The contemporaneity of the mudal-alvars

 

 

The Mudal-Alvars as the term indicates were traditionally the first group of saints who were born into this world as the ‘Amshas’ of Vishnu for the redemption of mankind. The traditional biographies and other kindred works give an account of these three Alvars together.

The date of the first of them Poygaiyar having been already discussed, that of the other two may how be considered. The Arayirappadi has it that Pudattalvar was born the next day after the birth of Poygai in Avitta (Tam…..) Nakshatra in the month of The very next day after that saw the avatara of Peyalvar. The cyclic and the Kali years, as has already been observed are not given.

The Sanskrit work D. S. Charitam also gives only the month and the asterism in which these two were born. The ‘Upadesha-Rattinamalai’ of Varavaramuni gives the same details regarding the birth of these Alvars as also the ‘Vazhiittirunamam’ compositions of Appillai. The Guruparampara Prabhavam of the Tritiya-Brahma-Tantra Swatantra-Jiyar, while agreeing with the above adds the cyclic and the Kali Years for the avatara of Pudattar and Peyar. Thus for instance it is stated that the former was born in the year Siddharti 862901 of Dwapara Yuga. The pretended accuracy and rainuteiess, of detail given in this work have been already needed discussed and no more elaborate discussion on them is here.

The 'Sannidhi Guruparampara’ naturally follows the account given in the work of Brahma-TantraSwatantra-Jiyar in every respect and is a very recent production.

The traditional account of the lives of these Alvars as given in the earlier biographies and later works do not give us any lead in their matter of fixing their age. The main points to note here are their avataras at Kanchi, Kadal-Mallai and Mayilai respectively, and their meeting at Tirukkovalur with Tirumalisai Azhvar (Sam – Bhaktisaraj.

Apart from the inscription in the ‘ArulalapPerumal’ temple at Kanchi already noticed, there is hardly any other epigraphical evidence concerning the dates of these Alvars. Even there it must be noted that mention is only made of Poygaiyar and Pudattar. and Peyalvar is left out of account.

There are a few references to them in literature which are, however, vague and indifferent from the point of view of chronology. We saw how the commentator Perashiriyar in this commentary on the ‘Tolkappiyam’ refers to the Andadi verses of ‘Poygaiyar and others’, which seems very much to imply the other two Pudattar and Peyar also. But the implication, be it noted, is only in respect of their Andadi compositions and not by any means in respect of the times in which they lived.

In other words, we cannot infer from that phrase anything more than the fact that Poygaiyar and others were authors of Andadis.

Again, the ‘Yapp-Virutti’ quotes a verse as an illustration for the class of poetic composition called ‘Arsha’ (Tam-Aridam) and ascribes it to the joint authorship of Pudattar and Karaikal-Peyar. At a very generous estimate this can lead to the inference that they were both contemporaries, which however, does not help us very far in fixing the age of Puddatalvar. We are not in a position to ascertain the age of the poets with anything like accuracy.

Nor does the quotation of a verse as ‘Pudattar Avaiyadakku’ by the commentators Perashiriyar and Nacchinarkiniyar help us in that direction. At best we can infer from this that the Alvar must have belonged to the older generation of poets in our country.

The late Mr. T. Gopinatha Rao assigned the middle of the 7th Century A. D. to the Mudal-Alvars on the basis of the reference to Mamallai, the birth place of Pudattalvar in his own work, the 2nd ‘Tiruvandadi’. He believed that Mamallai must be none other than the famous town of Mahamallapuram built by Narasimha Varman-I Mahamalla, and that therefore the Alvar who referred to the town must have come after him 4. The mistaken assumption on which the above conclusion was based has been effectively criticised by Dr. S.K. Ayyangar r and Pandit M. Raghava Ayyangar 5. It is not necessary to go over the whole ground over again here.

It is also clear how references to ‘Vinnagaram’ in the 'Third Tiruvandadi’ of Peyalvar cannot help us in any way in that 'Vinnagaram’ in these verses stands for ‘Paramapadam’ and cannot be identified with any other place on earth In the absence of any positive evidence internal or  external, literary, traditional or epigraphic, we are again forced to rely on the one indisputable fact viz. That the only works of Pudattar and Peyar in the whole range of the four thousand verses (Nalayira-Divyaprabandham) are the ‘Second and 3rd Tiruvandadis'. As in the case of Poygaiyar references to their verses as ‘Arsha’, quotations of them in the commentaries and in works on prosody, and above all their undeniable richness and classic harmony must point to the fact that they belonged to above the fourth or fifth Century A. D. when the strict literary conventions had begun to change and newer forms like the ‘Andadis’ were beginning to be composed in the Tamil country.

In the foregoing discussions on the dates of the Mudal Alvars we noted how all the traditional accounts were persistent with regard to one point namely, their contemporaniety. This is in fact one of the very few problems connected with the history of the Alvars on which there has been complete unanimity of opinion.

The author of the ‘Tamil Studies’ in his discussion on the age of Mudal Alvars seems to rely on tradition which says they were contemporary. For, after identifying ‘Vinnagaram’ sung by Poygaiyar and Peyar with Parameshwara Vinnagaram at Kanchi and further establishing that they must have lived in the latter half of the 7th Century A. D. on the basis of Dr. Hultzh’s assertion that the temple must have been built in 690 A. D., he assigns these – all the three – to that age. In other words, having decided the age of two of them on the basis of the reference to Vinnagar in their works he assigns them all to the same age evidently relying on tradition as to their contemporaneity. To make the point clearer his own words may be quoted “It is believed by some scholars that Poygai-Alvar was no other than the author of Kalvali’, If there was any truth in this supposition the first three saints must have lived during the reign of the Cola King Kochenganan, viz. prior to the 6th Century A. D.”

‘According to Dr. Hultzh Parameshwara Vinnagaram was built by the Pallava King Parameshvara Varman-II (A.D. 690) These three Alvars should therefore have flourished in the latter half of the 7th Century A.D.”

Dr. S. K. Ayyangar in his ‘Early History of Vaishnavism in S. India’ observes:

“I believe lam warranted in ascribing the 2nd Century A. D. as the age of Poygai-Alvar. The comment of Perashiriyar already quoted refers to the Andadi verses of ‘Poygaiyar and others; a description which implies the two others Pudattar and Peyalvar at any rate. This connection of the three is borne out by the similarity of style and sentiment which is very close indeed among the three ‘Andadis’. We might then ascribe these early Alvars to the 2nd Century A.D., the age of Ilandirayan, Nalan-Killi, and Senguttuvan”.

It is evident from the above quotation that the learned author means contemporaneity by the term ‘connection’. Therein he establishes the contemporaneity of the Mudal-Alvars on the basis of Perashiriyar’s words ……….. and then points to the ‘close similarity of style and sentiment’ in their works as bearing out that ‘connection’. It may be noted, however, that no such connection between the Mudal-Alvars can be established on that basis alone. It is true that the phrase implies among other the two Pudattar and Peyar. But the connection between the three suggested by the phrase is more in respect of their Andadi Compositions than in respect of time. In other words, the only inference possible from the commentator’s phrase is, that all of them sang Andadi Prabandhams and no more. If we seek to infer contemporaneity of the authors from that phrase we may have to conclude that all the Andadi writers were contemporaries. That cannot be. It is therefore clear that the contemporaneity of the Mudal Alvars cannot be established on that basis. The point, however, to note is that he has also relied on tradition as to their contemporaneity.

The late Mr. T-A. Gopinatha Rao fixes the date of Pudattalvar on the basis of his reference to Mamallai in his ‘Tiruvandadi' and assigns all the three of them to that date. He declares that they were contemporary – in the sense of having lived together in the same period contemporary in exactly the same sense in which the Guruparamaparas and the D. S. Charitam would have it.

He observes: “Mahamalla lived in the middle of the 7th Century, and therefore, Bhutattalvar and his contemporaries may be assigned to a period not later than the 7th Century of the Christian era”.

"The earliest of the Alvars, Peyalvar, Bhutattalvar and Poykai Alvar. and also their contemporary Tirumalisai etc.”

The same position has been taken by Pandit Raghava Ayyangar when he says: ……..

It would appear then that all the writers on the subject have admitted impliedly atleast the contemporaneity of the Mudal-Alvars and that in almost all cases they have relied mainly on tradition for doing so. We are justified in this inference in the absence of any discussion in their works on this point and in the absence of any other evidence given by them to establish the contemporaneity.

Now, this contemporaneity tradition may be examined. It says that the Alvars Poygai, Pudam and Pey met at Tirukkovaiur. There are several versions regarding that incident. Pinbalagiya Jiyar’s account says that they after having wandered long without any knowledge of each other, met together quite accidentally in a cartain sacreed pial at Tirukksvalur. It is said that God Himself was responsible for their meeting thus, in that He brought them together for the benefit of mankind. It is also definitely stated that they experienced the presence of God through their minds’ eye.

The D. S. Charitam mainly follows the Jiyar’s narrative with occasional Kavya embellishments. Later works have added to the original version in several details. For instance, as regards the central point of the meeting place itself it is simply a ‘Tiruvidaikali’ viz., a certain sacred pial in the Jiyar’s work while in the later accounts it becomes definitely the pail of the Ashramam of Mrigandu to which the saints repaired for shelter. 10 We are also given a graphic account of the conversation that ensured just after they met. It may be noted in passing that Prachannatnritam gives the name Dehali Nagara' to Tirukkovaiur. We are able to see from careful study of the above versions different from each other in detail that tradition has grown by several stages with gradual additions to it.

It is useful to enquire at this stage if there is anything of the nature of internal evidence to support this account of the meeting of the Mudal-Alvars. Sometimes verse 86 of the First Tiruvandadi is cited as that. An examination of the meaning of that verse will show that it has no connection at all with the fanciful and imaginary stories of the hagiologists and that its meaning would be clear without any the least reference to them.

Now an enquiry into the nature of this verse as internal evidence requires in its turn an enquiry into the exact connotation of the term ‘Idaikali in that verse.

In the history of the every literature, it is commonly observed in the evolution of words and word construction that some of them change their meaning and significance and some their structure and form through lapse of time. There are others that, having been in vogue fall into disuse for some reason or other both in the spoken and the written form. To the second category more than the first, can be said to belong the word ‘Idaikali’. Mm. Dr. V. Saminatha Iyer has specifically stated and included it in the list of rare words occuring in the ‘Purananuru’. The text in which the word occurs in that work runs as follows: ………..

The learned editor’s translation of the above passages runs thus:- ………….

In the above translation the word is evidently said to refer to a causeway or passage (Tam. Vayil) situated between two localities. In the glossary adjoined to the work, however, the word ‘Idaikali’ is not found, probably because it has been sufficiently explained in the body of the translation of the main text quoted above.

The word occurs in another Tamil classic in the following passage:- ………..

The ‘Arumbadavurai’ which has also been edited along with the main text by the learned Mahamahopadhyaya and whose authorship is unknown interprets the phrase ‘Ulaka-Idaikali’ (……..) as the passage through which the people passed, (………..). The unknown author has taken care to add that it has been so interpreted because of its situation between street-rows (………), thereby explaining the significance of the word and its import.

Adiyarku-Nallar, whose commentary has also been edited in the same work uses the word ‘Idaikali’ in the course of his commentary on lines 5 to 8 in the sense of a gateway or ‘Vayil’. He qualifies the word ‘Idaikal’ as one that has doors (……….)

Later still in his commentary on lines 26. 27 he follows the author of the ‘Arumbadavurai’ in interpreting ‘UlakaIdaikali’ as (Urvayil). He has also added the note. ……

Jivaka Cintamani is another classic in which we find the word used in one of the verses.

In the above verse ‘Idaikali’ is found to signify the place located midway between the front pial and the inner court yard of an Indian house. That it is so has been indicated clearly in the glossary.

It must now be clear that the term ‘Idaikali’ in tamil literature has alwavs been used with a particular significance, viz., to denote a place situated midway between two other localities In the light of all this, the meaning of verse 86 of the First ‘Tiruvandadi' may now be ascertained. The verse is as a follows: ……..

‘Idaikali’ in the above verse is tacked on to ‘Koval’ both together constituting ‘Koval-Idaikaii as in ……

Taking these passages into consideration, Idaikali’ obviously refers to a place in f Koval’. Since the place is one in which the Alvar says God stood along with His consort Lakshmi, it must clearly refer to the temple in the locality. That it should be so will be seen when we try to make out the meaning of the phrase ……. The phrase should naturally mean….

And it must be clear that the temple in ‘Koval’ came to be called ‘Idaikali’ in view of its situation, as in fact ‘Urvail’ has been styled ‘Ulaga Idaikali’, in ’Silappadikaram’ and ‘Gaffi has been called merely as ‘Idaikali’ in Jivaka Cintamani. In much the same way …. should mean …….. Now, the question arisesCannot we take it that the word ‘Idaikali’ has been narrowed down in its import with the lapse of time to denote only the pial of a house and that it is only in that sense that is used in the first ‘Tiruvandadi’. In fact the Tamil Lexicon says that the term stands for ……….; The Sanskrit equivalent is also given and the self-same verse 86 of the first Tiruvandadi has been cited as an illustration for the usage.

This contention is easily answered. There is no question of the narrowing down of the significance of the word with the lapse of time. For, we are now examining its usage in early Tamil literature and not its later usage. As a matter of fact, the term was mostly used only in the classics and was very soon out of vogue.

The learned Editor of the ‘Purananuru’ has definitely included it in the list of rare words. Besides, we must not forget the fact that in certain contexts the word means …….. even in its usage in the older classics as in Jivaka Cintamani.

The point to note is this. Whatever the nature of the work in which the words may occur, old or new, the meaning must be understood with reference to the particular context. In the passages noted above, the term referred to ………. with reference to a village or town, and to a ……… with reference to a house according to the context. Looked at this way, the term ‘Koval-Idaikaii’ in the verse can possibly refer to the temple of that place only and to no other. In the compound word Koval Idaikali ‘Koval’ stands for the city of Tirukkovalur and ‘Idaikali’ is the temple situated in it.

Such compounds signifying the temple and the city or the locality in which it is situated are common currency in the Tamil land.

Above all, there is striking epigraphical evidence to confirm the foregoing. Dr. Hultzch, noticing the ‘Fourteen inscriptions of Tirukkovalur writes as follows: “The sacred writings of the Shaivas and the Vaishnavas of the Tamil country mention both of the Tirukkovalur temples. Tirugnana sambandar refers to the temple as ‘Virattanam at Kovalur and Tirumangai Alvar to the Vishnu temple as ‘Idaikali at Kovalur’. The subjoined Inscriptions have the forms ‘Tiruvirattanam’ (A.J.) and ‘Tiruvidaikali’ (K) or ‘Idaikali’ (L).”

We see how the temple is called ‘Idaikali’ merely or ‘Tiruvidaikali’ in the inscriptions, evidently following the name given to it by Poygai Alvar and Tirumangai and the name in common use. For the sake of clearness, that portion of the text wherein the temple is referred to may be given:

…….Tirukkovalurana,  Shri Madurantaka-Sadurvedi Mangalattu-Tiruvjdalkali Alvar Shrivi (m) anam……..etc., etc. (K)

Again in the inscription of Rama Narasimha (L)

“.Koval Tdaikaliyil aiieev Karungarappadi aindu gemborkudam — etc. etc. 19.

These clear and unmistakeable references to the temple at Tirukkovalur as ‘Tiruvidaikali’ and Koval ‘Idaikali’ in inscriptions must clear all doubts finally as regards the meaning of the words in verse 86 of the first Tiruvandadi. That being so, the interpretation of that word as …….. in that context and the traditional story based on that interpretation must fall to the ground.

It may yet be argued that it is only by its association with tradition that the temple itself came to be called ‘Idaikali’ in the inscriptions. But the answer is clear that it cannot be so for the simple reason that the inscription is dated in 1058 and we have the first glimpses of the tradition only about two centuries later. One cannot, therefore, see any possibility of interpreting the word in view of the tradition ‘Idaikali in the inscriptions and therefore also in common usage long before them and after, is the temple without any reference at all to a later-day legend. It is highly interesting to note in this connection that there is a Shaiva Shrine of the name of ‘Tiruvidaikkali’.

There is no difference practically between ‘Tiruvidaikkali’ and ‘Tiruvidaikali’ in meaning Tiruvidaikkali is the name of the shrine irrespective of any tradition of this kind to support it, and very probably by virtue of its situation only. Much in the same way and quite consistent with its classical usage as a causal name (…………). The term should have referred to the temple at Tirukkavalur.

Yet another fact that may be noted in passing is that the country between Tondaimandalam and Cholamandalam usually called the ‘Nadu Nadu’ covering for the most part the North and South Arcot districts is known to literature and epigraphy as 'Tirumunaippadi Nadu’ and ‘Idaikali Nadu’. Its headquarters seems to have been Koval.

We have thus been able to see that verse 86 of the first Tiruvandadi cannot support any part of the traditional story of the meeting of the Mudal Alvars. We cannot take it that they met in the pial of a house, because it is based on a wrong interpretation of the text as its basis and then worked up be sheer imagination. [It Is an instance of a literary text (in this case its misinterpretation) that has given rise to traditional story. It is definitely not an instance of tradition embodied in literature.] Nor can we have It that they met in the ‘Idaikali’ itself taking it to mean the temple in its proper interpretation and argue that tradition might still hold good. For, in evaluating tradition, we must take great care to base our arguments and conclusions on just what is says and no more. And in this particular case, nowhere has it been given to us that they met in the temple at Tirukkovalur.

Pinpulagiya Jiyar says……. The use of the indefinite article ….. precludes the possibility of interpreting …..

….. in that text as the temple of the place. It means ‘at a certain pial’. The D. S. Charitam closely following the Jiyar’s account says also that they were made to meet in a narrow pial.

Later works point to the pial of the asramam of Mrigandu and so on. Under no circumstances can we modify tradition, for that will amount to our own creation.

Above all, it must be remembered that there is not even a single piece of evidence for the meeting at Tirukkovalur. If the experience of the Mudal Alvars was true, it is natural to expect some references to the incident in their works. It is also reasonable to expect the other Alvars to have indirectly at least alluded to this incident either when they referred to them generally or when they sang about the God at Tirukkovalur in particular. Tirumangai Alvar in his Periya Tirumoli has dedicated full ten majestic verses to the shrine to Koval and there is not the slightest reference to this tradition in them. Tradition as embodied in the various guruparamparas then, is baseless and therefore an unreliable evidence for the contemporaneity of the Mudal Alvars.

Turning now to the verse of the Alvars themselves, we saw how a study of Andadi literature in general helped us to determine the age of Poygai Alvar. Much in the same way, and again within only very broad limits can we assign Poygaiyar, Pudattar and Peyar to about the 5th Century A D., in view of the first flush of Andadi literature during that period in the Tamil Land. The sentiments they expressed and the tenor of religion that runs through their works show that they belonged to the early generation of hymists in our country.

 

CHAPTER V

TIRUMALISAI ALVAR

 

 

This Alvar takes his name after the place of his birth called Tirumalisai, ('Mahisara Kshetra in Sanskrit.)

Born as he was according to tradition under peculiar circumstances to a Rishi and an ordinary mortal, he cannot be assigned to any one of the traditional castes strickly so called. This seems to be reflected in one of his own verses in one of his works the ‘TirucchandaViruttam’. This should not, however, be taken to mean that he was an out-caste in the ordinary sense of the term. A Rishi-putra himself, he had all the Brahmanic culture in him as is fully evidenced by his works. Only, he was not a Brahmin in the sense of having undergone the Brahmana Samskara or in the sense of having undergone the ritual of regular intiation into it.

As usual, the two early works. The Arayirappadi and the D. S. Charitam give only the Nakshatra and the month in which the Alvar was born. The much later work oi the Brihmatantra Swatantra Jiyar gives what looks like a more precise date when it says that he was born in the year Siddharti, the year 86,2901 of Dvapara Yuga in the month of ‘Tai’ in the dark half month in the asterism Makha. This serves no useful purpose.

Now one thing is clear. Tradition, as embodied in the Guruparamparas and the Upadesha Rattinamali and such other traditional works point out that Tirumalisai Alvar is the fourth in the line of Alvars in their chronological order. The former, in the course of the life history of the Alvar mention the meeting of Tirumalisai and the Mudal-Alvars at a certain stage in their wonderings, as an important event in his life. In fact it is pointed out how on another occasion it was Peyalvar that converted him from the Shaiva to the Vaishnava faith.

On the strength of this evidence it is generally held that Tirumalisai must have been a contemporary, at least some period of his life with the Mudal Alvars.

Tradition again points out that the Alvar had something to do with a Pallava Ruler of Kanchi. More particularly he is associated with the shrine at ‘Vehka' on the outpost of that city. The Pallavas began to rule over Kanchi and Tondamandalam from about the middle of the third Century A. D. and not earlier. Taking it for granted that it was one of the early Pallavas with whom the Alvar was associated we may fix the upper limit of his age to be somewhere about the beginning of the 4th Century A.D.

The Alvar’s works, the Tirucchanda Viruttam and the Nanmugan Tiruvandadi reveal state of religion and religous conflict in the Tamil land quite different from that revealed in the compositions of the Mudal-Alvars.

It is of course granted that much of the hostility revealed may after all be the reflex of the author’s own temperament, particularly in view of the fact that tradition makes Tirumalisai a convert to Vaishnavism after long and varied experiences in other faiths including Shaivism; and converts generally are greater enthusiasts than the traditionalists themselves. Nevertheless we cannot fail to see in these two works an altered state of religious relations in the Tamil Country from that of the times of the Muda-Alvars. It seems necessary therefore, to postulate the lapse of a few generations atleast between the age of the Mudal-Alvars and that of Tirumalisai and assign him to about the latter half of the 5th or the 6th Century A. D.

Before concluding, it is worthwhile noticing another view in respect of the age of this Alvar, which makes him definitely the contemporary of Mahendra Varman Pallava, who bore the sur-name ‘Guna-Bhara’. This is sought to be established by interpertting the poet’s address ‘………..’. In verse 93 of his ‘Nanmugan-Tiruvandadi’ in some such manner as follows: True it is that the address in the verse is definitely to Vishnu and to no monarch living or dead.

Yet, why-of all the names of the great God should the particular name ‘Guna -Bhara’ be chosen for affectionate address by the Alvar, unless it be that he was prompted to do so by the surname of the reigning monarch.

Scholars would further justify the presumption by holding that it was verily with a purpose that the mode of address was chosen, namely to show that such appellations were properly due to Gods alone and by no means to ordinary mortals, kings though they were 5. Passages with a similar implication have been quoted to substantiate the argument.

Nevertheless one feels that the synchronism should rest on a firmer basis. As it is, the argument advanced to make the Alvar a contemporary of Mahendra Varman Pallava who ruled Cir. 600 A. D. is not quite convincing We are left then without any certain basis for fixing the age of this Alvar. There is no difficulty, however in accepting that he must have flourished a few generations after the age of the Mudal-Alvars, say about the latter half of the 5th or early in the 6th Century A.D. when history reveals a state of religious strife in the Tamil Country. Several passages can be cited from his works which bear ample testimony to this fact.

 

CHAPTER VI

KULASHEKHARA ALVAR

 

 

It is perhaps strange that of all matters connected with the lives of the Vaishnava Saints, the identification of the birth place of Kulashekhara should still remain vague and present a problem for discussion. Considering that he was tot a mere saint but also a monarch, one would expect even from the point of view of tradition, greater definiteness about his life than about the lives of the other Alvars Be that as it may, we have to discuss this problem, and it is not without its difficulties.

As the outset, the evidence from pure tradition may be examined. Pinbalagiya Jiyar says definitely that Kulashekhara was born in ‘Kollinagar’. The description of this Kollinagar, as a ‘Tiruppadai-Vidu, viz., the seat of the army or a fortified and garrisoned city, must show that it was in all probability his capital also. We find that this is quite in keeping with the Alvar’s own words referring to himself in certain passages of the ‘PerumalTirumoli. The manner in which the Alvar refers to his overlordship over certain places in these passages shows clearly that ‘Kollinagar’ was his capital city. Taken along with ‘Kolt, and ‘Kudal’ the traditional inland capitals of the Cola and the Pandaya kingdows respec tively, one cannot escape the conclusion that Kollinagar was the traditional Cera capital according to the Alvar. But where was this capital? How did it get this name? are all questions that suggest themselves at or ce. The name ‘Kollinagar’ implies the very apparent suggestion that it was a city adjoining the Kolli Hills. References to ‘Kollikkurram’ in South Indian Epigraphy would show that a particular region was named after the Koil Hills. Similarly it is not imrobable that Kollingar come to be so called after the name of the Hills and the region because of its nearness to them. It has sometimes been suggested in support of this hypothesis that the name ‘Kollikkannan’ as referring to Kannan of Kolli clearly points to the fact that there was a city of the name of ‘Kolli’. But as pointed out before, it can point to the region as well in which case it would be equally intelligible as referring to the Kannan of the Kolli Region. However it is, Kollinagar, generally speaking, can be said to signify an important city adjoining the hills. And the capital of the Ceras adjoining Kolli was certainly the modern Karur according to all reliable literary and traditional testimony. But then, it is difficult to ignore Vedanta Deshika and Varavara-Muni, two great Vaishnava traditionalists who definitely say that the birth place of the Alvar was ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’.  The two place names Kollinagar and Tiruvanjikkalam seem so different from each other as to make us either reject the testimony of the Acharyas as late and unreliable tradition or posit that of the two places one was the capital and the other his birth place.

The name ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ itself may be examined with a view to its exact location. It is easy to see that ‘Tiru’ is but an honorific prefix, while ’Kalam’ in general signifies a spot (stana in Sanskrit). In words like ‘Amar Kalam’, ‘Por-Kalam’, etc., we find the adjunct ‘Kalam’ signifying the field or spot where the battle took place. The usage of the word is prominent in Kalavali Narpahu’ Quite in conformity with this usage, ‘Vanjikkalam’ would naturally mean Taken in this senses ‘Kalam' merely the place or cits called ‘Vangi.’ becomes an adjunct as in ‘Por-Kalam’ and the term ‘Vanji’ alone remains as the name of the town, under discussion. It turns out then that ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ of the Acharyas is just ‘Vanji’ and no other. This conclusion is strengthened by Appillai, the author of the Valittirunamam, who says definitely that the birth – place of Kulashekhara was ‘Vanji’. Considering that Appillai was one of the eight chief disciples of Varavara-Muni, one can safely assert that he should have known full well the reference to the place as ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ in his own Acharya’s work, the ‘Upadesharattinamalai’. His own rendering of it into ‘Vanji’ shows clearly that ‘Vanji’ was the name of the city as intended by Varavaramuni, or at any rate that they referred to one and the same place.

It has often been suggested that this ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ is no other than the ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ of the West Coast. That this suggestion is based merely on verbal similarity will be evident from the following discussion.

Hitherto it has been held that ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ is the name of the place, one of the many sacred places of Tamil Shaivism. It is situated in the Malainadu Division of the Tamil Country, very near the modern city of Cranganore. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile examining the Tevaram hymns and the Periyapuranam as to the nature and location of this sacred place.

The opening stanza of Sheraman-Perumal-Nayanar-Puranam clearly points to the fact that ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ is the temple in the city of Kodungolur. After pointing out in the first half of the stanza that it was an ancient city of the Malainadu region full of riches and renown the second part runs thus: …….

Freely rendered, it would mean that it was the ancient city of Kodungolur where the Cera king ruled and in which ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ the abode of Shiva stood. Having described Kodungolur in the first few stanzas, Sekkilar proceeds to mention the birth of Perumakkodaiyar in the city. The latter it is said grew up to be such a fervent devotee of Shiva that he neglected the affairs of the state and spent his life in constant service to the God at Tiruvanjikkalam.

‘Full of love ("to God) he would neglect the rights and duties of a soverign and engage himself solely in sacred acts of devotion at ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ ('The abode of Shiva). The compound ………. viz., the ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ of Tennir-Mudiyar’ (Shiva) clearly signifies that it is the name of the temple. The suggestion is at once apparent that it is in the Chera capital itself and confirms the statement made in the opening stanza quoted above, next three stanzas about the King’s act of devotion suggest that it was his daily routine in the temple in his capital. There is no mention of his having gone elsewhere away from capital for worship. The story goes that while ‘Perumakkodaiyar’ was piously engaged in devotional acts, the ruling king of the land (Poraiyan) renounced the world and repaired to the forest for penance. The ministers after seven days’ deliberation went up to the Royal devotee in ‘Tiruvanjikkalam and prayed to him to don the crown that was his. The passage in this connection deserves notice.

There is again no indication that ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ wasawayfromthecapital.it being merely stated that in order to settle the succession the ministers went up to him there. Not being in the palace but always in the prince accedes to their request only after prayerful consultation with the God and he is duly crowned. Immediately after the coronation he worships the God, starts from the temple for the state procession round the city streets. Here again Sekkilar’s words are significant: …………

The statement that he mounted the elephant soon after worshipping the deity in the temple confirms the fact of its location within the capital itself.

On another occasion Seraman is said to have worshipped in the temple before leaving the capital on a pilgrimage to Chidambaram. Then we come across several passages wherein we have explicit references to ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ as the name of the temple in the capital city of the ceras. Above all the evidence contained in verse 32 of the ‘Velianai Charukkam’ must put the issue beyond doubt in regard to ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’. It is explicit when it describe it as “Tiruvanjikkalam in Mahodai sorrounded by honey-dripping and cool shady grooves”.

We have so far seen that the Peria Puranam references clearly establish that 'Tiruvanjikkalam’ is the name of the shrine in the Chera capital. Ample confirmatory evidence is forthcoming from the Tevaram itself. In his ‘Kshetrrakkovai-T-Tiruttandagam’ Appar mentions all the Shaiva shrines and calls this particular shrine ‘Kodungslur-Anjaikkalam’. It is very significant that he has mentioned ‘Anjaikkalam’ again in his ‘Adaivu-Tiruttandagam’ as one of the three places whose names end with the adjunct ‘Kalam’. It may be noted that ‘Kodungolur’ is not mentioned separately in both the Tandagams.

Umapati-Shivacharya the great Shaiva traditionalist and hagiographer points to ‘Anjaikkalam’ as the only shrine in the Malai-Nadu Region. In his ‘Tiruppathikakkovai’ also he mentions ‘Tiruvanjikkalam.’ The absence of the mention of ‘kodungsiur’ separately in both the kovais must enable us to infer that it was no shaiva shrine at all, while the frequent mention of ‘Kodungolur – Anjaikkalam’ as in Appar’s Tevaram cited above must establish that ‘Tiruvanjaikkalam’ only was the shrine in it.

Now that ‘Tiruvanjaikkalam’ has been shown to refer only to a shrine in the west Coast region and not to any city, it would be impossible to maintain that it was the birthplace of Kulashekhara. We saw how Pinbalagiya Jiyar unmistakably refers to the birth – place of the Alvar as his capital city also. Nor would it be possible to contend that the modern ‘Tiruvanjaikkalam’ is evidently the city named after the shrine in it., and it could as well be the Alvar’s native city. For, we come across no such name in early literature pointing to a city. Besides, the absence of any the least trace of Vaishnava tradition in this modern city argues seriously against the Alvar’s association with it in any manner. Appropriately enough and quite true to history also, the place is one that is even today humming with Shaiva tradition connected with Sheraman Perumal, Sundaramurti and the Lord Shiva. If it had early been recognised as the place in which the Alvar was born, there is no doubt that some vaishnava tradition would have gathered round it traces of which at least could have still remained to point to the story.

It is now clear that ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ the birthplace of the Alvar has to be sought for elsewhere. We know from the specific reference to it by Appillai in his ‘Valittirunamam’ that it is no other than Vanji. Taking this along with the fact that Pinbalagiya Jiyar refers to a Kollinagar as his native place and probably also his capital, can we not reasonably conclude that this Vanji is the modern Karur? For, we find that Vanji is the name in classical usage for Karur, the old-time traditional Cera capital in the manner of ‘Kodal’ for Madura (the Pandya Capital), ‘Urandai’ and ‘Koli’ for ‘Uraiyur’ (the Cola inland Capital) and ‘Puhar’ for ‘Kaviripumpattinam’ the Cola sea-port capital.

We are thus led on to the much discussed problems of the Karur – Vanji identity. All the relevant facts for and against this identity having been already set forth, I shall content myself with merely pointing to a few more facts culled from literary and inscriptional sources likely to elucidate the problem further.

In his ‘Upadesharattinamalai’ Varavara Muni gives among other things the birth – places of the Alvars and Ramanuja. The first of these and the thirteenth stanza of the work mentioning the Avatara of the Mudal Alvars, Tirumangai and Tiruppan runs as follows: —

It will be seen that the birth-place of Tiruppan Alvar is stated to be ‘Uraiyur’. Abhiramavara, the grand-son of Varavara-Muni Scholar and traditionalist himself has given an exact translation of the entire work ‘Upadesharattinamalai’ in Sanskrit. The Sanskrit rendering of the verse given above retains the Tamil name 'Uraiyur’ as such without any modification.

The Sanskrit translation of the very next Tamil verse wherein the birth-places of Tondaradippodi Alvar and Kulashekhara are given is significant. We find that the Tamil ‘Tiruvanjaikkalam’ is rendered into the Sanskrit ‘Nichulanamapuri’, the Tamil word ‘Vanji’ and the Sanskrit word ‘Nichulam’ evidently being synonymous.

It is necessary for a proper appreciation of the Sanskrit rendering and its bearing on the problem suggested at the outset that we should go a little more into the nature and method of Sanskritisation of proper names adopted by Abhiramavara. Of the 12 or 13 place names given in the foar Tamil verses only four hive been rendered into Sanskrit, the others retaining their Tamil form in the corresponding Sanskrit shlokas. And we find that all the four Sanskrit equivalents are not mere translations but names that were in vague and as such were intelligible to the reader- ‘Mayurapuri’ for ‘Mayilai’ is by way of translation exact enough, but would not have been so rendered if it was likely to be unintelligible.

The rendering of ‘Villiputtur’ into ‘Dhanvipuri’ would have been exact enough-it has been rendered so by the author of ‘Prapannamritam’ – but it has not been so rendered by Abhiramavara because of its unintelligibility.

It is clear then that he had given us the Sanskrit equivalents of the place names in the original wherever such a rendering was intelligible while being exact. The Sanskrit rendering ‘Nicujanamapuri’ for ‘Tiruvanjaikkalam’ now becomes significant as pointing out that Kulashekhara’s birth-place was one that was also celebrated as ‘nicujapuri’, at any rate in its Sanskrit usage.

An altogether different problem now arises in view of the fact that the traditional name for Uraiyur is also ‘Nicujapuri’. Abhiramavara’s translation of ‘Tiruvanjaikkalam, into ‘Nichulanamapuri’ would make us doubt this tradition. For, in the first stanza where a translation is necessary. Uraiyur is retained as such and in the very next quite a different place is definitely translated as ‘Nichulapuri’. It is inconceivable that he would have failed to render Uraiyur itself into Nichulapuri had the name been in common usage as is generally believed, and yet tradition literary and otherwise is persistant in ascribing the name to Uraiyur itself. It is probably a case of confusion arising out of the indefinite use of place names, an initial error being perpetuated, or as is just possible it is a case of two places having the same name ‘Nichulapuri’. One thing, however, is certain that a ‘Nichulapuri’ was the birth place of Kulashekhara Alvar.

The above conclusion is strengthened by Pillailokan Jiyar the commentator on Upadesharattinamalai. In very lucid Manipravalam he explains the significance of each passage and what is more to our purpose gives details as to the location and other details regarding the places we are now considering. All that has to say about ‘Uraiyur’ is that it is situated just opposite to the ‘Tirumukatturai’ of the Kaveri, and that it is great as the place in which Lakshmi Herself was born. It may be noted that the commentator mentions the shortened form ‘Urandai’ also. It is reasonable to expect that he would have mentioned the other name ‘Nichulapuri’ if it had any such. But he has not done so.

His comment on ‘Tiruvanjikkalam’ clinches the issue positively. He puts it down in so many words that the birth place of Kulashekhara is one that has the name ‘Nicula’. This is quite in keeping Abhiramavara’s translation and seems to strengthen either of the two hypothesis – i.e., that Uraiyur and Nichulapuri are differing or that the two places had the same name. The point, however, to note again is that a ‘Nichulapuri was the birth place of the Alvar.

Now the question arises where is this ‘Tiruvanjikkalam-Nichulapuri’. It is obvious that this place derived its name from the fact that ‘Vanji’ or ‘Vanjulam’ and ‘Nichulam are synonymous. In other words, both the terms refer to a common kind of water-reed or water flower. The names must have been given on account of the abundance of the particular flower or plant in the place. Now Karur the modern Taluq city of the Coimbatore District has been celebrated in ancient tradition as well preserved in its Sthalapuranam as Vanjularaijyam.’ It is in fact one of the several names of modern Karur pointing to the obvious fact that it is the city abounding in the forest of ‘Vanjulam’. Hence the description ‘NICULAPURI’ in the sense of the city of ‘Nichuala’ can only stand as a synonym for this Karur also called Vanjularanyam'. The traditional birth place of the Alvar as we know, is ‘Tiruvanjikalam’. Can we then escape the obvious conclusion that this ‘Vanji’ and the modern Karur are one and the same?

It may now be asked cannot the translation stand for ‘Vanji’ of the West Coast. It cannot for the simple reason that ‘Vanji in Malayalam means a boat and it would be absurd to maintain that ‘Vanji’ the boat and ‘Nichulam’ the water-reed and flower are synonyms.

Thus from the manner in which ‘Vanji’ has been described as ‘NICULANAMAPURI’ we may conclude that this ‘Vanji’ the birth place of Kulashekhara must be no other than karur.

The fact that the Commentator has located the place in Keraladesha need not trouble us much. That ‘Karur-Vanji' was on the borderland between the Cola and the Cera countries, that it was what was generally called ‘Sherar-Kongu’ all this and much more to the point have been throughly discussed by eminent Tamil scholars. Karur was the inland capital of the Ceras for a long time in history.

One finds ample confirmation of this position from the works of the Alvar himself. Of the five places he has sung about namely, Shrirangam, Vengadam, Chitrakutam, Kannapuram and Vittuvakkodu, we find that the last named is the only one included in the list of the Malainadu shrines. It is sometimes seriously doubted whether even this could be one such, for if so one should in all probability expect Nammalvar to have sung about it, and particularly so as he has sung about ail the traditionally accepted West Coast shrines. That he has not mentioned this Vittuvakkodu shows that it was perhaps not in the Malainadu region at all. Kulashekhara himself cannot be expected to have sung about only one West Coast shrine ‘Vittuvakkodu’ to the exclusion of all the others. It is surmised that the portion round the Vishnu shrine on the banks of the river ‘Anporunai’ in Karur which is even today called by the name ‘Vittuvakottagraharam’ might well be the Vittuvakkodu of the Alvar s works. It may be pointed out here in support of this surmise that this location of Vittuvakkodu in Karur itself conforms most perfectly to that given in Pillailokan Jiyar s commentary above referred to. The Jiyar says that Vittuvakkodu and Vanjikkalam are very near each other. Strikingly enough one finds that the modern Tiruvanjikkulam and Vittuvakkodu of the West Coast are so far apart that they cannot by any means be said to conform to the commentator’s exact description of the two places. It turnsout that this is an additional argument in favour of Karur-Vanji being the birth place of the Alvar and not the Vanji of the West Coast, or the modern Tiruvanjikkulam.

Apart from the fact that of the remaining four shrines, about which the Alvar has sung, all but Vengadam are in the Cola Country. There is tradition to the effect that he, after persistent longings to visit Shrirangam spent most of his life in that place as a devotee and that he ended his last days in Mannanar-Koil in the modern Ambasamudram Taluk of the Tinnelvelly District. All this points to the probability of the Alvar having lived and moved in the land of Kaveri.

Above all there is unmistakable inscriptional evidence to establish that Karur-Vanji or the inland Vanji was the capital of the Ceras. In the Tamil text of the larger Sinnamanur plates we find that Vanji is definitely located on the banks of the Kaveri.

 

The Date of Kulashekhara

We now turn to the problem of the date of Kulashekhara. It is but a meagre account of this royal devotee that we are able to get from pure tradition.

Pinbalagiya Jiyar’s account mentions his birth in Kollinagar as we have already seen, his early education, his devotion to Vishnu, particularly to Rama and the Ramayana Kalakshepam episode illustrating it, the incident of the jewel showing his love for the Bhagavatas, his persistant longing to visit Shrirangam which led him to renounce the throne and go there. The D. S. Charitam, while covering nearly the same ground omits the Kalakshepam story and adds that of the marriage of his daughter to Shri Ranganatha. The Prapannamritam and following it the later works would give the additional information that Kulashekhara’s father was one Dridhavrata and that the Alvar ended his last days in Brahmadesam in the Pandya country. We find that the traditional accounts do not help us in any way in fixing the Alvar’s date.

Turning to inscriptions there is the well-known record of the 18th year of Kulottunga-1 (A.D. 1088) fixing the lower limit for the age of Kulashekhara.

The mural inscriptions in the Kulashekhara Alvar Koil the earliest of which is dated in the 4th year of Rajendra Cola, cir 1015 A D., must certainly point out that the Alvar had long ago been recognised as a saint, long prior to the beginnings of the 11th century. These inscriptions serve only to fix the lower limit which, however, is not much in view of the fact that the date of Manakkal-Nambi, the author of the Taniyan verse on Kulashekhara’s works would push it back to an earlier period still. Manakkal-Nambi may be assigned to the latter half of the 9th century and the first half of the next.

Further estimates have been made on the basis of the Alvar’s own works. The casual use of the word ‘Tondaradippodi’ in a certain verse of the ‘Perumal Tirumoli’ has been made to suggest the possible priority of the Alvar of that name to Kulashekhara. The suggestion seems to be a little far-fetched. For, the meaning of the particular stanza in which the word occurs is just this: —

“Even the pleasure of a plunge in the Ganges will be nothing to me when I get immersed in the dust of the devotees of Shri Ranganatha singing his praise and dancing in ecstasy”. The word ‘Tondaradippodiyada’ particularly in its contrast to ‘Gangainir-Kudaindadum’ in the verse makes it refer to the devotees in a general way. We cannot by any means construe it as a proper name referring to ‘Tondaradippodi Alvar. On similar lines of reasoning, we may have to infer the priority of Sundaramurti to Appar from the latter's words, ……… in the Tevaram. Even if the above suggestion is accepted we can on y say that Kulashekhara must be later than Tondaradippodi. This, however, is no use because the latter s date has itself to be determined yet.

The attempt to see a reference to Dantivarman Pallava in a passage of the Perumal Tirumoli verse and to arrive at Kulashekhara’s date on this basis has been shown to have failed completely and it is unnecessary to repeat the arguments here. The conclusions sought to be derived from the autobiographical references, however have to be examined. Among several such the particular one in which he claims to be …….. deserves to be noticed. From the fact of actual rule or overlordship over all the three traditional Tamil kingdoms implied in the above passage it is argued that Kulashekhara must be assigned to a period when such a Cera ascendancy was possible in the history of S. India. From this point of view it is stated that Kulashekhara must belong to the period anterior to the beginnings of Cola ascendancy in Cir. 900 A.D. It is further pointed out how just then the Cola capital under Parantaka came to be Tanjore and not Uraiyur as before.

Dr. S. K. Ayyangar is still more specific in stating that such an ascendancy as is Implied in the Alvar's words, prior to the transfer of the Cola capital from Uraiyur to Tanjore (Cir. 900 A.D.) would have been possible either before the rise of the great Pallavas under the dynasty of Narasimha Varman sometime before 600 A.D. or after the collapse of this dynasty following the death of the great Pallava Nandivannan Cir. 800 A.D. The period anterior to the rise of the great Pallavas sometime in the 6th Century A.D. may be appropriate in his opinion, if Tirumangai is to be the last of the Alvars according to tradition.

Arguing on very similar lines K. G. Shesha Iyer would conclude that Kulashekhara may have established his supremacy in the Tamil country somewhere immediately before the 7th Century A. D. when according to him the position of the Colas and the Pandyas seems to have been precarious. He would then point out that the upper limit of the date of Kulashekhara is supplied by the Tirukkurai quotation in Perumal Tirumoli v. 3, and that his prosody would show that he came some centuries after the Sangam period.

Having thus broadly fixed the upper and lower limits, he would base his final conclusion on the evidence of the Guruparamparas and say that the Alvar was born on the 29th January, 527 and died in 594 after living for 67years. It is thus found that the only basis for the determination of the age of Kulashekhara is the passage above referred to taken in its strictly literal interpretation. It is, however, not quite safe to have it so. In the first place the context in which the passages occur must be noted. All these without exception occur in the last verse of every ten verses in the Perumal Tirumoli.

Though not the rule, it is the common practice among poets and authors to refer to themselves, rather eulogistically too, in these Mudrakavis as they are called. We find that it is very common in the Tevaram and the Nalayiram generally. Very often they contain praises and laudations of the author. Having been recognised as a convention, it was not considered quite bid form to speak about oneself even exaggeratingly in these Mudrakavis. Often the references in these verses like those in conventional panegyric (Praiastis) in inscriptions cannot be taken literally. It was not unusual either for the Tamil kinds to claim conquest and overlordship over their neighboring kingdoms without such actual accomplishments. The practice of ascribing to oneself the titles and achievements of one’s ancestors and of even the feudatories claiming the titles of their overlords are not uncommon in the history of our land as seen from literature and inscriptions. These passages then cannot be safely relied on to fix the age of Kulashekhara.

There is yet another point of view with regard to this problem which may be noted. Pandit Raghava Ayyangar makes at the very outset a clear distinction between the early Ceras who ruled with both Karur Vanji and Kodungolur as capitals (the one being the inland capital and the other the port) and the later Ceras who ruled the West coast region with only Kodungolut as their capital. He then points out that the later stage might have come about the 7th Century A.D. On the basis of the Alvar’s own words he would assign him to the early period of Cara history. It would thus appear that he does not interpret the Alvar’s references to himself above discussed literally so as to imply conquest over the Pandya and Cola countries. He would take them to refer to a possible blood relationship between the Pandya, Cera and Cola monarchs. This possibility again is made to rest either on the ‘Marumakkattayam’ system or on the occasional practice of choosing the scions of Pandya and Cola family for the Cara throne.

All these are at best speculative possibilities based upon a strained interpretation of the passages in the Perumal Tirumoli. Even granting the possibility one wonders if this would be consistant with the fact of Kulashekhara’s supremacy in the early period of Cera history which the author propounds earlier in his thesis. One cannot suppose that such words are spoken by a Pandya or Cola prince even from the Cera throne.

The instance the author gives of ‘Kokkandan-Ravi’ who bore the title ‘Chandraditta-kula Tilaka’ illustrating such relationships is rather misleading. As the author indicates the title may certainly be taken to show the Pandya-Cola connection and it may be certain also that he was the chosen Cera ruler. Still there being no indication of Cera ancestry at all the in the title, we must infer that he had none such. And we won’t be justified in taking the Alvar to have been such a ruler.

We came upon the most interesting point of the author’s account of Kulashekhara when he proclaims the identity of the Alvar with the predecessor of Sherman Perumal. He seems to rely on the D.S. Charitam story about Kulashekhara’s renunciation on the one hand and the Periya-Puranam account of the latter’s similar act on the other. He would ignore the minor differences in the two stories and rely on the similarity of major incidents in them to establish their identity. In view of the fact that such renunciation stories of kings are very common in our country the proposed identity must be deemed baseless. Besides, this identity would seem to contradict the author’s own assertion that Kulashekhara must have belonged to the dynasty of the Ceras who ruled from Karur-Vanji as their capital. If Kulashekhara was Sheraman’s predecessor, how could he be also an early Cera of the Karur capital? For was not Sheraman, according to the Periya-Puranam account, and his predecessor ruling in Kodungolur? This apparent difficulty is sought to be overcome by the rather ingenious suggestion that while the father ruled from Karur the son and their Sheraman ruled in Kodungolur even in his father’s life time.

It would also appear that the sole reliance is placed on D. S. Charitam for another conclusion of the author, i.e., the contemporaneity of the Alvar with Tirumangai Mannan and Tondaradippodi. We have elsewhere shown how not only these but almost all the Alvars are brought together in an entirely romantic setting in the Kavya; and if we can gather history from it, we can as well establish the contemporaneity of all the Alvars and save ourselves the bother of an elaborate discussion as to their chronology. Indeed he is so definite in this chronological conclusion that he interprets one of the traditional names of three kings occurring in a passage of Perumal Tirumoli to refer certainly to Kulashekhara.

Too many gratuitous assumptions which beg the question nullify the suggested blood relationship of the Alvar with the Pandyas and the Colas and the sole reliance of D. S. Charitam renders the proposed identity of the Alvar with Sherman’s predecessor untenable.

 

CHAPTER VII

PERIYALVAR AND SRI ANDAL

 

 

Periyalvar the brahmin saint of Shrivilliputtur calls himself Vishnuchitta and Pattarpiran in his works, and Bhattanatha is apparently the translation of the latter Tamil name given to him also in the Tanian or the Commendatory works referring to him. It would appear that he got the name ‘Periyalvar by reason of the highly devotional attitude of his to the Lord, quite different from and superior to all the other forms of devotion revealed in the whole range of the Divyaprabandham. 1 His works the ‘Tiruppallandu’ and ‘Periyalvar-Tirumoli’ comprise very nearly the first five hundred verses of the Nalayiram collection and are justly praised for their lyrical beauty and exhalting sentiment. In the larger of the two works he reveals in the narration of Krishnavatara episodes. The ‘Tiruppallandu’ itself has been given a very high place among the works of the Alvar in that the attitude of Bhakti revealed therein that of the bhakta blessing the Lord-is said to typify a highly exalted form of devotion in Which the bhakta effaces himself and delights Only in the well-being of the Lord in the full belief that all is well with the world when He is well. 2 This form of bhakti has been conventionally called ‘Pallandu-Nishtai’ by the Sri Vaishnava Doctrinaires of S. India after the Alvar’s work in which it stands revealed.

Traditional works like the Arayirappadi and D. S. Charitam and closely following them the later Acharyas like Vedanta Deshika and Varavara Muni would place Bhattanatha after Kulashekhara in the chronological order. The Arayirappadi says that he was born in the asterism Swati in the month of Ani and this is repeated in all the later works some of which as usual give the Kali year also of his date of birth. 3

The most important facts to remember about the Alvar’s life as given in tradition are his devotion to the God at Shrivilliputtur, the story of the context in the Pandya Court, and the marriage of his daughter Andal to Sri Ranganatha. 4 The 2nd of these, viz., the story of the contest corresponds in its main features so closely with that of Gnanasambandha as almost to suggest that they might have been inspired imitations of each other. The suggestion seems to gather strength in view of the fact that the hagiographers in each case were later-day persons and it is the Arayirappadi alone long after the Periya-Puranam that gives an account of Periyalvar’s context. 5 It is very likely that the Tamil tanian of Pandya Bhattar on the Alvar referring to the contest was itself based on this account of Pinbalagiya Jiyar.

There being no direct conference to the contest in the works of the Alvar himself, it would be safe not to base our chronological conclusions at any rate on that basis entirely”. 6

1. See verse 18 — Upadesharattinamalai and the commentary of Pillai Lokan Jiyar thereon.

2. See Vs. 19 & 20 of U. R. Malai and the Jiyar’s commentary for the greatness of Tiruppallandu.

3. The Muvayirappadi of Brmhatantra Jiyar, Prapannamritam etc.

4. For an elaborate description of the wedding see D. S. Charitam

5. It is not however suggested that no contest could have taken place in the Pandya court at Madura. But the point to note here is the close similarity between the two episodes.

6. Pandit M. Raghava Ayyangar assigns the Alvar to the 8th Century on the assumption that the contest in the Pandya Court Should have been Only between the two Vaidika religions, Vaishnavism and Shaivism and not with the heretical cults of Budhism and Jainism as in the 7th Century. (Alvargal Kalanilai- 2nd Edn. Pp. 51, 52). For contrary opinion regarding religious strife in these centuries see K. G. Sankara J. O. R. 1927. To me it appears that there is no method of ascertaining So definitely the nature of religious strife in these centuries. The Pandit would further rely on the incident of the contest to Suggest that the Alvar became the Guru of the Pandya king after the victory and to interpret the Passage in the larger Sinnamanur plates ‘Guru’.

....- Referring to Jatila Parantaka in that light as specifically implying their contemporaneity. ‘Alvarkal Kalanilai’ Pp 58, 59) For different interpretations of the passage see K. A. N. Shastri for Pandyan Kingdom, also K.G. Shankara J. O. R. 1927. Also Venkayya Edn. of the Madras Museum plates – Ind. Ant. Vol. 22.

 

The date of Periyalvar is mixed up with the much discussed problem of Pandya chronology. 7 For, in the absence of any manner of evidence literary or inscriptional, we have to rely solely on two or three references to a Pandya contemporary and another person of importance in the Pandya Court from the Alvar’s works and the Arayirappadi. The references may be examined one by one.

The Alvar refers to a certain Vaishnava Devotee of the name of ‘Selvan’. Both from the manner of his reference and from that of P. Jiyar it appears that he had the surname ‘Abhimanatunga’. 8

This led some scholars to equate ‘Abhimanatunga’ with ‘Abhimanameru’ and identify the Alvar’s contemporary with Rajasimha III (No. Venkayya’s Genealogy) who bore the latter title on the supposition that ‘Selvan’ of Rajasimha’s court should have borne his master’s biruda as a mark of royal favour. 9 In the absence of any strong evidence to support the proposed identity of the two titles we have to consider the contemporaneity of the Alvar with Rajasimha III as highly doubtful.