Was Nam Alvar the last of then all.

 

Nam Alvar whose "baptismal" name was Maran son of Kari is by pre-eminence known by the name Nam Alvar meaning ‘our Alvar' said by the hagiologists to have been given to him by no less an authority than Lord Ranganatha at Shrirangam. It was already pointed out that he is regarded as having followed the first four Alvars, and as a consequence, among those of them whose life was cast in a period of considerable antiquity.

 

GURUPARAMPARAI ACCOUNT

 

According to the guruparamparai account Nam Alvar was born on the 43rd day of Kali, the year Pramadi on the full moon of the month of Vaishakha, Friday, Vishakha. He was born at Kurukai, the son of the adhikari of the township by name Kari and his wife Udayanangai. From birth the baby conducted itself peculiarly taking no nourishment, nor doing what children do in that stage. The parents in sorrow for this peculiar birth gave him the name Maran and set him in front of the god and goddess of the Vishnu temple in the locality The child is said to have crawled along to the front of the temple where there was a tamarind tree and assumed his seat at the foot of the tree in what is called Yogamudra (the attitude of one rapt in deep contemplation). He is supposed to have continued in this state for 16 years when he obtained the inspiration by favour of Vishnu which found vent ultimately in the part of the Prabandham ascribed to him.

Such as he was he required some one to propagate his gospel. The fit instrument for this purpose appeared in the person of a Brahman of the “top-knot” community of the Samavedi section in the village Tirukkolur in the Tinnevelly district. He is, according to this account, said to have been born in the ''Dvapara yuga'' 863, 879th year, the year Ishvara, month Chittirai, the 14th of the bright fortnight, Friday, nakshatra Chitra. Having done his schooling he went on a pilgrimage, and while in the north in Ayodhya, he turned towards his native place one night, and while casting his eyes in that direction he is said to have sighted a great column of light of an unusual character. Being curious to know what it was, he thought of returning to his native country and kept journeying along in the direction of the light. At last he came to Alvar Tirunagari or Kurukai, wherefrom he took the direction towards the south. As soon as he moved out towards the south he found the light changing position to the north. He returned to the locality where the light appeared to him and searching for what might be the cause he discovered the presence of the miraculous Alvar indicated. He remained there for some time and putting Nam Alvar a particularly recondite question he got an answer that satisfied him. He therefore sat down to receive the inspiration of the Alvar which would throw light upon the various problems of life and religion, which agitated him. Nam Alvar gave his exposition at the instance of Vishnu himself in the works included in the Prabandham. They are supposed to embody the truths that lay hidden in the four Vedas and thus provided the means for the attainment of salvation even to those who could not either read or understand the esoteric learning of the Vedanta. Madhurakavi is stated to have committed to writing what fell by word of mouth from Nam Alvar. When Nam Alvar passed away in his 35th year Madhurakavi immediately set up an idol of the Alvar and was believed to have been worshipping this idol for 50 years after, continuing the teaching of the 4 Prabandhams of Nam Alvar, viz. Tiruviruttam, Tiruvasiriyam, Periya Tiruvandadi and Tiruvaymoli. Madhurakavi's special contribution was the discovery of a spiritual preceptor (Acharya) and the need of such a preceptor is, what he gives expression to, as his peculiar teaching in the 11 verses of his included in the Prabandham literature. Among those that contributed commendatory verses to the works of Nam Alvar are Nathamuni, his grandson Alavandar and the spiritual successor of Ramanuja, Pillan, not to mention the one stanza ascribed to Madhurakavi himself. Madhurakavi himself received two verses of commendation from Nathamuni. This is so far the traditional account preserved in the guruparamparas. We shall proceed to an examination of this.

As against this tradition one effort has been made at an identification by the Epigraphists. A certain minister of an early Pandya king is given the name Maran Kari, and is described as a “Madhurakavi”. Minister Madhurakavi was somehow equated with this Alvar and was made therefore posterior to this particular inscription of A. D. 770. The main reason for this is that Nam Alvar is traditionally said to have had a disciple by name Madhurakavi whose 11 stanzas upon his attainment of the proper "Guru" in Nam Alvar is included in the "Prabandham”. Other details of the life of this Nam Alvar and his disciple as recorded in living tradition go against this identification, and at the very best the identification on the basis of the occurrence of the descriptive epithet "madhurakavi " to the neglect of all the other essential details is of doubtful validity. It is on a par with the inference that Kulashekhara was later than Ramanuja because the Mukundamala contains the word Ramanuja.

There has however been a more pretentious effort to make him the last of the Alvars by the author of the “Tamil Studies” which while it exhibits a considerable amount of learning bases its argument throughout upon assumptions of the most unwarranted character. Passing over what are perhaps positive misrepresentations of others, it is not desirable here even to go into the whole of the details; but the main arguments deserve to be examined. The first assumption of this author warranted by no historical source is that Nathamuni was a personal disciple of Nam Alvar: “he had two disciples — Shri Nadamuni and Madhurakavi — to whom he taught his Tiruvaymoli and other Prabandhams.'' Even according to him the first heads the list of the “Acharayas” while the second is elevated to the rank of a saint (Alvar). In regard to the fact that Nathamuni was a disciple of Nam Alvar no reason whatsoever is given nor any source of the information indicated. Tradition merely states Nathamuni drew, by yogic practice, the forgotten Tiruvaymoli from Nam Alvar with the assistance of "a disciple” of Madhurakavi. If tradition is accepted it ought to be properly interpreted and explained; otherwise it ought to be given up. There is no evidence given for this assumption of discipleship on the part of the first Acharya. If the two were alike disciples why is the one only an Acharya and why is the other an Alvar. This differential treatment requires some explanation; none such is offered. The Alvar belongs to the earlier group and the Acharya to the later according to accepted Vaishnava tradition.

In regard to this matter he has further down some arguments drawn from a misrepresentation, at the very best misunderstanding, of a statement of mine, in my article on Tirumangai Alvar, in the Indian Antiquary for 1906. We shall return to this later.

The first argument in favour of the position of Nam Alvar as the last of the Alvars is the crucial argument, according to this author, of philology. He mentions a certain number of Sanskrit words which are used by the Alvar and which he says do not occur in the Sangam works. I will take just two out of a list that he gives. He speaks of Sodi (Sans. Jyotis) and Makavaikundam (Sans. Magha or Makha Vaikuntha). The first word is found in the Tiruvasakam of Manikkavasagar and, Tevaram of Appar and part at least of second term occurs in the very early Sangam works Paripadal and Purananuru. He refers again to two grammatical forms, the use of a double plural form, and the use of a particular tense particle, which is stated to be the usage of "this time" by the commentator Nachchinarkiniyar. The commentator apparently uses the expression "this time" to mean the time following the classical age and does not seem to imply any very narrow limits. The crucial test according to this author would thus fail.

The second argument is based upon the fact that the works of the Alvars give evidence of following the age of the Puranas, and he refers to a passage of Nam Alvar [IV.10.5] where there is an apparent reference to the Lingapurana. This begs the question. The age of the Puranas cannot yet be regarded as such a settled matter to admit of decisive applications in this fashion. We shall have to revert to it again. Another part of this argument, is a reference in Nam Alvar to the use of flowers, incense, lamps, unguents and water in the process of worship. [V.2.9] He says that these are from the rules laid down in the Puranas. It will perhaps be more accurate to say these are the forms of worship according to the Agamas, at any rate, the Pancharatra Agama.

The next is an argument based upon the statement that “the chewing of betel-leaves was almost unknown to the Hindu populace prior to A. D. 500". The mention of the word betel by the Alvar is held to involve the “chewing of betel-leaves by the populace”. A quotation is made from the Silappadhikaram, which this scholar describes as belonging to the second century A. D., where there is a clear reference to the chewing of betel-leaves; but he gets round this inconvenience with the remark “but we doubt whether the custom had been so universal in the days of Ilango-Adikal, as it was in our Alvar's time”. The assumption in the first part of this remark as well as that in the next requires some demonstration.

The next argument is based upon the absence of any acrimonious reference in Nam Alvar's works to the Shaiva sect which he finds in some considerable number in the works of the other Alvars such as Tirumalisai, Tirumangai and Tondaradippodi, etc. He draws the inference therefrom that this conciliatory attitude of Nam Alvar towards the Shaivas was due to “a sort of reconciliation (that) had been effected among the Shaivas and Vaishnavas”, after Jainism and Buddhism had been vanquished. Having regard to the age that this scholar has ascribed to Nam Alvar it would he hardly possible to believe, from what we know of the history of the period, that such reconciliation had been effected at all. The normal inference from this conciliatory spirit would be that Nam Alvar lived at a time when Vaishnavism and Shaivism had to organize themselves as against Buddhism and Jainism, rather than to a later period when a historically unwarranted reconciliation has to be postulated.

The next argument involves two assumptions; the first is that if according to tradition Tirumangai Alvar made arrangements for the recital of the Tiruvaymoli annually in Shrirangam the author of the Tiruvaymoli must have visited Shrirangam. How the one follows from the other it is not clear to see. Supposing as tradition says Tirumangai Alvar did much for organizing worship at Shrirangam and supposing that he felt drawn to the Tiruvaymoli of Nam Alvar which he arranged should be recited at a particular period of the year in Shrirangam, how does that affect Nam Alvar one way or the other? If the supposition of the Tirumangai Alvar's doing be accepted as fact, the author of the Tiruvaymoli must have been an anterior personage who would not be affected by the consideration either way. Nam Alvar might have visited Shrirangam or might not have. It does 'not appear he did from what we know of his works. It is hardly necessary that a temple should be visited in order to celebrate it in a set of verses. The contrary assumption is one that the author has fallen into and we may have to refer to it in another connection.

The next assumption here is that because a place by name Varagunamangai is referred to in one of the poems of Nam Alvar, he must be posterior to Varaguna Pandya from whose name it is assumed Varagunamangai took its name. We know from inscriptional records only of two Varagunas so far; it is just possible there were more who did not hand down their names to us in inscriptions; but where is the necessity that a temple Varagunamangai should inevitably draw its name from Varaguna Pandya? We do know of numbers of instances in which names are so given, but that does not follow logically that the obverse statement that wherever there is such a name it must always have been drawn from a particular person. This scholar has made an application of this kind, in connection with Tirumalisai Alvar, where there is a reference to a Gunabhara which is interpreted as referring to the Pallava Mahendra Varman I. The passage there refers to the Gunabhara who ‘gave us our body and protects us in it' and continues that ‘those that have learnt the truth will never find the courage to give Him up’. How a reference to an earthly ruler can be read into this term Gunabhara so used, ordinary human intelligence fails to understand. If it were a term used in connection with a particular temple or with a particular form of god in a temple which might otherwise be connected with the Pallavas, one may see a subtle reference to the living ruler as a compliment. This is a supremely good illustration of where such applications fail. Nam Alvar's reference to Varagunamangai is of almost the same character. Both terms are terms of common use among the Vaishnavas; because a bhakta has to postulate the "Saguna Brahmam" as opposed to the “Nirguna One”, and gunas (qualities) ascribed to such a Being cannot be the ordinary gunas. That is the import of these expressions, and unless reference to a human sovereign is otherwise actually warranted it will not do to put that interpretation upon them.

The next argument is that Nam Alvar omits the celebration of Shrivilliputtur, as also Tirumangai. This omission is explained in the case of the latter as due to the non-existence of the temple in this place, and in the case of the former to the fact that though it had come into existence it was not sufficiently prominent. The futility of such an argument is apparent in the obvious petitio principi.

The next argument is that the Tiruvaymoli hymns are set to particular tunes while those of even Tirumangai Alvar are not. This is ascribed to the Vaishnavas having copied this arrangement from the ‘Shaivas who adopted it invariably, and since this arrangement’ is preserved only for Nam Alvar he must have been later. Even in respect of the Shaiva Adiyars this was an arrangement introduced not by the authors themselves but by others. It requires musicians to do it The ancient classic ‘Parripadal’ gives at the end of each poem the name of the author and: the name of the person who set it to tune distinctly. That apparently refers to the custom that it was the musician, or the professional class of people whose duty it was to sing these, to set these poems to tunes. Whether the Shaivas copied the Vaishnavas or the Vaishnavas copied the Shaivas, or both of them copied from something older, or each of them followed the established custom, this arrangement is no particular test of age.

The next argument has reference to that of the Epigraphists already referred to at the outset and he falls foul of them because their argument would lead to the conclusion that Nam Alvar lived prior to A. D. 770. Because Nam Alvar has not celebrated the deity in the temple at Anai Malai which was founded in the year A. D. 770, the inference is drawn that “the Alvar must therefore have lived either before or long after A.D. 770; but the impossibility of the first has been proved in previous pages.". He postulates the hypothesis the village built at so much expenditure in A. D. 770 had fallen into ruins by A. D. 900, and hence Nam Alvar could not refer to it.

"The last, the most important argument in favour of our theory that Satagopan was the last of all the Vaishnava Saints is furnished by the age of Nathamuni, one of his two esteemed disciples.'' It is here that a misrepresentation of my statement comes in. According to the traditional statement, Nathamuni is said to have been born in A. D. 582, and after remaining in ‘Samadhi’ at the foot of Nam Alvar's tamarind tree for over 300 years he died in A D. 922. I wrote, discussing just exactly the points in the life of Nathamuni that this scholar takes into consideration, that “it certainly would not be unreasonable to ascribe Nathamuni to a period beginning with the earlier half of the 10th century A. D. This is exactly the conclusion warranted by the proper understanding of the traditional account, which is that Nathamuni was born in A. D. 582 and that he was in what is called “Yogasamadhi" for 340 years. This would give the date A. D. 922 for the death of Nathamuni, which is not at all improbable, taking all circumstances into consideration. Why did the hagiologists then ascribe this long life or long death in life to Nathamuni? The explanation is not far to seek. They believed and the Vaishnavas do believe even now, that there was an unbroken succession of these saints, and unfortunately they found a gap between Nathamuni and the last Alvar. This they bridged over in this clumsy fashion." On the basis of this I am convicted with believing in the statement that Nathamuni was born in 582. Let that pass. We have already pointed out that there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Nathamuni was a disciple of Nam Alvar except in a metaphorical sense. Coming to the actual facts, Nathamuni's age is sought to be determined by his having been born in a village Vira Narayanapuram taken to be a foundation of the Chola king Vira Narayana or Parantaka I; by his having died in Gangaigondasolapuram, the foundation of Rajendra, the Gangaigondasola, A. D. 1011-1042; and by the fact that he was the grandfather of Alavandar who died at Shrirangam when Ramanuja was a young man. In regard to part I, who is it that ascribes the birth of the Acharya to Vira Narayanapuram? His biographer, whoever he was, and at the time of the biographer the place was known as Vira Narayanapuram.

The Cholas were in the habit of changing the names of places in this fashion, and it does not mean that the place was not in existence before, nor the temple in it. It is to-day known by the name Kurukaikkavalappan Kovil. It must have been known perhaps by that name before, and Nathamuni could have been born in the village without coming after Parantaka. He died at Gangaigondasolapuram. That again was not altogether a new foundation. It is hardly a mile and a half from the first place, the place of birth; it is just possible there was a village there anterior to the springing up of the Capital city. There are numbers of respectable villages about. There is nothing to prevent Nathamuni having died in one of these places which the later biographer refers to by the name of the vast capital city which took in all the villages around within its own limits. The traditional account, however, says that he returned to his village to die. The last fact is that Alavandar, the grandson of Nathamuni, died very old when Ramanuja was just a young man, may be about 25. That is the fact upon which we have to go. Whatever be the vialue of the horoscopes, or the actual dates of Ramanuja, as given in the guruparampara there can be no doubt about the period of his life which was the later half of the 11th century A. D. and the first part of the following century. Alavandar might have been born about 60 years before him, and Nathamuni his grandfather about that length or a little more; so that a difference of 120 to 150 years between Nathamuni and Ramanuja would not err on the side of too much liberality. That would mean Nathamuni was born somewhere about A. D. 900. But that is of no use to this question as the direct discipleship of Nathamuni to Nam Alvar is a mere unwarranted assumption. If an inference could be drawn from traditions preserved by hagiologists, we ought to look for Nam Alvar the three centuries and a half almost of the yogic years of Nathamuni previous to the age of the latter. That would take us to the middle of the sixth century, in itself perhaps not an improbable time. We shall investigate this further later on in the course of this thesis.

Before passing on it would be just as well to point out that it is not in any spirit of carping that this somewhat detailed criticism of other views is offered. This investigation of other views has no further object than a critical revaluation of the arguments for the purpose of acceptance or rejection. We hope that this long investigation upon the position of Nam Alvar as the latest of the group proves that the contention is, on the basis of the facts adduced, untenable.