The contemporaneity of the Alvar

WITH GHANASAMBANDHA

 

It is said that this aspect of tradition is a mere fib of imagination suggested by the proximity of their places of birth and many striking parallellisms in their works. Many scholars were, however: content to ignore the Story altogether and this was not made the basis for determining the date of either Tirumangai Alvar or Gnanasambandha. The author Of the Alvargal Kalanilai’ has, however, based his discussion on the age of the former On this among other data.23 We find thus that there are sharply differing viewpoints about the tradition and it will be worth our while to examine it. 24

The first point to ascertain about any tradition as evidence for history is its continuity. In regard to this, we see that the earliest version of the Arayirappadi declares that Tirumangai Alvar and Gnanasambandha met each other and that a discussion ensued ending in the discomfiture of the Shaiva Saint. The D. S. Charitam offers a slightly varied version Pointing to a friendly discourse between the protagonists of the two faiths and Living a dignified turn to the whole incident. It is not Surprising that the Prapannamritam has followed the version of Arayirappadi, as, in fact the Whole of the Sanskrit work has been shown to have followed the earliest work of the Jiyar. It Seems reasonable, therefore, to grant the continuity of tradition in this case, at least as far back as we can Possibly get to, viz., the times of the Jiyar.

23. Al. Kalanilai p. 89.

24. K. A. Nilakanta Shastri thinks that it is a beautiful legend. Colas, Madras University Series 1955 p. 636.

25. Arayirappadi Ed. Shrivaishnava Mudripaka Sabha.

Since the author of the Arayirappadi himself was far removed from the times of the Alvars and Nayanmars, it would be worthwhile examining if this tradition can find support either in the works of the two saints or in other contemporary or later literature secular or religious. We find that there is none such anywhere except in the Vaishnava hagiographers’ accounts which may well be deemed one sided and therefore unacceptable for purposes of history.

The next stage of our enquiry would be to see if the dates of the two saint arrived at on other date would admit of their contemporaneity. Pandit M. Raghava Ayyangar has suggested that they would. Having established that he must have been a contemporary of Nandivarma Pallavamalla, he proceeds to discuss the date of Sambandha on all available data the most important of which is the date of the destruction of Vatapi in which Siruttondar, the contemporary of Gnanasambandha is said to have taken part. He points out that there must have been a second invasion of Vatapi on the wake of the Peruvalanallur battle cir. 657 A. D. and that this should have been the campaign in which Siruttondar took part. Assigning Sambandha to cir. 670 to 686 on this basis, he would declare that this, along with the other date for Tirumangai Alvar, viz., the latter half of the 8th Century, could very well establish their contemporaneity. 26

26. M. R. Ayyangar – Al. Kalanilai PP. 106- 109.

We have already gone through the details of Vikramaditya – I's campaign in the south – from his initial success at Kanchi to his ultimate discomfiture at Peruvalanallur. Apart from the fact of the Chalukya’s flight after that battle, we do not find any mention of the capture of Vatapi even in Pallava records. And yet the conclusion as to a second invasion of the calukyan capital is made to rest on two grounds. (1) The description of Parameshwaravarman Pallava as the ‘destroyer of the city of Ranarasika.’ (2) The date of the Kodumbalur chieftain Paradurgamardana who bore the title ‘Vatapijit.’ The two premises may now be examined.

It is true that Parameshwaravarman has been declared to have destroyed the city of Ranarasika. It is clear also that Ranarasika was a Biruda of Vikramaditya-I, 27. Pro. Dubreuil is of opinion that this Ranarasikapura is no other than Uragapura where the northern invader encamped for a while prior to his final defeat by the Pallava forces and wherefrom he issued the Gadwal Plates. The objection that Uragapura was but a temporary camp of the monarch cannot be a very serious one against this identity as the fact of his fairly prolonged stay there must be granted, and the city therefore could well have got its name from the victor from Kanchi at least form the time being. The further suggestion that Parameshwaravarman did not proclaim for himself the same title ‘Vatapikonda’ as his grand-father out of deference to him loses strength when we see that several kings have borne ancestral titles without any corresponding achievement to their credit. The identity of Ranarasikapura with Vatapi remains thus to be substantiated.

27. Ep. Indi. Vol. X Page 101.

The learned Pandit arrived at Cir. 670 as the date for Paradurgamardana calculating backwards from the probable date of his great-grandson Vikramakesari, whom he presumes to have been a contemporary of Dantivarman Pallava cir. 780 on the basis of an inscription at Malayadippatti. The conquest of Vatapi as implied in his title ‘Vatapijit’ – evidently as an ally of his Pallava suzerain – ascribable to cir. 670 must therefore be distinct from the earlier exploit of Narasimhavarman Pallava. It may be observed that the date of the Kodumbalur chieftain has been arrived at rather vaguely on indefinite data, and the calculation even if the data were definite, can but lead to very approximate result. We will not be on safe grounds if we infer a second invasion of Vatapi on this basis entirely. The chronology of the Kodumbalur chieftains requires to be established independently after careful consideration before we can proceed to draw conclusion from it.

The arguments for a second invasion and destruction of Vatapi by Parameshwaravarman Pallava are thus seen to be inconclusive. There seems to be no valid ground for shifting Siruttondar’s campaign to any other event than the wellknown exploit of Narasimhavarman and bring him and his contemporary Gnanasambandha nearer to the times of Tirumangai Alvar.

28. Al. Kalanilai – 2nd Edn. P.109.

The problem may still be viewed from the point of view of the accepted date of Gnanasambandha based on Narasimha varman’s invasion of Vatapi. This incident has been variously dated in Cir. 637 (Heras) 642 (fleet.) and so on. 29 Whatever the exact date we may safely presume Sambandha to have lived about the year 640 A.D.

The sixteen-year duration of life ascribed to him by tradition is perhaps but an exaggerated way of stating the wonderful powers of the poet saint. If that were so. we will not be far wrong in conclusing that he should in all probability have lived up to the last quarter of the 7th Century at the latest. We have already seen that Tirumangai Alvar must have lived some years at least after 736 A.D. It would thus appear that there is an intervening period of nearly a century between the lives of the two saints. It is rather difficult to infer their contemporaneity normally under these circumstances, though the possibility is not absolutely precluded.

Anyway it does not seem to be quite safe to assert one way or the other. After all it may well be that tradition itself originated-from this close proximity in point of time – apart from many other similarities between these two hymnists from the land of the Cauvery.

29. Rev. Heras. ‘Studies in Pallava History’ PP. 62-63.

 

 

CHAPTER X

NAMMALVAR AND MADHURAKAVI

 

Nammalvar possesses a unique distinction among the Alvars. He is considered the ‘Avayavi’ while the rest are called the ‘Avayavas’  – as if to establish his superiority and the fact that he embodies in himself all that is good and great in the Vaishnava Hymnists. This fact seems to have been very early recognised by Pinbalagiya Jiyar himself in his introduction to the life of Kulashekhara already noticed. 1 Greater ‘s the Alvar’s distinction of being recognised as an Acharya also. This will be cleat when it is realised that an Acharya or spiritual preceptor plays a very important role as the sole and effective mediator between the Bhakta and the Lord according to the accepted canons of Vaishnava Philosophy. This fact about the Alvar was also early recognised. In the accredited line of Acharyic succession commencing from Shriman Narayana he is said to come next only to Lakshmi and Senai Natha after Vishnu and then begins the line of the Acharyas on this earth. Nathamuni is acknowledged to be his disciple and from then the Guruparampara continues through Alavandar. Ramanuja and others upto the recognised Acharyas of the present day. This unique distinction enjoyed by the Alvar may be due to the highly developed and systematic thought revealed in his Tiruvaymoli. The fact that this part of the Nalayiram has no less than six Commentaries by the later Acharyas Shows that Nammalvar’s Work was deemed very important.

We saw how Nammalvar is acknowledged to be the first Acharya, Nathamuni being Placed next to him in the order of succession. This, together with tradition that Nathamuni secured the Nalayiram Collection from the Alvar, bas led to the inference that he must have been the last of the hymnists. This aspect of tradition may now be examined.

The following are the relevant facts contained in the Arayirappadi regarding the acquisition of the Nalayiram by Nathamuni on hearing the casual! recitation of a ‘ten’ of the Tiruvaimoli, Nathamuni Went to Alvartiru-nagari in eager search for the whole work, where he was informed by Parankusha dasa, a disciple of Madhurakavi, that there were neither persons who could recite the Nalayiram nor the Preserved work itself, as the whole of it had passed into obscurity. He was further directed to recite the ten verses beginning With ‘Kanninum Siruttambu’ of Madhurakavi Alvar before the idol of Nammalvar which direction he had himself got from Madhurakavi, his Guru in Order to obtain the work through his grace, This was done and the Nalayiram along with other Shastras was revealed to Nathamuni by the Alvar as an “Ashariri’. Such being the Story of the revelation, one is Not warranted in inferring Nathamuni’s actual disciple-ship to Nammalvar, The story of the revelation of the Alvar’s works and other Shastras – with so much of the mythological in it has evidently a Purpose behind it Namely to establish a continuity in their transmission through an unbroken line of Acharyic descent.

1. See section on Kulashekhara. P.

Thus the story, while attempting to establish this continuity, can neither suggest that Nathamuni was the immediate disciple of the Alvar, nor that the latter was the last among the Vaishnava saints.

Recognised tradition on the other hand places him fifth in order after the Mudal-Alvar and Tirumalisai. Later traditionalists have all followed the Jiyar’s order as given in the Arayirappadi. Vedanta-Deshika has referred to the Alvars collectively in two of his works the Adhikara Sangraha and the Prabandhasara. In the first stanza of the former expatiating on the importance of the works of the Alvars, the name of Nammalvar stands fourth. But then it is not possible to say whether it is the chronological order intended by him in that work. In the other composition on the other hand, where he gives particular of the place and date of birth of the Alvars, their works etc., he devotes a stanza to each Alvar, and it certainly seems possible to infer a chronological order in it Stanza six devoted to Nammalvar places him fifth and this makes the position of Vedanta Deshika clear on this point.

Mr. K. Shrinivasa Pillai, the author of the ‘Tamilar Varalaru’ seems to infer chronological order of names from the compilation called the 'Iyal-Sattu. This is as described a collection of several stanzas by different authors grouped together for purposes of ceremonial recitation by Varavaramuni. As such there is no room to infer any definite order from it His ‘Upadesharattinamalai’ on the other hand can be said to mention the Alvar’s names in a chronological order and we find that he also places him fifth among the Alvars. 2

While the D. S. Charitam has actually dealt with the life of Nammalvar fifth in order, the Prapannamritam has followed the Arayirappadi literally in dealing with it last and stating the reason for doing so in the exact words of the Arayirappadi. Thus tradition seems to be persistent in placing Nammalvar fifth in the order of the saints 3

2. Verse No 4 ‘Upadesharattinamalai’.

3. K. G. Shesha Iyer, B.A., B.L., art. in the Silver Jubilee memorial volume, Karandaikkattural on Nammalvar is inclined to follow tradition. He assigns Nammalvar to the sixth Century A. D.

There are some who would point to an isolated ‘Tanian Shloka’ ascribed to Parasharabhatta and the ‘Ramanuja Nurrandadi’ of Tiruvarangattamudanar as suggesting that Nammalvar was the last among them. On examination, however it would be found that it is not possible to infer a chronological order from Bhattar’s shloka which includes Ramanuja and places him before Parankushamuni (Nammalvar). 4

Nor would it be possible to do so from Amudanar’s work. It is true that the reference to each one of the Alvars is found in separate stanzas, and that Nammalvar is mentioned last. Yet, this will not specify any chronological order as is evident from the fact that Tiruppanalvar is placed immediately after the Mudalalvars, ‘Tirumalisai coming after him, and that Tondaradippodi is placed anterior to Kulashekhara and Periyalvar: If we are to take this as the order intended, we shall be at a loss to explain why the later hagiographers like the Jiyar deviated so much from it. Another point may be noted in this connection. Tirumangai Alvar is mentioned twice, first at the outset in the 2nd stanza and later after Andal in the seventeenth stanza of the work. If we infer strict chronological order, we may have to place Tirumangai Alvar first and the last but one among the Alvars at the same time, which would be clearly an absurd position to maintain. The fact is that the author of the Nurrandadi was not a hagiographer by any means and his purpose was not the exposition of any chronological order even in the individual mention of the names at the Alvars They must be deemed to have come in for mention just casually without any such specific implication. From the fore-going  it would be clear that the traditional order would place Nammalvar fifth in order after the Mudalalvars and Tirumalisai.

Tradition after, we shall proceed to determine the age of Nammalvar and Madhurakavi on other available evidence.

The late Mr. T.A. Gopinatha Rao in his Madras University lectures suggested certain identifications connecting the names of the Alvar and his disciple Madhurakavi with certain facts contained in the two Anamalai records, cir. 770 A.D., of the Pandya king Parantaka Nedunjadayan. He was certainly right in inferring from the Alvar’s Names ‘Maran’ and ‘Karimaran’ that ‘Kari’ must have been the name of the father of the Alvar, but the further identification, of this ‘Kari’ with Marankari the Uttara-mantrin of the said inscriptions Seems to be an inference from the name ‘Parankusha’ ascribed to the Alvar. For, it is surmised that this name was given to the Alvar in honour of the Pandya Parankusha the father of Nedunjadaiyan and liege lord of the Uttaramantrin. A scrutiny of the name ‘Parankusha’ would however, show that it was but a title conferred on him. That it must have been conferred by posterity only will be clear from the fact that the Alvar does not call himself by that name anywhere in his works. It seems therefore unreasonable to connect this title of the Alvar with the name or may be even the title of the Pandya king in any manner whatsoever.

There is much less ground for connection the name ‘Madhurakavi’ of the Alvar with ‘Madhurakavi’ the surname of the Uttaramantrin. The suggestion that the Alvar should have given his father’s surname as a ‘Dasyanama’ to his disciple seems to be farfetched. For, the term ‘Madhurakavi’ as the name of an individual occurs in several inscriptions showing that it had become a fairly common name adopted by many people: and It may be well be that the Uttaramantrin himself got the surname after the celebrated name of the Alvar, indeed, if an inference is possible from the inscriptional record, we may even take this date cir. 770 A.D. as the lower limit for Madhurakavi Alvar and his Acharya Nammalvar on the assumption that some period of time should have elapsed between the age of the saint and the adoption of his name by the common folk. This may perhaps point to about 660 A.D. as the age of Madhurakavi and Nammalvar in itself not quite inconsistent with the traditional order given above.

While the late Mr. T. A. Gopinatha Rao, attempted to establish the contemporaneity of the Alvar with Parantaka Nedunjadaiyan, Mr. G. Venkobarao has tried to show that his reign would fix the upper limit for the date of the Alvar. His identification of Shrivaramangalam sung by the Alvar with the Shrivaramangalam of the Madras Museum Plates of Parantaka seems to be quite sound 5. For, from the manner of reference to the place in the Alvar’s works as Shrivaramangai’ and ‘Shrivaramangalam’ in its short and full forms respectively, it is clear that it should have been named after a king of that name. This is only in accordance with the very common practice of naming places after the names and titles of monarchs. It being clear from the M. M. Plates 6 that the place Shrivaramangalam was so named after ‘Shrivara’ the title of Parantaka, there seems to be good reason to identify this village with the place sung by the Alvar. The date of the above mentioned plates cir. 785 A. D. would thus be the upper limit for the date of the Nammalvar.

5. See Sen-Tamil Series Vol. 4, pp. 228-229.

6. The Madras Museum Plates. Ind.Ant.vol-22.

7. See Tiruvaymoli 9.3.4.

The upper limit fixed on the basis of the reference to ‘Shrivaramangalam’ may have to be shifted to the age of Varaguna on the basis of the reference to Varagunamangai in the Alvar’s works 7. On the analogy of Shrivaramangalam above cited it is possible to infer that ‘Varagunamangai’ is short for Varagunamangalam, and that it must have got its name from a monarch of that name. Two Pandya kings of that name appear in the 8encological lists, one of whom can be assigned to cir. 862 A.D. though the other Varaguna must be assigned to an earlier date it is not at present possible to say when exactly he ruled. All that we can say now on the basis of the reference to Varagunamangai is that the upper limit may have to be Shifted down to cir. 820 A. D.

We thus find that the internal references contained in the Alvar’s work Point to a late date after 800 at any rate. Taking Nathamuni’s date as the unmistakable lower limit for the date of the Alvar and allowing for the lapse of a generation atleast between him and the first Acharya, we may have to assign Nammalvar to about the first quarter of the ninth century at the earliest.

Thus Nammalvar and Madhurakavi have to be considered the last of the Alvars. Apart from the style and diction, this large number of Philosophical ideas in Nammalvar’s works would Support this conclusion.

 

CHAPTER XI