Aryan Migration Theory

[happyhindu]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

When did the first migration take place?

We have seen that in Karaikal Ammaiyar’s verses, there is no mention of devotees wearing Sacred Ash. But in the times of Appar and Thirugnana sambandhar, Thiruneeru has attained a place of importance as a mark of devotees of Siva.

In the same way, Ammaiyar or any of her predecessors in Tamil literature does not mention Ganapati, whereas Ganapati is regarded as the son of Siva in the verses of Appar and Thirugnana Sambandar.

Ammaiyar is considered to belong to 5th century and Appar and Thirugnana Sambandar belonged to 7th century. Based on the above, we can assume that the first migration which brought Ganapati and Sacred Ash took place between these periods.

Brahacharanam is mentioned in the inscriptions of Pallava. So they might have come a little later. Rajendra Chola of the 11th century is said to have brought 8ooo Brahmins from the north and founded a colony for them in Kanchipuram District and this place was called Ennayiram. These were the Ashtra Sahasram.

Not much is known about the Vathimars. Perhaps they could have come from Madhya desa, that is between the Vindhyas and the Tamil region. Or, they could have been brought specifically for teaching in Veda Patasalas.

Regarding Swarna Keshyas, it is said that they were traders in gold. Such gold trading Brahmins existed in Sangam period also.

The aborigine-Brahmins of Tamil land were known variously in various places. The Deekshitars of Chidambaram, the Nambiars of Avudaiyarkoil, the Thirusuthanthirars of Thirusendoor, the Brahmarayars and Nainars of Thiruvarur, Prathama Sakhi, Thruna Bhattan and Ayya Nambi of Thiruvanaikovil, the Bhattars of southern districts and the Thenkalai Vaishnavas who are known as Cholias are all included in the list of original Brahmins of Tamilnadu.

Dear Vikrama ji,

Wonderful posts. Very insightful.

Was aware that there was strife between native brahmins (like ayyanar temple priests) and native philosphers (jains?) with the brahmins who arrived from other parts of india - that part you have captured nicely and elaborated in the previous post.

Based on Ammaiyar (5th century) and Appar and Thirugnana Sambandar (7th century), you have menioned that the first migration of TBs might have taken around this period. If so, this is after the sangam period. Could you please elaborate on the brahmins in tamilnadu during the sangam period? Why are they considered unrelated to the later-arrivals? Could you also elaborate more on what prompted the later-arrivals to come to the tamil regions during 5th-7th centuries?

Am also told that there is no evidence of dharmashastras being followed by the ancient tamil kings going by tamil literature (though each kingdom designated its workforce based on its occupations, it was not considered fixed-at-birth or spiritually-decided). Some ppl blame the vijayanagar and subsequent telugu-kannada nayaks for introducing dharmashastra type of rule in tamil regions. Apparently none of the tamil kings claimed to be 'shatriya' by birth nor designated others with appelations based on birth. Are all this true? Could you please clarify?

You have mentioned that the aboriginal-brahmins of Tamil land were
a) Deekshitars of Chidambaram,
b) Nambiars of Avudaiyarkoil,
c) Thirusuthanthirars of Thirusendoor,
d) Brahmarayars and Nainars of Thiruvarur,
e) Prathama Sakhi, Thruna Bhattan and Ayya Nambi of Thiruvanaikovil,
f) Bhattars of southern districts
g) Thenkalai Vaishnavas who are known as Cholias

Shri Nara had clarified in an other thread that the diff between thenkalai and vadagalai is only based on the philosophy followed. Could you please elaborate why the above are considered as native brahmins? From tamil sources, is there any connection b/w the vaishnavas and vaikhanasa worship at around 2nd century in the present tamil land?

Regards.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri vikrama, greetings!

Thanks for the post. I do have some questions. But first, a few days ago my nephew came into my room and asked me whether I supported AIT. I was really puzzled that AIT is like a political party or something that you support or not. Also, I am really confused why this is a big political issue? Does it have any political significance? I would appreciate it if someone can briefly explain what the political big deal is and who is making what argument and what the agenda is.

Shri vikrama, I appreciated reading your articles. Please permit me to say that some parts of your presentation is mixed with speculation. Would you agree that to be a fair assessment?

My comments and questions below are concerning what I consider to be speculations. I do not reject them completely, but only that an alternative explanation may be entirely or at least equally plausible.

.. Tolkappiar has used many Sanskrit words and has also gave a name to such words, as thisai sol. It seems there were Sanskrit scholars in this land, irrespective of caste in his time.

In the past Tholkappiyar was routinely claimed to be a Brahmin. Lately, there has been some push back. Whatever may be the true caste affiliation of T, the presence of NB Sanskrit scholar in those days does not preclude the possibility that Brahmins brought Sanskrit to the south.

When did the use of Sanskrit in daily life increase in Tamilnadu?

It was after the advent of Jainism and Buddhism that the use of Sanskrit increased.

The premise of the above question, namely, use of Sanskrit increased in the daily life is problematic for me. As you observe later, Buddists used the vernacular of the common people to reach them. This was Tamil in the Tamil country and Pali in the North. They may have used Sanskrit in polemics with the intellectual elites.

The names you have listed are interesting, but not clinching evidence. One of the most famous Buddist of Tamil country, who wrote Manimekalai, was called Sathanar. He was not a monk as far as I gather. But, still, given the fact many Sanskrit words were prevalent much before Kalabara period makes it unconvincing that it was Buddists and Jains who popularized Sanskrit in Tamil country.

These all show that Sanskrit spread among the masses and Tamil became mixed only due to the Jain and Buddhist missionaries and not due to the Brahmin immigrants who did not mingle with the local masses enough to influence their speech.

Parson me, but, you have arrived at a sweeping conclusion stated above based only on some sketchy and speculative observations.

First, you have not provided any evidence that Sanskrit spread among the masses. From what we see both in literature and common practice, Sanskrit never took hold among common people, not even the Brahmins.

Second, Sanskrit borrowed from Tamil just as much or more as Tamil borrowing from Sanskrit. In fact, the very grammatical structure of Sanskrit is supposed to have been influenced by Tamil grammar.

I almost completely agree with your observation about the first three Azhvars. As you observe, munkudumi Chozians could very well be indigenous Brahmins, just as much Tamils as anybody else. But these are not conclusive evidence that Brahmins did not come from North or that Brahmins did not bring Sanskrit to Tamil country.

Couple of minor clarifications, there were no Thenkalai or Vadakalai during the time of Azhvars. The division came much later. Also, the festival of Kallazhagar coming to Vaigai was introduced by the Nayaka chieftains who ruled Madurai. It is a relatively new practice. I don't know how much power the SVs would have had against the Nayakas.

Thank you Shri vikrama ....

 

[S.Chandrasekaran]

Dear Sister Renuka karthikeyan,
Ur. doubt is really correct. Because From Kirutha yuga, Thretha yuga, Dwapara yuga & present Kali Yuga in all historical events, Puranaas & Ethikasams, the Brahmin people were Honored as Raja Gurus, Rishis, and grate poets etc., So,V are the ancient Bharatheeya prajaas only and not migrated from any other country as the British story writers had written as ancient Indian history.

 

[vikrama]

Dear Vikrama ji,

Could you please elaborate on the brahmins in tamilnadu during the sangam period? Why are they considered unrelated to the later-arrivals? Could you also elaborate more on what prompted the later-arrivals to come to the tamil regions during 5th-7th centuries?

Of the poets of Purananooru, some are mentioned as Brahmins. Damodaranar, Perunchathanar, Perichathanar are the three who had the title of Vadama Vannakkan, indicating their northern origin. There were other Brahmin poets like Kavunian Vinnanthayan, Kabilar without such titles and they could be aborigines. There is mention of Vela paarppaans, which means that those Brahmins did not engage themselves in Vedic rituals but earned their living by doing some trade or other. Some, it is said, made bangles out of conches. Vedic sacrifices are mentioned in Purananooru indicating the existence of Vedic culture in those days.

Till a hundred years ago, the Brahmin groups did not mingle with each other. I have heard it from my grandfather that the Vadamas can tolerate to some extent the Brahacharanam, Vathima, or Ashta Sahasram. But relationship with Cholias and others should be totally avoided. In those days of poor communication facilities, each group lived in isolation and preserved their cultural identity.

Of the four royal lineages of Tamilnadu, only the Cholas were deeply attached to Saivam. Whereas the Pallava and Pandya kings are reported to have embraced Jainism there was no one Chola king who went to the fold of the atheistic religions. Even the Kalabra King, Kootruvan who ruled over Chola Kingdom for some time, was a staunch Saivite. So no wonder, the Chola kings wanted to strengthen Saivam. In the period between 5th and 7th century, - mention of the number of Saiva Barahmins gives rise to the suspicion that they were limited - Thillai Moovayiravar 3000, Avudaiyarkoil Munnootrtuvar 300, Thiruveezhimizhalai Ainootruvar 500. Some Brahmins have left the fold to become Jains or Buddhists. The other Brahmins, perhaps did not cooperate with the king since they considered Saivam to be a new imposition and not a religion of the soil. So the king felt compelled to import Brahmins from the banks of Narmada where the Pasupata Saivam was in full bloom.

This is only a hypothesis and I have no other materials to support this other than what I have mentioned before.

Your other questions and Sri Nara's I will answer tomorrow since this post has already become too long.

 

[vikrama]

Am also told that there is no evidence of dharmashastras being followed by the ancient tamil kings going by tamil literature (though each kingdom designated its workforce based on its occupations, it was not considered fixed-at-birth or spiritually-decided). Some ppl blame the vijayanagar and subsequent telugu-kannada nayaks for introducing dharmashastra type of rule in tamil regions. Apparently none of the tamil kings claimed to be 'shatriya' by birth nor designated others with appelations based on birth. Are all this true? Could you please clarify?

I have not gone into the question of kings of Tamil land following dharmashastras. By dharmashastras, do you mean the manusmriti?

Occupation based on birth, to put it in other words, following the hereditary occupation seems to the rule in Sangam period though not necessarily based on manusmriti. In my previous post I have referred to Velappaarppaan- a Brahmin who does not perform Vedic rituals. The term indicates that when the hereditary occupation was not followed, it was an aberration, a matter worth mentioning.

Caste appellations were not used in Tamilnadu till 17th century. Of course, in Chola inscriptions the term Bhattar was profusely used to denote the temple priests. Other caste appellations, as far as I know, were not used. Can you guess the caste of Kambar, Pugazhendhi or Arunagiri from their names? I think that people began to use such appellations after the arrival of the British. (Was it a ploy to divide India?)

You have mentioned that the aboriginal-brahmins of Tamil land were
a) Deekshitars of Chidambaram,
b) Nambiars of Avudaiyarkoil,
c) Thirusuthanthirars of Thirusendoor,
d) Brahmarayars and Nainars of Thiruvarur,
e) Prathama Sakhi, Thruna Bhattan and Ayya Nambi of Thiruvanaikovil,
f) Bhattars of southern districts
g) Thenkalai Vaishnavas who are known as Cholias

Shri Nara had clarified in an other thread that the diff between thenkalai and vadagalai is only based on the philosophy followed. Could you please elaborate why the above are considered as native brahmins? From tamil sources, is there any connection b/w the vaishnavas and vaikhanasa worship at around 2nd century in the present tamil land?

About vaikanasa agama and its relation to Vaishnavas, I have not studied. But I can answer the other question.In the book 'The people of India - Tamilnadu. vol 3 page 1407 authored by V.S.Deepkumar and edited by K.S.Singh, it is mentioned that the Vadamas had blood relations with the Vadakalai Vaishnavas till as late as 18th century and whenever their Vadakalai relative died, they observed 'theettu'.
Please also note the axiom, வடம் முற்றி வைஷ்ணவம் a Vadama, on maturing, becomes a Vaishnava. (The Kaniyalas of Trichy district, another aborigine group,are Saivites, wear Thiruman on special occasions. They represent the cordial relations between different sects which prevailed in olden times.) The Bhattars of Thiruvellarai, near Trichy, a very ancient shrine, call themselves as Cholias.

On the basis of these evidences, I think that some of the Vadama immigrants, were attracted to Vaishnavam and became Vaishnavas. But they were not totally accepted by the sons of the soil Vaishnavas. Hence the feud between the Vadakalai and Thenkalai till recent times.

Sri Nara will be able to confirm my observation that the oldest Vaishnava temples are all Thenkalai and all the non-Brahmin Vaishnavas follow only Thenkalai sampradayam.

I have observed in my native Mannargudi in the 50s fierce fighting in the street குடுமிப் பிடி சண்டை between these two sects while carrying the image of God in a procession. The palanquin would be deserted on the street. It was a routine affair and no Vennaithazhi passed without these scenes. I hope people are saner nowadays.

If the difference in philosophies is the cause of the division, the fight would not have been so fierce.

 

[happyhindu]

Thankyou very much Shri Vikrama. A few inputs and requests:

I have not gone into the question of kings of Tamil land following dharmashastras. By dharmashastras, do you mean the manusmriti?

Occupation based on birth, to put it in other words, following the hereditary occupation seems to the rule in Sangam period though not necessarily based on manusmriti. In my previous post I have referred to Velappaarppaan- a Brahmin who does not perform Vedic rituals. The term indicates that when the hereditary occupation was not followed, it was an aberration, a matter worth mentioning.

I mean all or any of the dharmashastras, not necessarily of Manu.

Am told that in the Sangam period heredity occupations were common but not the norm - meaning to say change of occupation was permissable.

However, from what i understand so far, the early dravida did seem to follow a primitive form of 4-fold division. But the only diff was b/w the brahmin and the non-brahmin. The non-brahmin included everyone (all the warriors, traders, soilders, farm labourers, etc - ppl whom some might divide as the kshatriya, vaishya, shudra and dalit today). So it was more like a 2-fold division in practice..

Reg the occupation of the velapparpan making conch bangles which you mentioned in an earlier post, the trade was common in the indus valley civilisation and so was manufacturing beads, utensils, glazed tiles, etc... We still see traces of it today (like vallagapu for pregnant women is supposed to vallaiyal-kaapu, like a protection amulet blessing or something like that).

About vaikanasa agama and its relation to Vaishnavas, I have not studied. But I can answer the other question.In the book 'The people of India - Tamilnadu. vol 3 page 1407 authored by V.S.Deepkumar and edited by K.S.Singh, it is mentioned that the Vadamas had blood relations with the Vadakalai Vaishnavas till as late as 18th century and whenever their Vadakalai relative died, they observed 'theettu'.
Please also note the axiom, வடம் முற்றி வைஷ்ணவம் a Vadama, on maturing, becomes a Vaishnava. (The Kaniyalas of Trichy district, another aborigine group,are Saivites, wear Thiruman on special occasions. They represent the cordial relations between different sects which prevailed in olden times.) The Bhattars of Thiruvellarai, near Trichy, a very ancient shrine, call themselves as Cholias.

On the basis of these evidences, I think that some of the Vadama immigrants, were attracted to Vaishnavam and became Vaishnavas. But they were not totally accepted by the sons of the soil Vaishnavas. Hence the feud between the Vadakalai and Thenkalai till recent times.

Sri Nara will be able to confirm my observation that the oldest Vaishnava temples are all Thenkalai and all the non-Brahmin Vaishnavas follow only Thenkalai sampradayam.

I have observed in my native Mannargudi in the 50s fierce fighting in the street குடுமிப் பிடி சண்டை between these two sects while carrying the image of God in a procession. The palanquin would be deserted on the street. It was a routine affair and no Vennaithazhi passed without these scenes. I hope people are saner nowadays.

If the difference in philosophies is the cause of the division, the fight would not have been so fierce.

In my obervation, many NBs of tamilnadu do follow the thenkalai sampradayam. However, i also notice that those from the tirupati regions will wear the vadagalai naamam while those from the trichy thanjavur side will wear the thenkalai naamam (yes, this happens in NBs). So i do suppose the diff is based on the region and the philosophy followed but both feel their sampradayam is the original one....this reminds me to thank Shri Nara for the wonderful thread on vadagalai and thengalai.

Regards.

 

[Nara]

From what little I know,

Please also note the axiom, வடம் முற்றி வைஷ்ணவம் a Vadama,

This must be an adage among Vadamas, I have not heard it until you mentioned it a few months back. But, I think the SVs will take it as there is an implied compliment there . But your point that Vadamas converted to SV is quite correct, as Bhagavat Ramanuja himself was a Vadama. Even today I believe there are Vadamas who are strict Vaishnavas, like T.N. Seshan.

But they were not totally accepted by the sons of the soil Vaishnavas. Hence the feud between the Vadakalai and Thenkalai till recent times.

There is no evidence for this conclusion. As I have mentioned many times, there was no Vadakalai Thenkalai difference until about 500 years ago. The acharya guru parampara for the most dominant Vadakalai Matam today, Sri Ahobila Matam, is identical to that of today's Thenkalais up until about the 5th Azhagiya Singar.

Sri Nara will be able to confirm my observation that the oldest Vaishnava temples are all Thenkalai and all the non-Brahmin Vaishnavas follow only Thenkalai sampradayam.

Not "all", but most of them do follow Thenkalai sampradayam. This may have more to do with Vadakalais being sticklers for Varnashrama darma than Thenkalais, not that Thenkalais are any less caste conscious these days. Thenkalais interpret "sarva darman parithyajya" as giving up all darma, but Vadakalais think the giving up is only as a means for moksham, but we must follow all varna darma in the mode of Sathveega Thyagam. Thenkalai also advice against giving up these darmam in order not to mislead common folks.

There are some NB Vadakalais, not many though. One of whom even published a huge volume of 4000 Dhivya Pradhandam with meaning.

....If the difference in philosophies is the cause of the division, the fight would not have been so fierce.

These fights are only recent events and are more about power and position in the temple, nothing to do with Vadama converts or son of soil SV, there is no such thing. In most cases, these two groups, after having one of these kudumi pidi fights, go hand in shoulder rest of the year. Their fights are more like பங்காளி சண்டை than out of deeply held enmity.

No SV of vadakalai stripe thinks of himself as Vadama or any less of a son soil, nor do the Thenkalais think that about Vadakalai. Both kalais have mutual affinity for each other and respect all acharyas. They have no hesitation prostrating at the feet of acharays and scholars of either kalai. Marriages between Thenkalai and Vadakalai was quite common until about 50 or 60 years ago, and this is coming back now. My father's chitti was Thenkalai and so is my sister's d.i.l.

Vaishnavam has Tamil roots, Vadamas did convert, but the Vadakalai/Thenkalai divisions are not according to these lines.

Dear Vikram, you have some good points, but I think you are arriving at some conclusions that are not supported by evidence.

Cheers!

 

[RVR]

In Srirengam Trichy, Prof G Rangarajan, who is a smartha by birth, converted into Vaishnavism voluntarily. He is still alive, must be 80 plus, and recites Veena daily in the early morning in front of Lord Ranganatha to wake him (Thiruppalli Ezhuchi)

Sri KRS may also know him as he was our Professor.

Vaishnavites at Srirengam temple has accepted him as a vaishnavite and he wears `Panchacatcham' and `Thiruman' and has a kudumi also.

I am sure all the Vaishnavites here will fully agree with me that Srirengam is only termed as `Kovil' in the vaishnavite literature and is considered as Head Quarters of Vaishnavite faith.

If Srirengam temple accepts a `smartha' into `Vaishnavite' fold today, then there is no point in discussing about differences between `Smartha' and `Vaishnavite' now.

We use to make a joke about him during our student days -

இவர் தூங்கிக்கொண்டு இருக்கிற பெருமாளை எழுப்புகிறார்
இங்க வந்து நம்ம எல்லாரையும் தூங்கபண்ணுகிறார்

Those who are in teaching profession please pardon me for the joke.

All the best

 

[vikrama]

I am really confused why this is a big political issue? Does it have any political significance? I would appreciate it if someone can briefly explain what the political big deal is and who is making what argument and what the agenda is.

The DMK and DK harp on AIT. The ADMK and the Congress are non-committal. But whatever paraty be in power, the textbooks contain the AIT. Whereas Brahminn teachers, in addition to teaching the matter of the book, take the trouble of informing the students the latest researches in this regard, others take the textbook as bible. I have observed many teachers telling the students, while teaching this topic, "We are Dravidians and the Paappaans are Aryans". This makes their job easy and the students find it easy to understand.
When the young minds are thus indoctrinated, it is easy for the politicians to blame everything on the Brahmins. When there is a fight between Thevars and Dalits, the politicians assert that it is because of the caste system introduced by the Aryans. If many of the Dalits are poor, again it is the Brahmin and his Varnasrama Dharma to bear the blame.
If a love affair between two NBs of different castes ends in a suicide or murder, there also the Bs are blamed for dividing the society into castes.
Thus everywhere Bs are looked down upon with suspicion and hatred. No wonder Bs do not venture into politics when their ethnicity itself is questioned.

some parts of your presentation is mixed with speculation. Would you agree that to be a fair assessment?

Yes. These are not proven facts but hypotheses. When the evidences are insufficient and unconnected, how else to construct the history without some speculation connecting bits of facts to make a cogent picture? With the same bits of information, you may connect them in a different form and present a new theory. Many such researches may at one time establish the facts.

In the past Tholkappiyar was routinely claimed to be a Brahmin. Lately, there has been some push back. Whatever may be the true caste affiliation of T, the presence of NB Sanskrit scholar in those days does not preclude the possibility that Brahmins brought Sanskrit to the south.

Whether T was a B or NB, he has testified to the existence of Sanskrit words in Tamil. He has also mentioned the presence of the Brahmins in his time with their six-fold duties. (அறுவகைப்பட்ட பார்ப்பனப் பக்கம்)The four fold division of society is also mentioned. If Brahmins brought Sanskrit and Varnasrama system from north, it had occurred well before T. (The likes of Mu.Ka. would like us to believe that there was no B in Tamil land till the Sangam period)

The premise of the above question, namely, use of Sanskrit increased in the daily life is problematic for me. As you observe later, Buddists used the vernacular of the common people to reach them. This was Tamil in the Tamil country and Pali in the North. They may have used Sanskrit in polemics with the intellectual elites.

It can not be denied that the first Buddhists and Jains came from north. Of course they could have learnt the local language before they began their preaching. It is also possible that they could have used a mix of Sanskrit when they found it difficult to express certain ideas in Tamil. The Tamil masses could have also appropriated those Sanskrit words. How else do we explain the presence of more Sanskrit words in Appar's thevaram than in his contemporary Sambandhar's?

The names you have listed are interesting, but not clinching evidence. One of the most famous Buddist of Tamil country, who wrote Manimekalai, was called Sathanar. He was not a monk as far as I gather. But, still, given the fact many Sanskrit words were prevalent much before Kalabara period makes it unconvincing that it was Buddists and Jains who popularized Sanskrit in Tamil country.

Sathanar is the Tamilised form of Sastha, a name by which Buddha was known.
(Incidentally, some of the Sasthas-Ayyappas- were images of Buddha)
The Buddhists and Jains did not preach in Sanskrit but they made use of a number of Sanskrit words, which got into the vocabulary of
the masses. Wheras Sanskrit was confined to literary circles alone earlier, now the general public also began to use a few words of Sanskrit.

Sanskrit borrowed from Tamil just as much or more as Tamil borrowing from Sanskrit. In fact, the very grammatical structure of Sanskrit is supposed to have been influenced by Tamil grammar.

I agree.

there were no Thenkalai or Vadakalai during the time of Azhvars. The division came much later. Also, the festival of Kallazhagar coming to Vaigai was introduced by the Nayaka chieftains who ruled Madurai. It is a relatively new practice. I don't know how much power the SVs would have had against the Nayakas.

During the time of Azhvars, the difference could not have been pronounced and it could have come to the fore only in the later period. Just another guess.

I would like to know one thing. Was it not Ramanuja, who instituted the custom of wearing 'Thiruman'? The two types of Thiruman- were they introduced by him or by later Acharyas?

 

[Das]

Sri renukakarthikayan,

If I am not wrong, I believe the vast majority of Tamil Brahmins, judging by our family names and gotrams would ultimately end up tracing their lineage to the North Western parts of India, specifically Kashmir, as that was the dispersal point for Brahmin missionaries who thereon expanded and spread Hinduism peacefully in non-North Western parts of the continent.

The first wave of these Brahmins into non-North Western regions tended to take local women as their wives, and consequently established themselves as the upper castes of the region.

As far as Tamil Brahmins are concerned, we see their present day descendants in the Gurrukals/Pusaaris and Dikshitars and the like.

2)what was their original mother tongue? was it Sanskrit?

Of course, I don't see why this doubt would even exist as such. Sanskrit is our father tounge, period. Sanskrit is regarded as equivalent to our right eye whereas Tamil our left.

so how much does this theory hold good?
the question is Brahmins were already there in India Yugas ago so why do many people( including some Brahmins) think the Aryan race migration is a recent phenomenon per highligted by the west.

The timeline and measure of time in our mythology and the unit of time used by so called historians indeed do conflict.

I would like to believe that Vedic culture has been flourishing India, easily for more than two whole yugas. If we are to add the time finished as per our Yuga system up to now, we will get the very same figure as what scientists believe is the age of the universe.

each Brahmin has a Gotra from a particular Rishis Lineage who were there much before the stipulated 1700 to 1300 BC.
kindly someone explain to me
thanks

Precisely. A Brahmin has an ancestry and pravara documented up to 3000 years and of course hails from a Gotram mentioned in our Gotra Kandams , and the vast majority of our progenitors have their origins in the North West.

Personally speaking, I do not like the fact that Tamil Brahmins, actually Brahmins as a whole are associated with controversial terms such as Aryan, especially considering the racial connotations it has gained for itself in the 20th century under fascist regimes like the National Socialists in Germany, and closer home, the Aryan-Dravidian divide propagated by the British.

Of course it is obvious that Indians are much more diverse than that with numerous castes and tribes,5 macro linguistic phylums with approximately 1652 dialects, and many other such ethno linguistic divisions. However, I would like to note that the British documented and recorded more about Indians than Indians did about themselves itself. Their rule might have had it's negatives, but also it's positive, as opposed to the barbaric Muslim invaders that preceded them.

The usage of the term Aryan to this day is literally an insult to the sanctity of the millions of unfortunate Jewish souls who were brutally murdered on the premise of this false ideology.

The torture and ill treatment of millions of the elderly, women and children on the premise of their ethnicity is hardly what one would term as "Aryan" behavior. It epitomizes everything non-Aryan, taking the literal and original meaning and sense of the word into consideration in this context.

I think it is best for us as Brahmins to stay away from the topic altogether, but at the same time acknowledge our obvious non-Tamil origin, yet not let that get in the way of integration and co operation with our fellow Tamils and Indians as a whole.

I for one, at best prefer to think of myself as one of Vedic extraction, and consider myself a Brahmin above all regional and linguistic differences.

 

[sangom]

When the young minds are thus indoctrinated, it is easy for the politicians to blame everything on the Brahmins. When there is a fight between Thevars and Dalits, the politicians assert that it is because of the caste system introduced by the Aryans. If many of the Dalits are poor, again it is the Brahmin and his Varnasrama Dharma to bear the blame.
If a love affair between two NBs of different castes ends in a suicide or murder, there also the Bs are blamed for dividing the society into castes.

If one wants to know the basis for this animosity against B for anything and everything that is connected with castes, one should squarely face the fact that it is our Dharmasastras which instituted so many sub-castes within the Sudra class (enjoined originally in PS of RV). The law makers were tolerant about "anuloma" marriages, i.e., a man marrying/having sexual union with a woman of a lower caste, the offsprings of such unions being given labels of sub-divisions but still classified generally as Sudra; but "pratiloma" marriages were so detested that the people born of such unions were classified as Chandalas (untouchables) and assigned the most inhuman and horrible functions of society. From a reading of some of the Dharmasastras I could find that the lawgivers tried to meticulously count each possible permutation and gave a name to the caste and sub-division to which the offsprings shall belong. There is slight variation between the different lawgivers, but those differences are marginal, the general underlying principles being the same.

"...Once caste replaced classes, the Hindu society showed a bias towards the upper three classes and prejudice towards the Sudras and increasing contempt for the untouchables. Castes emerged sometime in post-Vedic period 600 BC - 300 AD.

There is mention of castes in the epics and the Buddhist literature. It is the Dharma Shastras period (ending 10th or 11th century AD) that excelled in giving the final shape to the Hindu caste system, which in all its rigidity continued down to the beginning of the 19th century, particularly in peninsular India..." - Bhangi, Scavenger in Indian Society by Rama Sharma (M D Publications Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, 1995)

Thus, knowingly or unknowingly, the brahmin lawgivers of the Dharmasastra period created two tiers within the erstwhile fourth caste, that is, a higher Sudra and a lower Sudra who became the despicable Chandala or the Untouchable. This must have set in motion a chain reaction within the Sudras to have sub-divisions and since the erstwhile Sudras also were allowed to practice untouchability towards the Chandala, they themselves set rules of untouchability among themselves (and these had just to be approved by their caste council of elders and did not require the brahmin's nod of approval), not-fit for eating together, not drinking even water offered, etc., on to inter-marriage. At the same time there was a constant attempt, on the part of the different sub-divisions within Sudra category to upgrade their status. This is best described in the Madras Census Report of 1901 by Francis, as follows:

"Instances of members of other castes who have assumed the name and position of Vellalas are the Vettuva Vellalas, who are only Puluvans; the Illam Vellalas who are Panikkans; the Karaiturai (lord of the shore) Vellalas who are Karaiyans; the Karukamattai (palmyra leaf-stem) Vellalas, who are Balijas; the Guha (Rama's boatmen) Vellalas, who are Sembadavans; and the Irkuli Vellalas who are Vannans. The children of dancing-girls also often call themselves Mudali, and claim in time to be Vellalas, and even Paraiyans assume the title of Pillai and trust to its eventually enabling them to pass themselves off as members of the caste."

Such attempts at self-upgradation was not fiercely objected to by the recipient sub-division in those days of alien rule due, perhaps, to fear of brutal suppression by the Government. But now, obviously, a different situation prevails since one of them stands to gain - in terms of social standing, etc., - while the other will have more numbers to share the cake of the largesse from the Government.

Behind and below all these ugly manifestations of caste prejudices lies the system originally devised by the hegemonic brahmins. It is but natural, therefore, that brahmins are still blamed for these evils just as we tend to blame the British for many of the ills of our country. The difference is that the British are alien, they came to colonize and did not form a section of the Indian society whereas B are unfortunately still available here in India to be constantly vilified!

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri vikrama, Greetings!

.... I have observed many teachers telling the students, while teaching this topic, "We are Dravidians and the Paappaans are Aryans".

[..]

Thus everywhere Bs are looked down upon with suspicion and hatred.

You have brought up a lot of points here, some of which I agree and some I am unable to. Caste is a touchy subject and why at all is it being taught in school, except to teach them உயர்ச்சி தாழ்ச்சி சொல்லல் பாவம். More nuanced teaching can come in higher classes. Political meddling in school curriculum is a universal phinomenon, not unique to the DK/DMK types.

... If Brahmins brought Sanskrit and Varnasrama system from north, it had occurred well before T. (The likes of Mu.Ka. would like us to believe that there was no B in Tamil land till the Sangam period)

Even the word "parayan" is found in Sangam literature, not just parpanar. So one can reasonably guess that by the Sangam period caste system with all its breadth was already present. Did Mu.Ka really say that caste system is post sangam period?

Anyway, I can see the role AIT can play in the polemics of B v. NB, and the purity of Tamil against the varna ideology of Sanskrit, etc. But, I still can't understand why AIT is part of the political agenda on a national scale. The Hindutva forces are opposed to the AIT, what is their calculation? They can probably object to "invasion", but they cannot deny people claiming to be Aryans came to India from outside. There is enough genetic evidence to support that.

...During the time of Azhvars, the difference could not have been pronounced and it could have come to the fore only in the later period. Just another guess.

There is no need to guess, because we can pretty much pin point at what period of time differences began to emerge. It was about 100 to 150 years after Bhagavat Ramanuja. At that time, there were two great SV scholars, namely, Swami Pillai Lokachariyar (SPL) and Swami Sri Desikan (SSD). They are the first to openly express divergent opinions. SPL was older and probably had passed on by the time of SSD. Even here, SSD was very careful and did not name SPL anywhere, and always referring to him by the epithet "Abhyuktar" meaning the respected one. The terminologies -- Thenkalai and Vadakalai -- did not exist at that time.

Even at this time the two competing views coexisted without great antagonism. But later, the sishyas of these two scholars ended up carrying the dispute too far. The followers of SPL are Thenkalai and SSD's followers are Vadakalai. This certainly did not happen at some instant in time, but gradually over a long period. Even now, with so much rivalry, there is lot of give and take as well. The only place where they do not compromise is temples. In Patashalas, Matams, and other places where SVs gather, they mix freely without any rancor.

The funny thing is, today, Sri Ahobila Matam, the largest Vadakalai institution shares acharya lineage with SPL, the Thenkalai, and the Prathivathi Bhayankaram Anna clan of Kachipuram, who are staunchest of staunch Thenkalais, traces its acharya lineage to SSD, the patron saint of Vadakalais.

...I would like to know one thing. Was it not Ramanuja, who instituted the custom of wearing 'Thiruman'? The two types of Thiruman- were they introduced by him or by later Acharyas?

The only mention connecting Thirman and Bhagavat Ramanuja occurs during his time in exile at Thirunarayanapuram. It is said they were running out of Thiruman and Garduan came in Ramanuja's dream and guided him to a spot where there is seemingly limitless supply of the soft rock from which Thiruman is made. Even today, Thirunarayanapuram Thiruman is of excellent quality and sought after by all practicing SVs. Other than this incidence there is no mention of Ramanuja introducing the custom of wearing Urdva Pundaram.

The origin of the two shapes is not clear at all. Even SSD does not say much about it except that it is to start from the base of the nose. Vadakalais take it to mean the nose bridge, and the Thenkalai, who BTW hold SSD in great respect, take it to mean the tip.

In fact, if you look at the way really orthodox vadakalais wear Thiruman you will find it curves down the nose bridge in a way that looks like a Thenkalai Thiruman. The difference in Thiruman in all probability was an accidental difference exaggerated over time.

Cheers!

 

[vikrama]

Sri Nara,
Thanks for the enlightenment. a few more doubts-
Was there at any point of time any mass conversion to Vaishnavam?
Can you point out when the catholicity of the first three Azhvars gave way to schism between Saivam and Vaishnavam?

In a previous thread, I had pointed out to the reference of Perumal and SVs wearing sacred ash in Nalayira Divya Prabandham. Does the Azhvar really mean the sacred Ash or does it denote something else?

Do you think that Ganapati in Siva temples and Vishvaksenar of Perumal temples can have the same origin?

 

[RVR]

Sri Vikrama said `Do you think that Ganapati in Siva temples and Vishvaksenar of Perumal temples can have the same origin?'

There are Divyadesams inside Siva temples - Kanchi Ekambareswarar temple, Kamakshi Amman Temple and Chidambaram Nataraja temple etc. There are Vishnu idols inside several Shiva temples.

Kanchi Varadaraja Perumal temple has a Vinayaka Sannidhi inside the temple.

All the above are very old temples with long history.

It means there was not much of differences in Shiva/Vishnu worship long back. Only thing which we can see is Azhwars focussed only Perumal and Nayanmars focussed only Siva in the period 7th century Ad to 9th Century AD

Was there no differences before that?

Even today in Kerala, the same Namboothiri is doing Pooja for all deities including Shiva and Vishnu. However in Tamilnadu it is divided as Gurukkal and Battachariar. May be Adi Sankara's philosophy of Shanmatha worship worked better in Kerala because he is of Kerala origin.

All the best

 

[S.Chandrasekaran]

அன்புள்ள சகோதரரர்களுக்கு, ஜாதி அடிப்படையில் கணக்கெடுப்பு நடப்பது பற்றி நாம் பேச ஆரம்பித்து தற்போது ராமானுஜர் வரையில் வந்துதுள்ளோம். பள்ளிகளில் மாணவர்களுக்கு பாரத தேச வரலாற்றை போதிக்கும் ஆசிரியர்கள் அந்தணர்களைப் பற்றி (நம்மைப் பற்றி) அவதூறுகள் கூறி மற்ற இனத்தை சேர்ந்தவர்களை மனச்சலவை செய்து அந்தணர்களை பகைவர்களாகவும் வேற்று நாட்டவர்களாகவும் நினைக்க வைத்து இன்றும் அந்த உணர்வில் குளிர் காய்ந்து வருகின்றனர். இதில் நமது முன்னோர்கள் இறை வழிபாட்டில் பஞ்சபூதங்களில் துவங்கி தற்போது உள்ள உருவ வழிபாடு வரையில் ஆன்மீகத்தில் பாரத மக்களை உயர்த்தி இருக்கிறார்கள். இருப்பினும், அந்தனர்களிடத்தில் இருக்கின்ற உட்பிரிவுகளால் ஒற்றுமை குறைந்து ஏற்றத்தாழ்வுகள் நிறைந்து ஏதும் முயற்சிகள் செய்ய இயலாத நிலையில் தற்போது வாழ்ந்து வருகிறோம். மகாகவி பாரதி " ஒன்றுபட்டால் உண்டு வாழ்வு நம்மில் ஒற்றுமை நீங்கிடில் அனைவர்க்கும் தாழ்வே " என்று வெகு காலத்திற்கு முன்பே கூறி உள்ளார், அதை இப்போதாவது உணர்ந்து ஒன்றுபட்டு உயர்வடைவோமாக!

 

[S.Chandrasekaran]

அன்புள்ள சகோதரரர்களுக்கு, ஜாதி அடிப்படையில் கணக்கெடுப்பு நடப்பது பற்றி நாம் பேச ஆரம்பித்து தற்போது ராமானுஜர் வரையில் வந்துதுள்ளோம். பள்ளிகளில் மாணவர்களுக்கு பாரத தேச வரலாற்றை போதிக்கும் ஆசிரியர்கள் அந்தணர்களைப் பற்றி (நம்மைப் பற்றி) அவதூறுகள் கூறி மற்ற இனத்தை சேர்ந்தவர்களை மனச்சலவை செய்து அந்தணர்களை பகைவர்களாகவும் வேற்று நாட்டவர்களாகவும் நினைக்க வைத்து இன்றும் அந்த உணர்வில் குளிர் காய்ந்து வருகின்றனர். இதில் நமது முன்னோர்கள் இறை வழிபாட்டில் பஞ்சபூதங்களில் துவங்கி தற்போது உள்ள உருவ வழிபாடு வரையில் ஆன்மீகத்தில் பாரத மக்களை உயர்த்தி இருக்கிறார்கள். இருப்பினும், அந்தனர்களிடத்தில் இருக்கின்ற உட்பிரிவுகளால் ஒற்றுமை குறைந்து ஏற்றத்தாழ்வுகள் நிறைந்து ஏதும் முயற்சிகள் செய்ய இயலாத நிலையில் தற்போது வாழ்ந்து வருகிறோம். மகாகவி பாரதி " ஒன்றுபட்டால் உண்டு வாழ்வு நம்மில் ஒற்றுமை நீங்கிடில் அனைவர்க்கும் தாழ்வே " என்று வெகு காலத்திற்கு முன்பே கூறி உள்ளார், அதை இப்போதாவது உணர்ந்து ஒன்றுபட்டு உயர்வடைவோமாக!

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri vikrama, Greetings!

....
Was there at any point of time any mass conversion to Vaishnavam?

Hard to point to any particular evidence for this, but surely there was tremendous growth in the ranks of SVs during Bhagavat Ramanuja's time.

Can you point out when the catholicity of the first three Azhvars gave way to schism between Saivam and Vaishnavam?

I don't agree with the implied premise entirely, that early Azhvars accepted Shiva as equal to Vishnu. First, I don't think any of the Azhvars, not just the first three, put down other deities. Thondaradippodi Azhvar has some very harsh words for Jains and Buddists, but nothing about Shaivites.

Only in Ramanuja Nootrandati, which was not authored by an Azhvar and yet considered part of the 4000 by Vadakalis, not by Thenkalais, we see one mention of Saivits in bad light, and that is probably because by that time the clash between Saivaim and Vaishnavam was in full bloom -- more about this below.

People who say some of the Ahvars had a borad and catholic outlook cite verses like this one from the முதல் நூற்றந்தாதி of Poigai Azhvar.

அரன் நாரணன் நாமம், ஆன்விடை புள் ஊர்தி
உரை நூல் மறை உறையும் கோயில் வரை நீர்
கருமம் அழிப்பு அளிப்புக் கையது வேல் நேமி
உருவம் எரி கார் மேனி ஒன்று #5
​

This verse can be interpreted to mean Hari and Haran are the same. But that is a misunderstanding. The Azhvar concludes the verse with மேனி ஒன்று, which is the quintessence of Vishitadvaitam which holds that Narayanan, as Ishwara, ensouls everything, and everything is like a body to Narayana. This will be clear from the two more verses of the same Azhvar I have cite below.

முதல் ஆவார் மூவரே, அம் மூவர் உள்ளும்
முதல் ஆவான் மூரி நீர் வண்ணன் முதல் ஆய
நல்லான் அருள் அல்லால் நாம நீர் வையகத்து
பல்லார் அருளும் பழுது. #15
​

In this verse, the Azhvar makes clear that for him Narayana is supreme. In the following verse he goes even further and declares his supreme fidelity to Narayana.

நயவேன் பிறர் பொருளை, நள்ளேன் கீழாரோடு
உயவேன் உயர்ந்தவரோடு அல்லால் வியவேன்
திருமாலை அல்லது தெய்வம் என்றேத்தேன்
வருமாறென் என்மேல் வினை. #64
​

You will find such sentiments expressed by all Azhvars. Their catholic outlook is limited to not demeaning others. Once again, no Azhvar has put down Shiva, but all of them were fierce Vaishnavas, holding Narayana to be the supreme Lord and refusing to worship any other god or even associate with anyone other than Vaishnavas.

In a previous thread, I had pointed out to the reference of Perumal and SVs wearing sacred ash in Nalayira Divya Prabandham. Does the Azhvar really mean the sacred Ash or does it denote something else?

Please give me the reference and I will look it up.

Do you think that Ganapati in Siva temples and Vishvaksenar of Perumal temples can have the same origin?

As I am sure you know, Ganapathi is a title, not a proper noun. I think it was Shri sangom who mentioned elsewhere that Vinayaka was made into Ganapathy of Shiva's entourage rather recently. Vishvaksena is indeed Ganapathy of Sri Vaikuntam. Some say that the elephant god you see in some Vaishnava temples is not Vinayaka, but a Vaishnava Gana under Visvaksena. It seems these elephant gods have both tusks in tact, unlike Vinayaka. I am not sure whether this is indeed the case for all the temples where there is a sannidhi for this elephant gana.

BTW, as RVR has commented, two of the 108 Dhivya Deams that SVs revere are located inside Shaivite temples. One is in Kanchi Ekambaresswarar temple. The other is simply a carving on a pillar inside Kanchi Kamakshi temple.

Also, there are several Dhivya Desams with sannidhi for Shiva within the precincts of the temple. Two that come to my mind are Uththamar Kovil near Trichy and Thirukkoshtiyur temple of உரக மெல் அணையான். In Thirukkovalur உலகளந்த பெருமாள் temple, there is a sannidhi for Ambal inside the sanctum.

From what I gather, the SV animosity towards Shaivites peaked during Bhagavat Ramanuja's time. At the hands of Shaivites supported by the Cholas, Ramanuja's Acharya Periya Nambi was killed, his disciple Kooresa was blinded, he himself was exiled to Thirunarayanapuram, and Govindaraja Perumal was removed from Chidambaram temple and deposited in the sea. SVs don't buy the theory that this was done to expand the temple -- they say that could have been done without the removal, or at the very least the idol could have been installed elsewhere instead of throwing into the sea.

There is lot of misunderstanding about SVs not worshiping any other deity than Sriman Narayana. Since I was a practicing SV before becoming a free thinker, I am familiar with the reasoning behind this. Within the context of SV belief their stand of worshiping only Sriman Narayana is not out of narrow mindedness as many assume.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

all of migrated from africa so amt is true ie african mibgration theory,instead of aryan make it african,all izz good.

andanargal or paarpan or seers is a speciality human species globally.in kali yugam,shudran will rule.so shudras are ruling.still have 432,000 years left for kali yugam to end,as we are only 5112 kali yugam.

 

[nachi naga]

nara,

Within the context of SV belief their stand of worshiping only Sriman Narayana is not out of narrow mindedness as many assume.

its indeed a state of affairs,that a non-believer of SV sampradayas,is holding a brief for them.:becky:I am sure out of braod mindedness and an inate sense of large heartedness,SV's do not worship or allow ppl to worship lord shiva & goddess shakthi,lord brahma & goddess saraswathy,and in the case of vaishnavas like achintya behdabedha tatvam of goswamis,they allow only lord krishna & goddess radha rani as titular heads,not even poor ole lord narayana & goddess lakshmi.How wonderfull and delightful are Vaishu's world over.na ma si va ya :faint2:

 

[vikrama]

Sri Nara, here are the verses you asked for.
கரியமேனி மிசை வெளிய நீறு சிறிதேயிடும்
பெரியகோலத் தடங்கண்ணன் விண்ணோர் பெருமான் தன்னை
உரியசொல்லா லிசைமாலைகள் ஏத்தியுள்ளப் பெற்றேற்கு
அரியதுண்டோ எனக்கின்று தொட்டு மினியென்றுமே [நாலாயிர திவ்விய பிரபந்தம் 3172]

ஏறியபித்தினோ டெல்லாவுலகும் கண்ணன் படைப்பென்னும்
நீறு செவ்வே யிடக்காணில் நெடுமால் அடியார் என்றோடும்
நாறுதுழாய் மலர்காணில் நாரணன் கண்ணி மீதென்னும்
தேறியும் தேறாது மாயோன் திறத்தனளே யித்திருவே [நாலாயிர திவ்விய பிரபந்தம் 3162]

 

[vikrama]

Sri Nara,
In my humble opinion, you forced your belief in interpreting the meaning of மேனி ஒன்று. When the body is one, why should it mean the body of Narayana and exclude Siva? The first line clearly says that He is variously called as அரன், நாரணன்.

The verse given below also says that the Father on the Thirumala Hills has two forms. He does not say that Narayana contains within Himself the form of Siva or Siva contains within Himself Narayana. It is only எந்தை, appearing variously to various devotees. In effect, Godhead is One.

தாழ்சடையும் நீண்முடியும் ஒண்மழுவும் சக்கரமும்
சூழரவும் பொன்னாணும் தோன்றுமால் சூழும்
திரண்டருவி பாயும் திருமலைமேல் எந்தைக்கு
இரண்டுருவம் ஒன்றாய் இசைந்து - நாலாயிர திவ்விய பிரபந்தம் 2344

 

[Nara]

.... you forced your belief in interpreting the meaning of மேனி ஒன்று. When the body is one, why should it mean the body of Narayana and exclude Siva?

The verse given below also says that the Father on the Thirumala Hills has two forms. ..... In effect, Godhead is One.

Dear Shri vikrama, Greetings!

First, let me state clearly that I have no personal stake in this, I look at it more from an academic POV than trying to fit my belief. My own personal belief is well known here.

The problem with your conclusion vikrama is how do you then reconcile your view with other places where the Azhvars unambiguously state Thirumal is the supreme, lording over Shiva and Brahmma. These sentiments are repeatedly expressed by all the Azhvars including the first three. So, when I view the SV commentator's interpretations dispassionately, I have to agree with them. If you get a chance please take a look at Swami Periyacachchan Pillai's commentary of these verses.

In the case of தாழ்சடையும் verse, I don't dispute that this verse does give room to your view. In fact the earlier Shankarachariyar, Chandrasekara Swamigal, wrote an article on it to say the lord of Thirvengadam is Shiva also.

But viewed in totality, there is no ambiguity. There are some 15 or so references to Thiruvengadam in this prabhandam, and all refer to Thirumal. In these verses the Azhvar leaves no room for ambiguity on his view on the lord of Thirvengadam. There is no doubt as to what Azhvar had in his mind.

My own personal opinion is, the azhvar got it all wrong. Thirvengadam is neither Vishnu nor Shiva, it is originally a Jain temple, converted to Vishnu temple.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri. vikrama,

.... Perumal and SVs wearing sacred ash in Nalayira Divya Prabandham. Does the Azhvar really mean the sacred Ash or does it denote something else?

I was able to locate the verses, they are 4.4.7 and 4.5.6 of Swami Nammazhvar's Thiruvaymozhi. Here is what the commentaries say.

The term நீறு appears in quick succession three times, you have cited two of them. The third one is 4.6.6. The word நீறு does mean சாம்பல், but it also means dust தூசி and சுண்ணாம்பு தூள் as well. We will start from verse 4.6.6. as the meaning of நீறு is very clear here.

தணியும் பொழுதில்லை நீர் அணங்கு ஆடுதிர் அன்னைமீர்
பிணியும் ஒழிகின்றதில்லை பெருகும் இது அல்லால்
மணியின் அணி நிற மாயன் தமரடி நீறு கொண்டு
அணிய முயலின் மற்றில்லை கண்டீர் இவ்வணங்குக்கே.
​

This verse is about a girl gone mad with love for the lord. There is no way it is going to subside. The only sure remedy is to apply the dust gathered from the feet of the devotees of that beautiful conjurer (மாயன்) of emerald hue (மணியின் அணி நிற). So, clearly, நீறு here is dust.

Next, let us look at verse 4.4.7

ஏறியபித்தினோடு எல்லாவுலகும் கண்ணன் படைப்பென்னும்
நீறு செவ்வேயிடக் காணில் நெடுமால் அடியார் என்றோடும்
நாறுதுழாய் மலர்காணில் நாரணன் கண்ணி யீதென்னும்
தேறியும் தேறாதும் மாயோன் திறத்தனளே யித்திருவே
​

This verse is also about a girl gone mad with love for Nedumal. This verse describes some of her crazy actions. If she sees anyone with நீறு இட i.e. wearing dust, but செவ்வே இட -- in vertical fashion, i.e. in the ஊர்த்வ புண்டரம் style -- she goes behind them saying they are நெடுமால் அடியார். Here as well, the நீறு is not சாம்பல்.

Finally, verse 4.5.6:

கரியமேனி மிசை வெளிய நீறு சிறிதேயிடும்
பெரியகோலத் தடங்கண்ணன் விண்ணோர் பெருமான் தன்னை
உரியசொல்லா லிசைமாலைகள் ஏத்தியுள்ளப் பெற்றேற்கு
அரியதுண்டோ எனக்கின்று தொட்டு மினியென்றுமே
​

In this verse Nammazhvar is describing the physical beauty of Perumal in Sri Vaikuntam. The opening phrase 'கரியமேனி மிசை வெளிய நீறு சிறிதேயிடும் பெரியகோல" is supposed to be an adjective for the lord's 'தடங்கண்". The meaning is, a small amount of வெளிய நீறு (white powder) on his eyes applied as some sort of mascara.

If there is a question as to why anyone would apply white power in the eyes, in pasuram 4.6.5 Azhvar uses the term தவளப்பொடி கொண்டு நீர் இட்டிடுமின், where தவளப்பொடி has essentially the same meaning as வெளிய நீறு, pure powder. Further, Thirumangai Azhvar uses the word நீறு itself in exactly the same sense, namely mascara. In Siriya Thirmadal the Azhvar says, ஆரார் அயில் வேற்கண் அஞ்சத்தின் நீறணிந்து, where அஞ்சனம் is mascara. Here நீறு refers to the powder that is applied to the eyes.

When all this is taken together it is unreasonable to think நீறு in the above refers to திருநீறு i.e. பஸ்பம்.

Cheers!

 

[vikrama]

the Azhvars unambiguously state Thirumal is the supreme, lording over Shiva and Brahmma. These sentiments are repeatedly expressed by all the Azhvars including the first three.

To me it appears that the Azhvar, in his initial stages was deeply attached to the form called Narayana and considers Siva and Brahma as subordinate to that form. At the height of devotion, he realises the one supreme nameless Brahmam which is given various names by various people. Now he knows that Godhead is one and though he prefers to call it by the name Narayana, he admits that It can also be called Siva.
That is the magic of religion. The more you are absorbed in it, the more catholic you become. Many Christian and Muslim saints have also reached that stage where they do not mind the differences of name and form. Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's life illustrates this best.

My own personal opinion is, the azhvar got it all wrong. Thirvengadam is neither Vishnu nor Shiva, it is originally a Jain temple, converted to Vishnu temple.

Please do not confuse history with devotion. Whether it be of Jain origin or Buddhist origin, as far as Azhvar is concerned it is a form of the formless Brahmam.

 

[SALEM]

To: All, After reading all replys my concluction is this as our Siddhers said Siva and Vishnu and Brahma are just devaths for three stages in our own body.The supreme lord is Sadasivam which one can obtain the higher stage of Meditation. Paranathaoli and Parabraham. The best way just Travel inside within ones body and find themself wether they are Vaishnavates or Saivates. For Sri Nara sir, re T.N.Seshan is related to us and our family members my mothers Father is used Single srisurnam in his forehead and my uncle is using the same but he is a stringent follower of Kanchi Maha Swamigal and he is initiated by him. But my father is use only the Vebuthi and in centre use sandle paste with Kumkumam. WE brothers uses convenient to them. I am not useing any such in my forehead, so any one say I am not a Tb or Nasthic.Every thing is the Mind. I am following my GURUs orders and duing Meditation as per the Guru's Intiation Manthras. I am Happy. s.r.k.