The members of the Sri Vaishnava sect of Hinduism, especially the Iyengars (Sri Vaishnavas who are Brahmanas), are divided into two sub-sects, Thenkalais and Vadakalais. These sub-sects both agree on the Visishtadvaita philosophy of Ramanujacharya that characterizes the Sri Vaishnava belief system, but they have several fine-grained but important doctrinal differences; my answer here lays out the main points of dispute. One such difference is described in this quote from a journal paper:
The power of Free (Nitya) and Freed (Mukta) Souls.
[Vadakalais] say that the Free and the Freed Souls have no power to create, or, for example, make a kosmos.
[Thenkalais] say that there are no such restrictions. Any Nitya or any Mukta is capable of doing anything by virtue of God’s commands.
My question is, is this journal paper right that Thenkalais believe that liberated souls have no limitations on their power and that they have powers of creation of the Universe and the like? The reason I'm skeptical is that Thenkalais, like all Sri Vaishnavas subscribe to the philosophy of Visistadvata Vedanta, which is part of the Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy. And the defining text of the Vedanta school is Vyasa's Brahma Sutras, which specifically say this near the end:
Topic-7: Acquisition of Divine Powers
The released soul gets all the divine powers except that of running the universe (with its creation, continuance and dissolution), as is known from the context (which deals with God) and from the non-proximity (of the individual soul).
If it be held (that the powers of the liberated soul are unlimited) owing to direct scriptural declaration, then it is not so, since it is (the attainment) of Him (ie., God) who appoints others as lords of the spheres and resides in those spheres that is spoken of (in the Upanishad)....
Also from the indicatory mark in the Upanishads about the equality of experience alone (it is known that the liberated souls do not get unfettered powers).
That seems to state that liberated souls do not get unlimited powers, and that they can't do things like creation of the Universe. And Ramanujacharya's commentary on the Brahmasutra, the Sri Bhashya, confirms this; here it what he says about Sutra 17 above:
The released soul, freed from all that hides its true nature, possesses the power of intuitively beholding the pure Brahman, but does not possess the power of ruling and guiding the different forms of motion and rest belonging to animate and inanimate nature.
And here is what he says about Sutra 19:
The meaning of the text stating that the Released freely move in all worlds, and similar texts, therefore is only that the released soul while conscious of Brahman with its manifestations experiences also the enjoyments, lying within the sphere of change, which abide in the world of Hiranyagarbha and similar beings; not that it possesses the world-energies--creative, ruling, and so on--which are the distinctive attribute of the highest Lord.
So how do Thenkalai thinkers square their beliefs with the clear words of the Brahmasutras and Ramanujacharya, the most important Acharya of Sri Vaishnavism? Or is the journal paper mischaracterizing their views?
In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I'm an Iyengar (Sri Vaishnava Brahmana), my Dad is a Thenkalai and my Mom is Vadakalai.
So technically I'm a Thenkalai, and thus it might seem like I'm asking what I myself believe. But that's not the case, because my personal beliefs tend to lean more toward the Vadakalai side.
EDIT: To be clear, Muktas can do things like make planets in Vishnu's highest abode of Paramapadam, but what the Brahma Sutras and Sri Bhashya say is that Muktas do not have control of the world-energies, i.e. Vishnu's core function of creation, preservation, and destruction of the Universe inhabitated by Jivas. Whereas Thenkalais say that Muktas have no restrictions on their powers, and can do everything Vishnu can do. That's what I want to see reconciled.