Tamil maRai
From the Bhakti List Archives
• September 15, 1995
I posted the following in SCT in a thread that meandered into the question of, among others, whether knowledge of vEdhaas was common and whether 4000 dhivya prabandham contains vEdhik truths. I thought it may be relevant here as well. -- Dileepan ================================= In articleselvakum@valluvar.uwaterloo.ca (C.R. Selvakumar) writes: > >In article <431v9j$lc2@hpindda.cup.hp.com>, >Raghu Seshadri wrote: > >>Finally, there was a third source specially >>for the Tamils. This was the Divya Prabhandam >>of the Sri Vaishnavas. It is maintained >>that the Prabhandam contains all the ideas >>present in the Veda ( though personally >>I think "all" maybe stretching it, but >>certainly it does contain the Srivaishnava >>interpretation of the Veda) ; indeed it >>is given the title "tamil marai" or the >>"Veda in Tamil". This , again, was widely >>read. > > RS, I hope you would see the serious distortions that result > in saying that everything comes from Vedas or everything > that there is is a summary of Vedas. In the following two issues are addressed, (1) vEdhik status for thamizh prabandhams and (2) knowledge of vEdhaas among the ancient thamizhs. Obviously, these two points are interrelated. A word of caution, I am not talking about "everything"; all I am concerned with is dhivya prabandham. Sri vaishNavaas of south India have always accepted the dhivyaprabandhams in general and the prabandhams of nammaazhvaar in particular, as thamizh vEdhaas. Sriman naadhamuni called nammaazhvaar's thiruvaaymozhi "dhraavida vEdha saagaram." Others have said, "arumaRaigaL andhaathi," "satakOpan senthamizh vEdham," "aanRa thamizh maRaigaL aayiram," etc., etc. The four prabandhams of nammaazhvaar are mapped to the four vEdhaas as follows: thiruviruththam : rg thiruvaasiriyam : yajur thiruvaaymozhi : saama periya thiru_vandhaathi : atharvaNa I am not sure whether the ideas of the respective vEdhaas are reflected in the corresponding nammaazhvaar prabandhams. But it is clear that the sri vasihNavaas accorded vEdhik status to the prabandhams. Some would say that the prabandhams occupy a higher status than vEdhaas. During ceremonial processions of the Lord, prabhandham chanters go in front, followed by the Lord, and finally, in the back, the vEdha chanters. This practice is offered as evidence of higher status for prabandhams relative to vEdhaas. It is widely held among sri vaishNavaas that the vEdhik principles are highlighted and made easy in the prabandhams for those who lack Sanskrit knowledge. It is believed that a study of prabandhams alone is sufficient to understand the vEdhik truths. Even though the later day sri vaishNavaas treat prabhandams as thamizh vEdham there is no indication that aazhvaars themselves made any such claim. There are two exceptions to this. (1) Periyaazhvaar, in his thirumozhi 2.8.10, asserts, "vEdhap payan koLLavalla vittuchiththan than sonna maalai...," and (2) in 8th and 9th paasurams of kaNNinuN siRuththaambu madhurakavi aazhvaar says of nammaazhvaar's prabandhams, respectively, "aruLinaan avvaru maRaiyin poruL," and "vEdhaththin utporuL, niRkkappaadi en nenchuL niruththinaan." Even though aazhvaars did not claim vEdhik status for their verses they do repeatedly invoke vEdhaas with phrases such as "vEdha mudhalvan," "vEdhaththaan vEngadaththaan," "vEdhap poruLE, en vEngadavaa," "vEdhaththaay, vEdhaththin suvaip payanaay," "vEdha nalviLakku," "naal vEdhaththuLLaan," "vEdha mudhaR poruL," "munnuruvil vEdha naan_gaay," etc. etc. Therefore, it seems to me that the aazhvaars gave enough reasons for the later day sri vasihNavaas to revere the prabandhams as thamizh vEdhaas. Considering the reverential use of the term "vEdha" by the aazhvaars, they could only feel honored that their works are considered equal to vEdhaas. At the very least they would not take it as a distortion. The evidence of vEdhik knowledge among the authors of paripaadal, dated prior to the early aazhvaars, is even more remarkable. Phrases such as "naaval andhaNar arumaRaip poruLE," "pugazh iyaindha isaimaRai uRukanal muRaimootti," and "vaaymozhi yOdai malarndha ...," are found in them. One of the most fascinating passages of paripaadal occurs in the third verse: "theeyinuL theRaln^ee poovinuL naaRRan^ee kallinunuL maNiyun^ee sollinuL vaaymain^ee aRaththinuL anbu nee maRaththinuL maindhu nee vEdhaththu maRain^ee boothaththu muthalun^ee venchudar oLiyun^ee thingaLuL aLiyun^ee anaiththun^ee anaiththinut poruLun^ee ..." The similarity between the above and vEdhik ideas is unmistakable! All of these do give us good reasons to speculate that among the ancient thamizh learned, irrespective of caste, vEdhik knowledge and reverence was not uncommon. Lack of knowledge among the general public was perhaps attributable to illiteracy or indifference rather than taboo or religious sanction. -- Dileepan
- Next message: Eswar Josyula: "Symbols worn by Vaisnavas on the Body"
- Previous message: sreekrishna_at_mmd.com: "Ahobila Mutt Jeer and the Rajagopuram"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]