The chronological order of the Alvars

 

Coming to the question of a recognised order we have already indicated that the Ramanuja Nurrandadi of Amudan of Arangam leads to the inference of a recognised chronological order.

One of the two elements of difference in the order was explained leaving only one item, that is, the position of Tiruppan Alvar about whom there is a difference among the authorities. The list that was set out at the commencement from Sir R. G. Bhandarkar's book is the order of precedence according to the fabulously fanciful dates given to these Alvars. When hagiologists actually attempted to give these precise dates, the order seems to have been a recognised fact. Vedanta Deshika has a section of his Prabandham, the 19th in order, which he calls Prabandha Saram of 18 stanzas. The first stanza is by way of introduction; the next 12 are devoted one stanza each to the Alvars, and they are set out in the following order giving the name of the Alvar and alluding to the actual works, and the number of stanzas contained therein, of each of the Alvars.

Poygai Alvar,
Bhudat Alvar,
Pey Alvar,
Tirumalisai Alvar,
Nam Alvar,
Madhurakavi,
Kulashekhara,
Periya Alvar,
Andal,
Tondaradippodi,
Tiruppanalvar,
Tirumangai Alvar.

Stanza 14 deals similarly with the Ramanuja Nurrandadi of Amudan of Arangam making up the Prabandham 4000. Stanzas 15 and 16 repeat the counting of the stanzas, and stanza 17 gives the names in the order in which they were before recounted. The last stanza is the usual Phalashruti giving the name of the author of the work Prabandhasaram. It cannot be said that Vedanta Deshika in thus composing the Prabandhasaram did not know the Ramanuja Nurrandadi, or the differences in the order in which Tiruppan Alvar and Nam Alvar happened to be mentioned there. Either he regarded the order followed by Amudan of Arangam not chronological, or because he knew that these differences m the said author were, at any rate in his opinion, due to error. In any case we are bound to accept the order of precedence set out by Vedanta Deshika as the authoritative order in his time. But the chief question in connection with this order is whether it was meant to be chronological. The probabilities are that they were, and the most that can be said against Vedanta Deshika's order being chronological is that it was the order of precedence in point of time set out by hagiologists who came before him. As a matter of fact in the form in which the guruparamparas have come down to us the most elaborate among them are the works of a disciple and disciple's disciple of Vedanta Deshika. Their works were based on the previously existing guruparamparas of which one at least went back to the time of Ramanuja.

Therefore then the order in which the names of these Alvars are arranged seem the chronological order, at any rate the chronological order conceived by those as long back from us as Ramanuja himself. We can hardly infer more from this order as stanza 8 referring to Kulashekhara states that the Alvar was born in Vanjikulam. The Alvar himself states that he was ruler of Kolli (Quilon). It is just possible he was the son of the ruler of Travancore, but was born actually in Tiruvanjikkalam. It would not be constructive criticism not to recognise this order except for very satisfactorily substantial reasons. Such have not been advanced in regard to Kulashekhara as we have pointed out above. An attempt has been made to bring Nam Alvar chronologically to the position of the last of them all, which goes against the grain of Vaishnava tradition, and for which the positive proofs offered are perhaps not worth criticism, in the way that they are offered. There are points in them which it will be just as well we examine here.

See also extract from the Bhagavatam quoted above referring specifically to Periyar-note. 1, p. 8.

 

LECTURE III.