The Temple's Child
Parasara Bhattar, roughly 1122 to 1174, is the son of Kuresha and Andal, the disciple of Embar, and the head of the Srivaishnava tradition at Srirangam after him.
His name
Given by Ramanuja, and deliberately.
Yamunacharya had died with three unfinished wishes, and one was that Parasara and Vyasa should be honoured by having people named after them.
So Kuresha's two sons were named Parasara Bhattar and Vyasa Bhattar, twenty or thirty years after the promise was made over a dead man's body.
How he was raised
Kuresha had given away everything, and the family at Srirangam was destitute.
And the tradition's account is that Ranganatha and Ranganayaki, the deities of the Srirangam temple, took the child as their own: that a portion of the temple's offerings was directed to him, that he was raised on it, and that he is properly described as the temple's son.
Whatever the arrangement was administratively, the effect is clear enough. A poor child of a family that had ruined itself for the tradition was raised by the institution his father had given everything to.
And it produced somebody remarkable.
The handful of sand
The story every Srivaishnava child knows.
A scholar came to Srirangam, with a retinue, with the insignia of victory in debate collected from other places, and with a title: he called himself Sarvajna, the omniscient one.
And Parasara Bhattar was a child, small enough that the accounts specify he was playing in the sand by the road when the procession came past.
And he called out.
He picked up a handful of sand and asked the scholar how many grains were in his hand.
And the scholar could not answer.
And the child said, in substance: then you are not omniscient, and you should stop calling yourself that.
What happened next
The scholar accepted it.
Which is the part of the story that gets left out. He did not have the child beaten, or complain to the temple authorities, or leave in a temper.
He gave up the title, and in the accounts became Bhattar's student, and stayed at Srirangam.
Why the story works
Because it is not a trick.
The child's question is a real one. Sarvajna means knowing everything, and a person claiming it has to answer any question, including a stupid one, and the number of grains in a specific handful of sand is a fact about the world.
The claim was too big and a child noticed.
And it is worth noting what it is not. It is not an argument that knowledge is worthless, and the man who asked the question went on to write technical commentaries in Sanskrit for the rest of his life.
It is an argument against the title, which is a different thing.
Applied now, which is where it is useful
There is a great deal of this about.
Titles of total spiritual attainment are handed out and self applied constantly: the fully realised, the enlightened, the one who has completed the path, the guru who has nothing left to learn.
And the Parasara Bhattar test is available to anybody: ask a specific question, in the claimed area, and see what happens.
The person who says they do not know is fine. The person whose title cannot survive an ordinary question was never entitled to it.
And the warning that goes with it, as throughout this series: teachers who claim total attainment, who cannot be questioned, who require money, who isolate you from your family, who demand secrecy or sexual contact, or who give dangerous instructions, are failing regardless of the claim. Police 112, women's helpline 181, Tele MANAS 14416.
The Books
He wrote a good deal, and two of the works are still in daily use.
One. Bhagavad Guna Darpana
The mirror of the qualities of the Lord, and it is his commentary on the Vishnu Sahasranama.
Why it matters: the Sahasranama, the thousand names of Vishnu from the Mahabharata, is one of the most recited texts in Hinduism, and it has two great commentaries.
Shankara's, from the Advaita position.
And Parasara Bhattar's, from the Srivaishnava one.
And they differ constantly, because a name can be read as describing a quality of a personal deity or as pointing past all qualities, and the two schools disagree about which.
What Bhattar does with it: reads the thousand names as a structured account of kalyana gunas, auspicious qualities, and argues that the ordering is not random. Groups of names are read together as developing a theme, and the whole is treated as a composition rather than a list.
Which turns a recitation text into a theology, and Srivaishnavas reciting the Sahasranama are usually reciting it in his light whether they know it or not.
Two. Sri Guna Ratna Kosha
The treasury of the jewels of her qualities, a hymn on Ranganayaki, the goddess at Srirangam.
And it is the most loved of his works.
What it argues: the Srivaishnava doctrine of Sri as purushakara, the one through whom the approach is made, and specifically her compassion as the thing that makes the approach possible at all.
The structure of the argument, which is worth stating because it is the emotional centre of the tradition:
- The divine is also just, and justice is a problem for anybody who has looked honestly at their own record
- She intercedes, and the intercession is not a formality
- And she is not required to. The tradition insists her compassion is not owed and cannot be earned
- Which is why the approach is through her
And Bhattar's hymn is where this is most fully and most warmly stated, and it is recited at Srirangam.
Three. Sri Ranga Raja Stava
Two hundred verses in two parts.
The first, the purva shataka, is about Srirangam itself: the island, the Kaveri, the walls, the gates, the streets, the temple, and the town. It is a hymn to a place.
The second, the uttara shataka, is about Ranganatha, the reclining deity in the sanctum.
And the order is the point: you arrive at the place first, and the place is already the thing.
Four. Ashtashloki
Eight verses on the three rahasyas, the Tirumantra, the Dvaya and the Charama Shloka.
Extremely compressed, and it became the standard short statement of the tradition's core, with a large commentarial literature of its own.
Five. Commentarial work on the Tamil canon
Including on Kanninun Siruthambu, the short work of Madhurakavi Alvar about having no god but his teacher, which has an entry in this series.
And the Sanskrit and Tamil sides together are the point: Bhattar wrote technical Sanskrit theology and commented on Tamil devotional poetry, and the Srivaishnava tradition is called ubhaya vedanta, the dual Vedanta, precisely because it treats both as scripture.
Which is not a small claim. It puts the Tamil poems of the alvars, composed by men and one woman of varying caste, on the same footing as the Sanskrit Veda.
The Man He Converted, and the Line After Him
Nanjiyar
Before he was Nanjiyar he was Madhava, sometimes Vedanti Madhava, and he was a considerable Advaita scholar in the Melkote region of what is now Karnataka.
With a large establishment: wealth, land, several hundred students, and standing.
And Bhattar went to debate him.
The debate
It ran for days, in the accounts, in the formal manner of the period: positions stated, objections raised, texts cited, and a decision.
And Bhattar won.
What Madhava did
Everything.
He accepted the position, took initiation, gave away his property, took sannyasa, and became a mendicant.
And Bhattar called him Nam Jiyar, our ascetic, which became Nanjiyar, and that is his name in the tradition.
What to make of the debate stories
They are the standard form in this literature and they should be read with some care.
What they usually record honestly is that a real intellectual conflict existed and that one school gained an established figure from another.
What they compress is the process: nobody changes a lifetime's position in an afternoon because of a syllogism, and the accounts that say so are shortening something that took much longer.
And the Embar entry in this batch contains the alternative and is worth setting beside this one: nobody argued Embar back from Kalahasti. An uncle told him a story.
Both accounts are in the same tradition, about men one generation apart, and the tradition sees no difficulty in holding both.
Nanjiyar's own contribution
The Nine Thousand.
He wrote a commentary on the Tiruvaymoli, Nammalvar's thousand and something Tamil verses, running to nine thousand granthas, a unit of measure for text length, and it is called the Onpatinayirappadi.
And what happened to it is the next entry.
The line, laid out
Because this batch is a lineage and it is worth seeing whole:
- Nathamuni, who recovered the Divya Prabandham
- Uyyakondar, Manakkal Nambi
- Yamunacharya at Srirangam
- The five acharyas: Periya Nambi, Thirukoshtiyur Nambi, Thirukkachi Nambi, Periya Thirumalai Nambi, Thirumalai Andan
- Ramanuja
- Embar
- Parasara Bhattar
- Nanjiyar
- Nampillai
- Vadakku Thiruvidhi Pillai and Periyavachan Pillai
- Pillai Lokacharya and Vedanta Desika, after whom the tradition divides
Roughly three hundred years, ten or eleven links, and every one of them documented.
Which is itself worth noticing. Very few religious traditions anywhere can name their teachers in an unbroken sequence over that period with that much biographical detail, and the Srivaishnava obsession with guru parampara is why.
His end
He died at Srirangam, at around fifty two, which is young.
And the accounts of Nanjiyar's grief are the mirror of the accounts of Ramanuja grieving for Kuresha, one generation earlier: the older man outliving the younger, in a tradition that kept losing people early.
The Short Version
Who: Parasara Bhattar, roughly 1122 to 1174, son of Kuresha and Andal, disciple of Embar, and head of the Srivaishnava tradition at Srirangam after him. Ramanuja named him and his brother Vyasa Bhattar to fulfil one of Yamunacharya's three unfinished wishes, that Parasara and Vyasa be honoured by having people named after them.
How he was raised: Kuresha had given away everything and the family at Srirangam was destitute. The tradition's account is that Ranganatha and Ranganayaki took the child as their own, that a portion of the temple's offerings went to him, and that he is properly called the temple's son. A poor child of a family that had ruined itself for the tradition was raised by the institution his father gave everything to.
The handful of sand: a scholar arrived at Srirangam with a retinue, the insignia of debate victories, and the title Sarvajna, the omniscient. Parasara Bhattar, a child playing in the sand by the road, picked up a handful and asked him how many grains were in it. The scholar could not answer, and the child said he was therefore not omniscient and should stop saying so. The scholar accepted it, gave up the title and became his student. It is not a trick: the question is a real one, since a person claiming to know everything has to answer any question, and the number of grains in a handful is a fact about the world. It is an argument against the title, not against knowledge, and the man who asked it wrote technical Sanskrit commentaries for the rest of his life.
His works: the Bhagavad Guna Darpana, his commentary on the Vishnu Sahasranama, which reads the thousand names as a structured account of auspicious qualities rather than a list, and which differs constantly from Shankara's commentary on the same text. The Sri Guna Ratna Kosha on Ranganayaki, the most loved of his works, which states the doctrine of Sri as purushakara and her compassion as unearned and not owed. The Sri Ranga Raja Stava in two hundred verses, the first hundred on the town of Srirangam itself and the second on Ranganatha. The Ashtashloki, eight compressed verses on the three rahasyas. And commentarial work on the Tamil canon, since the tradition is ubhaya vedanta, dual Vedanta, treating the Tamil alvar poems as scripture alongside the Sanskrit Veda.
Nanjiyar: an established Advaita scholar named Madhava, with wealth, land and several hundred students in the Melkote region, whom Bhattar debated for days and defeated. Madhava accepted the position, gave away his property, took sannyasa, and was called Nam Jiyar, our ascetic, which became Nanjiyar. He wrote the Onpatinayirappadi, the nine thousand, a commentary on Nammalvar's Tiruvaymoli.
Common Questions From Devotees
Who was Parasara Bhattar?+
The son of Kuresha and Andal, roughly 1122 to 1174, disciple of Embar and head of the Srivaishnava tradition at Srirangam after him. Ramanuja named him and his brother Vyasa Bhattar to fulfil one of Yamunacharya's three unfinished wishes, that Parasara and Vyasa be honoured by having people named after them. Because Kuresha had given away everything, the family was destitute, and the tradition's account is that the deities of the Srirangam temple took the child as their own and that he was raised on a portion of the temple's offerings.
What is the story of the handful of sand?+
A scholar came to Srirangam with a retinue, carrying the insignia of debate victories collected elsewhere, and calling himself Sarvajna, the omniscient one. Parasara Bhattar was a child playing in the sand by the road when the procession passed. He picked up a handful of sand and asked the scholar how many grains were in his hand. The scholar could not answer, and the child said that he was therefore not omniscient and should stop calling himself that. The scholar accepted it, gave up the title, became Bhattar's student and stayed at Srirangam. The question is a real one rather than a trick, since a person claiming to know everything must answer any question and the number of grains in a specific handful is a fact about the world.
What is the Bhagavad Guna Darpana?+
Parasara Bhattar's commentary on the Vishnu Sahasranama, the thousand names of Vishnu from the Mahabharata, and one of the two great commentaries on that text, the other being Shankara's. They differ constantly, since a name can be read as describing a quality of a personal deity or as pointing past all qualities, and the two schools disagree about which. Bhattar reads the thousand names as a structured account of kalyana gunas, auspicious qualities, and argues that the ordering is not random, with groups of names developing a theme and the whole treated as a composition rather than a list. Srivaishnavas reciting the Sahasranama are usually reciting it in his light whether they know it or not.
What is the Sri Guna Ratna Kosha about?+
Ranganayaki, the goddess at Srirangam, and it is the most loved of Parasara Bhattar's works. It states the Srivaishnava doctrine of Sri as purushakara, the one through whom the approach to Narayana is made, and specifically her compassion as what makes the approach possible at all. The structure of the argument is the emotional centre of the tradition: the divine is also just, and justice is a problem for anybody who has looked honestly at their own record; she intercedes, and the intercession is not a formality; she is not required to, since the tradition insists her compassion is not owed and cannot be earned; and that is why the approach is through her.
What does ubhaya vedanta mean?+
The dual Vedanta, and it is the name for the Srivaishnava position that both the Sanskrit Veda and the Tamil poems of the alvars are scripture. Parasara Bhattar embodies it: he wrote technical Sanskrit theology, including the Vishnu Sahasranama commentary and the Ashtashloki, and he also wrote commentarial work on the Tamil canon, including on Kanninun Siruthambu, the short work of Madhurakavi Alvar about having no god but his teacher. It is not a small claim, since it puts Tamil devotional poems composed by men and one woman of varying caste on the same footing as the Sanskrit Veda.
Who was Nanjiyar?+
Before he was Nanjiyar he was Madhava, sometimes Vedanti Madhava, an established Advaita scholar in the Melkote region with wealth, land, several hundred students and considerable standing. Parasara Bhattar went to debate him, the debate ran for days in the formal manner of the period, and Bhattar won. Madhava accepted the position, took initiation, gave away his property, took sannyasa and became a mendicant, and Bhattar called him Nam Jiyar, our ascetic, which became Nanjiyar. He wrote the Onpatinayirappadi, the nine thousand, a commentary on Nammalvar's Tiruvaymoli. Debate stories in this literature should be read with care: they record honestly that a real intellectual conflict existed, but they compress a process that took much longer than an afternoon.
About the author
Acharya Vinaya Kapoor · M.A. Sanskrit, Mantra & Stotra Studies
Acharya Vinaya holds an M.A. in Sanskrit from Banaras Hindu University and writes the mantra and stotra commentary on Vandnaa. Her focus is on accurate pronunciation, traditional context, and helping modern readers connect with classical texts.
Meet the Vandnaa editorial team →
