Note 25 — B

3. In these Provinces, according to one authority,25 the four primary orders of the Bairâgis are Ramânuji or Sri Vaishnava, Nîmâvat, or Nimbârak, Vishnuswâmi and Mâdhavachârya; each of these orders is called a samprâdaya or sect, and all four mesh together. Of the Sri Vaishnava Mr. Growse26 writes:—“The most ancient and respectable of the four reformed Vaishnava communities is based on the teaching of Ramânuja, who flourished in the eleventh or twelfth century A.D. Their sectarial mark is two white perpendicular streaks down the forehead, joined by a cross line at the root of the nose, with a streak of red between. Their chief dogma, called Vasisthadwaita, is the assertion that Vishnu, the one Supreme God, though invisible as cause, is as effect visible in a secondary form in material creation. They differ in one marked respect from the mass of the people at Brindâban,—in that they refuse to recognise Râdhâ as an object of religious adoration. In this they are in complete accord with all the older authorities, which either totally ignore her existence, or regard her simply as Krishna’s mistress, and Rukminî as his wife. Their formula of initiation (mantra) is said to be Om Râmâya namah, i.e., “Om! Reverence to Râma!” This sect (sampradâya) is divided into two sects, the Tenkalai and the Vadakalai.27 They differ in two points of doctrine, which, however, are considered of much less importance than what seems to outsiders a very trivial matter, viz., a slight variation in the way of making the sectarial mark on the forehead. The followers of the Tenkalai extend its middle line a little down the nose itself, while the Vadakalai terminate it exactly at the bridge. The doctrinal points of difference are as follows:—The Tenkalai maintain that the female energy of the godhead, though divine, is still a finite creature that serves only as a mediator or minister (parushakâra) to introduce the soul into the presence of the Deity; while the Vadakalai regard it as infinite and uncreated, and in itself a means (upâya) by which salvation can be assured. The second point of difference is parallel to the controversy between the Calvinists and Armenians in the Christian Church. The Vadakalai, with the latter, insist on the concomitance of the human will in the work of salvation, and represent that the soul lays hold of God as a young monkey which grasps its mother in order to be conveyed to a place of safety. The Tenkalai, on the contrary, maintain the irresistibility of divine grace and the utter helplessness of the soul till it is seized and carried off by its mother like a kitten to be conveyed to a place of safety. From these two curious but apt illustrations the one doctrine is known as markata kishora nyâya, the other, as marjala kishora nyâya, the “young monkey theory,” or the “kitten theory.”