Volume 4.1 - Religion of the Thevaram (introduction)

Part (1):

I

Nampi Arurar is a Shaivite in the sense he worships God as Shiva. The study of his hymns as revealing the progress and attainment of final spiritual or divine experience shows that he is a mystic. It is, therefore, difficult to define his creed and dogma. All the same, we learn from his poems certain ideals; certain means of attaining those ideals are referred to as prevalent in his time and aS appealing to him. It is very difficult to identify his religion either as Kapalika’s or Pasupata’s or for that matter with any other sect. As a mystic he refuses to be a sectarian. The Tantric forms of worship have become popular by the time of our poet, and he refers to Agamas also. In his work, the 7th Tirumurai, there is one great hymn which is very significant. It is the hymn known as Thiruthondathogai.

This Thiruthondathogai hymn is important for giving us a clear idea of the Religious and Philosophical views dear to the heart of Nampi Arurar. It must be regarded that he has given the names of those saints of Shaivism, who, he thought, had a message to give to the world through their lives. It is true, that, in this selection of names, he must have been guided by the popularity of these names in his own age. The lives of the saints described in this Thiruthondathogai hymn give a concrete representation of the abstract principles of his Religion and Philosophy. Therefore, it becomes necessary to study this hymn in greater detail, for arriving at an estimate of Nampi Arurar s conception of an ideal Shaivite.

A study of this hymn will give us an idea of religion, and religious ideas and practices, which appealed to Arurar.

To verify this conclusion, we have to study the other poems of Arurar, for finding out whether these ideas and practices are referred to there.

The Thiruthondathogai has been looked upon as the message, as it were, of Arurar. Namplyantar Nampi, in his Tiruttontar Tiruvantati, elaborates this hymn Thiruthondathogai, by singing a verse each on every one of the saints mentioned in the hymn, giving the details of the respective life of the saint. Cekkilar has composed his great epic of Periyapuranam, giving the life history of these saints in the order in which the hymn Thiruthondathogai mentions them. The great Shaiva Siddhanta saint and philosopher Umapati Sivam has summarized this great epic in a few verses known as Tiruttontar Puranasaram. The sculptures of all these saints are found in most of the great Shaivite temples from the age of Darasuram Temple. Therefore, we are right in searching for the views and ideals of Arurar’s religion in this hymn.

But our poet Nampi Arurar gives only the names and sometimes the places of birth of these saints. For other details we have to go to the later day writers. The difficulty here is that it is not possible to conclude that all these details were also in the mind of Arurar while he sang the hymn. It is, therefore, necessary to find out how much of these details could have been known to Arurar. A comparative study of these later traditions along with the references found in Arurar’s other poems and in the poets who went before him is undertaken to arrive at the irreducible minimum of knowledge about these saints which Arurar could have had.

II

From a study of the details of these saints, details which we can attribute to Arurar, we have to arrive at the religious practices and conceptions which appealed to Arurar. It is found that the tenth verse of the hymn helps us here and the grouping there is, therefore, followed in all the references to these kinds of worship in Arurar’s poems themselves apart from this particular hymn.

Certain problems are raised with reference to this hymn, and they are incidentally discussed, so that the genuineness of the hymn and its proper significance may be brought out.

III

In the next part of the study, the significance of the conception of Paramanaiye Paduvar as the Tamil mystic poets of whom Arurar is one, is explained at length from the point of view of Tamil and Tamilian history. This hymn becomes the national poetry of the Tamilians. To avoid any parochialism or narrow partisanship, Arurar’s conception of ‘Appalum Aticcarntar is explained as his final and universal vision.

The first study herein is the lives of the saints. The second part examines the religious ideals and practices which have appealed to Arurar. The third, studies the peculiar method of worship which Cekkilar calls ‘Arccanai patte a/cum’ in relation to Tamil, Tamil Poetry, Tamil Mantras, Tamil Nationalism and Final Universalism of Nampi Arurar. In this part, to start with, certain problems relating to Thiruthondathogai are discussed and at the end his universalism is explained as yielding the fruit of his toleration of wider outlook, of harmony even with reference to Jainism and Buddhism which were considered by him as hostile to Shaivism.

Part (2):

I

A word may be said here about the lives of the saints of the Thiruthondathogai.

Cekkilar gives us the details of the lives of these saints in Periyapuranam, but this poet came nearly four or five centuries after Arurar either in the reign of Kulottunga II or Kulottunga III. Therefore, it is not possible to assume that all these details formed the prevalent tradition even in the time of Nampi Arurar. Cekkilar states that he is closely following the stories or the details given by Nampiyantar Nampi probably referring to Nampiyantar’s Tiruttontar Tiruvantdti. Even Nampiyantar Nampi came only in the 10th century A.D., whilst our poet Nampi Arurar lived in the 7th and 8th centuries (Cj ., Age of Arurar by the present writer), as the Epigraphists state: “The stories of the 63 Shaiva saints which must have been extant almost from the very period in which the saints flourished, were compiled in an abbreviated form by Nambi Andar Nambi in the time of Rdjaraja I, under the name Tiruttondattogai.”

II

In a few places, the description given by Arurar is not literal too according to the later tradition. The later tradition will be discussed at length but at this stage the fact of variation may be emphasized and explained. Eripattar, according to Periyapuranam, carried a ‘parasu’ (a war-axe), but Arurar describes him as the hero of ‘Vel’ (the spear)—Ilaimalindha vel Nampi Eripattar”: The saint Candesvara is described by our poet as using the malu’ (the axe)—“Tatai tai maluvinal erinta......Canti”. Periyapuranam describes the metamorphosis of a stick lying near Candesvara into an axe as soon as he touched it.

Manakkanca/rar cuts away the lock of hair of his own daughter on the day of her marriage and Arurar does not specify this story, but describes him a ‘Vallal’—the great munificent donor, at the same time emphasizing the fact that any gift given, was not given away in a moment of weakness, for, according to Arurar, he had the shoulders as strong as hillocks—“Malai malinta tol vallal Manakkancaran”.

Tayan is a cultivator saint according to Cekkilar, but our poet describes him as the Tayan of the scythe of completeness probably because it was the scythe of self sacrifice—“Encata Vattayan”. Or, perhaps the ‘vol’ is mentioned because he was a chieftain and a patron.

Kalarirrarwar is described as famous for his cloud-like gifts; probably this was understood as referring to the story of Shiva sending a minstrel or ‘Pana’ to Ceraman, with a song requesting the latter to honour the minstrel with proper gifts—“Karkonta kotaik Kalanirrarivar”.

Cirappuli is described as “Cirkonta pukal vallal” the munificent patron of excellent fame. Nothing more is’said. According to Periyapurnnam. however, he belonged to Akkur, whose residents were by Camnantar in his innumerable verses as great patrons and probably it is this which prompts our poet to describe Cirappuli in those terms.

This saint was desirous of being crowned at Citamparam like the Colas. The meaning of the phrase ‘Arkonta’ is not clear. Does it mean that he himself assumed the laurel of ‘atti’ of the Colas?

Kalnampullar is described as having for his armour or protection, the heroic feet of the Lord of the blotted throat—“Karaikkantan kalalatiye kappukkontirunta Kanampulla Nampi”. But the story in the Periyapuranam reiers only to this saint burning away his own head (tuft).

Arurar speaks of Poyyatimaiyillata Pulavar, when he is enumerating individual saints but Nampiyantar Nampi has taken this to refer to the poets of the Cankam age in which case it will be a reference to a group of saints. Groups of saints are referred to in the 10th verse and, therefore, the reference to a group in the seventh verse is not in keeping with the scheme adopted by Arurar. Some have suggested that this may be a reference to Manikkavacakar, whom, some, however, will bring down to the 9th century A.D. Cekkilar seems to describe this Poyyatimai illata pulavar as an individual, though not specifically.

Arurar describes Ceruttunaiyar as the king of Tancai. But Periyapuranam speaks of him as one belonging to the community of cultivators—“Velan kuti mutalvar”, but courageous enough to cut away the nose of the Pallava Queen, who smelt with the nose, the flowers to be offered to Shiva. This is the story given by Nampiyantar Nampi. One wonders whether after all, this is the significance of the term Tancaimannan,

Cenkanar, the great Cola king, is described curiously enough as “Tennavanayulakanta Cenkalnar”. Ordinarily, the word Tennavan refers to a Pandya. As already noted, our poet is thinking of the whole Tamil Land as a unity and in this sense Calls Cenkanar, the Lord of the Tamil Land or the Land of the South. This interpretation is justified by the usage of the word Tennan in verse No. 8 of the hymn No. 38.

Arurar mentions one ‘Catti’ and describes him as “Kalat Catti” and “Varincaiyarkdn” This will make him a heroic king but in the traditional story given in Periyapuranam, he is said to belong to the cultivator’s community and he came to be known as Catti because he carried a weapon of that name. Catti is a proper name which has been assumed by several chieftains of the Tamil land of that age. We know of a Pallava Sakti; and Saktinatha is one of the hereditary titles assumed by the Lords of Munaippatinatu, Milatu or Cetinatu. One wonders whether all the saints mentioned in that line Kalikkampan, Kaliyan and Catti might not be chieftains. The Kalabhras are known as Kaliyaracar, and it may be suggested for consideration whether those names in which the term Kali appears may not be members of this family of Kalabhras or Kaliyaracar; Kalikkampan, Kaliyan and Kalikkaman (Eyarkdn) are all names in which this Kali appears. Kaliyan is known to be the name of Tirumankai Alvar. But Kaliyan mentioned in Thiruthondathogai is according to Nam/piyantar Nampi, a cakkiri, an oilmonger, working at the oil mili. It may be that this Kaliyan was also the chieftain or that the name Kaliyan came to be so popular that even oil mongers came to assume it after their kings. In this connection, we come across an interesting phrase “Viraiyak kali” where the word ‘kali’ is used in the sense of ‘anai’ or order this sense must have grown up during the rule of these Kali tribes or Kalabhras.

Kurruva Nayanar is said to be a Kalappalar according to Nampiyantar Nampi. Kalappalar are also considered as Kalabhras. Accutakkalappalar is known to literature; probably, he is the Accyuta of Buddhadatta. Murkka Nayanar is described by N amply ant ar as Tiruverkattu Mannan; we hear of one Kali Murkka Ilav ar aiy an, who is also called Vali Vatukan. Though it may be a far fetched suggestion, one is tempted to wonder whether this Kali Murkkan was a descendant of Murkka, and Kalappalar are considered to be Kalabhras. Eyarkon Kalikkama is said to be a member of the cultivators’ community and Kalappalar are found to belong to this community in later times. But the title Eyarkdn should be given some significance. Eyar is the Tamilian form of H ehay as as may be seen from Perunkatai. Hehayas are yadavas. In the Pallava age, the chieftains and kings trace their relatives to the Puranic families and this may be one of such cases. The Velir are said to have come from ‘Tuvarai’ and from this Prof. M. Raghava Aiyangar had argued that the Velir belonged to the family of yadavas.

III

All these are mentioned only to show how difficult it is to make out the history of these saints. Even Cekkilar gives precious little about some of these saints treating of them within five to ten verses. We can only conclude that Cekkilar has given us the tradition as it reached him. From this it will be very difficult to conclude that the same traditions obtained in the age of Nampi Arurar. Prof. K. Nilakant Sastry’s remarks, in this connection, strengthens our conclusion: “Great as must be the authority of Nambi and his successors in matters of religion and theology in dealing (with Mr. Sesha Aiyangar) that the history involved in their interpretation of the Tiruttondattogai seems to be, much of it, wrong. The point is that continuity in religious tradition seems to be quite compatible with a break in secular historical tradition. For an illustration I may refer to the case of another saint in the list, Seruttunai who is spoken of as a king of Tanjore by Sundaramurti; Nambi makes no mention of his having been a king at all, evidently because in his day nothing was known about such a ruler of Tanjore; and a little later, Sekkilar in his Periyapuranam actually makes a Vaisya (Velan kuti mutalvar) of this king of Tanjore”.

IV

This line of argument puts us on our guard against assuming the other stories also as historical facts. Religious persecution, for instance, was never so severe in the Tamil country as in other lands. But the Tamilians compensated this by writing imaginary stories about such persecutions. One such story is the impaling of the 8,000 Jains by Campantar; but there is not a whisper about it in any of the inscriptions of the age, and the number 8,000 itself in these ages makes this an impossible story. Cekkilar could not help mentioning this incident because by his time it had become an established tradition strengthened by the reference in Nampiyantar’s verses. Whenever there is a story of cruelty we have to be, therefore, on our guard in taking it at its face value. There is a story of Kalarcinkan cutting away the hand of his own Royal consort after another saint Ceruttunai has cut away her nose. Nampi Arurar gives one whole line for this king but says not a word about this incident. When names of kings are mentioned, we must take it that it had been done so because they patronized the religious propagation. It must not however be thought that there could have been no cruel act especially in that age of political confusion and incessant wars, justifying the use of force for protecting Shaivism; for, Arurar himself mentions Candesvara cutting off the feet of his father. It must be added that this is not an act of intolerance and act done by one who was lost in the thought of God. But the majority of the stories gives us a picture of the life of self-sacrifice and a life guided by the ideal, practised by even very ordinary men, under trying circumstances.

V

As in the case of other traditions, the stories of these saints also must have been developing from time to time. We may leave off these Puranas later than that of Cekkilar.’ But from the inscriptions and the icons and paintings in the temples and from the works of Pattinattar and others till the age of Cekkilar, we could see this development. The Rajarajeccuram of Tanjore built by Rdjaraja I forms a lanamark. We have therein the images representing the story of Candesa consecrated, in addition to the images of Nampi Arurar, Paravai, Campantar and Apppar?

The images of the Bhairava, Ciruttontar, Venkattu Nankai and Ciraladeva—all relating to the story of Ciruttontar were made and consecrated. The paintings of the Cola age brought’to light by Sri S. K. Govindaswamy Pillai of Annamalai University give us a few scenes from the life of Arurar and if further examinations are made underneath the later paintings, more Cola pictures of the Shaivite saints may be revealed.

VI

We may now proceed to study these stories in the light of these references. Arurar sings of these saints in eleven verses and the Shaivite tradition has grouped its study of these saints under these eleven groups and we may follow this method, to find out how much of these stories of the saints can be proved today to have been in the mind of Arurar when he sang the Thiruthondathogai. This is not to minimize the greatness or historical value of Periyapuranam or Nampiyantar Nampi Tiruttontar Tiruvantati. Unfortunately, in spite of their historical research of a very high order they gave us only poetry which does not and ought not to tell us the historical evidences they had gathered. To those who believe as ardent Shaivites nothing more is needed. This study is intended for placing before the world, an objective study of Arurar s poems—a world in which there are more non-Shaivites than Shaivites. It is, therefore, necessary to give the irreducible minimum that we are sure must have been in the mind of Arurar, an irreducible minimum which is enough to give us an ideal of Arurar’s ideals of religion which appealed to him as such from the lives of these great saints.