Early history of Vaishnavism

EARLY HISTORY OF VAISHNAVISM

IN SOUTH INDIA

 

BY

S. KRISHNASWAMI AIYANGAR, M. A.,

Professor of Indian History & Archaeology & Fellow

of the Madras University; Member of the

Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland;

Fellow of the Royal Historical Society;

Professor & Sometime Fellow

of the Mysore University;

Reader, Calcutta University.

 

PRINTED AT

THE TATA PRINTING WORKS,

5, THAMBU CHETTY ST.,

MADRAS.

 

THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.

LONDON, NEW YORK, TORONTO, MELBOURNE,.

BOMBAY AND MADRAS.

 

1920

 

 

Inscribed

to

His Excellency

The Right Honourable Sir Freeman Thomas

Baron WILLINGDON of Raton,

G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E., C.B.E,

Chancellor, University of Madras

as a token of the author's great esteem

For

His Excellency s "kindly interest and enlightened sympathy

 

 

PREFACE

 

 

THE following lectures, presented to the public as the fourth course of Madras University Special Lectures in the Department of Indian History and Archaeology, formed the subject on which I intended to send a paper to the International Congress of Orientalists, which was to have been held at Oxford but for the outbreak of the War. It was suggested as worth doing as the result of a discussion on the subject which I had with Sir George Grierson, who at the time was interesting himself in the subject. He wanted more of Vaishnava literature should be made known to the European public and suggested the translation of Yatindramatadipika, a manual of Vaishnavism, and the Arthapanchaka of Pillai Lokacharya. The translation work has been done since, by my friend Mr. A. Govindacharya of Mysore; and the historical part of the subject was awaiting study for various reasons, among which other occupation was the principal contributary. The timely appearance of Sir R. G. Bhandarkar's treatise on “Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Minor Religions” made the taking up of the subject more urgently necessary. In a review of the work in the Journal of the Mythic Society, Bangalore, I indicated that I would work up the subject so as to bring to bear upon the question all the light that may be got from sources recently made available. I took advantage of the occasion offered by the First Oriental Conference at Poona, over which Sir R. G. Bhandarkar himself was to have presided but was unfortunately prevented from doing so by illness at the time. The objection was made in certain friendly quarters that it was highly improper that I should have taken up a controversial subject like this and presented a paper to a Conference held in honour of Sir R. G. Bhandarkar himself, "criticizing his views.'' The word criticism conyeys a little too often unfortunately, the sense of finding fault which is far from the accepted significance of the term. Criticism is of the essence of historical research and no one is justified in proceeding on research work without making sure that the footing gained already by previous work is actually beyond cavil. That can be. done only by a thorough re-examination of the work already done, not with a view to find fault or exhibit shortcomings only, but to take stock of what has been satisfactorily established and what cannot equally satisfactorily be so regarded. Without such an examination it would be assuming too much to proceed further in research work. It is in that view that the work was undertaken, and I had not the slightest doubt, nor do I cherish the least touch of it now, that Sir R. G. Bhandarkar himself would welcome such a re-examination. It is not want of respect for him that prompted the work; but much rather the wish to complete the work that he has done in a subject in which such work as he had done had to be done by him at a great disadvantage. I have no doubt whatsoever that this investigation will be received in the spirit in which it is offered, as a critical study of an interesting question, by Sir R. G. Bhandarkar himself. I would appeal to other friends who may chance to read the book to consider any criticism in the book in the spirit of the most friendly investigation of the position of other scholars with no further object than the evaluation of actual achievement. I cannot conclude this prefatory note better than by making an extract from one of the most eminent recent authorities on the subject of History, Lord Acton: —

“For our purpose the main thing is not the art of accumulating material, but the sublimer art of investigating it, of discerning truth from falsehood and certainty from doubt. It is by solidity of criticism more than by the plenitude of erudition that the study of history strengthens, straightens and extends the mind.”

To avoid clumsiness in print transliteration in the body of the book has been given up. The necessary and the correct pronounciation is given in the index which the reader is requested to consult in cases of doubt or difficulty.

I am grateful to His Excellency Lord Willingdon for kindly according permission to my inscribing this course of University Lectures, the first to be published by me since His Excellency's assumption of office as Chancellor of the University of Madras, to him as a slight token of my esteem for his sympathy for oriental research.

I am obliged to Mr. B. R, Shrinivasan the Proprietor of the Tata Printing Works, for the neatness and expeditation with which he put the work through the Press.

 

 

Madras University.

25th January 1920.

S. KRISHNASWAMI AIYANGAR.

 

University of Madras

 

Fourth Course.

 

IN SOUTH INDIA

LECTURE: I.

VAISHNAVISM: WHAT IT IS

 

 

At the outset of a course of lectures on Vaishnavism it will be expected that the term Vaishnavism should be defined. It will be equally clear to everybody that anything like a definition of the term Vaishnavism should be difficult unless a small treatise is written upon the subject Like most other religions of India Vaishnavism has a Philosophy and Religion of its own. As a philosophy it bases itself upon the Upanishads and is acknowledged by scholars to be, in certain respects at any rate, a more faithful and closer rendering of the upanishadic teaching. As a religion it reaches its roots into the Tantra. Its religious ritual therefore, is of the Agamic or Tantraic character in general.

Its philosophic character is Upanishadic. To give merely a practical notion of what is to be understood by Vaishnavism I might say here that Vaishnavism regards Vishnu as the supreIne being with Shri or Lakshmi in close association with him. It has its own tenets, which for the sake of brevity might be given in the following text of a contemporary writer of the life of Ramanuja. “With Lakshmi I am supreme; my conviction is difference (or duality); surrendering oneself into the hands of a preceptor is the most secure way to salvation; holy thoughts on the eve of death unnecessary; salvation to a believer certain. At the present time Mahapurna (Periya Nambi) is the guru to be sought."1

1. “ Shriman param tattvam aham, mattam me
bedati prapattir nirapaya hetuh |
navagyakicha smf ti rantyakale
moksho, Mahapurna iharyavaryah ||
Andhriapurna's Yatirajavaibhavam ” SI. 40.

These are the words in which God directed Ramanuja to the acceptance of his mission when at the critical moment he vacillated, harassed by doubt whether he was equal to the burden of the propagation of the gospel of Vaishnavism. The fundamental idea of Vaishnavism is contained in one verse of Tirumalisai Alvar, which may be freely rendered: — "Let Your Grace be for me to-day; let it come to-morrow; let it wait still longer and come sometime after; Your Grace, I am sure is mine. I am certain, O! Narayana, I am not without you, nor are you without me”. 2

It will thus be seen that both in its philosophical and in its ritualistic aspects Vaishnavism reaches back to the same antiquity as other Brahmanic religions, and on a question of origins, it will be found that there is very little to choose in respect of priority and posteriority. Vaishnavism is the direct offspring of the school of Bhakti as ‘Shaivism is, and it seems to me that Vaishnavism diverged from Tantraism definitely in its early association with the Vaidic philosophy. It is not my purpose to discuss this aspect of the subject my concern being the history of Vaishnavism. Sir R, G. Bhandarkar has shown in his book “Vaishnavism etc." that the school of Bhakti so called is traceable to the age of Buddhism and Jainism. This might be regarded as the legitimate orthodox development of the orthodox Madhyadesa at a time when the ferment of dissatisfaction and free thought on the Upanishads led on in the East to the protests of Jainism and Buddhism against Vedic ritualism. Its history in northern India is traceable in its main lines at least from the 5th century B. C., but our concern here is the history of Vaishnavism in the south.

2. Nanmukan Tiruvandadi 7.

 

THE SUBJECT.

 

The history of Vaishnavism in South India came in for attention as a subject of study while yet that eminent Tamil scholar and philologist, Bishop Caldwell, was actively working in the field of the history of the literature of Tamil. In the course of his investigations he arrived at, to us somewhat strange, conclusion that Vaishnavism was the foundation of Ramanuja more or less It is nothing strange since he regarded the Augustan age of Tamil literature to have been in the 13th century of the Christian era and later; but what is still more strange is that the late professor M. Sheshagiri Shastriar, the first Indian occupant of the chair of Sanskrit and Comparative Philology in the Presidency College, should have held the same view and stated specifically that the Alvars were disciples of Ramanuja. The error in the case of Caldwell arose from his finding the Centum on Ramanuja included in the Prabandham 4000. That excuse cannot be held to justify the view of the Indian professor. Since then investigation on the subject has advanced many stages, and many scholars have worked in the field with, more or less, of success. There were often controversies, enlivened occasionally by a certain amount of acrimoniousness, and certain conclusions were made possible notwithstanding this particular feature. The late Mr. Sundaram Pillai could not find any history in the Vaishnava traditions, and there were not wanting scholars who went to the other extreme of argument, and would deem it hardly necessary to subject these traditions to a critical examination at all. This latter school is ably represented by Mr. A. Govindacharya whose work, the “Divine Wisdom of the Dravida Saints", embodies the traditional account. Some of my younger friends submitted theses on this subject for their M. A. degree examinations of which a few were published. My attention was particularly drawn to this subject by an article on the “Age of Manikkavasagar” contributed by the late Mr. L. C. Innes. As became a late eminent judge of the High Court the article dealt with the main thesis with a very large number of obiter dicta scattered about the article on various matters of vital interest ta the literary history of Tamil, a part at any rate of the history of Vaishnavism came in for some observation, which drew my attention. At about the same time the late Mr. Gopinatha Rao was writing a history of Vaishnavism in the pages of the Madras Review. The essential part of it he repeated very recently in his Sir Subrahmania Iyer Lectures delivered before the University of Madras. During recent years Mr. M. Shrinivasa Iyengar, M. A. devoted a considerable space to this history in his learned work ‘Tamil Studies’. Professor Rajagopalachariar of the Law College, Madras dealt with the subject but not from the historical point of view essentially. Meanwhile Pundit M. Raghavaiyangar dealt with the history of some of the Alvars in the Sen Tamil with his usual learning.

The culmination of this series of efforts upon the history of Vaishnavism was reached in Sir R. G. Bhandarkar's "Vaishnavism, Shaivism and minor Religions". This was published by the veteran orientalist as a part of the Encyclopedia of Indo-Arian Research. The first part Vaishnavism attempts to deal with the whole history of Vaishnavism from the beginning which the learned Doctor finds in the period co-eval with the rise of Buddhism and Jainism, if not earlier. It is this classical work on the subject that challenged my attention as the learned scholar quoted from me when he reached the history of Vaishnavism in South India, and offered some criticism of my work.

He agreed with me that the Alvars and Acharyas were previous to Ramanuja and should be looked for in that particular period; but he questioned my views in regard to the traditionally recognized order in which these are mentioned. This criticism naturally called for a re-examination of my position with the fullness that the great reputation of the venerable doctor and his learning alike demanded. It is therefore necessary to state his views more fully and exhibit his general position before proceeding to examine them carefully.

The Bhagavata itself states in book XI, Ch. X that Vishnu assumed different forms in the first great periods of time, and describes the different modes of worship of Him. For the Kali age he has simplified even the agamic worship of the previous age to the extent of offering salvation to those who would devote themselves to him without even subjecting themselves to the discipline of acquiring spiritual knowledge and practising Vairagya, (not giving way to the desires of the flesh). In order the more effectively, to achieve His object of saving the people of this earth He will come into this world, according to the Purana, in ten avatars of His, different from those of the previous aeons of time. His real devotees will be found scattered here and there in the whole of Bharatavarsha, but they will be found in large numbers in the Dravida country on the banks of the Tamraparni, the Vaigai (Kritamala), the Palar (Payasvini), the Kaveri and the Mahanadi flowing west (that is, Periyar) It is in this favourable spot that He would descend to do the work of salvation.1

1. kṛtādiṣu prajā rājan
kalāv icchanti sambhavam
kalau khalu bhaviṣyanti
nārāyaṇa-parāyaṇāḥ
kvacit kvacin mahā-rāja
draviḍeṣu ca bhūriśaḥ

tāmrapar ṇ ī nadī yatra
kṛtamālā payasvinī
kāverī ca mahā-puṇyā
pratīcī ca mahā-nadī

ye pibanti jalaṁ tāsāṁ
manujā manujeśvara
prāyo bhaktā bhagavati
vāsudeve ’malāśayāḥ. (SB 11.5.38)

In the land of Tamraparni was born Nammalvar and Madhurakavi; in that of the Vaigai, Periyalvar and his daughter Andal; in that of the Palar, Poygai Alvar, Bhudattalvar, Fey Alvar and Tirumalisai Alvar; in that of the Kaveri, Tondaradippodi, Tiruppan Alvar and Tirumangai Alvar; and in that of the Periyar, Kulashekhara, if his birth place was Tiruvanjikkulam in the state of Cochin. This citation would make the Bhagavatam a work posterior to the age of the Alvars, but it is possible that this chapter is a later interpolation. Granting that it is, it ought to have been interpolated long before Vedanta Deshika, as he quotes the passage as authority for certain of his positions in his work Rahasyatrayasaram. It would be an interesting enquiry in itself to compare in detail the Prabandha works and the Bhagavatam. That work will have to be left over for the present What is to the point in the history of Vaishnavism in this citation is that Bhakti gets associated with the south, almost exclusively as it were, though even here its connection with the Agama and Tantra is clearly indicated.

In regard to this however, it would be just as well to call attention to what the Padma Purana has to say regarding Shrimad Bhagavatam and how it actually came into existence. In the course of his interminable peregrinations sage Narada happened to be in the vicinity of Gokula on one occasion when he saw a young woman in distress in a desert tract with two elderly men lying apparently dead near her. The sight of the sage put some heart into her to appeal to him to solve to her the riddle that brought her to her then distressful condition. She said she was born in the Dravida country, had her early growth in the Karnataka and flourished to some extent in the Maharashtra. She proceeded thence to Gujarat with her two sons when life became difficult for her. As she moved further from there life to her was becoming gradually impossible; but she kept trudging on as best she could till she came to where she actually was at the time. When she touched the ground on which she then stood, she was suddenly transformed into the youthful woman she was while her two young sons were grown old and withered, ultimately falling dead as she thought they were.

Sage Narada pondered a little while and then addressed the young woman like one who knew it all. He said that she had no cause to distress herself. She was Bhakti (devotion) and her two little ones were Gnana (spiritual knowledge) and Vairagya (negation of desire). In olden times even Bhakti required the assistance of these two auxiliaries for the attainment of salvation; but in this age of Kali, Bhakti alone was quite enough — the more so when she was actually in the ground hallowed by the feet of Lord Krishna as a child. Hence the death of her children who were mere superfluities for her purpose. The points worth noting in this story for our purposes is that the Dravida country was the land of birth of Bhakti which flourished to a gradually diminishing extent in the Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat.

Whatever may be the source which the Purana quoted above might have taken its information from, it is actually found that the Alvars and Acharyas of the Vaishnavas as well as the Adiyars of the Shaivas were people born in the Tamil country, all of them exclusively, and propagated their gospel there. Dr. Bhandarkar has given satisfactory evidence of a very much earlier and a northern origin for the cult of Bhakti and there are evidences of its prevalence in the centuries preceding the Christian era in the region of "the middle country" in northern India. We shall show presently that the inspiration, for Vishnu Bhakti at any rate, came from the north. The school of Bhaktas in the Tamil land elaborated and worked it up with features characteristic of Tamil culture and sent it back in a more realistic reflex wave which swept over the whole land of India. We shall now proceed to the history of this school of Vaishnavism in the south.

 

THE VAISHNAVA TRADITION.

 

We shall proceed to examine these three positions in the order in which they are enumerated above. In regard to the whole of this position it has to be remembered that. Vaishnavism is a living religion with a very considerable following and a continuous tradition so that even tradition in a matter like this has to be given some weight historically, though we are not entirely dependent upon tradition alone in regard to this subject. The works of these Alvars are composed in the vernacular of the country, Tamil, and was collected and thrown into the form, in which they have come down to us by oral tradition as well as in written form, in the latter days of the lifetime of Ramanuja himself. The Prabandha “four thousand” includes in it a centum on Ramanuja himself by one who called himself Amudan of Arangam (Shrirangam), and who declares himself, in the course of the work, to be a disciple of Ramanuja's chief disciple Kurattalvan. 1

He refers to these Alvars in that work in a particular order, but places Nam Alvar, the last of them all for which there is a particular reason which we shall notice presently. 2

1. Ramanuja Nurrandadi St. 7.

2. Ibid set. 8-17.

The order is:

1. Poigai Alvar.

2. Pudattalvar.

3. Pey Alwar.

4. Tirupanalvar.

5. Tirumalisai Alvar.

6. Tondaradippodi.

7. Kulashekhara.

8. Periyalvar.

9. Andal.

10. Tirumangai Alvar.

The name of Nam Alvar, with that of Madurakavi, is omitted. The former comes in for more elaborate reference in the verses immediately following. While we may not be warranted in assuming any strictly chronological order perhaps from this, we ought to grant that it is the recognised general order of precedence in point of time as there is no other kind of order known or recognised among the Vaishnavas with the solitary exception of the position of Tiruppan Alvar. The exception in the case of Nam Alvar comes in for a satisfactory explanation as he is the only one among the Alvars who figures in a succession of religious preceptors proceeding from one's own particular guru right up to Vishnu himself, the chief Guru of them all. It is this pre-eminence of Nam Alvar that is responsible for this particular work removing him out of his place and treating of him in a number of stanzas immediately following.. As against this order might possibly be quoted a shloka from Pillan, the disciple and immediate successor in the apostolic seat of Ramanuja to whom the latter entrusted the work of commenting on Tiruvaymoli 1000, the work by pre-eminence of Nam Alvar. He sets all the names in one single shloka 1 and gives the names of only 11, omitting Andal. The exigencies of versification perhaps would not warrant the inference of any chronological order. It must be noted in this connection that the Tamil poems of Kulashekhara are included in the collection which received the sanction of Ramanuja.

1 Bhutam Sarascha Mahadahvaya Bhatfanatha
Shri Bbaktisara Kulaisekhara Yogivahan
Bbaktang{irirenu Parakala Yatindraminran
Shrimat Parankiismunim pranatosmi nityam.

 

LECTURE II.

TO THE GURUPARAMPARA.

 

According to the ordinarily prevalent accounts in the Vaishnava guruparampara Kulashekhara is regarded as the incarnation of Kaustubha (the jewel in the breast of Vishnu), and was born in the year Parabhava, the month Masi in Tamil, (Sans. Magha) Friday the 12th of the bright fort-night and Nakshatra Punarvasu. He was born according to this authority in the "city of Kolli (Quilon), otherwise Tiruvanjikulam". He is said to have been the son of a king by name Dridhavrata. After the usual education he was installed as ruler. Early in his career he became attached to the Vaishnava school of bhakti (devotion) and was particularly interested in having the Ramayana read out to him. In the course of this reading he became absorbed in it so much that on a particular occasion when they read out the portion where Rama marched forth single-handed against the great army of Khara and his two brothers he called out in his abstraction and ordered the whole of his army being put in motion to the assistance of Rama. The reader understanding his position went through the rest of the story rapidly and brought it to its termination bringing Rama victorious back to the hermitage where Sita was, and then Kulashekhara is said to have felt relieved. On another occasion it would appear his ministers wanted to wean him of this extraordinary devotion to Vishnu and brought about the loss of some jewels and valuables left in the sanctum of his palace, access to which was denied to everybody else excepting to himself and to the few Vaishnava priests engaged m service in it. When the responsible officials charged the Vaishnavas with the theft he is said to have affirmed "no Vaishnava will ever commit such an enormity", and, in token of his faith in them, to have thrust his right hand into a pot into which was put a malignantly poisonous cobra. When the cobra did him no harm and his court felt satisfied that he was right they ceased to interfere with him. His devotion to Vishnu grew stronger day by day till at last he gave up royal life, went forward to Shrirangam to be "perpetually" in the divine presence. It is there that he is said to have composed his Mukundamala his Sanskrit work, and the larger portion of the “Perumal Tirumoli “ in the Tamil Prabandham. At the instance of Ranganatha himself he moved forward to Tirupati taking Kanchipuram on the way. He has one ten relating to Tirupati. He returned from Tirupati and travelled on to various Vaishnava places till he came to Mannanarkovil (in all probability, Kattumannarkovil in the South Arcot district) where, while in his devotion to god he is believed to have given up mortal life. His whole life is said to have been not more than 25 years. This account makes it clear that the hagiologists knew almost nothing about his life except perhaps his place of birth. Even in regard to that, there is apparently an error. The guruparampara makes Kolli and Vanjikulam two names of the same place. We have already pointed out that Vedanta Deshika in the Prabandhasaram Stanza 8, mentions his place of birth as Vanjikulam while Kulashekhara himself states that he was ruler of Kolli. The guruparampara seems merely to attempt at a solution of the inconsistency in these two statements by the simple expedient of equating the one name with the other. Unless, as was ported out above, Vedanta Deshika had the specific knowledge that Kulashekhara was born in Vanjikulam though he was king of Kolli, we ought to accept Kulashekhara 's statement that he was a native of Kolli; while the other is certainly very probable, as the Bhagavata account specifies Periyar among the rivers hallowed by the birth of Bhaktas. The astrological details that are given are apparently the work of the hagiologists and are of no value historically as they must have made a backward calculation, if they at all did so, to suit their own particular dating. Of the real details of his life this biography gives nothing.

 

THE AGE OF KULASHEKHARA.

 

Preceding now to an examination of the age of Kulashekhara the extract quoted above makes it clear that it is the opinion of the venerable scholar, Sir R. G. Bhandarkar "that the Alvar Kulashekhara lived in the first half of the 12th century.” It will also be remembered that this conclusion is arrived at specifically on the consideration of two inscriptions which mention a Kulashekharanka, and which refer themselves to the Chalukya emperor Jagadekamalla, A. D. 1138 — 50. More generally, however, he has been led to this position by fixing the latest limit for Kulashekhara in the Madhvacharya, Ananda Tirtha who flourished about A. D. 1199 to 1278. The downward limit is fixed as the date of composition of the Bhagavatapurana which this Acharya regarded as sacred and quoted as authority. Sir R. G. Bhandarkar therefore would place it two centuries earlier than Ananda Thirtha on the ground that “it cannot be very much older, for its style often looks modern and in copying from the older puranas it falls into mistakes, such as the one pointed out by me in another place.” Kulashekhara 's posteriority to the Bhagavata is also sought to be established from a citation which the learned doctor found of the shloka of the Purana, XI, 2, 36. That Kulasekhara was later than the Bhagavata may be provable; but this citation from the Bhagavatapurana I do not see in the southern editions of the Mukundamala accessible to me, A Kannada edition, a Grantha edition and a new edition which was published sometime back in Devanagari, none of them show this shloka. There is besides the fact that this particular shloka is recited in apology for any shortcomings in the performance of religious acts commonly, at the end of almost every religious ceremony so far as I know. It will be admitted therefore that some editions of the Mukhundamala might bring it in at the end; but even so it is not found in the southern versions known to me. The citation referred to therefore loses its decisive character. That apart this chronological position can easily be demonstrated impossible. The period A. D. 1100-1150 is exactly the period in which the Prabandham, 4000 must have been cast into the present form by Ramanuja, at any rate with his sanction, and the Ramanuja Nurrandadi incorporated into it gives an honourable place to Kulashekhara as an Alvar. Most of these separate Prabandhas and their authors are given commendatory verses which are generally recited before beginning the recital of the particular Prabandha concerned. The part of the Prabandha of Kulashekhara Alvar is introduced by verses in praise by the early Acharya Manakkal Nambi who is the disciple's disciple of Nadamuni, and the preceptor of Alavandar, the great grandfather of Ramanuja. Ramanuja was just seen as a young man, according to tradition, by Alavandar who had attained to venerable old age then. His preceptor Manakkal Nambi must have been older. There is no reason to doubt the age of Ramanuja, though the actual dates may not, it is just possible, be equally certain. The latter half of the tenth century and the first of the next, at the lowest computation must be the age of Manakkal Nambi. If in his age Kulashekhara's part of the Prabandha came in for commendatory verses from him, Kulashekhara must have been somewhat anterior.

 

LECTURE III.

GURUPARAMPARAI ACCOUNT

 

According to the guruparamparai account Nam Alvar was born on the 43rd day of Kali, the year Pramadi on the full moon of the month of Vaishakha, Friday, Vishakha. He was born at Kurukai, the son of the adhikari of the township by name Kari and his wife Udayanangai. From birth the baby conducted itself peculiarly taking no nourishment, nor doing what children do in that stage. The parents in sorrow for this peculiar birth gave him the name Maran and set him in front of the god and goddess of the Vishnu temple in the locality The child is said to have crawled along to the front of the temple where there was a tamarind tree and assumed his seat at the foot of the tree in what is called Yogamudra (the attitude of one rapt in deep contemplation). He is supposed to have continued in this state for 16 years when he obtained the inspiration by favour of Vishnu which found vent ultimately in the part of the Prabandham ascribed to him.

Such as he was he required some one to propagate his gospel. The fit instrument for this purpose appeared in the person of a Brahman of the “top-knot” community of the Samavedi section in the village Tirukkolur in the Tinnevelly district. He is, according to this account, said to have been born in the ''Dvapara yuga'' 863, 879th year, the year Ishvara, month Chittirai, the 14th of the bright fortnight, Friday, nakshatra Chitra. Having done his schooling he went on a pilgrimage, and while in the north in Ayodhya, he turned towards his native place one night, and while casting his eyes in that direction he is said to have sighted a great column of light of an unusual character. Being curious to know what it was, he thought of returning to his native country and kept journeying along in the direction of the light. At last he came to Alvar Tirunagari or Kurukai, wherefrom he took the direction towards the south. As soon as he moved out towards the south he found the light changing position to the north. He returned to the locality where the light appeared to him and searching for what might be the cause he discovered the presence of the miraculous Alvar indicated. He remained there for some time and putting Nam Alvar a particularly recondite question he got an answer that satisfied him. He therefore sat down to receive the inspiration of the Alvar which would throw light upon the various problems of life and religion, which agitated him. Nam Alvar gave his exposition at the instance of Vishnu himself in the works included in the Prabandham. They are supposed to embody the truths that lay hidden in the four Vedas and thus provided the means for the attainment of salvation even to those who could not either read or understand the esoteric learning of the Vedanta. Madhurakavi is stated to have committed to writing what fell by word of mouth from Nam Alvar. When Nam Alvar passed away in his 35th year Madhurakavi immediately set up an idol of the Alvar and was believed to have been worshipping this idol for 50 years after, continuing the teaching of the 4 Prabandhams of Nam Alvar, viz. Tiruviruttam, Tiruvasiriyam, Periya Tiruvandadi and Tiruvaymoli. Madhurakavi's special contribution was the discovery of a spiritual preceptor (Acharya) and the need of such a preceptor is, what he gives expression to, as his peculiar teaching in the 11 verses of his included in the Prabandham literature. Among those that contributed commendatory verses to the works of Nam Alvar are Nathamuni, his grandson Alavandar and the spiritual successor of Ramanuja, Pillan, not to mention the one stanza ascribed to Madhurakavi himself. Madhurakavi himself received two verses of commendation from Nathamuni. This is so far the traditional account preserved in the guruparamparas. We shall proceed to an examination of this.

As against this tradition one effort has been made at an identification by the Epigraphists. A certain minister of an early Pandya king is given the name Maran Kari, and is described as a “Madhurakavi”. Minister Madhurakavi was somehow equated with this Alvar and was made therefore posterior to this particular inscription of A. D. 770. The main reason for this is that Nam Alvar is traditionally said to have had a disciple by name Madhurakavi whose 11 stanzas upon his attainment of the proper "Guru" in Nam Alvar is included in the "Prabandham”. Other details of the life of this Nam Alvar and his disciple as recorded in living tradition go against this identification, and at the very best the identification on the basis of the occurrence of the descriptive epithet "madhurakavi " to the neglect of all the other essential details is of doubtful validity. It is on a par with the inference that Kulashekhara was later than Ramanuja because the Mukundamala contains the word Ramanuja.

There has however been a more pretentious effort to make him the last of the Alvars by the author of the “Tamil Studies” which while it exhibits a considerable amount of learning bases its argument throughout upon assumptions of the most unwarranted character. Passing over what are perhaps positive misrepresentations of others, it is not desirable here even to go into the whole of the details; but the main arguments deserve to be examined. The first assumption of this author warranted by no historical source is that Nathamuni was a personal disciple of Nam Alvar: “he had two disciples — Shri Nadamuni and Madhurakavi — to whom he taught his Tiruvaymoli and other Prabandhams.'' Even according to him the first heads the list of the “Acharayas” while the second is elevated to the rank of a saint (Alvar). In regard to the fact that Nathamuni was a disciple of Nam Alvar no reason whatsoever is given nor any source of the information indicated. Tradition merely states Nathamuni drew, by yogic practice, the forgotten Tiruvaymoli from Nam Alvar with the assistance of "a disciple” of Madhurakavi. If tradition is accepted it ought to be properly interpreted and explained; otherwise it ought to be given up. There is no evidence given for this assumption of discipleship on the part of the first Acharya. If the two were alike disciples why is the one only an Acharya and why is the other an Alvar. This differential treatment requires some explanation; none such is offered. The Alvar belongs to the earlier group and the Acharya to the later according to accepted Vaishnava tradition.

In regard to this matter he has further down some arguments drawn from a misrepresentation, at the very best misunderstanding, of a statement of mine, in my article on Tirumangai Alvar, in the Indian Antiquary for 1906. We shall return to this later.

The first argument in favour of the position of Nam Alvar as the last of the Alvars is the crucial argument, according to this author, of philology. He mentions a certain number of Sanskrit words which are used by the Alvar and which he says do not occur in the Sangam works. I will take just two out of a list that he gives. He speaks of Sodi (Sans. Jyotis) and Makavaikundam (Sans. Magha or Makha Vaikuntha). The first word is found in the Tiruvasakam of Manikkavasagar and, Tevaram of Appar and part at least of second term occurs in the very early Sangam works Paripadal and Purananuru. He refers again to two grammatical forms, the use of a double plural form, and the use of a particular tense particle, which is stated to be the usage of "this time" by the commentator Nachchinarkiniyar. The commentator apparently uses the expression "this time" to mean the time following the classical age and does not seem to imply any very narrow limits. The crucial test according to this author would thus fail.

The second argument is based upon the fact that the works of the Alvars give evidence of following the age of the Puranas, and he refers to a passage of Nam Alvar [IV.10.5] where there is an apparent reference to the Lingapurana. This begs the question. The age of the Puranas cannot yet be regarded as such a settled matter to admit of decisive applications in this fashion. We shall have to revert to it again. Another part of this argument, is a reference in Nam Alvar to the use of flowers, incense, lamps, unguents and water in the process of worship. [V.2.9] He says that these are from the rules laid down in the Puranas. It will perhaps be more accurate to say these are the forms of worship according to the Agamas, at any rate, the Pancharatra Agama.

The next is an argument based upon the statement that “the chewing of betel-leaves was almost unknown to the Hindu populace prior to A. D. 500". The mention of the word betel by the Alvar is held to involve the “chewing of betel-leaves by the populace”. A quotation is made from the Silappadhikaram, which this scholar describes as belonging to the second century A. D., where there is a clear reference to the chewing of betel-leaves; but he gets round this inconvenience with the remark “but we doubt whether the custom had been so universal in the days of Ilango-Adikal, as it was in our Alvar's time”. The assumption in the first part of this remark as well as that in the next requires some demonstration.

The next argument is based upon the absence of any acrimonious reference in Nam Alvar's works to the Shaiva sect which he finds in some considerable number in the works of the other Alvars such as Tirumalisai, Tirumangai and Tondaradippodi, etc. He draws the inference therefrom that this conciliatory attitude of Nam Alvar towards the Shaivas was due to “a sort of reconciliation (that) had been effected among the Shaivas and Vaishnavas”, after Jainism and Buddhism had been vanquished. Having regard to the age that this scholar has ascribed to Nam Alvar it would he hardly possible to believe, from what we know of the history of the period, that such reconciliation had been effected at all. The normal inference from this conciliatory spirit would be that Nam Alvar lived at a time when Vaishnavism and Shaivism had to organize themselves as against Buddhism and Jainism, rather than to a later period when a historically unwarranted reconciliation has to be postulated.

The next argument involves two assumptions; the first is that if according to tradition Tirumangai Alvar made arrangements for the recital of the Tiruvaymoli annually in Shrirangam the author of the Tiruvaymoli must have visited Shrirangam. How the one follows from the other it is not clear to see. Supposing as tradition says Tirumangai Alvar did much for organizing worship at Shrirangam and supposing that he felt drawn to the Tiruvaymoli of Nam Alvar which he arranged should be recited at a particular period of the year in Shrirangam, how does that affect Nam Alvar one way or the other? If the supposition of the Tirumangai Alvar's doing be accepted as fact, the author of the Tiruvaymoli must have been an anterior personage who would not be affected by the consideration either way. Nam Alvar might have visited Shrirangam or might not have. It does 'not appear he did from what we know of his works. It is hardly necessary that a temple should be visited in order to celebrate it in a set of verses. The contrary assumption is one that the author has fallen into and we may have to refer to it in another connection.

The next assumption here is that because a place by name Varagunamangai is referred to in one of the poems of Nam Alvar, he must be posterior to Varaguna Pandya from whose name it is assumed Varagunamangai took its name. We know from inscriptional records only of two Varagunas so far; it is just possible there were more who did not hand down their names to us in inscriptions; but where is the necessity that a temple Varagunamangai should inevitably draw its name from Varaguna Pandya? We do know of numbers of instances in which names are so given, but that does not follow logically that the obverse statement that wherever there is such a name it must always have been drawn from a particular person. This scholar has made an application of this kind, in connection with Tirumalisai Alvar, where there is a reference to a Gunabhara which is interpreted as referring to the Pallava Mahendra Varman I. The passage there refers to the Gunabhara who ‘gave us our body and protects us in it' and continues that ‘those that have learnt the truth will never find the courage to give Him up’. How a reference to an earthly ruler can be read into this term Gunabhara so used, ordinary human intelligence fails to understand. If it were a term used in connection with a particular temple or with a particular form of god in a temple which might otherwise be connected with the Pallavas, one may see a subtle reference to the living ruler as a compliment. This is a supremely good illustration of where such applications fail. Nam Alvar's reference to Varagunamangai is of almost the same character. Both terms are terms of common use among the Vaishnavas; because a bhakta has to postulate the "Saguna Brahmam" as opposed to the “Nirguna One”, and gunas (qualities) ascribed to such a Being cannot be the ordinary gunas. That is the import of these expressions, and unless reference to a human sovereign is otherwise actually warranted it will not do to put that interpretation upon them.

The next argument is that Nam Alvar omits the celebration of Shrivilliputtur, as also Tirumangai. This omission is explained in the case of the latter as due to the non-existence of the temple in this place, and in the case of the former to the fact that though it had come into existence it was not sufficiently prominent. The futility of such an argument is apparent in the obvious petitio principi.

The next argument is that the Tiruvaymoli hymns are set to particular tunes while those of even Tirumangai Alvar are not. This is ascribed to the Vaishnavas having copied this arrangement from the ‘Shaivas who adopted it invariably, and since this arrangement’ is preserved only for Nam Alvar he must have been later. Even in respect of the Shaiva Adiyars this was an arrangement introduced not by the authors themselves but by others. It requires musicians to do it The ancient classic ‘Parripadal’ gives at the end of each poem the name of the author and: the name of the person who set it to tune distinctly. That apparently refers to the custom that it was the musician, or the professional class of people whose duty it was to sing these, to set these poems to tunes. Whether the Shaivas copied the Vaishnavas or the Vaishnavas copied the Shaivas, or both of them copied from something older, or each of them followed the established custom, this arrangement is no particular test of age.

The next argument has reference to that of the Epigraphists already referred to at the outset and he falls foul of them because their argument would lead to the conclusion that Nam Alvar lived prior to A. D. 770. Because Nam Alvar has not celebrated the deity in the temple at Anai Malai which was founded in the year A. D. 770, the inference is drawn that “the Alvar must therefore have lived either before or long after A.D. 770; but the impossibility of the first has been proved in previous pages.". He postulates the hypothesis the village built at so much expenditure in A. D. 770 had fallen into ruins by A. D. 900, and hence Nam Alvar could not refer to it.

"The last, the most important argument in favour of our theory that Satagopan was the last of all the Vaishnava Saints is furnished by the age of Nathamuni, one of his two esteemed disciples.'' It is here that a misrepresentation of my statement comes in. According to the traditional statement, Nathamuni is said to have been born in A. D. 582, and after remaining in ‘Samadhi’ at the foot of Nam Alvar's tamarind tree for over 300 years he died in A D. 922. I wrote, discussing just exactly the points in the life of Nathamuni that this scholar takes into consideration, that “it certainly would not be unreasonable to ascribe Nathamuni to a period beginning with the earlier half of the 10th century A. D. This is exactly the conclusion warranted by the proper understanding of the traditional account, which is that Nathamuni was born in A. D. 582 and that he was in what is called “Yogasamadhi" for 340 years. This would give the date A. D. 922 for the death of Nathamuni, which is not at all improbable, taking all circumstances into consideration. Why did the hagiologists then ascribe this long life or long death in life to Nathamuni? The explanation is not far to seek. They believed and the Vaishnavas do believe even now, that there was an unbroken succession of these saints, and unfortunately they found a gap between Nathamuni and the last Alvar. This they bridged over in this clumsy fashion." On the basis of this I am convicted with believing in the statement that Nathamuni was born in 582. Let that pass. We have already pointed out that there is no reason whatsoever to assume that Nathamuni was a disciple of Nam Alvar except in a metaphorical sense. Coming to the actual facts, Nathamuni's age is sought to be determined by his having been born in a village Vira Narayanapuram taken to be a foundation of the Chola king Vira Narayana or Parantaka I; by his having died in Gangaigondasolapuram, the foundation of Rajendra, the Gangaigondasola, A. D. 1011-1042; and by the fact that he was the grandfather of Alavandar who died at Shrirangam when Ramanuja was a young man. In regard to part I, who is it that ascribes the birth of the Acharya to Vira Narayanapuram? His biographer, whoever he was, and at the time of the biographer the place was known as Vira Narayanapuram.

The Cholas were in the habit of changing the names of places in this fashion, and it does not mean that the place was not in existence before, nor the temple in it. It is to-day known by the name Kurukaikkavalappan Kovil. It must have been known perhaps by that name before, and Nathamuni could have been born in the village without coming after Parantaka. He died at Gangaigondasolapuram. That again was not altogether a new foundation. It is hardly a mile and a half from the first place, the place of birth; it is just possible there was a village there anterior to the springing up of the Capital city. There are numbers of respectable villages about. There is nothing to prevent Nathamuni having died in one of these places which the later biographer refers to by the name of the vast capital city which took in all the villages around within its own limits. The traditional account, however, says that he returned to his village to die. The last fact is that Alavandar, the grandson of Nathamuni, died very old when Ramanuja was just a young man, may be about 25. That is the fact upon which we have to go. Whatever be the vialue of the horoscopes, or the actual dates of Ramanuja, as given in the guruparampara there can be no doubt about the period of his life which was the later half of the 11th century A. D. and the first part of the following century. Alavandar might have been born about 60 years before him, and Nathamuni his grandfather about that length or a little more; so that a difference of 120 to 150 years between Nathamuni and Ramanuja would not err on the side of too much liberality. That would mean Nathamuni was born somewhere about A. D. 900. But that is of no use to this question as the direct discipleship of Nathamuni to Nam Alvar is a mere unwarranted assumption. If an inference could be drawn from traditions preserved by hagiologists, we ought to look for Nam Alvar the three centuries and a half almost of the yogic years of Nathamuni previous to the age of the latter. That would take us to the middle of the sixth century, in itself perhaps not an improbable time. We shall investigate this further later on in the course of this thesis.

Before passing on it would be just as well to point out that it is not in any spirit of carping that this somewhat detailed criticism of other views is offered. This investigation of other views has no further object than a critical revaluation of the arguments for the purpose of acceptance or rejection. We hope that this long investigation upon the position of Nam Alvar as the latest of the group proves that the contention is, on the basis of the facts adduced, untenable.

 

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.

 

OTHER CRITERIA OF AGE

 

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

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

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

 

EARLY HISTORY OF VAISHNAVISM

IN SOUTH INDIA

 

BY

S. KRISHNASWAMI AIYANGAR, M. A.,

Professor of Indian History & Archaeology & Fellow

of the Madras University; Member of the

Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland;

Fellow of the Royal Historical Society;

Professor & Sometime Fellow

of the Mysore University;

Reader, Calcutta University.

 

PRINTED AT

THE TATA PRINTING WORKS,

5, THAMBU CHETTY ST.,

MADRAS.

 

THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.

LONDON, NEW YORK, TORONTO, MELBOURNE,.

BOMBAY AND MADRAS.

 

1920

 

 

Inscribed

to

His Excellency