The traditional order of these supported on other grounds

 

We have already shown the reason for the principal inference, that at any rate, from the days of Ramanuja there came to be a recognised chronological order in regard to these Alvars and that it was recognised order which with only one minor modification, was accepted by the hagiologists and handed down to us elaborated in the fashion it is in the guruparampara. There is however an inscription of date 1118 and referring itself to the reign of Vikrama Chola, which specifies the Naksatra (asterism under which they were born) of two of the earliest Alvars, viz., Poygai Alvar and Bhutattu Alvar. The asterism is given as Jyesta (Tarn. Kettai). According to the hagiologists these were born respectively in Sravana and Dhanista. This 'raises the question, how far the hagiologists are correct, and whether we should not prefer the inscription to the hagiologists. It is just possible that in this particular the hagiologists are wrong; but the question arises that in regard to this detail what better information the writer of the inscription could have had; the presumption would be the hagiologists put themselves to the trouble of investigating the matter when they set themselves up to write the lives of these saints. The inscription-writer could have been under no such obligation. He might simply have set down what he might honestly have heard about the matter either outside, or from the temple people. That after all is a 12th century piece of information in the inscription and could not lay claim to be accurate for centuries considerably anterior to the 12th century; whereas the information of the hagiologists at least presumes an inquiry whatever might have been the sources of information available to them. In a matter like this there is not, perhaps, much to choose between the two, and it would be better to accept a perhaps continuous tradition rather than an isolated piece of information like the detail in the inscription relating to a period far anterior to the date of the inscription. In any historical investigation into this matter the most reliable material would be the works of these saints themselves and where they differ from later information, the works have to be unquestionably preferred. On examining the works themselves the conclusion is borne in upon us, that the first Alvars, the three of them and Tirumalisai were the earliest in age, that age being the age of the Sangam celebrities. They all of them speak glorifying Vishnu bhakti (devotion to Vishnu) but at the same time they do regard Siva bhakti (devotion to Siva) with considerable sympathy, and make a visible effort to keep the Shaivas in countenance. The earliest Alvars go the length even of describing Siva and Vishnu as one, although they do recognise the united form as Vishnu. From this we advance one stage when we come to Nam Alvar. He is a little more of a Vaishnava and continues to regard these Shaivias with sympathy no doubt, but does not generally give Siva the same pedestal that the earlier Alvars do. Tirumalisai coming between the two has something characteristic to say of the rivals, which is indicative of his attitude towards them. Tradition says that he proclaimed, ’we have learnt the religion of the Sakhya (Buddhism), we have learnt the religion of the Shramana (Jainisim), we have examined the Agama of Shankaranar (Shaiva Agama); but by fortunate good luck we have come to rest our faith in the Black One with red-eyes and got rid of all that is evil.

There is hereafter nothing impossible to us This is a fugitive piece, the value of which, as evidence, might be doubted; but the same idea is found repeated almost in identical terms but far less aggressively in stanza 6 of his work "Nanmugan Tiruvandadi". This stanza says, “the Shramanas are ignorant, the Bauddhas have fallen into delusion, the followers of Siva are unknowing innocents and those that will not worship Vishnu are low people indeed.

Similar sentiment, but identifying Siva with Vishnu is found scattered through the works of Nam Alvar. In one of his poems already referred to above he makes reference to the detailed items of worship, and refers distinctly to Adiyar and Bhagavar, possibly indicating the existence of Siva Bhaktas along with Vishnu Bhaktas. In the “ten” from which the above is one, he breaks out into a hymn of thanks giving for the success of the propagation of bhakti to Vishnu, by means of which the earth was rid of the evil, Kali. On the basis therefore of the development of the struggle of the school of bhakti and bhaktas against Buddhism and Jainism, the age of these, Bhaktisara and Nam Alvar, ought to follow immediately that of the first Alvars. Madhurakavi’s work in the Prabandham is only 11 stanzas on devotion (bhakti) to his guru and does not come into general line sufficiently for criticism of this kind; but he places himself in intimate connection with Nam Alvar as his disciple, and in ordinary fairness as critics we ought to concede him the honour. In Kulashekara we do reach a very high stage of enthusiastic devotion to the god of his heart.

Almost the same might be said of Periyalvar and his daughter, and these would follow Satakopa on this basis; but when we pass to Bhaktangrirenu we see a pronounced attitude of hostility to the Bauddhas and Jainas; one may trace a hostile reference to the Shaivas also. Yogivaha or Tiruppan has only 10 stanzas in the Prabandham which give us hardly a hint of his personality; and in Tirumangai Alvar, the last of them, it is possible to detect occasional reference to the inferiority of Siva in his grace -bestowing quality to Vishnu, but of pronounced hostility to the Shaivas, there is perhaps not very much. He goes out of his way to celebrate the early Chola King Ko-Sengan in 10 stanzas celebrating Tirunaraiyur, wherein he even makes the statement that he (Sengan) built 70 temples to Siva.

This Chola king is one of the recognised Adiyars of Siva, and the miracle which Siva performed in connection with him comes in for frequent allusion both in Sambandar and Appar, the two Tevarm hymners of the early 7th century. After all there may be a considerable amount of personal equation in this matter and this alone cannot be held to be decisive of age.

 

OTHER CRITERIA OF AGE

 

There are other criteria, however of perhaps a more reliable character, by means of which, we can fix the age of some of these. We-have already pointed out the reasons why Nam Alvar could not be referred to the 10th century. There is one more point which might be considered quite decisive. He celebrates the temple Tiruppernagar, ordinarily called "Koviladi", now in the Tanjore district. There is in the first stanza of the ten, the statement that Tiruppernagar is on the southern bank of the Ponni (Kaveri).i Tiruppernagar is, I am informed, actually on the northern bank of the Kaveri and the southern bank of the Coleroon. The only explanation possible for this discrepancy is that in his days the Coleroon was known as the Kaveri, as it must have been, because the two branches into which the Kaveri divides itself as it strikes the island of Shrirangam reunite at the southern end of the island. What was the Kaveri perhaps took off a little way below from the main river; the channel now known as the Kaveri is called in the locality Solan Kaveri; and according to the Kongudesa Rajakkal the channel of the Kaveri was constructed by Aditya, the Karikala Chola, son of Vijayalaye and father of the great Chola Parantaka. His time would be between Varaguna Pandya 867-68 and Parantaka 907. If Nam Alvar located this place on the southern side of the Coleroon and called the river Kaveri, he must have lived before him. We have therefore to look for him much earlier, and the test applied in the previous paragraph perhaps holds good in his case. We ought therefore to look for Nam Alvar at a time when the bhaktas, both of Vishnu and Shiva were coming into prominence, and when the work of these bhaktas was beginning to tell upon those people that were following the persuasion of the Buddha and Jina. About the 5th century A. D. would seem the most suitable time for him, and stylistic and literary criticism would support this view.

The main part of his work is called Tiruvaymoli. This name, some ascribe to formation by analogy, as the Shaiva work of Manikkavasagar was called Tiruvasagam, implying the posteriority of the Alvar to the Shaiva saint. In truth the name Tiruvaymoli means the Veda. The Paripadal distinguishes "Vaymoli" (the Veda) from ‘Marai’ (the Upanishads). In fact the latter is called “Vedattumarai”.  Tirumangai Alvar seems to support this difference in the use of the terms. Satakopa himself seems to let us into the secret in stanzas 64 and 94 of his Tiruviruttam. In the first he implies that he was putting in Tamil what the "gods of the earth" have put in "Riks” (verse) and likens his effort to people biting at tender fruit for lack of the ripe one. In the other he says that it is only "Vaidikas" (those that follow the path of the Veda) that are qualified to sing in glory of Vishnu, but he has also attempted doing so in Tamil very much like the blind cow that joins in the frolics of the seeing one. The name apparently goes back to antiquity which would make imitation of Manikkavasagar impossible. In the absence of similar authoritative precedent, the name Tiruvasagam may reasonably be argued as having been formed by analogy from the Tiruvaymoli.

We have given reasons enough to show that Kulashekhara must have followed perhaps early in the 7th century or late in the 6th. For Periyalvar we have got the lead from himself. He refers to two personages, one of them an officer of some influence in the court of the Pandya and attached to the temple of Tirukkottiyur. The Alvar refers to him twice in the course of his works and on both occasions exhibits great regard for him as a devotee of Vishnu, but that does not lead us very far. In another connection he refers to a certain Pandya king whom he calls Nedu Maran. In yet another connection^ he refers in general terms to the Pandaya who set up the fish emblem on the Himalayas. These two attributes are given to the Pandya who forms the subject of the modern illustrative stanzas of the Tamil grammar Iraiyanar Ahapporul. I have for good reasons identified that Nedu Maran with No. 2 of the genealogical table based on the Velvikkudi grant in the report of the government Epigraphist for 1906. The only other possibility is the Nedu Maran his grandson and contemporary of Sambandar. That would bring him to be almost a contemporary with Kulashekhara. Tirumangai Alvar stands out clear by his reference to (Dantidurga) Vairamegha as the overlord, for the time being of the ruler of Kanchi. There is another peculiar reference in his celebration of Shrirangam; he there speaks of a miracle that Vishnu performed of accepting the Tondaman (the Pallava ruler) as his devotee, and teaching him the ‘secret mantra’, an act of beneficence generally stated to have been done by Vishnu in connection with Tirumangai Alvar himself. I have not been able to find out exactly what this means, but expect to be when next time I am able to visit the temple Parameshvara Vinnagaram in question. Thus then the age of the Alvars as a class lies between somewhere about the commencement of the 3rd century A D. and the 9th century; most of the Shaiva Adiyars being referable also to about the same time. It is impossible to make any further elaboration of the subject on this occasion.