Historical sequence of the Vaiṣṇava Divyadeśas. Sacred venues of Viṣṇuism

Forty years ago Prof. George W. Spender wrote an article on the Śaiva tiruttalams (called divyadeśa in Vaiṣṇava tradition) and suggested a complimenting work could be undertaken on the sacred venues of Viṣṇuism. The present article fulfills the longfelt need of scholars in Indian religious and more relevantly art historical studies. Based on the first-hand materials derived from the Vaiṣṇava canon, Nālāyirativviyapirapantam, it presents the historical sequence of the evolution of the 108 divyadeśas. The earliest of these had their origin by about the 4th-5th century CE and reached maturation by about the early half of the 9th century CE. The stages of evolution are earmarked. However, what the Vaiṣṇava mystics, the Āḻvārs, saw during the centuries down to the 9th are not the kṣetras (sacred space of the temple) or sthalas (sacred venues) that we find today. The temples had undergone spectacular changes through the centuries as could be proved with case studies of either Vēṅkaṭam or Allikkēṇi. A handful of the sthalas were purely imaginary on part of the mystics. The text is duly illustrated with modern photographic evidences and a map. The parochial views of some American scholars are discussed to point out their inability to deal with the original sources in Tamil and consequently their views on Viṣṇuism or Śrīviṣṇuism happens to be biased. Keywords: Vaiṣṇava-divyadeśas, Viṣṇuism, Āḻvārs, Śrīvaiṣṇavism, Bhakti, Nālāyira- divya-prabandham.

1977 has done a similar work in respect of the Śaiva venues of worship as gleaned from the Nāyaṉmār works, especially the Tēvāram. The present article compliments the work of G.W. Spencer and B. Stein from the Vaiṣṇava point of view. However, I may note the learned professor Spencer has not presented a list of the 280 Śaiva tiruttalams in a chronological order, which is very difficult to compile since all these are dated during the 5 th -8 th centuries CE (Kāraikkālammaiyār to Cuntarar). 3 Early in 1940, S. Krishnasvamy Aiyangar, followed by B.V. Ramanujam, both deeprooted Vaiṣṇava scholars, wrote much about the divyadeśas, which is now outdated but Aiyangar's work is chewed and digested by devoted Vaiṣṇava scholars. Friedhelm Hardy's 1983 work is a dedicated piece on Tamil Viṣṇuism but has very little to say on the subject under study. A fresh look is felt essential in the light of recent research on Vaiṣṇavism in general; and Śrīvaiṣṇavism in particular with A.K. Ramanujam 1981 leading a team of scholars in the United States who attach more importance to the works of the Ācāryapuruṣās, which is a parochial approach in my view. We must cautiously differentiate between Viṣṇuism/Vaiṣṇavism (Viṣṇu as the foremost of the gods) and Śrīvaiṣṇavism (Viṣṇu looked through his grace, Śrī). Note the following two important works: B.V. Ramanujam 1973: History of Vaiṣṇavism in South India upto Rāmānuja N. Jagsdeesan 1977 Viṣṇuism takes its root in Vedic lore and reaches a saturation level in the hymns of the Āḻvars. Here Viṣṇu is the focal point of attention. Śrīvaiṣṇavism/Śrīviṣṇuism developed as a codified system of philosophy after the time of Rāmānuja in the 12 th century. Here the focal point is Viṣṇu through the mediator Śrī. Viṣṇuism is a religion and Śrīvaiṣṇavism a philosophical way of approach to Viṣṇuism as one may on a comparative line find the differences between Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism and Eastern Orthodox, all coming under the common banner Christianity. In all these three systems, Jesus the Christ is the foremost to a follower and not the colour of the bread or wine whether you consider it the blood and flesh of Jesus based on transubstantiation or treat it merely a bread from a bakery or wine from an ale house. We are not debating the Christian philosophy to say the bread consists only of the flour of wheat or barley and the wine not the blood of a divine person or godman. For all three Christ/Christianity is important though the Catholic will not tread the path of a Lutheran or Anglican in matters ritual and iconographic setting in churches. The tussle between them is so acute in India that a Catholic institution may prefer to appoint a Hindu for a job requirement and definitely not a Protestant. However, this is not the prime theme of our discussion. Let us come to Viṣṇuism and Śrīviṣṇuism.
G.W. Spencer called the venues of Śaiva worship, tiruttalam "sacred geography" and Eric Isaac 1960 "the landscape of myth" (cited from Spencer 1970: 233); B. Stein as "historical geography" and David E. Sopher 1968 "circulatory flows to define pilgrimage regions in India". The learned professor has spent his time on Śaiva centers of worship and suggests "a study of Vaiṣṇavite sacred geography…is obviously feasible" (Spencer 1970: 233). Nobody thought of it during the past forty years. It may note the Śaivite centers of worship around the 9 th century were 281 (Kalidos 2006: II, 292) and at the same time those of the Vaiṣṇavas 108. Whether these are the "landscape of myth" (Isaac 1960, cf. Hopkins 2004 or "landscape of history" (Gaddis 2002) is a good question (cf. Spencer 1970: Map -Sacred Places in Tañcāvūr;and Stein 1977: Map -Tēvāram Sites of the Kāvēri Basin), which the present article answers. I have not seen the article of Issac and may take liberty of presuming by "landscape of myth" the scholar mean the "geography" of classical authors (such as Megasthenes, Ptolemy [the Āḻvārs and Nāyaṉmār]). This need not be so because many of the unidentifiable places in Pliny, Strabo and Ptolemy have been identified (e.g. Muziris, Comari and Kolchi with Muciṟi, Kaṉyākumari and Kocci on the Pāṇḍyan and Malabār sea coast [Kalidos 1976: 67] and later Kaḍāram with the Malāya peninsula) and there is no such problem in case of the "sacred geography" of the Āḻvārs and the divyadeśas listed by them.
Before taking up the problem for an examination it may state at the outset that the twelve Āḻvārs are brought under three groups. The Āḻvār is a divinity, one immersed or lost in his love for the Lord Viṣṇu (āḻ "immerse", āḻvār "one immersed [in Viṣṇu-bhakti]", cf. Spencer 1970: 234 āḻvārs "divers"). The Āḻvārs are believed to have visited the venues where the temple of the Lord was, composed hymns in praise of those sacred centers, the Mūrti, the tīrtha, the flora and fauna, the pūjās and festivals, and spread the cult. Though scho-lars find the rudiments of bhakti in the Paripāṭal, it is in the hymns of the Āḻvārs that we really find the blossoming of the bhāgavata/bhakti tradition that germinated in the north during the early centuries of the Christian era. Few Tamil scholars find the rudiments of bhakti in Caṅkam lore (infra Zvelebil's view of Paripāṭal) and not the pre-Christian Sanskrit literature (cf. cf. Bhandarkar 1995: 4-11). I do not agree with this view. The Bhāgavata-based bhakti is an import from the north and R.G. Bhandarkar may find the roots of bhakti in the Upaniṣadic concept of upāsana (means "serving" or "worship" Monier-Williams 2005: 215).
The chronology of the Āḻvārs is a vexed question. The Mutal Āḻvārs (early trio) are dated in the 6 th -7 th century CE. The Middle Group (totally six) is dated in the 7 th -8 th century CE. The Later Group (totally three) is dated in the 8 th -9 th century (cf. Kalidos 1999: 223-24). Tirumaḻicai in his Nāṉmukaṉ Tiruvantāti (v. 93) notes a king called Kuṇaparaṉ: Ākkai koṭuttaruḷiya kōṉē kuṇaparaṇē "Guṇabhara, (the King?), who gave me this mortal coil and blessed (me)". This Kuṇaparaṉ (Guṇabhara) is identified with Mahēndravarmaṉ I (c. 610-30 CE) 5 and so he is assigned to the early 7 th century (Pillai 1985: 186). With due reference to an astronomical clue in the Tiruppāvai of Āṇṭāḷ (cf. Hudson 1980: 539-66), she is dated in the early half of the 8 th century CE. 6 Periyāḻvār and Tirumaṅkai refer to a Pāṇḍya king (Tamil Lexicon method: Pāṇṭiyaṉ) and Pallava in their hymns 7 . These two have been aptly identified with Śrīmāra Śrīvallabha (815-62 CE) and Nandivarmaṉ II Pallavamalla (690-729 CE). Kulacēkarar (Cēramāṉ Perumāḷ) is considered to be a contemporary of the Śaiva 5 The title, Guṇabhara, appears in the inscription of the upper Pallava cave at Tiruccirāppaḷḷi (Srinivasan 1964: 54). 6 The reference is: Veḷḷiyeḻuntu viyāḻamuṟaṅkiṟṟu (the rise of Veḷḷi/-Venus and the fall of Viyāḻaṉ/Jupiter that astronomically gives the date CE 731 (Kalidos 1976: 104). 7 Periyāḻvār notes kayal poṟitta pāṇṭiyar kulapati (Tirumoḻi 5.4 saint Cuntarar and may be dated in the early 8 th century (Zvelebil 1974: 106). The Later Group could be conveniently dated during the 8 th -9 th century CE. The sequence on the basis of historical evidences will have to be Tirumaḻicai, Kulacēkarar, Tirumaṅkai, Periyāḻvār and Āṇṭāḷ. There is no clue either epigraphical or literary to date the other Āḻvārs.
It is traditionally believed that the saga of Vaiṣṇava lyrical composition began with the Early Group and Lord Viṣṇu himself is said to have given them the first phrase of the Tiruvantātis composed by them for the first hymn. 8 Therefore, they are assigned to the 6 th -7 th century CE or even the 5 th century. The other six are supposed to fall in between the two dates 6 th century and early 9 th century. In any case all the twelve Āḻvārs have crossed the historical meridian by about the middle of the 9 th century CE (Rajarajan 2012a). Saint Nāthamuṉi is said to have compiled the Nālāyiram into the divya-prabandham (divya "divine" or "heavenly", pra-"excessively" or "great", bandham "tie" or "chain"), Tamil tivya(should be tivviya)-pirapantam. He is assigned to the 10 th century CE (Zvelebil 1974: 91). Nāthamuṉi's birth-place is considered to be Kāṭṭumaṉārguḍi, near Citamparam. A spurious inscription in that temple assigns his date of birth to Kaliyuga 3,624 (522 CE), 9 which could not have been the case because at that time the Middle and Later Āḻvārs did not exist and maybe the First Group was busy composing the Tiruvantātis (cf. Aiyangar 1940: 260, Jagadeesan 1977). Zvelebil's (1974: 91-107) date for the Early Āḻvārs is 650-700 CE, which is unfair (cf. Rajarajan 2012a). The other Āḻvārs are dated as follows: Toṇṭaraṭippoṭi (first quarter of the 9 th century), Kulacēkarar (c. 800 CE), Periyāḻvār and Āṇṭāḷ (9 th century CE), Tirumaṅkai (c. 800-870 CE) and Nammāḻvār (c. 880-930 CEthe time of Parāntaka I). That means Toṇṭaraṭippoṭi, Kulacēkarar, Periyāḻvār, Āṇṭāḷ, Tirumaṅkai and Nammāḻvār are supposed to have lived in the 9 th -10 th century CE, which was a troublesome period in the history of Tamilnadu since the Pallavas and Pāṇḍyas were engaged in a deadly conflict for survival. The Imperial Cōḻas and Rāṣṭrakūṭas as renascent powers were peeping into the historical arena around 850 CE. This was also a period of political tribulation, turbulence and transition because the Pallavas and Early Pāṇḍyas exit from the historical scene and the Cōḻas, Rāṣṭrakūṭas and Calukyas of Kalyāṇi come to the forefront with the former commanding an upper hand. Under such chaotic conditions, so many of the Āḻvārs could not have worked peacefully composing their hymns and visiting centers of Viṣṇuism. The Āḻvārs refer to the Pāṇḍya and Pallava in their hymns and not the Cōḻa of the Imperial House that begins with Vijayālaya around 850 CE. 10 That means by about the time of the emergence of the Cōḻas under Vijayālaya (c. 850-70 CE) the Aḻvārs have gone behind the historical curtain. Therefore, the dates suggested by Raju Kalidos 1999 seem to be workable to further proceed with the history of the divyadeśas (cf. Rajarajan 2012a).
Coming to the main theme of our investigation, the distribution pattern of the divyadeśas in the subcontinent may be listed as follows: 11 10 In fact Tirumaṅkai refers to a Cōḻa. He was a king of the post-Caṅkam period that does not belong to the lineage of Vijayālaya (850-70 CE), the founder of the Imperial Cōḻa house. There was a family of the Cōḻas during the Caṅkam Age (down to 250 CE) that ceased to rule the Kāviri delta around 250 CE with the advent of the Kaḷabhras. It seems their successors continued to survive as minor chiefs (Sastri 1984: 104-107). One of these kings was Kōcceṅkaṇāṉ whose date is uncertain (may be the 6 th century CE). He was also known as Kōccōḻaṉ (Periya Tirumoḻi 6.6.9). He is said to have built 70 temples (maṇimāṭakkōyil "towered gem-like temple") for Iśvara (tirumoḻivāy Īcaṟku eḻilmāṭam eḻupatu ceytu ulakam āṇṭa [ibid. 6.6.8] "He built seventy beautifully towered temples for Īśvara, He whose mouth utters the sacred words" -tirumoḻi or tiruvāymoḻi is the title of several of the poems composed by the Āḻvārs). Some scholars suggest these were temples for Śiva (Nālāyiram, Mullai Nilayam ed., Vol. II, p. 236). I am of the opinion all the 70 need not have been for Śiva because Īśvara is an epithet of the common genre that Śiva and Viṣṇu share. The Viṣṇusahasranāma (epithet nos. 36, 74) calls Viṣṇu Īśvara and what is more important he is called Śivaḥ (ibid. epithets 27, 600). Therefore, the 70 temples assigned to Kōccōḻaṉ by tradition must have been for both Śiva and Viṣṇu. One among them was Naraiyūr (Nācciyārkōyil) in Cōḻanāḍu, which divyadeśa Tirumaṅkai extols. These temples are likely to have built of brick and mortar as it was the tradition then and the age of kaṟṟaḷi (stone temple) had not yet begun, which was invigorated during and after the time of Vijayālaya. In fact the early Cōḻas seem to have dedicated themselves to convert all brick temples into stone during 850-986 CE (cf. Dehejia 1990). 11 The list is as it appears in the Nālāyirativviyappirapantam (shortly Nālāyiram), the Little Flower Company, Chennai 2008. Cōḻanāṭu (the Cōḻa country) -40: Araṅkam (Śrīraṅgam), Kōḻi (Uṟaiyūr, Nikaḷāpuri or Uṟantai), Karampaṉūr (Uttamarkōyil, Kadamba-kṣetra), Veḷḷaṟai (Vedagiri or Svetagiri), Aṉpil, Pērnakar (Kōyilaṭi or Appakkuṭattāṉ), Kaṇṭiyūr (Trimūrti-kṣetra), Kūṭalūr (Āṭutuṟai, Śaṅgama-kṣetra), Kavittalam (Kapi-sthala, K ṣṇāraṇyakṣetra), Puḷḷampūttaṅkuṭi, Ātaṉūr, Kuṭantai (Śā ṅgapāṇi temple, Bhāskara-kṣetra), Viṇṇakar (Oppiliyappaṉkōyil, Mārkaṇḍeya-kṣetra), Naṟaiyūr, Cēṟai (Pañcasāra-kṣetra), Kaṇṇamaṅkai (K ṣṇamaṅgalakṣetra), Kaṇṇapuram (K ṣṇāraṇya-kṣetra, Pañcak ṣṇa-kṣetra and Saptapunya-kṣetra), Kaṇṇaṅkuṭi (K ṣṇāraṇya-kṣetra), Nākai (Nakapaṭṭiṉam), Tañcaimāmaṇikkōyil/Tañcāvūr (Dhanavadi 2005  Though the traditional list brings Vēṅkaṭam under Vaṭanāṭu, it was part of the Tamil country of those times and should be listed under Toṇṭaināṭu; cf. the literary expression (Tolkāppiyam, Pāyiram;Subrahmanian 1990: 787): Vaṭavēṅkatam teṉkumari āyiṭait Tamiḻkūṟum nallulakam ("the good world where Tamil is spoken extends from Vēṅkaṭam in the north to Kumari [the Cape, Comari of classical authors supra] in the south").
The total of sthalas is 108 of which most are concentrated in the Kāviri delta (totally 40). Next in the order of numerical priority are Toṇṭaināṭu 22, Pāṇḍināṭu 18, Malaināṭu 13, Vaṭanāṭu 11, and Naṭūnāṭu and the Heavens each 2. Those that are said to be unearthly 12 Vēṅkaṭam and Ciṅkavēḷkuṉṟam during the time of the composition of the Nālāyiram fell within bounds of ancient Tamilnadu. These two were ceded to Andhra Pradesh at the time of the formation of linguistic states after independence. This applies as well to Guḍimallam. are purely mythical and fictitious. Twenty-two of these are concentrated in two particular sthalas, i.e. Kāñci fourteen and Nāṅkūr eight. Totally 22 temples are in two sthalas though each is counted as a divyadeśa. Actually speaking, the sthalas are 88 (cf. the meaning of sthala in n. 1). 13 Among these the earliest is Māliruñcōlai (Grove where Māl/ Viṣṇu resides) that appears in the Paripāṭal (5 th century AD -Zvelebil 1974: 31). This collection of poems in its 15 th long poem talks of the cult of Viṣṇu and notes the sthala, Neṭuṅkuṉṟam (Tall Hill), also called Iruṅkuṉṟam (Resident Hill) or Māliruṅkuṉṟam (Resident Hill of Māl /Viṣṇu Paripāṭal v. 15,ll. 4,14,17,23). The same work refers to two other sthalas that are Iruntaiyūr and Kuḷavāy 14 (Paripāṭal-tiruaṭṭu v. 1). These two places are likely to have been close to Maturai but defy identification (infra). It may note the Paripāṭal is a poetic compilation in praise of Kūṭal/Maturai, its River Vaikai and the Gods Cevvēḷ/Murukaṉ and Māl/Viṣṇu. Zvelebil 1974: 49 adds: "on the banks of the Vaikai, that bhakti was born". Māliruñcōlai is noted in the Cilappatikāram (5 th century AD) in its Kāṭukāṇkātai (ll. 77-116) and presents a lengthy description of its ecology, tīrthas and cult details. Besides the Cilappatikāram do present a graphic description of Vēṅkaṭam in the Kāṭukāṇkātai (ll. 41-51). The same work notes Araṅkam. It is interesting Aṉantapuram is called Āṭakamāṭam ("Terrace/Theater for Dancing"?) in the commentary to the Cilappatikāram (XXVI. 62: Āṭakamāṭattarituyil amarntōṉ "One reclining in the elevated temple at Āṭakamāṭam", XXX. 51: Āṭakamāṭattaravaṇaikkiṭantōṉ "He who reclines on the snake in the elevated temple at Āṭakamāṭam") 15 . Some raise the question why Āṭakamāṭam could not be Araṅkam (Subrahmanian 1990: 76). We 13 Āṭṭapuyakkaram and Veḥkā fall in close proximity at a place called Āṭicaṉpeṭṭai in Kāñcīpuram. Veḥkā is considered to be the birth-place of Poykai Āḻvār and considered a divyadeśa. Kaḷvaṉūr falls within the Kāmākṣī Ammaṉ temple complex to the right of the garbhag ha of Devī. These are very small temples when compared with Varadarāja Perumāḷ in Kāñci, the vaṭakalai base. 14 It is not clear whether this is Kuḻantai extolled by Nammāḻvār. 15 R. Parthasarathy's (1993: 229, 269-70) translation of the two passages goes as follows: "Viṣṇu who sleeps in a trance at Āṭakamāṭam (and blessed him/Ceṅkuṭṭuvaṉ)". "Araṭṭaṉ Ceṭṭi…Employed in the service of the Lord resting/On the divine serpent in the golden temple". Kiṭattal could not be strictly brought under "resting". Viṣṇu just reclines that is a deceitful slumber or yoganidrā. For resting one need not recline and may even sit and rest (Kalidos 2006: I, 17-18). presume it is a reference to Aṉantapuram (cf. Dhanavathy 2003: 37) because the place is noted in the third Canto of the work, called Vañcikkāṇṭam, in connection with the Cēraṉ king Ceṅkuṭṭuvaṉ on the eve of his expedition to the north to bring a stone for sculpting an image of Kaṇṇaki (for details of the Kaṇṇaki cult see Rajarajan 2000).
Therefore, in the pre-bhakti and post-Caṅkam literature the Vaiṣṇava sthalas noted are Māliruñcōlai, Iruntaiyūr, Kuḻavāy, Araṅkam, Vēṅkaṭam and Āṭakamāṭam/Aṉantapuram. Iruntaiyūr and Kuḻavāy could not be identified. The other 104 places are notified in the hymns of the Āḻvārs. These may be chronologically charted in the order of the Āḻvārs, noted above. Of the six Māliruñcōlai, Araṅkam, Vēṅkaṭam and Aṉantapuram (not Āṭakamāṭam) find a place in the lists of the Āḻvārs. Iruntaiyūr and Kuḻavāy are missing. In any case during the pre-Āḻvār Vaiṣṇava tradition at least four sthalas were known. These four cover the regions of Malaināṭu (Aṉantapuram), Pāṇḍināṭu (Māliruñcōlai), Cōḻanāṭu (Araṅkam) and Toṇṭaināṭu (Vēṅkaṭam). Down to the 5 th -6 th century CE no place from the north is listed though the Paripāṭal and the Cilappatikāram have enough to say on the cult of the V ṣṇi heroes Vāsudeva, K ṣṇa and Baladeva, including the femine Subhadrā, sister of K ṣṇa and not the spouse (ideintified with Śrī in Śrīvaiṣṇavism; Śrī here is not Śrīdevī but the lord's "grace"). Viṣṇu (Māl/Tirumāl), K ṣṇa and Baladeva are subject of exaltation in the hymns of the Āḻvars. The Āḻvārs in their hymns extol the praise of the deśas where the Lord willingly resides. These may be listed and discussed regarding their historical sequence. The deśas by each of the Āḻvārs are the following.
It is a point for consideration why the Āḻvār prefers to talk of a sthala and not all that existed in his time. For example, Kōvalūr, Tañcaimāmaṇikkōyil, Kacci-Attikiri, Pāṭakam, Nīrmalai, Kaṭalmallai, Taṇkāl, Kōṭṭiyūr, Viṇṇakar, Aṭṭapuyakkaram and Vēḷukkai existed during the time of Nammāḻvār and he has no hymn on these sthalas. Even though his concentration is on those in Pāṇḍināṭu and Malaināṭu, he has nothing to say on Taṇkāl and Kōṭṭiyūr that were important in the Pāṇḍan zone. Similarly, all the 108 must have existed by about the time of Tirumaṅkai, last among the Āḻvārs. He has chosen to consider 82 and concentrates more on the sthalas in Cōḻanāṭu and Toṇṭainātu. The reason for omitting 26 is an enigma and it is not clear that a particular Āḻvār chose to talk of a venue that he personally visited and not talk of others that he did not visit. Tirumaḻicai is supposed to have been born at a place of the same name, near Cheṉṉai (tāluka Śrīperumputūr [this was the place where Rājiv Gāndhi was assassinated]), but his nativity is not one among the 108. Now, there is a temple for Viṣṇu in that place called Jagannātha. Āṇṭāḷ's primary concern is not Araṅkam, which place she is said to have visited with Periyāḻvār, her foster father, took the hand of the Lord and merged with eternity according to guruparampara (Āṟāyirappaṭi pp. 45-50) mythologies. 19 We must keep in mind that the guruparampara mythologies are of a later date and were not known at the time of Āṇṭāḷ and so these are likely to have been fabrications of those Ācāryas that composed them. Therefore, one will have to be very careful while dealing with the data of the Ācāryas as sources of Vaiṣṇava/Śrīvaiṣṇava history, especially the hagiological details and dates assigned to the Āḻvārs are spurious on part of compilers of the guruparampara annals. It is precisely at this point that Indian, expecially those from Tamilnadu, Vaiṣṇava scholars differ from the Indian-American Vaiṣṇava scholars (the school led by A.K. Ramanujam) who seem to be deep-rooted in their sectarian affiliation to the vaḍakala-Śrīvaiṣṇavism (brāhmaṇa-dominated and propagators of the Sanskritic lore), a vicious group that is practically castrated in the scholarly circle in Tamilnadu today (infra). Kṣetras of the pre-Āḻvār time are Māliruñcōlai, Araṅkam, Vēṅkaṭam and Aṉantapuram. The total is four.
The deśas that come to prominence during the period of the Middle Āḻvārs (7  To a modern tourist with all the sophisticated travel facilities by air, road or rail it might appear the Āḻvārs could not have visited all the sthalas listed by them, especially those in the distant north (e.g. Śālagrāma in Nepal), but why not by walk is the question? It was their avowed ambition to visit all the kṣetras because they considered the kṣetra the Lord Viṣṇu himself, cf. the Viṣṇusahasranāma epithet: Kṣetrajñaḥ (no. 16) that considers the Lord himself the sacred temple. 25 Paramapatam (the Vaiṣṇava heaven, Vaikuṇṭha) and Pāṟkaṭal (Ocean of Milk) are purely mythical (vide, Attachment). No mortal could hope to visit these places. 26 Those who have faith in Viṣṇu may hope to visit these places only after demise. Again it is a moot point that only a few sthalas alone existed during a particular point of time that was canonized by the Āḻvārs. More could have been there that were not canonized. When attain popularity, they could have been canonized. For example, one may ask whether Śrīmuṣṇam or Maṉṉārkuṭi existed only at the time of the Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇa (say 10 th century CE). There could have been a small temple there during the pre-10 th century that came to be canonized later when popularity increases. Epigraphical sources in the temple date since the Middle and later Cōḻa period (10 th -11 th century -Rajarajan 2006: I, 64). More pronounced evidences come during the period of the Nāyakas of Tañcāvūr in the 16 th -17 th century (cf. Rajarajan 2006: I, 64-65). In any case it could not be definitely stated that this sthala existed during the Āḻvār period.
Several temples (kṣetras) existed in one sthala, e.g. Kāñci (14) and Nāṅkūr (8). In both the cases the sthala is Kāñci or Nāṅkūr and what the Āḻvārs considered was the temple, the kṣetra. In such a case total number of sthalas could not have been more than 88. The Hindu 25 Cf. the beautiful Tamil expression, tiruttaḷiyāṉ "Lord Sacred Temple" (Tēvāram 6.290.3), Ōṅkuyarkōyiluṟaivār (ibid. 1.26.3) "He is frozen in the form of the Temple" or "he who resides in the tall-rising temple". These references pertain to a sacred Śaiva venue in Pāṇḍināṭu at Puttūr (Place of the Anthill) on the way from Maturai to Kāraikkuṭi via Mēlūr. 26 The Tiruviḷaiyāṭaṟ Purāṇam records a myth of Varaguṇa Pāṇḍya (CE 862-80) visiting the Śīvaloka (Jeyapriya 2013: Chap. II) and presents a description of how it was. faith is that each temple is situated on the Meru, the Axis mundi, and that the temple was the Lord himself transformed in the form of an architectural edifice (supra. cf. n. 26). If such a lofty imaginary vision of a sthala is considered, then we may have faith in 108 in which case the temple may fall within a radius of 5-7 kms in case of Kāñci or Nāṅkūr.
Another important point is that what the Āḻvārs saw during the 6 th -9 th century were not the temples that we find today. A good case of phenomenal growth is the Tirumala/Tirupati (Vēṅkaṭam) temple. There are several temples for Viṣṇu at the base of the seven hills, Saptagiri, 27 named after Śrīnivāsa, Govindarāja (supposed to have been built by Rāmānujācārya; Aiyangar 1940: 262), Godaṇḍa-Rama, Alamēlu-Maṅgammā (Tiruccāṉūr) and so on and it is not clear which temple the Āḻvārs note. It is a point for serious consideration whether it is the temple on the hill top (Aiyangar 1940: 4) because Rāmānujācārya is said to have rolled his body on the hill to reach the temple. He did so because the hill was an abstraction of Ādiśeṣa himself (cf. n. 22) and that he should not set his foot on him, the hill, Śeṣasaila. The Āḻvārs consider Māliruñcōlai the Tiruppāṟkaṭal and Vēṅkaṭam the Vaikuṇṭha (Tiruvāymoḻi 10.7.8). Nammāḻvār beautifully says Tirumāliruñcōlai is the Pāṟkaṭal that is his head. The Vaikuṇṭha of Tirumāl is Tiruvēṅ-kaṭam that is his body: Tirumāliruñcōlaimalaiyē Tiruppāṟkaṭalē yeṉṟalaiyē Tirumāl Vaikuntamē taṇtiruvēṅkaṭamē yeṉatuṭalē (Tiruvāymoḻi 10.7.8).
The temple that the Āḻvārs did see during the 6 th -9 th centuries has undergone spectacular changes today   Aiyangar 1940). See in photo 6 the priest seated to the left of the vāhana may have been 20 and the same person in photo 7 is more than 80 years old. We will have to verify whether both are the same. 29 While working on this part of the article, I happened to note a fantastic, rather "shocking", newspaper report (contributor's name not given) in a popular Tamil daily, called Tiṉamalar (dated 2 nd October 2010), on the splendors of the Lord of the Tirumalai temple (Figs. 4-5) that may be summarized as follows (facts subject to verification): 1) The golden pītāmbara of the Lord is six kg in weight. Any one could offer such a vastra to the Lord by paying Rs. 12,500 (US $ 250) and will have to wait in reservation for three years on paying the money. This is called mēlcāttuvastram (upper garment).
2) The uḷcāttuvastram (inner garment) is worth Rs. 20,000 ($ 400) and after paying the due one will have to wait for 10 years.
3) The cosmetics for the Lord are brought from Amsterdam (roses), Spain (kumkum), Nepal (kasturi), China (punuku) and Paris (aromatic scents). 4) The jewels are worth several billions of dollars. The sālagrama golden shoulder hang is twelve kg in weight and three priests are required to lift it and place on the Lord's image. They say there is no time to put on all these ornaments on the sacred image of the Lord in a recurring process during yearly days. The latest news (February 2011) is that they a Museum of Jewels is to be set in the temple. Cf. the Exhibits in the Vatican, Rome. 5) A blue gem alone is worth 20 million dollars (?). years (cf. Parker 1992: 121n). If Tirumaṅkai Āḻvār were alive today and visit the temple, he would not believe his own eyes and say it was the same Vēṅkaṭam that he saw in the 9 th century. Tirupati/Tirumala is the only venue of a temple on earth that shows stages of development at a bullet-train-speed within a time bracket of 50 years. Māliruñcōlai and Mōkūr fall within a distance of 15 kms in the north-south direction. In both the cases the present temples are of Vijayanagara-Nāyaka period as the style of architecture and iconography would prove (Rajarajan 2006: I, 44-47;II, Plan II). In between these two another center of early medieval art, Āṉaimalai, is found that houses an image of Ugra-N siṁha in the cella of a rock-cut cave (Kalidos 2006: I, 224-25). Again the north-facing group of caves in Tirupparaṅkuṉṟam consists of a rock-cut cella for Viṣṇu-Vaikuṇṭha-mūrti (Rajarajan 1991: figs. 1-2), which is not a divyadeśa. 30 We may recall here that the Paripāṭal has references to Iruntaiyūr and Kuḷavāy. It is not clear these two refer to the Paraṅkuṉṟam and Āṉaimalai. In any case the Meyyam or Māliruñcōlai of the Āḻvār time are not those that we find today. Through the historic periods, these temples have undergone drastic changes and added with several maṇḍapas, shrines for Āvaraṇamūrtis, gopuras, tirukkuḷams, vāhanas and so on (Plan 1). These could not be those of the time that the Āḻvārs composed their hymns. 31 Shrines for Āvaraṇamūrtis peep into the temple arena only after the time of Kulōttuṅga I (AD 1070-1120). Early medieval temples, cave or structural, do not accommodate separate chapels for Lakṣmī or 30 It was a seat of the Murukaṉ cult as told in the Tirumurukāṟṟuppaṭai (250 CE, Zvelebil 1974: 50). It has been proved with authentic evidence that the present group of northern caves at Paraṅkuṉram accommodates no house for Murukaṉ (Rajarajan 2001). In two instances temples for Viṣṇu and Murukaṉ are said to have coexisted. They are Paraṅkuṉṟam, Māliruñcōlai, called Paḻamutircōlai in Kaumāra tradition. Vēṅkaṭam was also considered a temple for Śiva (Aiyangar 1940: 266). The tug-ofwar between the Vaiṣṇavas and Kaumāras was so intense that they went to the court of law claiming the present Saunrarāja Perumāḷ temple at Aḻakarkōyil was their original Murukaṉ temple. The same fight existed in case of Tirupati-Tirumala also (Aiyangar 1940, Vol. I). 31 Tirumaṅkai talks of tanks, pools, forts, towered edifices and pavilions: poḻilum vāviyum matilum māṭamāḷikaiyum maṇṭapamum (Periya Tirumoḻi 2.3.10). These might have been some early edifices built of brick and not the pillared halls that we find during the Cōḻa or Vijayanagara-Nāyaka time. All structures of the present temple, the holy of holies, maṇḍapas, gopura, tirumatil, tirukkuḷam and vāhanas (including tēr) are of Vijayanagara-Nāyaka time.
Bhūdevī. 32 These come to the scene only during the Vijayanagara-Nāyaka period (Rajarajan 2006: II, Plans I & II). The Āṉaimalai early medieval rock-cut cave temple for N siṁha (Fig. 8) is added with a mahāmaṇḍapa, shrine for Garuḍa and Lakṣmī that are structural and Vijayanagara-Nāyaka additions (Figs. 9-11). Similarly the present day temple complex of either Māliruñcōlai or Meyyam (Rajarajan 2006: II, Plan VIII of Meyyam) did not exist during the Āḻvār times. 33 The temple tank in the plan of Rajarajan was built du-ring the Vijayanagara time whereas the Āḻvārs sing the natural water reservoirs (Fig. 12). The rock-cut mūlabera in Meyyam is of the Āḻvār time and not the balibera (Fig. 13).
In any case all that is told by the Āḻvār is not imaginary or idealized vision of a temple that he saw in his mental eye. His aim was to extol the Mūrti as he found him in sayana, sthānaka, āsana or dancing mode (cf. Kalidos 1999: 223-50) 34 , the sthala, the kṣetra, the v kṣa (flora and fauna), the tīrtha, the utsavas (cf. Younger 1982) and so on. There may be an iota of poetic imagination of what the Āḻvār say (e.g. references to towered edifices and golden forts in small villages) but the divyadeśa is a reality because we find all the 108 today. One may locate the nine and fourteen temples of the Āḻvārs' time in the cities of Nāṅkūr and Kāñci of the 9 th century in separate 32 Vasudha Narayanan (1998: 88) says separate chapels for Śrīdevī appear in Viṣṇu temples since the 7 th century CE. It is not so. In none of the Pallava structural temple (e.g. Vaikuṇṭha Perumāḷ) or rock-cut caves (e.g. Varāhamaṇḍapa and Ādivarāha-Viṣṇu-g ha) do we find a chapel for Devī. The same is the case with that of the Western Calukyas of Badāmī (e.g. Caves III & II), early Pāṇḍyas, Rāṣṭrakūṭas and Eastern Calukyas. If in case one finds a chapel for Devī (e.g. Āṉaimalai Fig. 10) it is a later addition. The Malaiyaṭippaṭṭi early medieval cave finds some ruined structural additions for Devī, Garuḍa and the Ācāryas. These are of the Nāyaka period (Kalidos 1988: 57-69). The Kont-guḍi complex in Aihole is a cluster of temples for gods and none for Devī (see a recent book, Soundararajan 2009). 33 For example the present day Allikkēṇi temple is a macro-complex with the following falling within a tirumatil (sacred wall): Five garbhag has for pañcavīras (infra Attachment), chapels for Varadarāja, Raṅganātha, N siṁha and Śrī Rāma, shrines for Devīs, an enclave for Āḻvārs, ardhamaṇḍapa, mukhamaṇḍpa, mahāmaṇḍapa, 32-pillared maṇḍapa, ūñjalmaṇḍapa (swing pavilion), vasantamaṇḍapa (pavilion for the spring festival), kalyāṇamaṇḍapa (marriage pavilion), a pavilion that falls outside the wall in the east, two gopuras, balipītha, dvajastambha, Garuḍapīṭha, teppakkuḷam and so on (Radhakrishnan 2006: Chap II). 34 Especially the Lord in the divyadeśas of Pāṇḍināṭu region is viewed mostly in dancing form (Rajarajan 2010). zones but today these are found within the congested city and streets of contemporary time within a range of walkable distance. Overall, we are thankful to the mystics of the 6 th -9 th centuries for presenting us an overview of the Vaiṣṇava temples and venues that existed in their times. To get back to the question posed at the commencement of the essay, "landscape of myth" or "landscape of history", it may be affimed the Āḻvārs deal with the landscape of history and not myth. To say simply why it is "history", I may add all the 108 exist today and these have evolved over a long period of time during the 6 thearly 9 th century CE down to the contemporary time. What I mean is Allikkēṇi of today (Figs. 14-15) is totally different (Figs. 14-15) from what Pēyāḻvār saw in the 6 th century CE but the deśa is a reality, its topographical setting and ecology (vide, Attachment). A sthala could not be imagined and described. The aim of the Āḻvār was to visit the sthala and describe the Mūrti, the kṣetra, tīrtha, v kṣa and above all its sacred geography with its flourishing flora and fauna as they found it (for a graphic description of these details see Rajarajan 2012a). Pāṟkaṭal and Vaikuṇṭha are exceptions (vide, for case studies see Attachment). More sthalas seem to have been added during the subsequent periods (e.g. the Śrītattvanidhi version) down to the 19 th century CE and several of these are not brought under divyadeśas (e.g. Ādi Keśava at Śrīperumputūr, Varadarāja at Kāñcīpuram, a stronghold of vaṭakalai Śrīvaiṣṇavism), 35 Kodaṇḍa Rāma at Madhuāntakam and so on see Kalidos 1989: 261-73).

Argument
This part of the article is added to reply certain questions that rose during discussion when presented in an elite audience. I am to emphasize that most Indian-American and American (I mean the US) scho-lars working in American Universities writing on Śrīvaiṣṇavism are prejudiced of the fundamentals of its basic philosophy and that of Viṣṇuism (supra). I want to emphasize Śrīvaiṣṇavism is a philophical approach to Viṣṇuism and Viṣṇuism/Vaiṣṇavism is a major religion in India, counted one among the ṣaṇmatas (Tamil aṟuvakaiccamayam).
I should emphasise Śrīvaiṣṇavism in which Śrī (the Lord's "grace" supra) is given greater importance than Viṣṇu is not the main focus of attention here. Some American scholars employ unhistorical phrases such as "Śrīvaiṣṇava poems", "Śrīvaiṣṇava divyadeśas" and so on. The Āḻvārs' works are not poems.
They composed hymns that generate sanctity, which when recited arises from the depth of the bosom of a devotee, melts his tissues: kātalākik kacintu kaṇṇīr malki "I am in love [My Lord Śiva], I melt and shed tears" Tēvāram 3.307.1; ūṉiṉai urukki uḷḷoḷi perukki "melt the tissues and arouse the inner light" Tiruvācakam: Piṭittapattu v. 9; aṉpākik kacinturukum "[I] liquefy due to love of you" Tiruvācakam: Civapurāṇam l. 57; he/she being in a state of frenzy. It is not something like a movie song or pop music.
The sublime in the Tamil hymnists is so unfathomable that John Bunyan (vide, Pilgrim's Progress 17 th century CE) is a baccā before Ñāṉacampantar, the child prodigy, and Māṇikkavacakar (7 th -8 th century CE), a veteran. 36 The divyadeśas were not Śrīvaiṣṇava at about the early 9 th century CE and no true Vaiṣṇava brings them under this category.
Śrīvaiṣṇavism as a codified system of thought/philosophy developed after the time of Śrī Rāmānujācārya (e.g. his Śrībhāṣya) 37 in the 12 th 36 This is merely a point in comparison of poetic excellence and need be viewed in terms of Christianity vs. Hinduism. As an ardent student of British English literature, I consider Bunyan a great poet. See his words: "The gentleman's name was Mr Wordly Wise-Man". "My great grandfather was but a waterman, looking one way, and rowing another". We may also look into the hymns of Cardinal Newman (1801-1890): "Lead, Kindly Light, amid the encircling gloom/Lead Thou me on". These citations have been given for comparison with those of the Āḻvārs (cf. Ramanujam 1981, Ganeshram 2011; if the poems of Bunyan and Newman are hymns why not those of the Āḻvārs'? S. Ganeshram is a novice in the field. Guided by Raju Kalidos he has presented the summary of all the hymns bearing on the divyadeśas of Malaināṭu in his article, presented in an international conference, organized by the Universita di Roma and IsIAO in Rome 2011. 37 Basically the Śrībhāṣya is a commentary to the Brahmasūtra in which the ideas of the Vedas, Upaniṣads and above all the Tiruvāymoḻi of Nammāḻvār were employed in the process of explication. Therefore, the rudiments of Śrīvaiṣṇavism may be found in it. It is not explicitly a work on Śrīvaiṣṇava doctrines that developed after the time of century CE whereas all the twelve Āḻvārs are dated during the 6 thearly 9 th century CE. A ray of Śrīvaiṣṇava ideology may be found the hymns of Āṇṭāḷ et al who emphasize the importance of the Feminine Principle (śrī "grace" transformed) as one may find in Tiruppāvai.
The subject-matter in the hymns of the Āḻvārs is Viṣṇu, the foremost of the millions of gods: muppattumūvar amarar: Tiruppavai v. 20. The Āḻvārs consider Śrī, Bhū and Nappiṉṉai, Viṣṇu's three consorts as secondary or tertiary principles: uṭaṉamar kātal makaḷir tirumakaḷ maṇmakalāyar/maṭamakaḷ eṉṟivar mūvar "the three consorts are Srīdevī, Bhūdevī and the āyar[gopi]-girl, Nappiṉṉai" Tiruvāymoḻi 1.9.4; vide, Kalidos 2011. Āṇṭāḷ in another place categorically declares it is her aim to sing the praise of the Lord Viṣṇu: "As on today and the seven more births to come I am for you and for you only I shall offer my obeisance": eṟṟaikkum ēḻēl piṟavikkum uṉṟaṉṉōṭu uṟṟōmē āvōmuṉakkē nāmāṭceyvom (Tiruppavai v. 29). She also advices her fellow maidens to sing the praise of the Lord Nārāyaṇa, also called Keśava: Nāyakap peṇpiḷḷāy Nārāyaṇamūrtti Kecavaṉai pāṭavum ni (Tiruppāvai v. 7). "He is the god of gods", Āṇṭāḷ says, "let us go and worship him, He will shower his blessings scrutinising our demands": Tēvāti tēvaṉic ceṉṟunām cēvittāl/āvāveṉṟārāytaruḷēlōr-empāvay (Tiruppāvai v. 8). In the Nācciyār Tirumoḻi 1.1 she declares: Uṉṉaiyu mumpiyaiyum toḻutēṉ "I worship you and your brother (Bala-deva)", a hint at the V ṣṇi heroworship.
The Śrīvaiṣṇava concept > Viṣṇu without śrī is a naught 38 < developed due to some religious upheavels in the 12 th century CE. 39 Rāmānuja. Śrīvaiṣṇavism is an interpretative philosophy on part of the Ācāryas. These interpretators are not the end-point in Vaiṣṇavism. 38 In the Śrīraṅgam temple one visits Tāyār (Mother Śrī) first and then goes to the main sanctum of Lord Raṅganātha. It is due to the popular belief the Lord may not shower his mercy unless the devotee has obtained the blessings of the Goddess. This idea should have come to the ritual picture only after the Vijayanagara time when the shrine for Tāyār was erected. 39 Tele-interview with a Śrīvaiṣṇava scholar, Prof. J. Rangaswami of the Tamil University of Thanjavur (this scholar has translated the Śrīvacanabhuṣaṇam and Ācāryah daya of Piḷḷai Lokācārya in English) who on 17-2-2011 told me: > It is sheer idiosyncrasy to talk of Śrīvaiṣṇavism before the time of Nāthamuni (10 th century CE) who codified the Nālāyiram into a canon. For the Tamil Vaiṣṇavas the Nālāyiram is the Veda and not the commentaries of the Ācāryas who came after Rāmānuja. Śrīvaiṣṇavism as a cultivated system developed during and after the time of Rāmānuja, popularized by his disciples < Śrīraṅgam (Raṅganātha temple -divyadeśa) and Kāñcīpuram (Varadarāja temple) at that point of time were the bases of Śrīvaiṣṇava mode of approach after the time of Rāmānuja, the former emphasizing the Pāñcarātraand latter Vaikhānasa-āgamas respectively for the teṉkalai (Tamil/Nālāyiram dominated) and vaṭakalai (Sanskrit/Vedas dominated) schisms (Rangasvami 1993-95: 107-22). Therefore, the usage of phrases such as "Śrīvaiṣṇava poems (meaning the Nālāyiram)" and "Śrīvaiṣṇava divyadeśas (of the Āḻvārs)" is mere fallacy. I may also add here in the early medieval temples (c. 550-850 CE, contemporaneous with the Āḻvārs), rock-cut or structural, Viṣṇu rarely appears with Devīs, Śrī and Bhū, 40 and never with Nappiṉṉai (cf. Kalidos 2011 cites K.R. Srinivasan 1972: 51 who finds Nappiṉṉai in the Govardhanadhāri relief of Māmallapuram). Good examples are Trimūrti-maṇḍapa in Māmallapuram, Kīḻmāvilaṅkai cave temple, Tiruccirāppaḷḷi Pāṇḍya (lower) cave (west-facing cella) and so on (Kalidos 2006: pls. LXI. 1, LXXXII. 1). Though not approved divyadeśas by the Āḻvārs, these are archaeological evidences to show the not-so-well-known concept of Śrīvaiṣṇavism during a time contemporaneous with the Āḻvārs as reflected in the temple arts. 41 I have cited a newspaper report only to show how tremendously the assets of the Tirumala have increased during the past 50 years. It may be "anonymous" (see n. 28) to very serious to an American or American-Indian and they may look "spuriously" in understanding the ideas behind the interpretation of photo nos. 6 & 7. Coming to the 40 Śrī and Bhū may or may not be present with the Lord Śeṣaśāyī; e.g. Uṇḍavalli in Āndhradeśa (without Devīs), ruined image in the middle cella of the Shore temple at Māmallapuram (without Devīs), Ciṅkāvaram, Nāmakkal, Malaiyaṭippaṭṭi, Tirumeyyam and Taṇkāl (divyadeśa]). In the maṇḍapa of the Malaiyaṭippaṭṭi rock-cut cave for Raṅganātha Śrī and Bhū appear with seated and standing Viṣṇu but these two are not cult images (Kalidos 1988: Pl. Ia). The garbhag ha in the Tirupparaṅkuṉṟam (west facing cella) north group of caves accommodates seated Viṣṇu with Devīs (Rajarajan 1991: figs. 1-2). It is an example of a Śrīvaiṣṇava image in the early art of Tamilnadu that is placed in the garbhag ha. The image of Bhūvarāhamūrti in the Ādivarāha-Viṣṇu-g ha is with Bhūdevī (Champakalakshmi 2001: fig. p. 80), placed in a cella-like apartment on the backwall of the cave. Sthānaka-Viṣṇu appears alone in the Trimūrti-maṇḍapa of Māmallapuram, Kīḻmāvilaṅkai cave and Tiruccirāppḷḷi lower cave (west facing cella). In my view the presence of Devī/s is not the only criteria for Ṣrīvaiṣṇava status. 41 If any one wants to dispute these arguments, he/she is most welcome to India to any one of the research centers, particularly the Tamil University of Thanjavur or the Adyar Research Centre, where we shall meet and debate. anonymous newspaper report, I may add now there is a school that gives importance to "contemporary history" (cf. a Department of Contemporary History in the School of Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi) and "oral history" in Europe. Scholars on contemporary history depend mainly on Newspaper reports (Diehl 1978: 123-27, Rajaraman 1988) and personally biased interviews. 42 Anita Diehl's work is a doctoral thesis of the University of Lund. 43 Are we to treat these "anonymous" theses? Several American scholars produce calendar posters for illustration in their scholarly publications on religion and Hinduism (Hawley 1988: fig. 1, Narayanan 1988: figs. 10-11, 44 McDermott 1988. Are 42 If you write a thesis on a contemporary politician in Tamilnadu who had been in the field for the past 60 years, the investigator invariably depends on newspapers and personal interviews that belong to his party cadre. Do you think such a person will open his mind regarding number of wives/concubines of their leader, their children (how many and to whom born?), and personal assets in 1950 and 2010? Under such circumstances, methodology could not be uniform in all historical investigations. We find historians of religion, historians of art and those deals with both. Could any one bring them into a compartment or fence their thoughts by talking of methodology? There is an Indian saying: for Vālmīki (and Shakespeare) there is no grammar; what they write is grammar. I am neither Vālmīki nor Shakespeare but their student. I very well remember Shakespeare's advice to a scholar of my standing, a Humboldtian if not a Harvardian: "Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice; Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgement" (Hamlet Act I, Scene 3). I also keep in mind Shakespeare's words: "I have immortal longings in me" (Antony and Cleopatra, Act V, Scene 2). These citations are irrelevant to the problem under study but may serve to answer the precarious questions that arise in course of dicussion. I want to point out here that in a Harvard publication (Parker 1992: 110-123) the data presented could be found in any contemporary newspaper in Tamil or English. Scho-lars interested may refer to newspapers during 1979-1987. 43 These scholars cite third-rate newspapers such as Tiṉattanti (popular among the unlettered mass) and Viṭutalai (that fanatics of DK political lineage read) that no decent man, not to speak of the educated, reads in Tamilnadu. The news agency that I have cited is on a better level read by the elite. I do not say it does not talk nonsense. It does. This standard as well applies to news media all over the world, whether the Times of India or New York. I am giving this an example and it has not relevance to the main discussion on divyadeśas. When I cite a newspaper report on the subject, it was questioned by an American. It is my counter-question how they permit scholars in contemporary history quoting newspapers. Do not scholars from Harvard work on contemporary Indian or American history? If these scholars take a double-stand in historical research Harvard will be hollow-vard. 44 If you want historical images Śrī/Lakṣmī go to Ellora Cave XVI, the Nandimaṇḍapa part of its monolithic section or the dark hole-like pathway that leads to the Laṅkeśvara in the same group of cave temples (Kalidos 2006: III, pl. XVI. 1). You do they historical or what authority do they command in the sphere of Indian art? Are not these "anonymous"? The pinnacle of these cheap illustrations is by Jacobson (2004: 237-64, figs. 1-8) who offers a justification for this type of unhistorical idioms in art. The most fantastic visuvalization is that child-Śiva is found sleeping in fig. 8 of Jacobson 2004. 45 To my knowledge there is no iconographic form of Śiva in the canons or myth that view Śiva in reclining mode whether as a child, lad or grown up man (see the virutta-kumāra-pālaṉ [Sanskrit v ddha-kumāra-bāla] in Tiruviḷaiāṭaṟ Purāṇam). It is typical of the Buddha (chronologically earlier) and Viṣṇu-Śeṣaśāyī. The calendar posters are wild imaginations and fantasies on the part uneducated street painters/printers. Going to the other extreme, an art historian may justify he is investigating the sociological setting of these new entrants in the realm of Hindu iconography, which traditional scholars view with apathy (cf. Dallapiccola ed. 1989) and in my view such illustrations are unscrupulously art historical. 46 These find her in the Varāhamaṇḍapa of Māmallapuram (ibid. III, pl. XLVIII. 1). Why do some illustrate calendar posters? 45 His justification is fascinating on the negative side. He says Rāja Ravivarma did it and so all calendar posters are of that standard. Ravivarma imitated the classical traditions and chalked out a path for himself. He did it for money because he was in dire need of it. It is foolish to equate a calendar poster with Ravivarma. What do most contemporary, the so-called modern art[ists] do? Do they work for name or money? The painting-artists of Ajaṇṭa and the Kaṅgra are anonymous and do not even have their names written below each painting. What do the modern artists down to M.F. Hussain do? Most of them are after millions of dollars and Husssain went to such a low level that he found Sarasvatī nude, leading to his (scholarly ?) excommunication from India (cf. Kalidos 2010: 43-48). I do not find any difference between Hussain's Sarasvatī and the calendar posters. This article was published by Brill. What will Brill do if the article is recommended by an American referee? Some talk of Harvard and all that. A genuine Harvard should come forward to recognize the erudition of a scholar. For an egalitarian professor Cambridge and Heidelberg, Lund, Harvard and Tribhuvan are universities, no more any less. 46 At this juncture, I would like to point out a blunder caused on Indian Art by some foreign scholars. See Indrof 2004: fig. 17, the figure caption says it is Chola, 1010 CE. But in reality it is a pure Vijayanagara-Nayaka (16 th -17 th Century) master piece work Subramanya temple, with in B hadeśvara temple complex of Tañcāvūr. Using the modern clander art to study the Hindu iconographic forms, knowingly or unknowlingly dating a monument, having sectarian notions and dating Indian literatures. White (pp. 127-129) "a classical Tamil poem, the circa 100-300 C.E. Neṭunalvāṭai, depicts the relationship between warrior king and warrior goddess by describing the royal bedroom situated at the symbolic heart of the Pāṇḍya kingdom. In this bedroom is a round bed, symbolizing the round Vedic fire altar and the earth, and scholars construe their own methodology of art history vis-à-vis religion that is against the injunctions of the śāstras as told in Dallapiccola ed. 1989. Coming to my illustrations Figs. 6-7, carefully examine the legends for these figures in which it is clearly stated photo 6 was shot in the 1930s and photo 7 in Septembeer 2010. Therefore, my proposition that the priest in photo 6 (maybe aged 20) is the same in photo 7 (aged above 80 It may be shocking to some who read endnote 28. Let me give a small statistics of the budget of the Tirumala temple as reported in scholarly journals. In 1978-79 the Budget estimate of the temple was Rs. 1,755.26 lakhs (Venugopal 1978: 571-72). Within a period of three years during 1982-83 it rose to several millions, the fixed deposit alone being 45.97 crores (more than a million American dollars) of Indian rupees (Reddy 1983: 953-56). This is what statistics says. Who knows what the actual figure was if you do not depend on newspaper reports? And who knows how many lakhs of rupees were swindled? 47 If you ask for today's budget estimate of the Devasthānam nobody will give you the genuine figures and even if told they may be fake. If one wants to know the truth behind the citations given in endnote 28 no one may come forward to divulge the secret. There may or may not this bed is the queen, who lies naked, awaiting the oblation of soma-semen from her husband. Known as "The Clan-founding Goddess" (kula-mutaltēvi), she embodies the Mother goddess to whom her maidservant prays for victory, as well as the aṇaṅku (a Tamil term whose semantic field corresponds to that śakti in Sanskrit) that pervades the royal capital-fortress. That aṇaṅku, transmitted by her to the king each time they have sexual intercourse (kūṭal), is carried inside of him as the energy that wins him victory in battle. Nearly all of the elements of the later kuladevī cults appear to be present in this early Tamil poem. 47 Sir, this is India, home of black-money and politico-religious public robbery (keep in mind 2G-Spectrum hot-news and a Central Indian minister and his paramour jail days. Some time back there was a hubbub regarding the missing jewels in the Tirumala temple. Where there is wealth, there is ample opportunity for banditry. I hope the Vatican is free from these malices. But when we visited the Church one of my friends found 2,000 euro pickpocketed. From time immemorial the region around Tirupati was the home of kaḷḷaṉs (literally "robbers"). Today these original kaḷḷaṉs have disappeared, giving place for the modern politician/kaḷḷaṉ. be any reality if one says a blue gem is worth 20 million US dollars (cf. endnote 28). See Fig. 17 and find out the jewels that could not be valued in terms of millions of euros and dollars.

Attachment
Allikēṇi and Pāṟkaṭal in the Āḻvār hymns Allikēṇi and Pāṟkaṭal are the two earthly and unearthly celestial abodes of Viṣṇu. It may be of some value to see how the Āḻvārs view these two deśas in their hymns (for case studies of Araṅkam and Kuṁbhakōṇam see Kalidos 1993-95: 136-52, Meeneshwari 1993 Pēyāḻvār finds the waves of the ocean dashing against the wall of the temple at Allikkēṇi (modern Triplicane), vantutaitta veṇṭiraikaḷ (Tirvantāti III, v. 16). Today it is not the case. The Bay lay at a considerable distance say about a km from the temple. It is likely it was the case at the time of Pēy in the 6 th century CE. Maḻicai views Mayilai (modern Mylapore) and Allikkēṇi in close quarters: Māmayilai māvallikkēṇiyāṉ "He of the great Mayilai and the great Allikkēṇi" (Nāṉmukaṉ Tiruvantāti v. 35). It seems in that time both the venues were viewed as one and the same. Today there is a temple for Kāpālīśvara at Mayilai or Mayilāpūr. Nobody views it a Vaiṣṇava divyadeśa. On the other the Nāyaṉmār view Mayilai a talam of the Śaivas (Tēvāram Tirumuṟai 2, Patikam 183).
Maṅkai talks of the festivals that take place in the temple, viṟperuviḻa (big festival Periya Tirumoḻi 2.3.1). He also views Mayilai and Allikkēṇi as one and the same (ibid. v. 2). Today the name of the temple is Pārthasārathi, the Lord K ṣṇa who drove the chariot for Arjuna at the time of the Great Bhārata War. The Periya Tirumoḻi (2.3.1) notes the Lord as driver of a chariot. He is said to have visited the Gaurava court on the eve of the war as dūta on behalf of the Pāṇḍavas (ibid. 2.3. 5). The clear notation of a charioteer appears in another hymn (ibid. 2.3.6): Intiraṉ ciṟuvaṉ tērmuṉ niṉṟāṉait tiruvallikkēṇi kaṇṭēṉē "I found him (K ṣṇa) by the side of a chariot with the little one (son) of Indra (Arjuna) at Tiruvallikkēṇi".
The venue was in an enchanting grove where the cuckoo and peacocks do fly. The Mayilaittiruvallikkēṇi was full of towering edifices and pools with fishes and groves (with plants) dripping honey (ibid. 2.3.7). Besides the ponds and pools, there was a fort (tirumatil?), towered palaces and pavilions (cf. n. 22). The Lord is sthānaka (standing mode) in the temple at Mayilaittirivallikkēṇi that was built by the southern King Toṇṭaiyaṉ (ibid. 2.3.10). The Toṇṭaiyaṉ (cf. Aiyangar 1940: Chap. I) noted here is the Pallava king, Nandivarmaṉ II whom Tirumaṅkai converted to Vaiṣṇavism. It was he who built the Vaikuṇṭha Perumāḷ (deśa Paramēccuraviṇṇakaram) temple at Kāñci (Periya Tirumoḻi 2.9.1-10).
To say crisply Mayilai and Allikkēṇi went together as one deśa. The waves of the Bay of Bengal dashed against the walls of the temple (cf. Rabe 2001: pl. 2 of the Shore temple at Māmallapuram, photo taken in 1797). The venue was full of towered edifices and a wall (called fort) surrounded the temple. The temple was fitted with pillared halls. It was a grove with water reservoirs where peacocks and cuckoo generated a rhythm of sweet voice. Above all the Lord, the mūlabera was in sthānaka mode.
K.V. Soundararajan (1993-95: 26) has the following to say on the organization of the present temple: It is an example of the Pañcavīra concept. "It was in the suburb of Mayilai. What we see in the sanctum is a group of images, all standing (supra, Periya Tirumoḻi 2.3.10) except for one, and which represent the Pañcavīra cult group of hero gods of the V ṣṇi clan to which K ṣṇa belonged and shows the images of Vāsudeva or K ṣṇa (called Pārthasārathi in local tradition), Aniruddha, Pradyumna, Subhadra (called Rukmiṇī in local tradition), Sātyaki and Balarāma (or Saṁkarṣaṇa) seated at the southern end facing north. Such temple of the Bhāgavata Vaiṣṇavism reached Tamilnadu in the 7 th century AD".
R. Radhakrishnan 2006 finds the following shrines today: Pārthasārathi (east facing), Gopālak ṣṇa (east facing), Varadarāja (east facing), N siṁha (west facing) and Āṇṭāḷ (east facing) as named by the temple administration. Though the vyūha and pañcavīra concepts were familiar to the Āḻvārs, they do not link these with the Allikkēṇi temple, which means the organization of five mūlaberas in separate garbhag has in the temple is of later imposition. This is to confirm not only the original format of the sthala but also its organization had undergone radical changes since the 6 th to the 16 th century CE. The Agramaṇḍa of the temple and the rāyagopura (Figs. 14-15) did not exist during the Āḻvār period and Āḻvārs had no known idea of these.
By reclining it is meant he closes the eyes and sleeps or pretends to sleep, pāṟkaṭaluḷ kaṇtuyilum (Perumāḷ Tirumoḻi 4.4).
It is said in another context the Pāṟkaṭal is Araṅkam as the venue is surrounded by the waters of the Rivers Kāviri and Koḷḷiṭam (Kalidos 1993-95: 136-52), paḷḷiyāvatu pāṟkaṭalaraṅkam (Periya Tirumoḻi 1.8.2, cf. Tiruvāymoḻi 10.7.8 supra). Talking of Veḷḷiyaṅkuṭi, a divyadeśa, it is said the Pāṟkaṭal is the venue where the Lord is pleased to sleep and that it is a temple: Pārkaṭal tuyiṉṟa paramaṉār paḷḷikoḷ kōyil (Periya Tirumoḻi 4.10.4). The she-mystic, Āṇṭāḷ, views the reclining Lord with an erotic eye and wants to cohabit with him (Kalidos 1997: 117-38): Pāṟkaṭal paḷḷikoḷvāṉip puṇarvatōrācaiyiṉāl "It is my desire I shall cohabit the reclining Lord" (Nācciyār Tirumoḻi 5.7).
Āṇṭāḷ may be okay in imagining the venue of sleep is the bedroom for her sexual freeplay, which symbolically means milk is the sustaining element as is Lord Viṣṇu where as Śrī offers wealth and progeny to her devotees. This fundamentally speaking is the symbolism of Viṣṇuism (sustenance) and Śrīviṣṇuism (that assures plenty).