Some questions on Saivasiddhanta

[Guest guest]

The honorific "devar" in Meykandadevar does not and need not refer to

his belonging to a modern Devar community. In the tradition of

calling spiritual heads and monastic heads it is the practice to add

Devar to their names. Moreover the communal appellation Devar was not

so old to have found expression in the texts of the 13th century.

Though majority of smarthas do not and did not associate with the

aivagamic tradition there were some exceptions as in the case of

Sivaagrayogin who is asid to have come from a smartha community which

is also borne out by his leanings towards Advaita views and citing

the Pancapaadikaavivarana a well known advaita vedanta text.

 

Does Sundaramurti Nayanaar belong to temple priest class ? Of course,

yes. But the temple priests were in ancient times called Siva

brahmana in all the inscriptions of Tamilnadu. Sundaramurti

Naayanaar's maternal grandfather Jnanasivaacaarya is referred to in

one of the Tiruvarur inscriptions; it is common knowledge that

Sundaramurti married (of course it was thwarted by God !) the

daughter of one Shadangavi Sivaacaarya which is the corrupt form of

Shadangavit [= Knower (vit) of all the six (shaD) limbs (anga) of the

Veda ]. One can see in the Pallava inscriptions and copper plates

hundreds of such names as Shadangavit, Kramavittan who were brahmins

well-versed in six-limbs of the Veda, Krama paatha of the Veda, etc.

who were patronised and given land grants by Pallava kings of the

7th –9th century. What does one conclude from the above ? That the

Saiva temple priests, at least,of the Pallava period were vedic

scholars in their own way at the same time engaged in the Siva temple

worship. One does not come across in those times any exclusive

Agamic community analogous to the modern Sivaacaarya(=Adisaiva). In

the Kuram grant of the Pallava king we hear of an Anantasivaachaarya,

the chief priest of the Siva temple in Kuram, near Kanchi. So

Sivaachaarya of those times did not refer to any separate community

of temple priests alone. Apart from their erudition in various

branches of Vedic lore some of them were also engaged in the temples

and were given the extra honorific title of sivaacharya that relates

their engagement and profession. Therefore Sundaramurti Naayanaar was

by all evidence and traditional accounts is a Brahmin first. All

these questions arise because of a wrong and unfounded association

temple worship exclusively with the Saiva Agamas of the Siddhanta

type . For, temple worship, priests, festivals and verything were

there from ancient times as it is practised now but one should bear

in mind that they were never done exclusively on the basis of the

Siddhanta Agamas with which we at present are familiar. Agama is

generic name of those revealed scriptures which every sect such as

Pasupata, Kalamukha, Kapalika, Vaishnava possessed. Unfortunately

due to various historical reasons almost all the Agamas of other

schools of saivism except the Siddhanta branch had been lost to us.

In the same way the passage in Tiruvaacakam " Agamamaaki

NinRannippaan Taal vaazka" need not necessarily mean the Agamas of

the Saivasiddhanta branch.

 

 

Regards

T.Ganesan

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr Ganesan, indebted for your informative posts.

 

> That the

> Saiva temple priests, at least,of the Pallava period were vedic

> scholars in their own way at the same time engaged in the Siva

temple

> worship.

 

Sure this is quite like the Sri Vaishnavas.

 

But one thing I would like to know is how much of temple

ritual/duties is derived from the Vedas and how much of it from the

Agaamaas of a particular sect?

 

If you look at the dharma shaastras which primarily Vedic, the

religion as viewed by it is hardly theistic in nature. As Yashwant

Malaiya pointed out earlier, the dharma shaastras even go to the

extent of prohibiting brahmins to take up priestly duties in temples.

In this vein we see the smaarthaas who live by the smriti, not

normally opting for priestly duties.

 

If we look at the Sri Vaishnavas for whom the Vedas as well as the

Divya Prabandham acts as scripture, they do not shrink from taking up

priestly duties. In my mind this is fundamentally due to the theistic

nature of their philosophy - more influenced by the Pancharaatra and

the Divya Prabandham than the Vedas and it is this which provides the

material on temple activity.

 

So are the rules for temple worship and duties primarily derived from

the Agamaas?

 

If this is so, it can explain why modern Sivaachaaryaas are not Vedic

scholars but are still versed in temple rituals/duties as taught by

the Agamaas. Because while the first (Vedic knowledge) has lost its

value in modern India, the utility for the second (Agamic in temple

activities) still persists. Sivaachaaryaas are not alone in their

lack of Vedic knowledge - so are most of the other brahmins in TN.

 

Hope I'm not too confusing - appreciate your clarification.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "tganesh62002 <tganesh62002>"

Dr. T. Ganesan wrote:

>The honorific "devar" in Meykandadevar does not and need not refer to

>his belonging to a modern Devar community. In the tradition of

>calling spiritual heads and monastic heads it is the practice to add

>Devar to their names. Moreover the communal appellation Devar was not

>so old to have found expression in the texts of the 13th century.

 

I agree. As an example, take the example of Thaaramangalam KaTTi

MutalikaL from Salem Distrcit. In inscriptions, they are said to

be 'veLLaaLak kaNNaril .... kaTTi mutalikaL'. So, today's caste

name Mutali refers to KaikkOLas alone will not be fit.

Similarly, in Pandya and Chola inscriptions, there are aboundant

evidence with "veLLaaLaril (allatu) veLLaan aan2a [...] XYZ tEvar"

and so on.

 

> Though majority of smarthas do not and did not associate with the

>saivagamic tradition there were some exceptions as in the case of

>Sivaagrayogin who is asid to have come from a smartha community which

>is also borne out by his leanings towards Advaita views and citing

>the Pancapaadikaavivarana a well known advaita vedanta text.

 

Is this Viizhic CivaakkirayOkikaL, from Tiruviizhimizalai?

Like Chidambaram 3000, Viizhi also said to have Viizhi 8000

(from memory) brahmins. In Campantar's Tevaram, Kaazhi and

Viizhi praise poems are so much so that a proverb:

"kaazhi paati, viizhi paati".

 

>Further the texts belonging to the

>Sivajnanabodha branch were composed by teachers (except

>Arulnandisivam who is Sakalaagamapandita and probably belonged to

>priestly community) who were not brahmins at all !

>MaRaijnanasambandha the disciple of AruLnandi was a brahmin of

>Parasara gotra and Saamaveda (see Umapati's Sivaprakaasam) and

>Umaapati was traditionally held to be a priest of the Nataraja

>Temple, Chidambaram.

 

Have heard MaRai jnaanasambandhar has written Tiru Paasuurp puraaNam.

Paasuur has Appar's tEvaaram. Near Tiru-aalangaaDu (TiruttaNi taluk).

There's a prose summary of Paasuurp puraaNam by Puuvai KaliyaaNacuntara

Mutaliyaar (which I've seen years ago). If the Paasuurp puraaNam

text is available (in Olai, paper mss., or 19th century print)

I'd love to fund its publication. Also, would like to help

in printing important and rare tamil talapuraaNams. Recently

saw Tirupparangiri puraaNam by Deavsthaanam. Horrible.

just reprint, full of errors, and by someone withot yaappu

or tamil skills, none whatsoever. For rare tamil talapuraaNams,

we can approach my relative, Sri. N. Mahalingam, industrialist.

They have a fine press in Coimbatore & do philanthropic

printing to an extent. Pulavar puraaNam was printed,

and T.V. Gopala Iyer released it in a cermony,(got an invitation

years ago).

 

Once, I was going thru' Tamiz naaTu aracu tamiz nUl vivara aTTavaNai

multi-volumes. There are so many 19th century booklets published by

Adisaiva Sivaacharyas, about their gotras, court cases, etc.,

Those 19th century caste histories of Adisaiva priests will

be of immense help in Saiva Siddhanta researches, I'd think.

Also, the writings by M. AruNaacalam (Gandhi Vidyaalayam,

TirucciRRampalam, Maayuuram). He was first and foremost

a Saiva Siddhanta scholar, edited TattuvakkaTTaLai, ....

Fortunate to have met him few times. He was the one to

have found the 15 veNpaakkaL missing from Tiru IiGkOymalai

ezupatu, a prabandham in the 11th tirumuRai published by

Arumuka Naavalar (Jaffna). M. Arunachalam found them in

a mss. from CeppaRai aadheenam in Tirunelveli district.

 

Million Thanks for your mails. Hope to read many of

your books in the future.

 

anbuDan,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

Thanks Dr.Ganesan for those points.I would be thankful for some thoughts on

the following issues.

 

1.Was there any saumya form of Saivism in the South particularly in

the Tamil region in the period 1CE - 6CE.If so was it the Vaidika

pAsupata or any other ancient variation of it?

 

2.What was Karaikkal Ammaiyar? Did she belong to the panchartika

system?

 

3.Was tirunanacampantar a siva brahmana? If he was a vaidika pasupata

with emphasis on bhasma and rituals - both srauta and grihya ...

How different are they from the smarta brahmanas?

 

4.Unlike the vIrasaiva system which started with

institutionalization the Saiva siddhanta was institutionalized at various

points in time and culled from various sources.

Did it start only with the period of kadambaguhavAsi or was there any prior

to that time?

 

5.When did the practice of grouping the tevAra mUVar as a group and

installation of idols in temples start ? Did it begin only in the times of

RajaRaja?

 

Thanks

 

Vidya Jayaraman

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "vpcnk <vpcnk@H...>" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

> If we look at the Sri Vaishnavas for whom the Vedas as well as the

> Divya Prabandham acts as scripture, they do not shrink from taking up

> priestly duties. In my mind this is fundamentally due to the theistic

> nature of their philosophy - more influenced by the Pancharaatra and

> the Divya Prabandham than the Vedas and it is this which provides the

> material on temple activity.

>

 

As T. Ganesan mentioned, there are Vaishnava aagamas,

Are they Pancharaatra and Vaikaanasa?

How many aagama texts from these have survived? Is it correct

that P. and V. are followed in Tirupati and Srirangam ?

 

 

> So are the rules for temple worship and duties primarily derived from

> the Agamaas?

>

> If this is so, it can explain why modern Sivaachaaryaas are not Vedic

> scholars but are still versed in temple rituals/duties as taught by

> the Agamaas. Because while the first (Vedic knowledge) has lost its

> value in modern India, the utility for the second (Agamic in temple

> activities) still persists. Sivaachaaryaas are not alone in their

> lack of Vedic knowledge - so are most of the other brahmins in TN.

 

Indologists like Renou and W. Halbfass wrote that Vedas

are invoked more often, than real application of the knowledge in it.

 

Bhakti saints Jnaanasambandhar often mentions vedas. But

he he wrote 1000s of verses in tamil.

Many pay lipservice but do they know the Rgveda.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "tganesh62002 <tganesh62002>"

<tganesh62002> wrote:

Thank you, Sri Ganesan, for your informative posts. I was reading the

below sentences

 

> Does Sundaramurti Nayanaar belong to temple priest class ? Of

course,

> yes. But the temple priests were in ancient times called Siva

> brahmana in all the inscriptions of Tamilnadu. <snip>

> What does one conclude from the above ? <snip> Therefore

> Sundaramurti Naayanaar was by all evidence and traditional accounts

> is a Brahmin first.

 

I was puzzled when I read the above sentence. My own impresion from a

reading of inscriptions and the tirumuRai was somewhat different.

That there was some difference between 'regular' brahmins and

sivabrahmanas.

 

In the following, I first try to show that contemporary society

understood Sivabrahmanas to be somewhat different from 'regular'

brahmins. Also, there seemed to have been some difference in rituals

between the two.

 

Consider how the 'cEkkizAr cuvAmikaL purANam' attributed to umApati

civAcAriyar delas with this issue.

 

tirumaRaiyOr purANamavai patinmUn2Ru, civavEtiyar

aran2ai vazipaTTa purANamOriraNTu,

kuraikazal mA mAttiraron2 (Ru), aRuvar muTiman2n2ar,

kuRunilaman2 n2avaraivar, vaNikarkulat taivar,

irumaineRi vELALar patin2mUvar etc etc

 

It gives community wise breakup of Saiva nAyan2mAr viz., vedic

brahmanas 13, Siva brahmanas 2, mahamatra's 1, princes of royal blood

6, chieftains 5, Vaishya's 5, vELaLa's 13 etc.

 

One of the Siva brahmana's in this list is Sundarar. In the above

verse, civavEtiyar are those who have the right to touch and worship

the deity or linga. Thus they are temple priests and have been

mentioned in inscriptions as 'muppOtum tirumEn2i tINTuvAr' i.e, those

who are allowed to minister to the needs of Siva's temple image.

 

On the other hand, the other Saiva saints who were brahmana are

merely refered to by umApati as 'tiru/celva maRaiyOr' or just `those

of the Veda' or brahmins. Presumably these people are to be

understood as `Smarta' brahmins. This group includes campantar,

appUti, nIlanakkar, cOmAci, kuGkiliyakkalalayar, murukar, etc. This

group includes those who did service in the temple like gathering

flowers and also rich ones like appUti and nIlanakkar. Sundarar is

not mentioned in either!

 

I think it's fairly clear that Sundarar is a Sivabrahmana and that

this group were temple priests. In inscriptions, Sivabrahmana's are

always mentioned as such and never under some general category of

brahmins.

 

btw, the other Sivabrahmana saint in umApati's list is pukazttuNai

nAyanAr. It is interesting to see how Sundarar himself describes him:

 

akattu aTimai ceyum antaNan2 tAn2

aricil pun2al koNTu vantu ATTukin2RAn2

mikat taLarvu eyti kuTattaiyum num

muTi mEl vizuttiTTu naTugkutalum

vakuttu avan2ukku nittal paTiyum

varum en2Ru oru kAcin2ai nin2Ra nan2Rip

pukazttuNai kaip pukac ceytu ukantIr

pozil Ar tirupputtUrp pun2itan2IrE (tEv. 7.9.6)

 

When tEvAram describes pukazttuNai as doing service "inside" the

temple, I believe that the Saivite hagiography is correct in

identifying him as civavEtiyar or Sivabrahmana. (cf tarumai AtInam

commentary in this context). The commentary says `akattu aTimai'

is `aNukkattoNTu' or intimate service. cf MTL entry

for `anukkattiruvAyil' = garbhagriha.

 

The commentary further says : ahtAvatu iRaivaratu aNmaiyilEyiruntu

avaratu tirumEn2yait tINTic ceytaRkuriya paNiviTakaLAic ceytal.

avaRRai tirukkOyiliR ceypavar `Aticaiva antaNar' enappaTuvar. Loosely

translated, `Aticaivar are those who remain in the inner sanctum of

the temple and minister to the needs of Siva's temple image'.

 

Here it may instructive to look at the otl entries for these terms:

 

Aticaivar

otl Aticaivar Aticaivar * Siva Bra1hmans who have descended from the

go1tras of the five r2s2is, Kausika, Ka1syapa, Bha1radva1ja, Gautama

and Agastya, born from the five faces of Sada1siva, and who alone are

entitled to conduct services in Siva temples

civappirAmaNar

otl civappirAmaNar civappirAmaNar bra1hmans who conduct service in

Siva temples

 

MTL has the same entries except that it has a cross reference

to `Aticaivar' in the entry for civappirAmaNar which otl seems to

have omitted.

 

Thus these Aticaivar are none other than the Sivabrahmana or

civavEtiyar of umApati. In inscriptions also, sivabrahmana's are

mentioned specifically . For example, SII, v.8, no. 336 is an

inscription in Jambukesvaram temple (tiruvAn2aikkA). It was in the

reign of Rajaraja III in the 13th century. It deals with a donation

of proceeds of a land sale to the temple.The people who are

signatories/witnesses to the deed include

"uTaiyAn2 naJcuNTAn2An2a neRkuppai araiyan2 cayiJJAnatan2amaikku

tirukkarampantuRai uTaiya nAyan2Ar kOyilkk kANi uTaiya

civappirAmaNan2 muttan2An2a....pollAtAn2 celvan2An2a pon2n2imazai

nATAzvAn2 cayiJJAtan2amaikku putukkuTiyAn2a rAcEntiracOzamaGkalattu

kAvallkANi uTaiya perumAn2 azakan2An2a maNavALamuttaraiyan2 ezuttu

ippaTi aRivEn2 uttamanampi ezuttu ippaTiaRivEn2 tuRaiyUruTaiyAn2

vaTakarainATTu mUvEnta....aRivEn2 kemutavan2 ALumpirAn2 periyakOyil

nampi ezuttu ippaTi aRivEn2 AlaGkuTaiyAn2 min2van2

pallavaraiyan2En2 ippaTi aRivEn2 tukkuTi tiruvAykkulamuTaiyAn2

zrInAraciGkapaTTanEn2 ippaTi aRivEn2 civaJJAn2akkuRai kavuciyan2

tillaippirAn2 ANTAn2 cattivan2appperumAn2 ezuttu....kuRai

vikkiramacOzanallUruTaiyAn2 viLAnATTuvELAn2 ezuttu ..."

 

Further, umApati's brahmin nAyan2mAr have a slightly different

description in periyapurANam or the tirumuRai. There is always

mention of veda chanting or (sacrificial) fire tending in any

description of them or their houses. For example, appUti

 

agku akan2Ru mun2ivarum pOy appUti aTikaLAr

tagkum man2aik kaTait talai mun2 cArvAka uL irunta

tigkaLUr *maRait talaivar* cezum kaTaiyil vantu aTaintAr

nagkaL pirAn2 tamar oruvar en2ak kETTu naNNin2Ar (per. 1791)

 

or look at what appar says of appUti

 

vaJcittu en2 vaLai kavarntAn2 vArAn2E AyiTin2um

paJcikkAl ciRaku an2n2am parantu Arkkum pazan2attAn2

aJcip pOyk kali meliya *azal Ompum appUti*

kuJcip pU Ay nin2Ra cEvaTiyAy kOTu iyaiyE (tEv. 4.12.10)

 

Or look at what campantar says of himself. He was *not* from a temple

priest family.

 

vEntar vantu iRaiJca vEtiyar vIzimizalaiyuL viN izivimAn2attu

Eynta tan2 tEviyOTu uRaikin2Ra Ican2ai emperumAn2ai

tOynta nIrt tONipurattu uRai *maRaiyOn2 tU mozi jnAn2acampantan2*

vAynta pAmAlai vAy navilvArai vAn2avar vazipaTuvArE. (tEv. 3.119.11)

 

Here campantar calls himself a brahmin.

 

tegkam nINTa cOlai cUznta cirapuram mEyavan2ai

agkam nINTa *maRaikaL valla aNi koL campantan2* urai

pagkam nIgkap pATa valla pattarkaL pAr itan2 mEl

cagkamOTu nITi vAzvar tan2maiyin2Al avarE. (tev. 1.47.11)

 

Here campantar calls himself well-versed in the Vedas.

 

pAr malintu Ogkip paru matil cUznta

pAmpura nan2 nakarAraik

kAr malintu azaku Ar kazan2i cUz mATak

kazumala mutu patik *kavuNi*

nAr malintu Ogkum *nAl maRai jnAn2a

campantan2* centamiz vallAr

cIr malintu azaku Ar celvam atu Ogki

civan2 aTi naNNuvar tAmE. (tEv. 1.41.11)

 

Here campantar calls himself a kauNDinya and a caturvedi.

 

One would be hard pressed to find similar descriptions for Sundarar

or pukazttuNai.

 

One other interesting control that may be applied is the neyyATal

ritual for the nAyan2Ar as an infant. Although it's not totally clear

what this ritual is, a preliminary understanding may be achieved from

periyAzvAr tirumozi 1.1.5 or the ITu commentary 7.3.1. I know that

the neyyATal ritual seems to have been refered by cEkkizAr swami in

brahmin contexts, for JAn2acampantar (per. 1933) or even for

ciRuttoNTar (per. 3677) who was probably a mahAmAtrar or n amAtyakula

brAhmaNa. Does the tradition understand that this was performed for

sundarar or pukazttuNai?

 

Hope this helps,

 

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Dr. T. Ganesan wrote:

>Agama is generic name of those revealed scriptures which every sect

>such as Pasupata, Kalamukha, Kapalika, Vaishnava possessed.

>Unfortunately due to various historical reasons almost all the

>Agamas of other schools of saivism except the Siddhanta branch

>had been lost to us. In the same way the passage in Tiruvaacakam

>"Agamamaaki NinRannippaan Taal vaazka" need not necessarily

>mean the Agamas of the Saivasiddhanta branch.

 

Also, the Tevaram occurences of the aagama scriptures:

a) ara oli AkamagkaL aRivAr aRi tOttiragkaL - Cuntarar

b) okuttavan2 arumaRai agkam; Akamam vakuttavan2; - Campantar

c) tOkai ampIli koLvAr tuvarkkURaikaL pOrttu uzalvAr

Akama celvan2Arai alar tURRutal kAraNamAk - Campantar

d) toNTar tamakku eLiya cOtiyai vEtiyan2ai [...]

aNTar tamakku Akama nUl moziyum Atiyai - Cuntarar

 

Does Manikkavacakar and tevaram trio mention, then,

Paashupata aagamas?

In the book by Collins, Charles (The iconography and ritual of ´Siva at Ele=

phanta,

State University of New York Press, 1988), the Elephanta

caves design is following Paashupata suutras.

 

>So it is not correct that

>scholars of Sivaacaarya community contributed to the Sivajnanabodha

>branch . In fact 14 texts of the Meykandasaatthiram and others that

>follow in the course of so many centuries were not at all studied by

>the Sivaacaaryas at all.

 

However, aruLnanti civam (the teacher of meykaNDaar who

later became M.'s disciple) is a Sivaacharyar temple priest,

acc. to abithaana cinthaamaNi.

"aruNanti civAccAriyar - ivar, tiruttuRaiyuuril Aticaivar

kulam ceyta tavappERRAl tiruvavatarittuk kAmikAti AkamaGkaL

mutaliyavaRRil vallavaraakac cakalaakama paNtitar en2at

tirunAmam aTaintu tammaiyaTainta aTiyavarkaLukkuc civatIkSai

ceytuvarum nATkaLil oru nAL ..." (p. 93, A. Chintamani)

 

Cuntarar's story is built in PeriyapuraaNam as a temple

priest Sivavediyar. Sundarar in his previous birth was

doing aNukkattoNTu for Siva in Mt. Kailasam. The aNukkattoNTu

of performing pUjai to the temple lingam is called

"tirumEn2i tINTutal", and this is reserved for Siva temple

priests. Sundarar, in his list of 63 Nayanmars (earliest available),

mentions in the beginning lines, "muppOtum tirumEn2i tINTuvaarkku

aTiyEn2".

 

In Houston, Madurai sivaachaariyars serve the Meenakshi and

Cokkanaathan. Thangam PaTTar and Rajarathna PaTTar

are priests emeritus. Sri. Thangam PaTTar was given

a Doctorate by Madras university for his knowledege of

Saivaagamas. PaTTars tell that Sri. N. R. Bhatt from

Pondichery French institute came to their homes to

collect Saivaagama texts. In 1960s? Rajarathna PaTTar

gives class-like lectures on Saiva Siddhanta and aagamas

annually.

 

In 1920s and 1930s, one famous orator on Saiva siddhanta

philosophy texts was Pazhani Iisaana Sivaachaariyar.

Kirupaananda Vaariyar and a host of others got Sivadhiikshai

from Iisaana Sivaachaariyar. My grandparents published 2 booklets

by Issana Sivam. One of them contains an essay on

the biography of Sadhu SwaamikaL of Palani. In the other

Isana sivachariyar explains Sivanjaana Siddhiyar by Arulnantisivam.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

Smt. Vidya Jayaraman wrote:

> 2.What was Karaikkal Ammaiyar? Did she belong to the panchartika

> system?

>

 

Would like to hear on K. Ammai. Her statues at the feet of

Nataraja appear in Cambodia first. Venkateswaraiyar Subramaniam

(prof. of Sanskrit, Canada) once told me that Karaikkalammai's

descriptions of Nataraja dance in the burial ghats and ghosts in several of

her poems and, esp. 2 decads predate descriptions of him in Sanskrit

literature. Even the great sanskritist, C. Sivaramamurti missed

the white crane feather on Shiva Nataraja (in K. Ammai, Tevaram)

to be peacock feathers! (cf. Krishna's alankaram)

http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0012&L=indology&P=R30313

 

Ca. TaNTapaaNi Tecikar, ATalvallaan2, tiruvaavaTutiRai aatiin2am, 1967

is a classic book on Nataraja theme. Using the book,

C. Sivaramamurti wrote his Nataraja in art, thought

and literature. Zvelebil wrote a book criquing some ideas

mentioned in Sivaramamurti. Ananda tandava of Siva sadanrttamurti:

the development of ATavallAn-kUttapperumAnaTikaL in South Indian

textual and iconographic tradition, 1985, Madras. The Pallava dakshinamurti

and aananda naTaraaja sculptures are absent in north or Kashmir.

 

Dr. Vasundhara Filliozat mentioned about Dakshinacara style

being called Jakkanachara style. For d- changing to j- in Kannada, an example:

In around the tuLu country is called tOkai-k-kA in sangam literature, tOkai

being

peacock and its plummage. This dravidian word for peacock is

attested even in old testament (ref. bishop R. Caldwell, ...).

The name, "jOga" falls in Karnataka is related to "tOkai-k-kaa" (mayuravana)

of sangam literature. While daxinamurti as an ascetic is

seen in Pallava, Chola temples, in Karnataka temples, there is

Lakuliisa in the south side! Is this an indication that

dakshinaachaara style with Lakuliisa is more raudra and

draavida style with daxinamurti as more saumya? Tevaram,

tirumurai portray Shiva as very loving and bestowing grace

all the time.

 

 

> 5.When did the practice of grouping the tevAra mUVar as a group and

> installation of idols in temples start ? Did it begin only in the times of

> RajaRaja?

 

Possibly almost a century earlier. Aditya Chola is the one who

brought Kongu gold and made golden roofs for Tillai Natarajar.

Vidya Dehejia, Slaves of the lord, The path of the Tamil saints

Manohar, Delhi. p. 18 "Nambi also compiled the hymns in their

present form [...] The date of Nambi seems to be fairly well

fixed, since he mentions the Chola king Adittan (Aditya Chola

ruled from 870-907), and refers also to the death of this

ruler. One may safely place him in the early tenth century."

A sample of Tamil scholars taking Nampi's date in Aditta Cholan's times

are: a) T. P. Meenakshisundaram, AHTL, p. 130-1,

b) C. Jesudasan, HTL, p. 135 c) Tiruvarur Ca. Comacuntara

Tecikar, CaivacikAmaNikaL iruvar, p. 49 d) T. V. C. PaNTaarattaar,

PiRkaalac cOzar carittiram, pp. 76-78, e) Auvai S. Duraisamy

Pillai, Saiva lit., pp. 48-42. In tiruttoNTar tiruvantaati

poem number 65 and 82 Atitta Cholan bringing Kongu gold

to Chidambaram is mentioned, and this is attested in

Aditya Chola's inscriptions, and his descendents' meykkirttis

(pracastis).

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

 

>

> Thanks

>

> Vidya Jayaraman

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "naga_ganesan <naga_ganesan@h...>"

<naga_ganesan@h...> wrote:

>

> > 5.When did the practice of grouping the tevAra mUVar as a group

and

> > installation of idols in temples start ? Did it begin only in the

times of

> > RajaRaja?

>

> Possibly almost a century earlier.

 

As far as Appar goes, R Nagaswamy's book "Siva Bhakti" refers to

instances of consecration of Appar's image for worship. On a cursory

examination, I did not see anything before Rajaraja's time. The

earliest one gets is the following:

 

"One agnikumAra kramavittan alias poRkoil caNDesvara yogi of Kundur,

gifted money and paddy for offerings during day and night

services to the image of thirunAvukkaraiyan in the temple. This

inscription begins with the prasasti of rAjarAja I and is dated 21st

year, 1006 A.D. It is obviously a reference to the metal image of

Saint Appar under worship in the temple...Obviously the image

referred to in the inscription of rAjarAja is the same one now in the

temple and used for the festival...Incidentally it was a Brahmin, a

Kramavittan who arranged for daily worship, to Saint Appar. The

Bhaktas were above caste." (ibid., p. 246)

 

Ploughing through SII may prove rewarding in this case

 

Hope this helps,

 

Lakshmi Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Tiru. LS wrote:

>INDOLOGY/message/3036

 

One of the Sambandhar tEvArams often quoted by

Sivachariyar gurukkaL is:

 

*centamizar, teyvamaRai nAvar, cezu nan2kalai terintavarOTu -

antam il kuNattavarkaL, arccan2aikaL ceyya amarkin2Ra aran2 Ur*

kontu alar pozil pazan2a vEli kuLir taNpun2al vaLam perukavE

ven tiRal viLagki vaLar vEtiyar virumpu pati vIzinakarE.

- tEvAram 3.80.4

 

Taking antamil kuNattavar as Sivacharya priests doing archanai

inside the garbhagruham, and tamils, vedic brahmins, and OtuvaamUrttis

singing, and devadaasi's doing catir dance, Shiva is worshipped.

 

*maRai nAvar* are veda chanters, as Jnaanasambandhan calls himself-

"man2n2iya cIr maRai nAvan2 vaLar jnAn2acampantan2 maruvu pATal" (tEv.

1.130.11). centamiz is classical Tamil, is centamizar (citra mEzi

nATTAr - sat-zUdras?, cf. B. Stein). The kumbArathi, and ney viLakku

by gaNikaas were deemed important to remove "evil eye" in saivaagamas.

Perhaps, the kumbArathi is told in ANDAL too - "katir oLi tIpam

kalacamuTan Entic *catir* iLa maGkaiayar". The naTTuvan2Ar-dAsi

troupes are in the tiruvaiyARu (in Campantar times, & today's

Tyagaraja festival)

"valam vanta maTavArkaL naTam ATa muzavu atira mazai en2Ru ajnci

cilamanti alamantu maram ERi mukil pArkkum tiru aiyARE." (tEv. 1)

 

R. Nagaswamy's Sivabhakti talks about tEvAram singing in

early 10th century (from memory, will check the book).

In early 10th century (Aditta Cholan's era), tirumuRai

singing grants in epigraphy is "tiruppatiyam viNNappittal".

For N. Nampi's date as around 900 CE, ref.s in

INDOLOGY/message/3041

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan