties as the Tamils would have known their identity then.

Then J says “In spite of all this it seems Brahmins could not get rid of the name of Tondaman who finds a place in the Puranas as founder of Tirupati. We have to remember that Pullis, Tiraiyans, Tondamans represent people rather than individuals,”


J’s ‘anti-Brahmin’ mindset is so deep that he portrays Brahmins in a negative
Sense even where there is no reason for doing so. J’s claim that Brahmins could not get rid of the name of Tondaiman is a great comedy. Why should they get rid of it? And if they were making some cock and bull stories (as claimed by J), they could have easily used any other name if they did not like ‘Tondaiman’. J could claim that they were unable to do so because people remembered about Tondaiman building the shrine. If the case was so, they would also have remembered the nature of the shrine and would not have accepted any change made in its nature. The name of the builder is far easy to change than the nature of the shrine. In his ‘anti-Brahminist’ zeal, it seems J has failed to consider this.


J also says:
“one could see how Tondaman is designated as 'Chakravarthi' when in story itself he was described as no more than a small chieftain. At the same time, the Kalabhras who were the same
people, when they uprooted various kings and convulsed the great Emperors for centuries, are designated as 'wicked', 'kali-asar' etc. simply because they had to depict these people in the first place as devotees of Brahmanism and in the second place as enemies of Brahmanism.”


This is common to all religious sects. Any ruler, who supports their religion, is praised sky-high by those religionists while those who ‘oppose’ theirs are branded as cruel. Still we would like to point out that the Kalabhras were different from Tondaman. Hinduism does not brand ‘non-Hindus’ as Satan or cruel. Hindus call only those rulers who destroy their culture as ‘asura’, wicked, cruel etc.



In chapter 23, J reads a lot into the words ‘Emperuman’ found on the inscriptions at Tirumala before 966CE. He claims that ‘Emperuman’ could have meant ‘Buddha’ and that was why the Brahmin priests changed the term to ‘SriVaishnava Rakshai’ from ‘Emperumanadiyar Rakshai’.

But this hypothesis is entirely wrong because of the following facts:

‘Emperuman’ is used to refer to Vishnu even today and there is a practice of referring to the Sri Vaishnavas as ‘Emperuman Adiyargal’.
‘Sri Vaishnava’ is Sanskrit while ‘Emperuman Adiyargal’ is Tamil.
Throughout the Sri Vaishnava literature, Emperuman is used to refer to Lord Vishnu. The term ‘Emperumanar’(a title of Sri Bhagavad Ramanuja) is derived from the word ‘Emperuman’.
The only probable reason for the change in term could be that the term ‘Sri Vaishnava’ in Sanskrit was coined only during the 10th Century CE and that the term was used in inscriptions from that period. Note that Azhvars did not use the term ‘Sri Vaishnava’.

It will do good to J if he reads atleast a part of the enormous Sri Vaishnava literature before arriving at some conclusions about the terms used by them.


In chapter 24, J makes a lot of speculations over the reasons for which temples were built at Tiruchukkanur. We do not consider these speculations in this essay due to the following reasons:

They are mere speculations made on the basis of some secondary sources.
They do not prove, in any way, that the murti on Tirumala was a Buddhist deity at any point of time.
Nor do they prove that the temple of Tirumala was non-Vaishnavite during that time.

J reads a lot into the absence of inscriptions at Tirumala before the 9th century CE. Our answer is this: the present temple is considered to be built only in the 9th Century CE. Therefore, any earlier inscription cannot be found at the present structure. Such inscriptions must have existed in the older temple which was renovated thoroughly in the later period of the first millennia. J may claim that such renovation must have been done to erase the non-Vaishnavite characteristics. But such a hypothesis is unnecessary. Conspiracy theories need not be considered here. Many temples have been thoroughly renovated even in the present century in order to strengthen the structure or completely rebuilt where the older temple had become dilapidated. It must be remembered that Tirumala was a forest in ancient times. Therefore, repairs could not have been carried out very often, even though it was a popular shrine. All these factors must be considered before forming any hypotheses. Also, no theory can be formed without any piece of evidence supporting it. There is no single direct evidence which supports J’s theory. There is absolutely no evidence which points out any Buddhist shrine at Tirumala.

Then J continues his policy of citing ‘nil evidence’ assumptions and speculations. He combines them with his own speculations and forms ‘bombastic’ stories. He claims that the five rathas at Mahabalipuram must be Buddhist structures. He simply cites some persons who make ‘assumptions/speculations’ which suit his anti-Brahminism. The claim made about the rathas is baseless (as usual) due to the following facts:

The art works at Mahabalipuram were commissioned by the Pallava Kings who were Shaivites.
There is nothing in the structures which can be identified as peculiarly Buddhist. They have simply followed the prevailing art style.
There are no Buddhist sculptures while sculptures of Shaivism are found.
The identification of elephant with Indra cannot be called wrong. Worship of Indra would be conducted at a sea-port (as in Kaveripattinam). The claim made by J that worship of Indra had stopped during the Pallava period is not proven.
The elephant may also refer to Lord Murugan. Elephant was the earliest vahana of Lord Murugan.

In chapter 25, J deals with Silappadhikaram in the clumsiest and most high handed manner. He considers Silappadhikaram as unreliable based on some cock and bull stories born out of his specualtion.

Let’s see what he offers us about the date of Silappadhikaram:

“Secondly, it presupposes that we know exactly when those particular lines, mentioning sankha and chakra, were written. Unfortunately scholars do not agree with the dates of this epic and there is great confusion about the dates. On the end Sitapati places the text in 18th century, [Sitapati P., Sri Venkateshwara, p. 88] making it unnecessary for our purpose to discuss anything about it. On the other end Kasthuri Sreenivasan, author of modern drama version of Silappadhikaran in English "The Anklet", places the text to 1st or 2nd century A.D. [K.Sreenivasan, The Anklet, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, p. vii]
Dr. Swamikannu Pillai places this text in 756 A.D. [Raghavacharya: II: 1008]. Whether such a precise dating is possible, seems to be doubtful. Also, dating of many other dignitaries based on this date, and calculation seem useless. Veera Raghavacharya has criticised the way Dr. Pillai has estimated the dates of Alwars. [Ibid., Vol. II, p. 996].
This kind of situation makes this text useless as historical literacy evidence, for presence of shankha and chakra on the image in 8th century.”



First of all, I clarify a fact: the epic is ‘SilappadhikaraM’ and not ‘SilappadhikaraN’. This is not a mere typo at one place. But throughout the entire book, the author calls the epic as ‘SilappadhikaraN’. Our esteemed author does not even know the name of the book properly and he is offering his ‘opinions’ about the book. Great fun!! Hear O scholars! This is ‘true scholarly feat’!


I don’t know what Sitapati knows about the epic and how he arrives at such a late date? A ridiculous date of 18th century?? Truly baffling!! Any serious Tamil scholar will tell us that such a date is completely impossible.

Gajabahu synchronism is also not mentioned or considered by J. Gajabahu, King of Sri Lanka attended the coronation of the Chera monarch. Gajabahu (mentioned as ‘Kayavaku’ in the epic) ascended the throne in 2nd century CE. Also, the epic mentions about ‘Nootruvan Kannar’ (i.e.) ‘Satakarni’. Hence, the epic cannot be later than the 2nd Century CE. This is a pre-Kalabhran classic. If a person considers the list of Tamil kings and their probable period, he will find that the period of the Sangam literature and ancient epics cannot be later than 3rd century CE as they are pre-Kalabhran. J could not know these things as he is simply citing secondary references in a ‘cut and paste’ method and considers only those materials which might support his preconceived notions. Ilango Adigal and Pandiyan Nedunchezhiyan lived before the period of the Kalabhras. Certainly, Silappadhikaram cannot be dated later than 2nd century CE.


His next argument:

“Thirdly, its author is said to be Ilango Adigal, a scholar not belonging to brahmnism, but who was either a Jain or Buddhist. His being non-brahmnic, is considered by Aiyangar to be important and the account given by him about the Vengadam hill to be more reliable and authentic. [Aiyangar: I:49] This belief does not really have any basis.
As he belonged to non_brahmnic faith, he would not be expected to go to a Vishnu shrine for worship, and he would not undertake such a hazardous journey, unless he was a serious devotee of the deity on the hill. And if we presume that the deity was at that time considered to be Vishnu, we have to consider that his description was based on preconceived ideas from Puranas. On the contrary these verses should prove that the shrine was not considered brahmin as dignitaries like Ilango Adigal, from non-brahmin (Jain or Buddhist) Royal family visited it.”


J is not even sure whether Ilango was a Jain or a Buddhist. Ilango Adigal was a Jaina monk. The deity was considered as that of Vishnu during his time. It was also a very popular shrine and that is why he mentions that a Brahmin of Pandya country makes a pilgrimage to the Vishnu temple at Venkatam. Remembering the fact that Buddhism was alive in Tamil land during his time, the very fact that the deity was identified as that of Vishnu is a significant proof in itself. It is a great comedy that J, who shows no proof for his venomous outpourings against Brahmins, rejects a strong pro-Hindu evidence without even reading the primary source once. He exposes his perverted and crude thinking in very clear terms.


Let’s see another example of his perverted thinking. When Alvars’ hymns are shown, he says that they cannot be considered because they are Vaishnavites. When a Jaina monk’s work is shown, he says that it is not acceptable as a proof because he is a non-Vaishnava. So, whatever be your evidence, it will be rejected by J if they do not conform to his ‘ideas’.


Let’s see his very first argument:

“a)Firstly, it presupposes that there were no interpolations and the whole of Silappadhikaran, was received by us in its original form. When people have expressed doubts about a book like Venkatachal Itihas Mala about it being a tampered book, how does one suppose that Silappadhikaran which was a subject matter of various dramas acted on village folk theaters since centuries till about 50 years ago, was received by us in original form, and that there was no influence, of Vaishnava faith prevailing in the region for centuries, on this originally nonbrahmnic text.”


What is the proof that the particular lines are an interpolation? Just because those lines prove J to be wrong, he tries to brand them as ‘interpolation’. Before branding the verses as interpolations, J must show the reason. There are many genuine Tamil scholars who can identify interpolations into this great work which is the best of the five ancient epics. J must know that interpolations in ancient Tamil texts are, generally, easily noticeable and such interpolations have been identified by Tamil scholars. The verses which identify the Lord of Venkatam as Vishnu is certainly not interpolated due to the following facts:

The speaker of the verse is a Brahmin. The context in which the words are spoken is very important. The Brahmin speaks about his pilgrimage to Sri Rangam and Tirumalai and he eulogizes the Hindu faith. Kounti Adigal, a Jain, replies to the Brahmin by eulogizing the Jaina religion. Surely this cannot be an interpolation of any Brahmin author.

Finally, no Tamil scholar has identified these lines as interpolations. Instead these lines are considered as part of the original work.

When a particular text is widely followed, it is very tough to make interpolations because no one can interpolate the verses into all the manuscripts. Thus, it is far easy to interpolate in texts like ‘Venkatachala Itihasa Mala’(of which very few manuscripts exist) than the renowned ‘Silappadhikaram’.

There is no literary or archaeological evidence which claims that the Lord of Tirumalai is a Buddhist deity.


J continues:

“Fourthly, Silappadhikaran does not only describe the sankha and chakra, but also a bow in the hands. To presume that at one time the Murthi had a bow, but was later removed would not be in keeping with the known history. From this account if we presume that the description of the disc and the conch as given by Ilango Adigal was based on imagination we would not be wrong. Otherwise how do we explain the description of bow? The fact that it mentions that there was bow on the murthi, [Raghavacharya: 45], is very conveniently ignored by scholars while discussing the subject. This is itself should have been sufficient to show that the description given in Silappadhikaran should be treated as description on Vishnu in general and not the description of any specific image.”



This is what happens when people who have no idea about Vaishnavite temples, literature and lifestyle try to write about them. Vishnu murtis are adorned with various jewels and weapons. They are external fittings to the murti. Bow could be one of them. No one mentions about the all the ornaments and weapons of any murti in any epigraph or literary work. That is unnecessary. Such practice started lately and was not followed even by the Azhvars. Therefore, J cannot expect evidences about what sort of cloth, jewellery, weapons etc were worn by the murti in the ancient period.


Vaishnavite scholars praise Vishnu murtis on the basis of their various avatars. Azhvars identify Sri Ranganatha as Ram, Krishna etc. Neither does Ranganatha have a bow nor does he have a flute or Chakra. When a deity is identified as Vishnu, the devotees sing Him remembering His various feats, forms and avatars. The Bhakta is not an anatomist or a murti recorder. Without understanding these important issues, J brushes aside the evidence offered by Silappadhikaram and Alvars. No non-Vaishnavite saint has sung the praise of the Lord of Tirumalai. The question is not whether the murti had weapons or not. The basic question is this: who does the murti represent? The answer is ‘Vishnu’. Everyone from Ilango to Alvars to medieval Hindus has identified the Lord as Vishnu. That settles the matter.


‘Manimekhalai’, which eulogizes a Buddhist nun, does not speak about any important Buddhist deity at Tirumalai. All the available evidences show the deity at Tirumalai as Vishnu. The neo-Buddhists and secularists are wary of the attention received by the famous Hindu pilgrimage centres and hence, they try to paint them as Buddhist/Jain temples. In fact, most of these people target only the rich Hindu temples and we can understand the reason for their blatant lies – money.



The final argument put forward by J:

“Fifthly, the mention of Tiruvenkatam in Silappadhikaran need not necessarily apply to Tiruvenkatam of Tirupati. For example, it could equally, and rather more appropriately fit the description in Silappadhikaran is in very general terms. In any case, Silappadhikaran is a very poor evidence to show that the murthi had chakra and shankha on Him, in eighth century, and need not be taken seriously.”


This is clear hypocrisy. Throughout the Tamil literature, Venkatam refers to Tirumala hills alone. But our ‘esteemed author’ says that it need not apply to Tirumala. Why? Because the Oracle has spoken!! In spite of his tirade against Silappadhikaram, J finds this piece of evidence to be very strong. Hence, he simply declares that ‘Venkatam’ need not refer to Tirumala. It is a clear example of the way certain minds work when they try to ‘establish’ their wild imaginations.



His conclusion on Silappadhikaram:

“And even if one wants to be skeptical, and insists on this description having historical importance, what difference does it make to our thesis? It merely brings back the date of fixing of the weapons to the murthi from Ramanuja's time to Silappadhikaran's time, presuming of course, that this extract from Silappadhikaran was earlier than Ramanuja. The fact remains that the weapons were not originally there, and were fixed by somebody at a later date.”



Now, who is skeptical? It’s the author who will simply not accept any piece of pro-Hindu evidence. But he will spread a lie on the basis of his own imagination. He does not take into account the fact that most scholars accept that the date of Silappadhikaram must be 2nd century CE. Even more importantly, during the period of Silappadhikaram, Jaina and Buddhist religions were alive and lively in Tamil land. If the deity was considered as Vishnu during that period, it was certainly a Vishnu murti from the beginning.

The question of weapons does not arise at all. All the literary works identify the murti as ‘Vishnu’.
J shows no literary or archaeological evidence to substantiate his claim. He simply repeats his claim based on mere imaginations and some baseless theories. Being so, he is not entitled to dismiss these strong evidences on flimsy/imaginary grounds.




Much is read into the tonsure at Tirumala by J in chapter 26.

The problem with J is that he sees everything in Hinduism as a reaction to Buddhism. He does not even think that Hindus could have created their customs without any external influence. J claims that ‘shikha’ was developed by Brahmins to oppose the tonsure of Buddhists. But Vedic religion is earlier than Buddhism. Buddhism was a reaction to Hinduism and hence, tonsure must be an act of breaking orthodox Hindu rules. Also, some Hindu sanyasis had tonsured heads. Diversity is the essence of Hindu religion. J fails to consider all the above points.

He says:

“In conclusion, we may say about Brahmanic tonsures, that:
* 1. Hindu Sastras do not recognize tonsure as votive as an offering to a deity.
* 2. Preservation of tuft of hair on the top is obligatory for the followers of Brahmanism.
* 3. Young unmarried maidens and married women are not to shave.
* 4. Only widows are shaven headed.
* 5. Shaven headed men, and not only women, were considered inauspicious.
* 6. Shaving was done as punishments and in case of death of relatives.
* 7. In short, it was an occasion for sorrow and mourning.”


J does not understand that many rules followed in South India are unique and are not warranted by Shastras. Tonsuring the head is done at many Hindu temples in South India. Such temples include Tirumal Irun Cholai, Palani, Tiruttani, Sholinghur, Tiruchendur etc as well. Every year thousands of devotees offer their hair (complete tonsure) to Lord Vishnu at Tirumal Irun Cholai during the Chittirai festival. Paripaadal of Sangam literature praises the Lord of Tirumal Irun Cholai as Lord Krishna/Vishnu. At Palani, one can see that many married women offer tonsure throughout the year. At Sholinghur, this occurs during the temple festivals (when alone there are huge crowds). Tonsuring at any temple is proportionate to the crowds.

Another example of the non-Shastric practice of South Indians is as follows:

In Tamil Nadu, it is common for a girl to marry her maternal uncle (Maama – brother of her mother). This practice is prohibited by Hindu Shastras and is not practiced in North India. But in Tamil Nadu, it is a very common practice in the rural areas.

Being a large nation, diversity in practice based on geographical location is very common. J does not seem to understand this. He must have visited the other temples of this area before speaking about the practice of tonsuring.

Also, J displays his lack of pragmatism by referring to tonsuring as ‘non-Shastric’. Even going by J’s own claims, if the practice is something hated by the Brahmins, they would have stopped it when they took over the deity. The very fact that tonsuring is practiced by almost everyone in the Hindu community (including Brahmins) of Tamil Nadu and that this is practiced in many major temples of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh shows that this is a practice found in this part of the country and has nothing to do with Buddhism.


In chapter 27, J says that Rath yatra is against Varnashrama Dharma and that because rath yatra is practiced in Tirumala, it must be a Buddhist shrine. J slao claims that rath yatra is possible only in Buddhism as it does not practice untouchability. It seems J does not know anything about the practices at South Indian temples. During Brahmotsavam, rath yatra is conducted on one day at all temples of Tamil Nadu. Rath yatra is not conducted only at those temples which cannot afford a rath yatra. The practice of rath yatra is no evidence for the murti being a Buddhist one.

Let’s see an evidence for untouchability in Buddhism:

Fa Hien in Chapter 16 of his ‘Record of Buddhistic Kingdoms’ (translated by James Legge) says:

“Throughout the whole country the people do not kill any living creature, nor drink intoxicating liquor, nor eat onions or garlic. The only exception is that of the Chandalas. That is the name for those who are wicked men, and live apart from others. When they enter the gate of a city or a market-place, they strike a piece of wood to make themselves known, so that men know and avoid them, and do not come into contact with them. In that country, they do not keep pigs and fowls, and do not sell live cattle; in the markets, there are no butchers’ shops and no dealers in intoxicating drink. In buying and selling commodities, they use cowries. Only the Chandalas are fishermen and hunters, and sell flesh meat.”

We can see that Fa-Hien fully supports this method and does not oppose this practice as inhuman. Therefore, we can conclude that untouchability was practiced by Buddhists as well.


In Chapter 28, J makes a lot of speculations about the practice by which water from the wells within the temple is not used for the purpose of worship. J claims that this could be due to caste discrimination (i.e.) these wells are not used because they were built by lower caste people. As a supplement, he imagines that the temple must have been Buddhist because the wells were first built by lower caste people. This is a great comedy. In many temples, well water is not used for the purpose of worship merely because water from pond, lake, stream, river etc is considered to be holier for this purpose. The Vishnu temple at Tirumal Irun Cholai near Madurai is the best example for this practice. Moreover J fails to note that most wells and even temples were built by lower caste people. But after the consecration of temples they were considered to be holy and lower caste people were not allowed to enter them or use them. J does not seem to understand the peculiar practices involved in caste system where in the pots made by lower caste people were used after ‘purifying’ act and after this act, the creator of the pot should not touch the pot.

The claims about the period of construction of the temple cited from secondary sources go against the evidence offered by Silappadhikaram and Azhvars.

J cites Sitapati who claims that Tirumala is the only Ek Devata temple in India which has been proved wrong by us. This exposes the ‘hollow’ scholarship of Sitapati whom J cites page after page. Sitapati makes claims without even caring to cross check his claims with true facts.

Finally, J cites the various renovations made in the temple and the position of the dwajasthambham, period of construction of Garuda Sannidhi etc. Once again J cites Sitapati who claims that the dwajasthambham is in a wrong quarter. This is ridiculous. Does Sitapati say that Vaikhanasa pundits never considered about the Agama rules when reinstalling it? Sitapati is not an expert in the various Agama texts. Moreover, we have shown the type of wrong claims made by Sitapati.


Renovations made in the temple are not extraordinary. Changing the old pillars, adding and repairing new walls, structures etc are common in old temples. Double walls are built to strengthen the existing walls.

The late construction of Garuda Sannidhi is not something extraordinary. Many temples exhibit this feature in South Tamil Nadu. Many temples in Kerala do not have Garuda Sannidhi even today.


Finally, let me make one issue clear. It is now accepted by various Agama scholars that the practice of installing additional murtis other than Vishnu murti in the sanctum is a later practice in the Vaikhanasa Agama. The earliest method would not have included the murtis of any mortals or another deity. This practice of installing other murtis should have arisen as a result of the influence of Pancaratra and the Sri Vaishnava philosophy. But Tirumala was the stronghold of Vaikhanasa Agama as it is even today and hence, these later developments are not reflected at Tirumala. Some other temples in Tamil Nadu exhibit this ‘ek-devata’ character (especially in South Tamil Nadu).


Chapter 29 is entirely speculative and J tries to identify Tirumala as the Potalka mentioned by Hieun Tsang. But J fails to note that Tsang did not visit Potalka. Also, the description is full of miracles like Avalokiteshwara coming, giving darshan to devotees etc. Moreover, there are no archaeological, epigraphic or literary evidence about any Buddhist centre or shrine at Tirumala.

J says the following:

“Similarty of physical features
From the above account of Hiuen Tsang, and also as mentioned by Taranatha the following points seem to appear important.
* 1. Journey to Potalka was hazardous,and even guide for traveling had to be used, and very few people attempted to reach the hill.
2 On the top of the mountain there was a lake of clear water. * 3 By the side of lake there was a rock palace of Devas. Avalokitesvara was taking his abode here. Sometimes He appeared before his devotees in the form of Yogi or Isvara Deva.
Even now we find that Tirupati has got clear water lake and journey is hazardous.
Potalka was being Hinduized
Commenting on this accopunt Sri L.M.Joshi observes;
"The Potalka mmountain in this country was the favourite resort of Avalokitesvara who still appeared before his devotees in the guise of Pasupata Tirthika or as Mahesvara. This last passage seems to indicate that Avalokita who has many attributes of Siva, was now in theprocess of being converted into Hindu god Siva..." [Joshi: 1977: 39]
We could like to suggest, that this Potalka as described by Hiuen Tsang, can be identified with present day Tirupati Hill and we can presume that at the time of Hiuen Tsang the Buddhist influence was declinning and the shrine was in the process of being Hinduised. Mere presence of abundance of Tara images is not enough to identify Potalka. It must be shown that the Avalokitesvara was in fact being converted to Hindu God, the fact clearly mentioned by Hiuen Tsang. Search for Potalka has to be among the Buddhist shrines converted to Brahmnic use.”


The so called similarities between Tirumala and Potalka are not exact similarities involving some individuality. These features can be found at almost all mountain ranges. There are some differences as well which are not considered by J. Moreover, the Tirumala temple is on the banks of a ‘pond’ and not a lake. It is stated that a great river encircles the mountain. Surely, no huge river flows near Tirumala. This description will suit only the ranges near Amaravati where Krishna and Godavari are present. J ignores this specific piece of information as it does not suit his theory. Next, J claims that Potalka was being Hinduised during Tsang’s period. This claim is even more hollow. Mere hypothesis of Joshi cannot be a proof. As shown above, temples and murtis were copied by the Buddhists from the Hindus. Siva was metamorphosed into Avalokiteshwara. Nilakantaka and Nilakanta Dharani show Nilakanta Lokeswara as a combination of Shiva and Vishnu features. Amoghavajra’s version of the Dharani of the Great compassionate One (translated by Suzuki) corroborates this fact. Therefore, to imagine that the Potalka shrine was being converted into Hindu fold during Tsang’s period is wrong. Moreover, if that was the case Tsang would have mentioned it and decried such attempts. The fact that no such thing is mentioned by Tsang proves this claim of Joshi and J to be hollow.


Finally, J uses some ‘comic linguistics’ to support his theory:

“It is worthy to note that the earlier name of Vengadam, was 'Pullikunram' i.e. the hill of Chieftakin Pulli. This is mentioned in poems of Mamulanur, the most important of the Sangam poets. [Sitapati: 87] It was perhaps, more popular name among the Buddhists, as Pullis were Buddhists, and hence it was used by Hiuen Tsang, and perhaps name Potalka has been derived from Pullikunram. It is reasonable to presume that Pullikunram has become Po-ta-io-kia" ”


‘Pullikunram’ became ‘Po-ta-lo-kia’?? Can any linguist support this claim? There is no similarity except the first ‘p’. This is impossible derivation.

Next, he cites Sitapati for his claim that the earlier name of Vengadam was ‘Pullikunram’. This is another example of Sitapati’s ‘hollow’ scholarship. Pulli was the name of the King of Vengadam. Song 385 of Puranaanuru makes it clear. Vengadam was called as ‘Pullikunram’ (i.e.) hill of Pulli because Pulli ruled over it. It was called so only during Pulli’s period. Vengadam was the original name of the hill. Next, Kapilar is the most important Sangam poet. No other poet can match him. Claims must be made only after going through the primary sources. Sitapati and J fail to follow this rule.

Next comes the greatest comedy. J says ‘Pullis were Buddhists’. Sangam literature does not identify Pulli as Buddhist. Infact, Buddhism and Jainism were not so prevalent in Tamil country during the Sangam age. They were minor religions. To claim that Pulli was a Buddhist is not based on any evidence and the proof seems to be just the wishful thinking of J. But the entire corpus of Sangam literature stands against such imaginations of J. The crown of all comedies in this chapter is that J considers ‘Pullis’ as referring to a dynasty. Pulli was the name of a king. It is not the name of his dynasty. Even in Tamil literature, ‘Pullikunram’ was used only during Pulli’s time. It will do well to J if he stops making exaggerated, baseless claims and uses primary sources of evidence rather than (wrong) secondary data.

Finally, a last bit of information: neo-Buddhists identify Potalka with many major hill temples of South India (e.g.) Sabarimala, Srisailam etc. They fail to understand that Potalka cannot be far away from Amaravati and that it must have Buddhist remnants/epigraphs or atleast must have been considered as a Buddhist shrine during some part of history.

All evidences point to the temple being a Vaishnavite shrine from the beginning. There is no reason to entertain any speculation about the place being a Buddhist centre.

Chapter 30 forms the conclusion. Here he claims that many Buddhist shrines were usurped by the Brahmins. As I have no idea about those places, I do not comment upon it. But almost all the claims, made by him, about Tirumala are dealt by me. First of all, J claims that the theory of ‘self manifestation’ was formed to stop enquiries into the details of the murti. This claim is ridiculous due to the following reasons:

Even where the murti is ‘self manifested’, the features of the murti are used to establish the identity of the murti. Therefore, this claim made by J is, as usual, baseless.
There are many other self manifested murtis (both Shaiva and Vaishnava) in Tamil country. The theory of ‘self manifestation’ is formed to increase the prestige of the murti. E.g. Sri Rangam, Sri Mushnam, Thanthondrimalai, Tiruvannamalai, Kuttralam etc.


Then, J claims that Vengadam (or Venkatam) is not mentioned in Srimad Bhagavatham, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Vishnu Purana etc. J fails to see that the latter three do not mention about temples.

As for Srimad Bhagavatham, Venkatam is mentioned in 10.79.13 (in Lord Balarama’s Pilgrimage).

J claims that the reason for the lack of epigraphic or literary reference of early times is that it was a Buddhist shrine. The claim about literary evidence is proved wrong above. As for epigraphic evidence, J fails to note that even the Tirumal Irun Cholai temple does not have epigraphs from the earliest periods. Next, the present temple structure at Tirumala was built during the 8th Century at the earliest. One cannot expect older epigraphs from buildings of a later period.
Generally, Pallava inscriptions are not found in those temples which were not present in any town or human settlement. The nearest human settlement at Vengadam during the early times was at Tirucchukannor and that is why epigraphs are found there. Vengadam was only a place of visit - a holy shrine and not a town. Such temples exist even today. The Kattazhagar temple near Srivilliputtur is a fine example.


J claims that the murti resembles Bodhisattva. But this claim is proved hollow on the following accounts:

Presence of Lakshmi on the chest.
The lower right hand is ‘Vaikuntha hastha’ (facing down) and not the normal Buddhist varada mudra (facing outwards).
The two upper hands are in the ‘weapon bearing’ position which is so common among the Hindu murtis of South India.
The murti has scars from the constant wearing of bow and a pack of arrows.
The murti cannot be Padmapani because the murti has four hands.
The murti does not have ‘namaskar’ posture which is so common among the Avalokiteshwara murtis.

Thus, the murti resembles Vishnu much more than Avalokiteshwara. The presence of Lakshmi and the existence of a very similar murti at Tholaivillimangalam seal the issue.


He speaks about a conspiracy theory hatched by the Shaivites and Vaishnavites during the 11th century CE to usurp the murti based on the dispute over the identity of the murti. The reason and context of the dispute that arose during that age has been clearly explained by us.

The argument that the writings of the Acharyas were interpolated or quoted as writings of Azhvars is baseless. The verses of Acharyas were called as ‘Taniyans’ (‘Tani’ means separate). They were kept separate from the original writings of the Azhvars.

He tries to brush away the evidence offered by Azhvars. We have already proved the validity of their evidence and its importance.

His claim that Tirumala was a compromise site is also wrong as proved by us.

J repeats his claim about Lakshmi being a Buddhist deity. All these claims have been proved wrong by us. We have shown that Lakshmi was considered as the consort of Vishnu even during the Sangam age and She was shown as residing on the chest of Vishnu.

The doubt raised by J about the pedestal of the murti has been already clarified by us.

J presumes that certain features like Lakshmi on chest etc were later additions to the murti. This is hypocrisy. J has decided that the murti must be branded as Buddhist. He tries all sorts of gimmicks and finally, faced with strong evidences like Lakshmi on chest, he simply ‘presumes’ that they are later additions. Can J show any evidence that these are later additions and not there at first? If such additions were made, common sense demands that weapons would have also been added. We could also presume that the weapons were present in the beginning and that they were later removed to suit the Sthala Purana. One can imagine anything but that imagination would not prove anything.


Next, J writes about the history of Tirupati. He claims that there was no temple at Vengadam during the Sangam period. J does not understand that Sangam poets did not sing about the temples of the Tamil country and that any mention of temple was an exceptional case and not a normal one. The non-mentioning of temple in Sangam literature does not mean non-existence of the temple. J exhibits his ignorance about the Sangam literature.


J claims that India was the land of Nagas whose language was Tamil. He also claims that Nagas(Tamils) were Buddhists. Shall we laugh or cry at this extremely wrong conclusion?

Nagas are shown as ‘semi-divine’ beings throughout the Indian literature. J follows the Dravidian IVC theory. Even then, he cannot say that Nagas were humans. Rajatarangini, Lankavatara Sutra, Mahabharata etc attest the fact that Nagas were semi-divine beings. Nagas are shown as living in the underground, below the ocean, rivers etc. A Buddhist depiction of Nagas will clear this matter.


The figure shown below is a sculpture from Amaravati which is exhibited in the Government Musuem, Chennai. (Taken from the Musuem’s website)

A close look at the figure will show that the Nagas are shown as semi-divine beings with serpents above their heads. Thus, they are mythical beings.

The figure is a representation of the Ramagrama stupa.




J’s various imaginations about the Nagas, their language etc are answered by this single evidence. We must thank our ancient artists for their works which help us to identify the truth.

J repeats his fanciful claims that Vengadam was the land of Pullis (no such dynasty existed) and the wrong claim that ‘Pullikunram’ is the old name of Vengadam. All these claims have been proved wrong by us.

J repeats his theories about the word ‘Emperuman’. We have showed the hollowness of those claims.

J claims that proxy murti was installed at Tiruchukkanoor for the purpose of converting the Buddhist shrine. These claims are not proved by any evidence.

Next, J claims that sthala puranas were written to usurp Buddhist shrines. This is completely wrong. They were written to give a halo of holiness to the temples. Almost all temples have such stories. J fails to note these simple facts. The greatest problem with J is that he sees every Hindu text or practice as a reaction to Buddhism. In future, he may even claim that Vedas were written as a reaction to Buddhism.

J messes up the evidence offered by Silppadhikaram (which he refers as ‘SilappadhikaraN’). The period of the text is second century CE as shown by us. He says that the evidence offered by the epic is unreliable because it speaks about bow as well. But he fails to understand the basic idea: the murti was considered as Vishnu during that period. That seals the matter. He says that the epic ‘could be referring to Tiruvenkatam other than Tirumalai’. This is ridiculous. Throughout the Tamil literature, Venkatam/Vengadam refers to Tirumala. Even today, the practice continues. Sangam works, Azhvars and later works refer to Tirumala as Venkatam. It is the ancient name of the hills. It is called as ‘Tirumala’ based on Srimad Bhagavatham which calls the hills as holy hills and the Sri Vaishnava tradition of offering great respect to the shrine and the murti.

J claims that tonsuring at Tirumala is a remnant of Buddhist practices. This is wrong due to the fact that almost all major temples have tonsure ghats in the Tamil country. It is a practice peculiar to this part of the country. Tonsure is not recommended for widows by Manu. But Sangam works refer to this act. Thus, tonsuring is a Tamil practice. One more example: In almost every Hindu Tamil family (including Brahmin families), the practice of tonsuring the head of a new born child within a year or two of his/her birth at the kuladevata temple or any temple of their choice is practiced. Note that this is compulsory. Therefore, the claim that tonsuring is a remnant of Buddhism is wrong.

Rath yatras are common to all major Hindu temples of Tamil country.

The reason for the preference for stream water to well water has been explained by us. The claim of J that the practice is due to caste discrimination is refuted by us.

J repeats his identification of Tirupati with Potalka. This is baseless and totally wrong.

J’s answers to his ‘enigmatic questions’ are born out of his anti-brahminist feelings and are not based on any solid facts. Let us consider his answers:

“1. The image of Lord Venkatesvara was not sculptured by the artist as an image of Vishnu, but that of Avalokitesvara, sometimes in the reign of Kalabhras, after the period of Mamulanur, and before the period of Silappadhikaran, around 3rd to 5th century A.D.”


The murti must have been sculpted before the second century CE and before the reign of Kalabhras. We have shown that Silappadhikaram belongs to pre-Kalabhran period. Also, the murti was not sculpted to represent Avalokiteshwara as Lakshmi is found on the chest of the murti. The murti was meant to represent Vishnu. (We would like to point out that the name of the Sangam poet is MamulanAr and not ‘MamulanUr’ as mentioned by J here and in chapter 29.)


“2. Murthi's hands were not holding the sankha and/or chakra. The sankha and chakra were placed in the hands of the murthi at some date later than the date of sculpture of the murthi, and in all probability at the times of Ramanuja. Before Ramanuja, it is unlikely to have these weapons. The reference in Silappadhikaran is not trustworthy in this respect.”

The lack of weapons is no evidence against the Vaishnavite claim. The two upper hands are in ‘weapon bearing postures’. J tries to hide this fact. Silappadhikaram is very useful in establishing that the murti was considered as Vishnu during its period (2nd century CE). That must put to rest any claim contrary to its evidence. We can either say that weapons were fitted to the murti during Silappadhikaram’s period or that the epic mentions them as general attributes of Vishnu.


“3. To consider Venkatachal Itihasa Mala unreliable because it is a palm leaf text is unjustifiable. To tamper with Itihasa Mala would involve a greater labour and greater difficulties than with Silappadhikaran. VIM is a religious book whereas Silappadhikaran is an epic of a tragic romance on which folk dramas are staged from ancient times, and is exposed to modifications in the folk theater, in contrast to VIM.”

Though we do not consider VIM to be a collection of fables, we would like to point out the wrong assumptions of J. Tampering with a book like VIM is easier because there are very few copies of VIM. The assumption that VIM would not be tampered with as it is a religious book is also wrong. Only the Vedas were not tampered with. People usually tamper texts like VIM to add their views into the texts. These are mere stories and not books of mantras.

But tampering a work like Silappadhikaram is a tough one. Because the work is popular, widespread and there are numerous copies of the texts compared to VIM. Finally, the lines pertaining to Venkatam, in that epic, are not interpolations. No Tamil scholar has identified them as interpolations. J must prove that the are interpolations before claiming so.


“4. The theory of Vyakta-avyakta is very recent and had to be postulated to explain away Alvaras' writings. There are no references in the writings of Alvaras about the presence of Sankha and chakra on the murthi, and what ever description is there, is conceptual, imaginary, as seen by mental eye, mainly based on Puranic preconceived ideas and in any case untrustworthy as history for proving the presence of weapons, and also to a large extent, as conceived by the commentators, rather than the Alvaras.”


J’s claims here are contradictory. We are not concerned with Vyakta-avyakta as we do not subscribe to that theory. As said before, Azhvars do not indulge in describing physical features of the murti alone, though they do it in some cases. The very facts that a great number of Azhvars identify the murti as Vishnu and that the shrine was the second most popular one are more than enough to prove that the shrine was a popular Vaishnavite place of worship during their period (5th Century CE to 8th Century CE).


“5. In the times of decline of Buddhism, no bhikshus were left to look after the shrine which was converted into a Brahmanic shrine.”

No such epigraph or literary evidence exists which corroborates the claim made by J. As said before, mere imaginations of J cannot prove anything. Not a single piece of evidence for any Buddhist presence at Vengadam has been found till now.

The passages under the title ‘Avalokitesvara to Vishnu’ is full of J’s imaginations. The only place where imaginations are built upon any piece of evidence is this claim:

“This could explain the Avalokitesvara giving Darshana to His devotes in the guise of Maheshvara as mentioned by Hiuen Tsang. And it could also explain the conflict between Vaishnavites and Saivites. It may be noted that identification of Potalka can not be on exuberance of Tara images alone, but there should be definite evidence to shown that it was being converted to Maheshvara, and search for Potalka should be among the shrines converted for Brahmanic use.”



But we have already proved this claim to be wrong. Avalokiteshwara arose as a Buddhist synthesis of Shiva and Vishnu. Hence, many Hindu terms are used to refer to the Buddhist murtis (e.g.) Nilakantha Dharani. Moreover, Tsang does not say that the shrine was being usurped by the Hindus. Neither does he condemn the fact that Avalokiteshwara is called as ‘Ishwara deva’. Tsang would have certainly decried such a reference if he had found that the Hindus were usurping the shrine. Finally, it must be noted that ‘Ishwara’ is found in the name of the Bodhisattva. Hence, J’s claim that the search for Potalka must be among the shrines converted for Brahmanic use is wrong. The claim made by J is based on complete misinterpretation of the evidence offered by Tsang.

J claims that Veda recital started only after 1430 CE. J fails to understand that during the daily puja routines, Vedic mantras were recited. Probably, he is referring to some grants given in 1430 CE for the purpose of Veda recital. But that does not mean that there was no Vedic recital before that period. A close reading of the Hindu practices would show that such a thing as claimed by J is impossible. Vedic mantras are included in Vaikhanasa puja manual.

The greatest comedy of this chapter is this:

“This tradition in later times gives rise to composition of suprabhatam which is composed to praise the Lord as a Guru, but a mouni guru and is lamented that he may not be visible in the next kalpa.”


Surely, Sri Prativaadi Bhayankaram Swami would have never thought that, one day, a person like J would misinterpret his verses in such a bad fashion. Suprabhatam does not refer to the Lord as ‘mouni’ Guru. The Lord of Tirumala is praised as ‘pesum deivam’ or ‘speaking Lord’ by the Sri Vaishnavites. ‘Next Kalpa’ has nothing to do with Buddhism or its murtis. J is forcing his ideas upon various texts and does not even care to verify what the texts actually say.



Then J continues:

“Traditions die very hard. In spite of being converted to Vaishnavism, the devotes do not give up the practice of Tonsure, and it continues till today. People consider the deity as their Kuldevata. Usually the kuladevatas are restricted to a small area but here the vast area is involved. The reason seems to be the spread of Kalabhras, who spread all over south India and convulsed the big kingdoms, and during this process the devotees of Lord on the hill spread all over and continued to worship Him as Kuldevata.”

J reads a lot into tonsuring. It seems he does not understand that Tamil country has some very peculiar practices which are not accepted by the Shastras. We repeat what we said before. It is common in the Tamil country for a lady to marry her maternal uncle (brother of her mother). This practice is forbidden by the Shastras. But it is common in Tamil rural areas even today. Tonsure is one such practice. India is a huge nation and such peculiar practices like these are bound to occur. J must understand this.

Should it be that the murti became Kuldevata of a large number of people only due to the Kalabhras?? It seems J does not know that Nayak rulers spread all over Tamil Nadu and that they built many temples for Thiruvenkatamudaiyan (Venkateshwara) throughout Tamil Nadu. Moreover, some popular murtis are considered as kula devatas by people of vast areas (e.g.) Tiruchendur Murugan, Palani Murugan, Sri Rangam Ranganatha, Chidambaram Nataraja etc.


With this, we end our reply to J’s baseless claim. We have proven that the murti is Vishnu and that He was considered as Vishnu throughout the history of His existence. We rest our case here.