The general position of the Alvars

 

Coming to the general position of these Alvars we have already noted the opinion of the learned doctor that they must have flourished about the time of the revival of Brahmanism and Hinduism in the north about the 5th or the 6th century A. D. He admits the possibility that Vaishnavism might have penetrated to the south as early as about the first century A. D. In the group of the twelve Alvars, the Vaishnavas regard the three names, in the order as in the list set forth at the beginning of this thesis, as the first: not the first in eminence as undoubtedly that position of eminence is given to Nam Alvar. The first therefore in Tamil, which may be priority in rank or in time alike, must refer to priority in point of time in this particular context. The fourth name in the list is traditionally also brought in along with this group of three, but that tradition however exhibits the clumsy efforts by means of which this position is sought to be attained. According to the story Bhaktisara or Tirumalisai had to remain for the long period of 700 years in the ‘Yogasamadhi’ to come into contact with a Pallava ruler of Kanchi. This is apparently the usual clumsy effort to get over the chronological incompatibility when the hagiologists set about attempting a precise chronology; but the association between Bhaktisara with the shrine Yadhoktakari preserved in the tradition is, in all probability true. There are a few separate verses quoted to support his connection with the locality, and what transpired there between him and the Pallava king of the town; being fugitive pieces they are open to the suspicion that they might have been composed for the purpose by others, but there is one unlooked for piece of evidence which seems to lend some support to the association of Bhaktisara with this particular shrine in Kanchi on the one side and a Pallava ruler on the other. A long poem of the Sangam collection called Pattuppattu refers itself to the early ruler of Kanchi known to literature as Tondaman Ilandirayan, describing him as a patron whose bounty would satisfy the utmost wishes of those that sought it The poet leads on his prospective bard seeking patronage through various localities outside Kanchi, and entering within makes specific reference only to this shrine of Yadhoktakari called in Tamil Vehka. The author of this poem was a Brahman described as Kadiyalur Rudran Kannanar who also celebrates in another poem of the same collection the great ancient Chola Karikala. This raises the presumption that the Pallava contemporary of Bhaktisara was probably the Tondaman Ilandirayan.

Tondaman Ilandirayan turns out from a reference to him by Poygai Alvar to have been contemporaneous with him, and in a way confirms the presumption raised by the indirect reference in Bhaktisara. The Vehka or Yadoktakari, referred to above as specially connected with Bhaktisara, “the God doing his bidding” as the Sanskrit name means, was the birthplace of Poygai Alvar whatever his particular age. Before investigating the evidence available to locate Poygai Alvar, it would be necessary to consider the period allotted to him in the work already drawn upon in connection with Nam Alvar. This work quotes a stanza, each from Poygai Alvar and Fey Alvar, which refer to a place called Vinnagaram where God Vishnu is said to have been seated while in three other holy shrines mentioned along with this in the same stanza he is stated respectively to be standing, lying and walking. The place mentioned in the order of standing, sitting, lying and walking are Venkadam (Tirupati), Vinnagar, Vehka (Yadhoktakari) at Kanchi and Tirukkovalur. The philologists author would derive the Tamil Vinnagar from Vishnu-Nagar which has no justification in grammar for the kind of coalescence brought about by the combination of the words. Dr. Hultzsch and his assistants derived it from Vishnu Griha. It will be seen in the second of the stanzas referred to above that it is brought in contrast with Man-nagar (city on earth). This compound is Vin-nagar (city of Heaven). That is again another matter. Deriving it in this manner, he seeks to identify the place with Parameshvara Vinnagar of Tirumangai Alvar, taken by Dr. Hultzsch to have been built by the Pallava king Parameshvara Varman. This identification is made on the ground that the other places mentioned in connection with this Vin-nagar are in Tondai Nadu (Pallava country), and that Poygai and Pey Alvar were “local saints and their peregrinations were confined to Tondai Nadu”. The other places, are not all of them in Tondai Nadu, and if Tirukkottiyur and Tirumalirunjolai are well known, so are Tiruvengadam and Tirukkovalur. The wrong notion arises in the conception that every place referred to by an Alvar must have been visited by him. The absurdity of the position becomes apparent when the second of these Alvars referred to Parkkadal (Kshirabdi) and Vaikuntham itself to either of which certainly he did not travel in the course of his peregrinations. These are mere allusions to places of holy reputation at the time. The case is different when an Alvar lays himself out to celebrate a particular shrine when the presumption of a visit and actual presence may be warranted. It is unnecessary to postulate a visit and absurdly narrow the area of the peregrinations of these saints. Coming to the Vinnagar under discussion there are five of these in the Chola country in addition to Parameshvara Vinnagaram in Kanchi. The actual reference here is Vaikuntha Vinnagar near Shiyali in the Tanjore district. The only difficulty about this identification is that it does not enable us to bring the Alvars down to a period of our own choice, the latter half of the seventh century A. D.

 

LECTURE IV

THE FIRST ALVARS

 

 

Let us now proceed on the way that the evidence leads us — Poygai, Bhutam, Pey, are all three of them regarded the first Alvars in point of time. With them Tirumalisai gets associated later. This last is closely associated with Vehka (Yadhoktakari temple) in Kanchi by a miracle that Vishnu performed by vacating the temple first and returning to it afterwards, at the bidding of his devotee. The shrine is mentioned as a prominent feature of Kanchi in the poem Perumbanarruppadai of Rudran Kannanar. The commentary on the work on Tamil prosody called Yapparungalam quotes largely from one author, who is referred to as Poygaiyar. Of these quotations two verses are much to the point here.

The first of these specifies the name of Tirayan, and the second a Chola ruler Terkkilli. The commentary refers to the first as the "natural name". Poygaiyar speaking of the Chola and Pallava in compliment together would make all three, the author and the two patrons, contemporary. It must be remembered in this connection that the character of the reference leaves something to be desired. The larger section of Tamil grammar dealing "with import" (Artha of Sans, and “porul” of Tamil) has its first two sections devoted respectively to “emotion" and "action". It is a recognised convention that the treatment of a subject in the first mode is of the *'dramatic character" (nadaha valakku); and that in the second mode is of the character of "actual life" (ulagavalakku^) These two references are of the former category; but there is no point in the reference, unless it was made as a compliment either to the patron himself or to a descendent of his. Hence these references may 'be interpreted as meant in direct address to the patron concerned. The mention of Tirayan and Terkkilli by a single author makes the former Ham Tirayan, as the latter is among the Chola sovereigns who succeeded the great Chola Karikala on the Chola throne.

Among the Chola sovereigns that figure in Purananuru one name occurs prominently, and that is the name of the Chola Nalam Killi. He is otherwise known Set Chenni, Putpahai and Tervankilli. He had a brother by name Mavalattan. He won a victory against the Pandyas and took seven of their forts, hoisting his own flag on them. He went to war against his own cousins and laid siege to Avur and Uraiyur. Among his enemies figures one of his own cousins Nedum Killi who is otherwise known Kariyarruttunjiya Nedum Killi. There are good.. reasons for regarding this latter as the Chola who succeeded the great Karikala.

There are seventeen poems celebrating this Nalam Killi in the collection Purananuru. The other personage referred to, Tirayan, is known to the literature of this period only as Ilandirayan associated closely with Kanchi as its viceroy. Thus these two rulers come in the generation following almost immediately that of the great Chola Karikala.

From what was said we come to the conclusion that there was a Poygaiyar who was contemporary, in all probability, with the Tondaman Ham Tirayan and the Chola Nalam Killi, This author is quoted m the commentary on Yapparungalum as Poygaiyar. There are other quotations from Poygaiyar, in this commentary and in that of Perasiriyar (equivalent of the Sans, Mahacharya) on the old grammatical work Tolkappiyam, which gives a few details in regard to the author. Perasiriyar who is a much older commentator than the other, and is among commentators one of the most respected refers to the "andadi” verses of Poygaiyar, and others, and puts these alongside of the old classical work Muttollayiram. This is an unmistakable indication that the Poygaiyar quoted is the Alvar, as his main work, and the only one in the Tamil Prabandham, is the first Tiruvandadi. The purpose of the quotation in this particular connection is to illustrate that other and abnormal modes of composing verses than those laid down for the particular class were already in considerable vogue. This idea of independence of the rules of prosody in authors is noted in regard to Poygaiyar by the other commentator in his comment on Sutra 40. After quoting three stanzas of Poygaiyar's, irregular from the strict grammatical point of view, the commentator proceeds to note that, though these are irregular they ought to be accepted as "arsha" (Tarn aridam). He defines “arsham" as the composition of “rishis” who were able to understand all about "this life," the life hereafter" and the past, present and future, quoting as his authority the old work oh prosody called Pattiyalmarabu. Hence it is clear that in comparatively early times even, Poygaiyar came to be regarded as a "superhuman" personality. In commenting on Sutra 94, this same commentator quotes two stanzas of the first Tiruvandadi of Poygai-Alvar (51 and 69) under the name Poygaiyar as in the other cases before. This quotation puts it beyond doubt that the Poygaiyar of the commentator is no other than Poygai Alvar. It is clear from this series of references that the poet Poygaiyar quoted as authority is the Alvar, and that he apparently was the author of other works than the one appearing under his name in the Prabandham collection. There is one such recently published which exhibits the characteristic features of this Alvar's composition, besides giving conclusive evidence of the author's devotion to Vishnu. This is the work called "Innilai" included in the Sangam collection of “shorter poems”. This work of 45 stanzas challenges ready comparison with the Kural, and is deservedly held in high esteem. It shows the peculiarities of versification and archaisms in language that would stamp it as the work of the Alvar. The fifth stanza of this work is quoted by Perasiriyar in his comment on Sutra 113 of the prosody section of the Tolkappiyam, and ascribed, probably by mistake, to Bhutattar. How the mistake arose it IS difficult to say. One explanation seems possible. The two Alvars were so closely associated with each other and their works were so similar both m form and matter, as in the Prabandhams they most assuredly are, that the great commentator fell into error “nodding" like great Homer himself.