[Full title: Āḻvār or Nāyaṉār: The Role of Sound Variation, Hypercorrection and Folk Etymology in Interpreting the Nature of Vaiṣṇava Saint-Poets]

1. Introduction:

Between the sixth and ninth centuries C.E., the Bhakti movement in Tamil Nadu produced several Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava poets revered as saints by their respective followers. The Śaiva saints were called nāyaṉārs (< Skt. nāya "leader") meaning "lord, master". The life stories of 63 of these nāyaṉārs were sung by the 12 th century poet, Cēkkiḻār, in his Periyapurāṇam or Tiruttoṇṭarpurāṇām. The songs of three nāyaṉārs, Campantar, Appar, and Cuntarar comprise the Tēvāram. The Vaiṣṇava saints are known by the term āḻvārs. The honorific singular form, āḻvār (<āḻ- "to sink, dive, be absorbed, immersed" DEDR 3961), is taken to mean "one who is immersed" referring to the saint being immersed in his/her devotion to Viṣṇu. There are twelve saints who are generally categorized as āḻvārs. Eleven of them are male and one is a female. More specifically, the female saint is known as Āṇṭāḷ (< yāḷ- "to rule" DEDR 5157) meaning "one who rules, lady, mistress". She is also known as Nācciyār (<Nāycciyār) which means "lady" and is ultimately traceable to the same Sanskrit root as that of nāyaṉār.

 

Regarding the position of the Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava saint-poets in the Bhakti tradition, Vidya Dehejia says:2

The Saiva and Vaishnava saints are not merely figures to be revered and admired. Rather actual ritual worship is offered to them. Vishnu temples usually contain separate shrines with stone or bronze figures of the twelve Alvars. Here they are lustrated, clothed, and ornamented, the daily ritual being similar to that of Vishnu himself. In Siva temples, images of all the sixty-three Nayanmars are aligned in the hall that surrounds the sanctum of Siva. Large wealthy temples such as Tiruvidaimaradur [sic], Tiruvarur and Mayuram, all in the Tanjavur district, contain two complete sets of these sixty-three saints, one of stone and the other of bronze."

On comparing the semantics of the names of the Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava saints, however, one is left to wonder if the two traditions saw their respective saints in different roles within their respective communities. In fact, on the basis of such a comparison, Friedhelm Hardy (1983: 250-51) says of the āḻvārs:

The authors of these various works are collectively known as the Āḻvār (-kaḷ): this is an honorific title (͠Nāyaṉār (-kaḷ)), the meaning of which however became obscured by various attempts to render it pregnantly or metaphorically: "who is immersed in deep meditation". A number of considerations speaks against such an artificial interpretation. In accordance with the general parallelism between Śaivite and Vaiṣṇavite material in the South, the term "nāyaṉār" ("lord, master") suggests an equally concrete and straight-forward sense for "āḻvār". De facto these poets can hardly be described as "immersed in deep meditation" because their Bhakti opposes precisely this religious attitude which implies a "withdrawal of the senses". While the eleven male authors are all called (x-) āḻvār, the one poetess is called āṇṭāḷ "the lady" (lit.: "she who rules"). The Skt. rendering is sūri¹¹ "learned man, sage" (particularly as the title of a Jain teacher).¹² Finally, etymology too appears to suggest a different interpretation.¹³ Originally, we probably had āḻvār ͠ sūri in Jain and Buddhist names,¹⁴ meaning "sage, saint". From here, the title acquired a more general meaning outside Jain or Buddhist contexts, like "noble person, lord, master "¹⁵ (to which āṇṭāḷ is a fairly precise semantic parallel in the feminine), until it became used simply as a morpheme expressing "polite speech", added, e.g., to "Viṣṇu´s discus" or the tree under which Nammāḻvār meditated.¹⁶ "Saintly lord" seems therefore the most appropriate translation, derived from contemporary parlance.
¹¹ For example, in the Divya-sūri-caritam or in Prapannāmṛta
¹² Thus MW. We also find sūri "lord, master", but only in the ṚgV.
¹³ One can separate either āḻvu "depth" + ār = kuṟippuviṉai, or āḻ- "to sink, be absorbed" + v (future/present) + ār (3 rd pl.). Literally this would be "who possesses profundity" or "who is/will be absorbed".
¹⁴ The MTL mentions names like Avirodhi-āḻvār, Maitrī-āḻvār. It is a different question, how āḻvāṉ/r developed semantically ͠ sūri (had Skt. sūrya/sūri "sun" anything to do with āḻvāṉ/r "sun "?); What is important here is only the fact that sūri ͠ āḻvār.
¹⁵ South Indian Inscriptions, III, p. 150 (quoted MTL): āḻvār Tiruvaraṅka-tēvar "lord, god of Śrīraṅgam".
¹⁶ For example, (3000) Guruparamparāprabhāvam (p. 18): tiru ppuḷiy āḻvār aṭiyilē "at the foot of the noble tamarind tree".

It is obvious that Hardy´s attempt at explaining āḻvār is not very satisfactory. Hardy does not show any evidence that Jain and Buddhist use of āḻvār preceded the Vaiṣṇava usage. Also, he is unable to explain the semantic development of āḻvār ͠ sūri. He has not explained the basis for the semantic evolution of āḻvār from "sage, saint" to "noble person, lord, master". His etymology also has not demonstrated why the sense of āḻvār should be a straight-forward equivalent of nāyaṉār. After all, "to sink, be absorbed" has no relationship to "lord, master".

 

P. S. Sundaram, author of a book containing translations of selected poems of āḻvars, says of the term āḻvār3 (transliterated in popular works as "Azhwar"):

There can be some debate regarding the meaning of this word. Was it "Azhwar" meaning "immersed" or "Alwar" meaning "ruler or born to rule "? If the latter, it is merely a tribute paid to a great devotee of God meant by Him to rule the rest of humanity"

M. G.S. Narayanan and Kesavan Veluthat say:4

The term āḻvār has been derived from the root āḻ which could imply the act of plunging or immersing oneself and, as such, it has been suggested that the Āḻvārs were persons who delved deeply into devotion. The change from ḷ to ḻ is linguistically admissible, and the term āḷ means "to rule" or "to preserve". In that case the Vaiṣṇava saints may be said to have enjoyed in bhakti literature the chief attribute of Viṣṇu whose function is preservation and this is quite different from creation or destruction. A third possibility, which we would support is that āḷvār is the literal translation of the Sanskrit word bhakta. Since bhakta is derived from the root bhaj, meaning "to divide", "to apportion", bhakta literally means one who enjoys a share. Thus, since the term bhakta was originally employed to denote a servant or retainer who shared the wealth of his master, in the course of time the same word must have been used for a devotee in view of the dāsyabhāva or attitude of service. Perhaps the Tamil word may have this meaning since the root āḷ also means "to possess", "to enjoy", etc.

The explanations of āḻvār by M.G.S. Narayanan and Kesavan Veluthat are not satisfactory. With respect to linking āḻvār (<āḷ-) to Viṣṇu´s function of preservation, Pālūr Kaṇṇappa Mutaliyār has noted earlier that āḻvār has been used to refer to Śiva, the god of destruction, in temple inscriptions.5 As for their preferred explanation of āḻvār (<āḷvār) being a literal translation of bhakta, the Tamil word āḷvār does not have the meaning "servant" at all and hence cannot be a literal translation of bhakta as interpreted by M. G. S. Narayanan and Kesavan Veluthat..

 

Attempts to explain the term āḻvār, such as the above, have focused on Vaiṣṇava texts primarily and secondarily on Vaiṣṇava temple inscriptions. But, let us consider the Tamil form āḷvār (< yāḷ- "to rule" DEDR 5157) meaning "the ruler/lord". This is almost synonymous with nāyaṉār. If the form āḻvār is only a variant of an earlier āḷvār, then we can conclude that Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava traditions essentially shared the same view towards the Bhakti saints. To confirm this hypothesis, I shall look at the diachronic usage of the form āḻvār and its variants in literary texts and inscriptions in Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava contexts and also compare it with Jaina usage.

2. Linguistic analysis of āḻvār/āḷvār

Both āḻvār and āḷvār are non-past participial nouns formed from the verb stems aḻ- and āḷ- (<yāḷ-) respectively. Following Rajam (1992: 566-581, 669-71), their formation mechanism can be explained as given below.

āḻvār < āḻ+v+ār, where
āḻ - verb stem
v- non-past/non-completive marker
ār - 3 rd person human plural/honorific suffix

Similarly,

āḷvār < āḷ+v+ār, where
āḷ - verb stem
v- non-past/non-completive marker
ār - 3 rd person human plural/honorific suffix

We should note that in addition to the form āḻvār, we also find the singular masculine form āḻvāṉ used to refer to Viṣṇu´s devotees as in the case of Kajentira Āḻvāṉ6. The relevant singular forms, āḻvāṉ and āḷvāṉ, can be explained as shown below.

āḻvāṉ < āḻ+v+āṉ, where
āḻ - verb stem
v - non-past/non-completive marker
āṉ - 3 rd person masculine singular suffix
āḷvāṉ < āḷ+v+āṉ, where
āḷ - verb stem
v- non-past/non-completive marker
āṉ - 3 rd person human masculine singular suffix

However, the forms āḻvār and āḷvār can also represent finite verbs meaning "will be immersed" and "will rule" respectively. We also know that, as nouns and verbs, the stems āḻ and āḷ also take on the third person suffixes -ar and -aṉ resulting in the variants, āḻvar, āḷvar, āḻvaṉ, and āḷvaṉ.7

 

In order to see which form, āḻvār or āḷvār, is the correct form, one has to examine which forms are found within the Tamil texts, pre-Bhakti and Bhakti texts.

3. āḻvā/ar/ṉ and āḷvā/ar/ṉ in pre-Bhakti Tamil literature

Among the Tamil literary texts, the Tirukkuṟaḷ has the earliest uses of āḷvār and āḷvāṉ. The use of āḷvār is found in the following verse.

iṭikkum tuṇaiyārai āḷvārai yārē
keṭukkum takaimaiyavar (Tirukkuṟaḷ 45.7)

"Who has the ability to destroy those (rulers) who possess advisors who criticize them when they are wrong "?

The use of āḷvāṉ is found in the following verse. (Note: āḷvāṉ+ku > āḷvāṟku)

maṉ uyir ōmpi aruḷ āḷvāṟku il eṉpa
taṉ uyir añcum viṉai (Tirukkuṟaḷ 25.4)

"For one who possesses mercy and protects living beings, there is no action causing him to fear for his life."

In the Cilappatikāram, we find the use of the term, āḷvāṉ, where the Cōḻa king is called āḻi āḷvāṉ8 "one who rules/possesses the wheel (of dominion)".

 

In the above examples cited from pre-Bhakti texts, we find the use of "x āḷvār/ṉ" in the sense of "somebody who possesses x˶. In the Bhakti literature, we find the use of āḷvār/ṉ without any qualifier x too. The most important point to be noted about the Bhakti texts is that the gods, Śiva and Viṣṇu, are denoted by the variants of āḷvār/ṉ.

4. āḻvā/ar/ṉ and āḷvā/ar/ṉ referring to Śiva in texts

The earliest post-Classical Bhakti text using āḷvāṉ is the Aṟputat Tiruvantāti of Kāraikkāl Ammaiyār (ca. 550 C.E.)9, where we find the following.

āyiṉēṉ āḷvāṉukku… (Aṟputat Tiruvantāti 8.1)10

"I became (a slave) to the Lord/Master"

In the Tēvāram, we find Tirunāvukkaracar (570-651 C.E. or 580-661 C.E. or 596- 677 C.E.)11 referring to Śiva as āḷvāṉ in the following lines.

nāḷ vāyum pattar maṉattu uḷāṉai nampaṉai nakkaṉai mukkaṇāṉai
āḷvāṉai ārūril ammāṉtaṉṉai aṟiyātu aṭināyēṉ ayartta āṟē (Tēvāram 6.243.7.3-4)

"the way I, the lowly dog, forgot the one who is always present in the hearts of devotees, one who is ours, one who is naked, one who has three eyes, one who is the Lord/Master, one who is the Father in Ārūr"

Tiruñāṉacampantar (ca. 650 C.E.)12 refers to Śiva as "emai āḷvār" (Tēvāram 1.70.3.3) as well as "emai āḷvar" (Tēvāram 3.274.4.3) both occurrences meaning "one who rules/possesses us, our Lord".13

 

Interestingly, the only instance in the whole Tamil Bhakti canon where the form āḻvar or āḻvār is used in the sense of "lord, master" is given below.

pōḻam pala pēcip pōtu cāṟṟit tirivārum
vēḻam varum aḷavum veyilē tuṟṟit tirivārum
kēḻal viṉai pōkak kēṭpippārum; kēṭ (u) ilā
āḻvar paḻaiyaṉūr ālaṅkāṭṭ (u) em aṭikaḷē (Tēvāram 1.45.11)

"It is the Lord14 without destruction, our Exalted One in Ālaṅkāṭu adjoining Paḻaiyaṉūr, who makes even those (Buddhists) who praise Buddhism speaking inconsistent words and those (Jains) who stand in the sun till they get the disease that causes insatiable hunger listen (to the Truth) so that their dark karma leaves (them)."

Interestingly, Tirunāvukkaracar sings of the same deity as given below.

mattaṉāy malai eṭutta arakkaṉaik karattōṭu olka
ottiṉār tiruviralāl ūṉṟiyiṭṭu aruḷvar pōlum;
pattar tam pāvam tīrkkum paimpoḻil paḻaṉai mēya
attaṉār; nammai āḷvār ālaṅkāṭṭu aṭikaḷārē. (Tēvāram 4.68.10)

"Our Father, who resides in the green grove-filled Paḻaṉai that destroys the sins of devotees planted his sacred toe and crushed the demon who, mad with pride, lifted the mountain and caused his arms to weaken. He is our Lord, the Exalted One of Ālaṅkāṭu. "15

The form āḷvār (< yāḷ "to rule") in Tēvāram 4.68.10 would make perfect sense in the meaning "One who rules us (our Lord), the Exalted One of Alaṅkāṭu". But the form āḻvar in Tēvāram 1.45.11 does not make sense etymologically in the line traditionally interpreted as "the Lord without destruction, our Exalted One in Ālaṅkāṭu", if āḻvar is to be derived from the root meaning "to sink, be immer- sed". The meaning "Lord" for āḻvar can be understood only when āḻvar is considered as a variant of the form āḷvar with "-ḷ-" having been replaced by "-ḻ-".

 

Looking at the whole verse, 1.45.11, one can see why such a replacement could have been effected by the poet. The alliteration pattern found in the verse is called ācu iṭai iṭṭu vanta iṭai iṉa etukai where the consonants, y, r, l, and ḻ when occurring as the second eḻuttu (a letter which is a vowel or vowelled consonant or vowelless consonant) in only one of the several feet participating in an alliteration process, are ignored and the following eḻuttu is treated as the second eḻuttu of the alliteration pattern with the second eḻuttu being one of a set of consonants called iṭai iṉam "middle class" which includes y, r, l, v, ḻ, and ḷ.16 As a result, in this verse, we have the alliteration pattern -ḻa-, -ḻa-, -ḻa-, and -va- in the four lines respectively.

 

According to Tamil prosodic tradition, the letters to be ignored did not include ḷ found in āḷvār. Also note the second eḻuttu of each of the initial feet of the first three lines are -ḻa- where the vowel is short a. It is probably due to these considerations, the poet had chosen to use the form āḻvar with -ḻ- and short -a-.

 

While -ḷ-/-ḻ- variation has been found as early as the Classical Tamil Literature, the specific variation āḷ-/āḻ- has been noted to occur in the seventh century A.D., when Campantar lived. We find in the Kūram plates of the Pallava king Parameśvaravarman I both urāḷcci "town administration" (< ūr "town "+ āḷcci "administration") and nāṭāḻcci "province administration" (< nāṭu "province" + āḻcci <āḷcci "administration").17

 

Even if there had been a possible variation in the general usage, is there any additional evidence to support the case of the poet using such non-standard forms? Indeed we find it in the following verse by the same poet.

ēḻum mūṉṟum or talaikaḷ uṭaiyavaṉ iṭarpaṭa aṭarttu
vēḻvi ceṟṟatum virumpi viruppu avar palapala uṭaiyār
kēḻal veṇpiṟai aṉṉa kēḻ maṇimiṭaṟu niṉṟu ilaṅka
vāḻi cāntamum uṭaiyār vāḻkoḷiputtūr uḷārē. (Tēvāram 2.230.8)

"He has many desires such as pressing down (with his toe) so that the ten-headed one suffered as well as destroying the sacrifice (of Dakṣa). He wears the crescent-like tusk of the boar over his sapphire-colored throat and wears sandal paste and is in Vāḻkōḷiputtūr. May he live!"

In this verse, the poet has replaced the correct form vēḷvi "sacrifice" with vēḻvi, a form with a sound variation, in order to conform to the alliteration pattern of ācu iṭai iṭṭu vanta iṭai iṉa etukai formed by -ḻu-, -vi-, -ḻa-, and -ḻi-.

 

Māṇikkavācakar of the ninth century C.E., the author of the Tiruvācakam, also uses the words āḷvāṉ18, and āḷvār19 in the sense of "lord, master".

 

It is interesting to note that Tirunāvukkaracar refers to Śiva as the lord of specific temple towns as in "ārūr āḷvāṉ "20 "Lord of Ārūr" and "cāykkāṭu āḷvar "21 "Lord of Cāykkāṭu". To express the notion of "Lord", Tirunāvukkaracar also uses the terms nāyaṉār and uṭaiyar as in "cirāppaḷḷi mēviya nāyaṉār "22 "Lord residing in Cirāppaḷḷi" and "vaṭataḷi uṭaiyar "23 "Lord/Possessor of Vaṭataḷi".

5. āḻvā/ar/ṉ and āḷvā/ar/ṉ referring to Viṣṇu in texts

In the Nālāyirattivviyappirapantam (also known as the Nālayira Divya Prabandham)24, the sacred text of the Vaiṣṇavas, Māṟaṉ or Caṭakōpaṉ or Nammāḻvār uses āḷvāṉ in the sense of "lord" to refer to Viṣṇu in the following verse.

nalkuravum celvum
narakum cuvarkkamumāy
velpakaiyum naṭpum
viṭamum amutamumāy
palvakaiyum paranta
perumāṉ eṉṉai āḷvāṉai
celvamalku kuṭittiru
viṇṇakark kaṇṭēṉē (Tiruvāymoḻi 6.3.1)

"In Tiruviṇṇakar of wealthy residents, I saw the Great One, my Lord, who permeates in many ways such as poverty and wealth, hell and heaven, winning enmity and friendship, and poison and ambrosia."

āḷvāṉ in the sense of "Lord" is found in other verses also.25 In another verse, Māṟaṉ says:

āḷvāṉ āḻi nīr kōḷvāya aravaṇaiyāṉ
tāḷvāy malariṭṭu nāḷvāy nāṭīrē (Tiruvāymoḻi 10.5.4)

"Daily you sprinkle flowers at the feet and seek the Lord who, in the sea water, has the bed of snake that has the mouth which seizes (prey). "26

Another saint-poet, Periyāḻvār, says:

… aṭicilum uṇṭilai āḷvāy (Periyaḻvār Tirumoḻi 2.8.3.4)

"… you have not eaten your food too, you Lord"

Here the poet uses the non-past participial noun form āḷvāy which is the second person equivalent of āḷvāṉ. The same term is also used by Tirumaḻicai Āḻvār as given below.

… āḷvāykku aṭiyēṉ nāṉ āḷ (Nāṉmukaṉ Tiruvantāti 59)

"… I, your servant, am your slave, you Lord!"

The form āḷvāy is comparable to the form āḻvīr (honorific second person equivalent of āḻvār) we find in the Vaiṣṇava commentaries.27 This usage of Tirumaḻicai Āḻvār is important in bringing out the dyadic āḷvāṉ-aṭiyēṉ relationship.

 

While all the citations given so far use āḻvar or āḷvār/ṉ to refer to Śiva or Viṣṇu, we have not discussed any evidence for the use of āḻvār/ṉ or āḷvār/ṉ or their variants to refer to the saint-poets or the devotees.

 

To understand the use of āḻvār or āḷvār/ṉ or their variants to denote saint-poets, one has to note the reverence of the Bhakti cult towards the devotees.

6. āḻvā/ar/ṉ and āḷvā/ar/ṉ referring to devotees in texts

The Śaiva saint-poets considered themselves to be servants of other devotees who were held to be their lords or even gods. The Śaiva saint Cuntarar, in his hagiographical work, the Tiruttoṇṭattokai, uses the refrain "aṭiyārkkum aṭiyēṉ" meaning that he is the servant of the devotees who are servants of Śiva themselves.28 Another saint-poet, Tirunāvukkaracar, equates the devotees to gods in the following Tēvāram verse.

caṅkaniti patumaniti iraṇṭum tantu taraṇiyoṭu vāṉāḷat taruvarēṉum
maṅkuvāravar celvam matippōm allōm mātēvarkkuēkāntar allār ākil
aṅkamelām kuṟaintu aḻuku toḻunōyarāy ā urittut tiṉṟu uḻalum pulaiyarēṉum
kaṅkaivār caṭaik karantārkku aṉparākil avarkaṇṭīr nāmvaṇaṅkum kaṭavuḷārē.
(Tēvāram 6.309.10)

"If non-devotees of the Great Lord (Śiva) give us the two kinds of treasures of Kubera and the dominion over the earth and the heaven, we will not esteem their wealth. But, if the devotees of the one who has hidden the Ganges in his hair locks suffer from leprosy that is eating away their limbs and they skin the cows and eat beef, they are indeed gods whom we worship."

Given this reverential attitude of saint-poets towards other devotees, it is no surprise that these śaiva saints are called "nāyaṉār" too in the same way Śiva is called "nāyaṉār" as we saw earlier.

 

The same attitude towards devotees can be seen among the Vaiṣnavas also as shown by the following verses by Toṇṭaraṭippoṭi and Māṟaṉ.

paḻutu ilā oḻukal āṟṟup
pala catuppētimārkaḷ
iḻikulattavarkaḷēlum
em aṭiyārkaḷ ākil
toḻumiṉīr koṭumiṉ koḷmiṉ
eṉṟu niṉṉoṭum okka
vaḻipaṭa aruḷiṉāypōṉm
matiḷ tiruvaraṅkattāṉē (Tirumālai 42)

"O the one who is in high-walled Śrīraṅgam, you said, "O many brahmins of the four Vedas, who follow the blemishless path! if my devotees, even if they are of low caste, worship them, give to them and get from them", and graciously made them worship the devotees as they do you."

Similarly, in several verses, Māṟaṉ praises the devotees of Viṣṇu as his lords/masters as given below:

… emmai
āḷum paramarē (Tiruvāymoḻi 3.7.1.7-8)

"… divine beings who rule us"

… emmai
āḷuṭai nātarē (Tiruvāymoḻi 3.7.2.7-8)

"… lords/masters who have lordship over us"

… emmai
āḷuṭaiyārkaḷē (Tiruvāymoḻi 3.7.3.7-8)

"… ones who have lordship over us"

…
maṇivaṇṇaṟku āḷ eṉṟu uḷ
kalantār aṭiyār tam aṭi
yār em aṭikaḷē (Tiruvāymoḻi 3.7.9.6-8)

"… the servants of servants of those who have internalized that they are the slaves of the sapphire-hued One are our lords"

What should be noted in the above verses is the use of āḷ- to express the relationship of one devotee, the saint, toward other devotees as between a servant and his master.29 Finally, the following verse by Māṟaṉ exhibits the reverence the saint-poet had towards other devotes.

…
aṭiyār aṭiyār tam aṭi
yār aṭiyār tamak (ku)
aṭiyār aṭiyār tam aṭi
yār aṭiyōṅkaḷē (Tiruvāymoḻi 3.7.10.5-8)

"… we are the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants of the servants (of Viṣṇu)"

It is this attitude of the saint-poets considering other devotees as lords/masters who are to be treated in a manner similar to the Lord himself that is the basis for the use of āḷvār to refer to the saint-poets by others. This is brought out by the following verse by Tirumaṅkai Āḻvār.

…
kaṭalmallait talacayaṉam
ār eṇṇum neñcu uṭaiyār
avar emmai āḷvārē (Periyatirumoḻi 2.6.2.5-8)

"… Those who have the hearts that think of One´s sleeping on the ground at Mallai by the sea, are indeed our lords (the ones who rule us) "30.

In another verse in the same hymn, the poet praises the devotees of Viṣṇu in the following words:

… kaṭalmallait
talacayaṉattu uṟaivārai
koṇṭāṭum neñcu uṭaiyār
avar eṅkaḷ kulateyvamē (Periyatirumoḻi 2.6.4)

"… Those who have the heart that celebrates the One who slept on the ground at Mallai by the sea are indeed our family deities."

The parallel between the last lines of the two verses of Tirumaṅkai Āḻvār given above, makes it obvious that āḷvār in emmai āḷvār is indeed a noun as has been interpreted also by Periyavāccāṉ Pillai, the famous commentator.31

 

Tirumaṅkai´s use of āḷvār to denote Vaiṣṇava devotees is later adopted by Nātamuṉi (Skt. Nāthamuni), the compiler of the Vaiṣṇava canon, in the following verse in praise of Maturakavi (Skt. Madhurakavi) Aḻvār.

vēṟu oṉṟum nāṉ aṟiyēṉ vētam tamiḻ ceyta
māṟaṉ caṭakōpaṉ vaṇkurukūr -ēṟu eṅkaḷ
vāḻvām eṉṟuēttum maturakaviyār emmai
āḷvār avarē araṇ (Nātamuṉi´s taṉiyaṉ on kaṇṇi nuṇ ciṟuttāmpu)

"Maturakavi who said in praise, "I do not know anything else. Māṟaṉ Caṭakōpaṉ who created Vedas in Tamil and is the chief of fertile Kurukūr is our life," is our lord. He is our refuge indeed. "32

This verse is very important in understanding the history of the term āḻvār. It is interesting Nātamuṇi has used the same words to refer to the devotees of Viṣṇu as Tirumaṅkaiyāḻvār, i.e., emmai āḷvār. One should note that among the 12 Vaiṣṇava saints, Maturakavi alone did not sing the praise of Viṣṇu. He only sang the praise of Nammāḻvār, the saint poet. In other words, for Maturakavi, the aṭiyāṉ "servant", Nammāḻvār was the āḷvār "lord". Through this verse, Nātamuṉi acknowledges that, in turn, Maturakavi is the āḷvār "lord" for Nātamuṉi, the aṭiyāṉ "servant". Thus one can see how a chain of Lord-servant/lord-servant/lord-servant reverence chain is established. This verse also gives a clear indication of the form of reference Nātamuṉi wanted to employ to denote the Vaiṣṇava saint-poets, āḷvār. Thus while the Śaiva tradition used nāyaṉār to refer to Śiva as well as Śaiva saints, the Vaiṣṇava tradition used āḷvār/ṉ to refer to both Viṣṇu and Vaiṣṇava saints.

 

Campantar is said to have lived in the seventh century C.E. Nātamuṉi is said to have lived in the late ninth to the early part of the 10^th century C.E.33 Thus we see that for about two centuries, among the pair, āḷvār/āḻvār, the dominant form in literary use seems to have been āḷvār. But, within two centuries after Nātamuṉi, by the time of the Vaiṣṇava commentator, Tirukkurukaippirāṉ Piḷḷāṉ in the 12^th century C.E., the original form, āḷvār has been replaced by āḻvār.

 

To see how this has come about, let us turn to Tamil inscriptions.

7. āḷvār/ṉ and āḻvār/ṉ in inscriptions

Among the forms āḷvār/ṉ and āḻvār/ṉ the earliest inscriptional occurrence is that of āḷvār in the early seventh century C.E. in the 20^th year of the reign of the Pallava king, Mahēndravarman I. Here, we find a person ruling an area called ciṟupāḻ being called cirupāḻ āḷvār.34 In the reign of Parameśvaravarman II, we have an inscription from Tiruvati near Cuddalore circa 731 C.E., with possible evidence of a name, maṇṭaiyāḻvāṉ/r with the last letter of the name (ṉ/r) lost.35 Later, in the reign of Nandivarman II, circa 759 C.E., we find an inscription in the Muktīsvara temple in Kanchipuram the term taḷiyāḷvār possibly referring to the lord (āḷvār) of the temple (taḷi).36 In any case, an inscription of the second year of one Vayiramegavarman of ninth century C.E. refers to tirukkūḷiccarattu āḷvār "Lord of Tirukkūḷiccaram".37

 

The earliest occurrence of the non-honorific form, āḷvāṉ, seems to be in the Paṭṭattāḷmaṅkalam plates of Nandivarman II issued circa 792 C.E. Here, we find āḷvāṉ as part of the name maṅkalanāṭāḷvāṉ.38 A hero-stone inscription belonging to the 21 st year of Nandivarman III refers to a priest of another temple as aniyasthānam āḷvāṉ. An inscription of Nripatungavarman (ca. 894 C.E.) refers to an ūr āḷvāṉ "the lord/ruler of the town".39

 

Except for the Tiruvati inscription, the Pallavan age inscriptions mentioned above clearly show that the lord of the land and the Lord of the temple were predominantly called āḷvār/ṉ up to the end of ninth century in the northern part of Tamilnadu. In the southern Tamil land, the Pāṇṭiya region, the earliest inscriptional attestation of āḷvār occurs during the ninth century C.E.40āḻvār occurs in two ninth century C.E. Jaina inscriptions in Kaḻugumalai.41

 

In the Cōḻa inscriptions, we find that during the early 10 th century during the rule of Parāntaka I, āḷvār/ṉ is mostly in use. Thus we find the deity in Vetāraṇyam is called Tirumaṟaikkāṭṭu Āḷvār in an inscription of ca. 916-17 C.E.42 During the course of the 10^th century, we see the use of āḻvār increasing and overlapping with the use of āḷvār. In an inscription of Parāntaka I in Tiruviṭaimarutūr in 944-45 C.E., we find both āḷvār and āḻvār being used.43 By the end of the 10^th century, the form āḻvār/ṉ has virtually triumphed over the use of āḷvār/ṉ with only rare occurrences of āḷvār/ṉ in the Cōḻa region after that.44

7.1 Change of āḷvār to āḻvār over time

While so far we have seen inscriptional use of āḷvār/āḻvār at different locations, it will be very useful to see the change from āḷvār/ṉ to āḻvār/ṉ over time in inscriptions at the same locations. For this, data from inscriptions in five temples in different parts of the Tamil land are shown below in Table 145

 

Tiruvaḻutīsvara temple in Peruṅkuḷam near Srīvaikuṇṭam, Pāṇṭiya region	Chitraratha-vallabha-perumal temple in Kuruvittuṟai near Nilakkōṭṭai, Pāṇṭiya region	Vētāraṇyēsvara temple in Vētāraṇyam, Cōḻa region	Śrīraṅganātha temple in Śrīraṅgam, Cōḻa region	Vīraṭṭāṉēsvara temple in Kīḻūr, near Tirukkōyilūr, Toṇṭai region
th āḷvār (9 45 century C.E)	āḷvār (1121-22 C.E.)46	āḷvār (916-17 C.E.)	āḷvār (991-92 C.E)47	āḷvār (958-59 C.E.)48
āḻvār (901-02 C.E.)49	āḷvār (1126-27 C.E.)50	āḻvār (925-26 C.E)51	āḻvār (1008-09 C.E.)52	āḷvār (961-62 C.E.)53
āḻvār (910-11 C.E)54	āḷvār, āḻvār (1128-29 C.E.)55	āḷvar (927-28 C.E.)56	āḻvār (1012- 1044 C.E.)57	āḷvār (962-63 C.E.)58
āḷvār (911-12 C.E)59	āḷvār, āḻvār (1130-31 C.E.)60	āḷvār (930-31 C.E.)61	āḻvār (1047-48 C.E.)62	āḻvār (964-65 C.E.)63
āḷvār (960-61 C.E)64	āḷvār, āḻvār (1135-36 C.E.)65	āḷvār (934-35 C.E.)66	āḻvār (1080 C.E.)67	āḻvār68, āḷvār69(982-85 C.E.)
	āḷvār, āḻvār (1141-42 C.E.)70	āḻvār (999-1000 C.E.)71	āḻvār (1082-83 C.E.)72	āḻvār (998-99 C.E.)73
		āḻvār (1177-78 or 1180-81 C.E.)74	āḻvān (1084-85 C.E.)75	āḻvār (1069-70 C.E.)76
		āḻvār, āḻvāṉ (1218-19 C.E.)77	āḻvār (1111 C.E.)78	āḻvār (1072-73 C.E.)79
			āḻvān, āḻvār (1126 C.E.)80	āḻvān (1247-48 C.E.)81
			āḻvār, āḻvāṉ (1143 C.E)82

Table 1 covers a period of more than two centuries lasting up to the time of Rāmānuja (1017-1137 C.E.) and later.83 It reveals some interesting facts. In every one of these locations, āḷvār is the oldest attested epigraphic form. āḷvār/āḻvār alternation is seen from the beginning of the 10^th century in the Pāṇṭiya region. (However, considering the data from Kaḻugumalai and Tiruvati mentioned earlier, one can see that the alternation could have started even earlier with respect to other inscriptions not listed in the table.) However, in the Cōḻa region, in the beginning of the 10 th century C.E., we mainly see āḷvār. āḷvār/āḻvār alternation is seen increasing in the Cōḻa and Toṇṭai regions as the century progresses. The alternation is resolved in favor of the form āḻvār in the Cōḻa and Toṇṭai regions by the beginning of the 11 th century, especially in the case of the Srīraṅgam temple. However, in the Pāṇṭiya region, the alternation continues well into the 12^th century as seen in the data from the temple in Kuruvittuṟai. A circa 1289-90 C.E. inscription in Tiruppullāṇi in the 22 nd year of Māṟavarmaṉ Kulacēkara I mentions the name Tirumaṅkai Āḷvāṉ.84 But, Śrīraṅgam being the most important center for Śrīvaiṣṇavism, the sound variation trend shown by the Śrīraṅgam temple inscriptions is very important to the form that finally gets legitimized.

7.2 āḷvār/āḻvār appellations for the members of the Cōḻa royal family

āḷvār/āḻvār has been used in referring to members of the Cōḻa royal family. A circa 956-57 C.E. inscription in Tiruppalāttuṟai of Gandarāditya Cōḻa refers to Cōḻa prince Arikulakesari as āḷvār arikulake ridevar.85 But the sister of Rājarāja I is referred to as āḻvār parāntakaṉ kuntavaiyār in a circa 1013-14 C.E. inscription in the Tanjāvūr temple.86 In a circa 1115-16 C.E. inscription in the Chidambaram temple, a sister of Kulottuṅga I is referred to as maturāntakiyāḻvār.87 In the same temple, another inscription refers to the daughter of Kulottuṅga I as ammaṅkaiyāḻvārāṉa periyanācciyār "Periya Nācciyar also known as Ammaṅkai Āḻvār".88 āḻvāṉ and āḻvār have also been used in two inscriptions of 13^th century to refer to the Cōḻa king Kulottuṅga III.89 Thus, here also we see an early use of āḷvār giving way to āḻvār by the beginning of the 11^th century C.E.

7.3 āḻvār in reference to Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava religious leaders

A 1007 C.E. inscription in Tiruvīḻimiḻalai temple uses the term nammāḻvār to refer to Śiva, establishing the fact that the use of āḻvār to refer to the Vaiṣṇava saint, Māṟaṉ (also called Nammāḻvār), has the same conceptual basis as the use of it in relation to the temple deity.90 An inscription of the ninth regnal year of Vikrama Cōḻa (1126-1127 C.E.) in the Aruḷāḷapperumāḷ (also called Varadarājapperumāḷ) Temple in Kanchipuram mentions "… tiruvattiyūrāḻvāraip pāṭiyaruḷina śrīpūtattāḻvārum śrīpoykaiyāḻvārum…" meaning "… Śrī Pūtattāḻvār and Śrī Poykaiyāḻvār who sang of the Lord of Tiruvattiyūr…".91 This inscription is important for many reasons. Firstly, it collocates the use of āḻvār to refer to both the saints and the god in the same sentence providing additional evidence for the common conceptual basis for the use of āḻvār in the case of the deity as well as the saints, i.e, āḻvār < āḷvār "one who rules, Lord". Secondly, this may be the earliest direct epigraphic reference to the Vaiṣṇava saints as āḻvārs.92 Thirdly, the date of the inscription also coincides with the period when the form āḻvār enters the literary text of the first Vaiṣṇava commentator, Tirukkurukaippirāṉ Piḷḷāṉ.

 

While, as we saw earlier, Tirumaḻicai used the phrase āḷvāykku āṭiyēṉ, an inscription of Kulottuṅga I in 1117-18 C.E. in the Vaikuṇṭha Perumal temple in Kanchipuram refers to the Viṣṇnu deity of the temple as Śrīkulottuṅkacoḻa-viṇṇakarāḻvāṉ "the Lord of the Kulottuṅga Cōḻa Viṣṇu temple" and a devotee as āḻvāṉaṭiyāḷ "Lord´s servant" providing additional evidence for āḷ- > āḻ-.93

 

In the same way as āḷvār could refer to a devotee as well as a deity, āṇṭāḷ also referred to a deity as seen in a Kulottuṅga III inscription in Uttaramallūr near Maturāntakam in 1203-04 C.E. which refers to a deity as tiruvāṇṭāḷ.94

 

An inscription in the 15^th regnal year of a Parakēcari in the Kāmākṣi Ammaṉ temple in Māṅkāṭu near Śrīperumputūr refers to a possibly Śaiva teacher as tirukkaṇṇā….tāḷvārk kurutevar.95 Thus we find the form āḷvār used in connection with religious teachers in the Śaiva context too.

8. Acceptance of Sound Variation and Folk Etymology

According to Śrīvaiṣṇava tradition, there has been an unbroken teacher-student line from Nātamuni. Jagadeesan (1977: 41-42) says:

… from the days of Nāthamuni the preceptor-disciple Paramparai had existed. The difference in the preceptor-disciple tradition till the days of Ramanuja and that after him is that the earlier period witnessed what is known as the ōrāṇ tradition of one preceptor instructing only one disciple and the guru-sishya chain continuing in an unbroken line… It is possible to go one step further and say that even in the Alvar period the preceptor-disciple system was known: Madhurakavi, for example, was a devoted disciple of Nammāḻvār and the Vaishnava tradition is anxious to make it appear as if there was no gap in this line and says that Nāthamuni was Nammāḻvār´s disciple indirectly through Parānkuśa, a disciple coming in the line of Madhurakavi.

It is well-known that Tirukkurukaippirāṉ Piḷḷāṉ, a disciple and younger cousin of Rāmānuja, wrote the Āṟāyirappaṭi, the first commentary on Tiruvāymoḻi wherein he had used āḻvār to refer to the saint-poet Māṟaṉ and calls the discus of Viṣṇu as Āḻi Āḻvāṉ.96 Beginning with the Āṟāyirappaṭi (1100-50 C.E.), the Vaiṣṇava texts use the form āḻvār as the norm.97

 

Notwithstanding the Vaiṣṇava claim of unbroken teacher-student tradition, the fact that Nātamuṉi has used the form āḷvār but Piḷḷāṉ ended up using the form āḻvār suggests that there has been an error in transmission somewhere along the teacher-student chain between the two teachers. This error was obviously due to the influence of the sound variation that has occurred in the Śrīraṅgam area and elsewhere.

 

The adoption of the form āḻvār over āḷvār in the Tamil land north of the Pāṇṭiya region and especially in the Śrīraṅgam area by the end of the 10^th century C.E. was probably due to hypercorrection. Discussing ḷ > ḻ, Zvelebil says:98

In medieval Ta. inscriptions, there is a ḷ/ḻ alternation considered sometimes as a case of hypercorrectness: thus kēḻvi for kēḷvi "question" occurs in Chola, 1067, ciṅkaḻar for ciṅkaḷar "the Sinhalese" in Chola, 1098 and paramasvāmikaḻ in Chola, 1096; here, -ḻ occurs in the pl. phoneme -kaḷ.
The beginnings of this alternation of ḷ with ḻ may be found as early as the 7^th Cent., cf. nāṭāḻcci for nāṭ/u & āḷ & ci "administration of a province" (Pallava).

Once the hypercorrect form āḻvār was accepted as the standard form, a folk etymology was created to explain it. Some poems by Māṟaṉ provided a convenient basis to build that folk etymology. Consider the following verse.

vaḷḷalē matucūtaṉā eṉ marakata malaiyē uṉai niṉaint (u)
eḷkal tanta entāy uṉṉai eṅṅaṉam viṭukēṉ
veḷḷamē purai niṉ pukaḻ kuṭaintu āṭip pāṭikkaḷittu ukantu ukantu
uḷḷa nōykaḷ ellām turantu uyntu pōntiruntē (Tiruvāymoḻi 2.6.4)

"O benevolent one, destroyer of Madhu, my mountain of emerald, you gave me the nature of thinking of you and deriding other things. Having dived into the flood-like praise of you and singing and dancing and feeling intoxicated and happy and driving away the emotional sufferings, how can I leave you?"

Here the commentators use the Maṇipravāḷa (Tamil-Sanskrit hybrid) word avagāhittu "going deep into" (< Skt. avagāh- "to plunge into, bathe in, to go deep into") to explain Tamil kuṭaintu "to dive, bathe, plunge in water".99 We encounter the notion of diving into Viṣṇu´s praises or qualities in other verses also.100 Consider the following verse:

iruḷiṉ tiṇivaṇṇam mānīrk kaḻiyē pōy
maruḷuṟṟu irāppakal tuñcilum nī tuñcāyāl
uruḷum cakaṭam utaitta perumāṉār
aruḷiṉ perunacaiyāl āḻāntu nontāyē? (Tiruvāymoḻi 2.1.8)

"O large backwater with the color of dense darkness, even if night and day get confused and end, you will not sleep. Are you immersed in the great desire for the grace of the Lord who kicked the rolling wheel (-demon) and suffering too? "

In this verse, the saint-poet speaks as a girl in love with the Lord, who sees in the "sleepless suffering" of the backwaters, her own suffering due to her immersion in love for the Lord. The Vaiṣṇava commentator, Aḻakiya Maṇavāḷa Jīyar (13 th century), explains āḻāntu (past adverbial participle of āḻā "to be immersed, absorbed") as āḻaṅkāṟpaṭṭu (past adverbial participle of āḻaṅkāṟpaṭu "to be immersed in, to become absorbed in")101

 

Given such expressions by the saint poet, it would have been very easy to rationalize the folk etymology of āḻvar < āḻ-. Indeed, Araṅkarajan (1986: 112) explains the nature of āḻvār as "iṟaimai eḻil taṭākattuḷ eññāṉṟum āḻaṅkālpatupavar" "one who is always immersed in the beautiful pond of divinity".102

9. āḷvār, āḻvār and sūri in Jainism

We have seen that in the Pāṇṭiya region, āḻvār occurs in 9^th century C.E. in reference to Jaina deities. In the Toṇṭai region in northern Tamilnadu, in an inscription in Tirumalai near Pōḷūr, assignable to the fourth regnal year of Parāntaka I (910-11 C.E.), the Jaina deity is called Paḷḷiyāḷvār.103 An inscription of Rājarāja I in (1001-02 C.E.) on a rock at Tirunaṟuṅkoṇṭai mentions a Periyapāḻiyil Āḻvār.104 Later, in the Cōḻa region, a 13^th century inscription on a rock, Aḷuruṭṭimalai near Pudukkottai, we find a Jain deity called ṉāyaṇār105 tirumāṉaimalai āḻvār, a Jain teacher called tiru [p] paḷḷi..l āḻvār and his student called… āḻvāṉ.106 Thus the Jaina usage seems to be similar to Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava usages in having the variants āḷvar/āḻvār and referring to the deity as well as a preceptor.

 

The history of āḻvār that has been traced earlier shows that Hardy´s suggestion that the original meaning of āḻvar was "sage, saint" is not correct. Moreover, the earlier usage of āḷvāṉ in Śaiva and Vaiṣṇava texts eliminates the possibility suggested by Hardy, i.e., the usage of āḻvār was probably original to Jainas and it was later adopted by others.

 

As for the Vaiṣṇava use of the Sanskrit sūri to refer to āḻvār, it is āḷvār meaning "lord, ruler" that provides the link between the Tamil āḻvār and Sanskrit sūri given the nature of relationship between preceptors and disciples in the Jaina monastic orders in the period from 600 C.E. to 1000 C.E. Ramendra Nath Nandi describes the role of preceptors in the Jaina orders in the Deccan in the following words107:

In the early medieval period the preceptors occupied a place of great importance in the life of the faithful. They were popular not only with the community of monks but also with the lay fraternity… The preceptor exercised considerable authority over the monks and nuns… the monk lives under the control of the preceptor from the day of his initiation… The preceptor who administered the gaccha was responsible for the welfare of his followers. He was the sole supporter of the gaccha and could excommunicate a member of the gaccha or the guruparivāra, who in spite of warnings indulged in bad ways. The head of the gaccha (sūri) was also required to settle disputes among the monks. He could not desert the quarrelsome monks out of disgust; instead he was to continue as the chief of the sect and to try to correct the defaulting members… Academic qualifications and discipline of character were no longer considered sufficient for his office; he must also be an able administrator… Gradually the adoration of the preceptor developed into a cult. Numerous post-mortem memorial stones were erected in honour of preceptors by lay or spiritual disciples and ritual worship was offered to them. (emphasis mine)

It is clear from the description above that the position of Jaina sūri had the necessary attributes to be called a secular as well as religious "lord". It has been shown earlier that the Tamil term āḷvār/ṉ connoted "lord" in secular as well as religious contexts. So, it was but natural that when the Vaiṣṇavas wanted to use a Sanskrit term to denote āḻvār, they chose sūri.

10. Conclusions

For over eight centuries, the Tamil Vaiṣṇava tradition has called each of its saints as āḻvār "one who is immersed". This is to be contrasted with the Tamil Śaiva tradition which called each of its saints as nāyaṉār "lord". At first look, this difference may suggest that the Vaiṣṇava view of its saints was different from that of the Śaivas. However, this difference disappears when the history of the term āḻvār is investigated with a multi-faceted approach using philology, linguistics, epigraphy, and religion.

 

āḻvār is but a corrupt form of āḷvār which has been used interchangeably with nāyaṉār in secular and religious contexts in the Tamil land. Naturally, the female Vaiṣṇava saint, Kōtai, the author of the Tiruppāvai, is called Nācciyar<Nāycciyār which is the feminine equivalent of nāyaṉār. It is also fitting that she is called āṇṭāḷ which is a feminine past participial form of āḷ- < yāḷ- while āḷvār is its equivalent non-past participial form. Any explanation of āḻvār as "one who is immersed" is based on folk etymology that has not taken into account the real history of the word. What is really interesting is the fact that the sound variation and semantic change of āḷvār of Nātamuṉi into āḻvār of Tirukkurukaippirāṉ Piḷḷāṉ has occurred in the Śrīraṅgam area, the primary locus of Tamil Vaiṣṇava scholarship and transmission of tradition, in about two centuries in spite of the unbroken teacher-student chain claimed by the tradition. Not only did the tradition forget the connection of the name āḻvār to many occurrences of āḷvāṉ/āḷvāy in the Tivviyappirapantam but it also has developed a folk etymology explaining the nature of the āḻvārs, which has been accepted by leading scholars.

 

A.K. Ramanujan, in the introduction to his book, Hymns for the Drowning, containing translated poems of Nammāḻvār, says:108

The author is an āḻvār," [one] immersed in god "; the root verb āḻ means "to immerse, dive; to sink; to be lowered, to be deep." The title Hymns for the Drowning plays on the meanings of such an immersion for poet and reader.

Ramanujan notes, "To my knowledge, the traditional title āḻvār does not occur in the poems. "109 This is not surprising since the poems contain the original form āḷvāṉ and the scholars have been simply looking for a form with a sound variation that has occurred after the poems were compiled. But, careful philological analysis confirmed by inscriptional data has revealed the original form and its semantics. The history of the form āḻvār demonstrates that even a millennium old linguistic form and its semantics can be wrong despite their widespread scholarly acceptance.