Can you place Amman's garland at your home pooja photos?

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Chandruji,
Where did you get this idea that Adi Shankara was a SHivite?
What about Bhajagovindum, Kanakdhara strotram, Bhasyam on Gita etc. They are all not shivite.
Why drag everything to this divide between Shiva-vishnu?

 

[JR]

Back to topic:

Something Amman related: Virtual pooja to Kanchi Kamakshi: http://www.eprarthana.com/virtual/vamman.asp

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir,

Does it mean that Adi Sankara cut his mother's dead body into pieces?

How weird!! :dizzy:

The story or myth that has been passed down the ages is that he cut the dead body into 3 pieces, took them to the pyre made out in the house compound itself and lit fire by invoking his yogic powers, whereupon, the other Nambudiris became aware of Shankara's greatness and yogic powers, etc., and did prostration and begged for his mercy.

It may look weird, but it was a weird world here in this land of ours, a thousand years ago.

 

[sangom]

My argument that Namboodhiris are not Shaivites becomes valid from the above narration. One member in this forum contended that Adi Shankara was a Shaivite.

If Adi Shankara's parents were indeed true Shaivites, why did they go to Guruvayur and seek the blessing of the God, who will not be considered by a true and staunch Shaivite as God? They could have gone to Shiva temple instead.

Chandru sir,

Very obviously, Adishankara's parents could not have belonged to the Vaishnavite group as we know them today, simply from the name Shankara! Even today many Nambudiris have names of Siva, Sankara, Subramanya, etc. But, generally, Nambudiris wear sandal paste instead of Vibhuti; this is because the belief and custom among the Nambudiris is that for one to wear Vibhuti, the person has to observe so many restrictions, plus, the vibhuti has to be made from cowdung only at home and in the prescribed manner, and so on.

As a thumb-rule, old gentlemen (women from Nambudiris are not to wear Vibhuti) who have almost become vaanaprastha-like or half way to Sanyasa, only wear Vibhuti. Thus Nambudiris are ultra Shaivites, so to say! Since no such severe conditions attach to sandal, vishnu-worship, etc., the majority of Nambudiris behave as if they are Vaishnavites; the importance given by them to Guruvayur adds to this appearance.

 

[Raji Ram]

The story or myth that has been passed down the ages is that he cut the dead body into 3 pieces, took them to the pyre made out in the house compound itself and lit fire by invoking his yogic powers, whereupon, the other Nambudiris became aware of Shankara's greatness and yogic powers, etc., and did prostration and begged for his mercy.

It may look weird, but it was a weird world here in this land of ours, a thousand years ago.

Very true, Sir! Thank you.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Chandruji,
Where did you get this idea that Adi Shankara was a SHivite?
What about Bhajagovindum, Kanakdhara strotram, Bhasyam on Gita etc. They are all not shivite.
Why drag everything to this divide between Shiva-vishnu?

You read my post carefully. One member in this forum maintains that Adi Shankara is a Shaivite and I countered that comment.

Saying Adi Shankar doesn't mean that it indulges in fight between Shaivite and Vaishnavite. It is only a question of who is a true Shaivite. Probably you may not like debate.

Once again, my strong contention is that a true Shaivite Saint will and should not recognize Vaishnavite Gods, let alone worshipping.

 

[renuka]

Once again, my strong contention is that a true Shaivite Saint will and should not recognize Vaishnavite Gods, let alone worshipping.

Dear Chandru,

Are there really any 100% Shaivites who do not worship Vaishnava Gods?

Its extremely rare we find people who only worship Shiva.

In fact I am yet to meet anyone who is a self proclaimed Shaivite who does not acknowledge Vishnu.

One should admire people who are open minded enough to see God in every form.

Its not healthy to be closed minded.

 

[Raji Ram]

........ Once again, my strong contention is that a true Shaivite Saint will and should not recognize Vaishnavite Gods, let alone worshipping.

Your contention Sir!

But I don't think you have the power to control Saivite saints!

 

[Raji Ram]

...... Something Amman related: Virtual pooja to Kanchi Kamakshi: http://www.eprarthana.com/virtual/vamman.asp

Thank you Jayashree.

'eprarthana' enables virtual pooja to many other deities too!

Here is one for Lord Balaji: eprarthana-Balaji

For other deities, please go to this page: eprarthana - virtual pooja

 

[yesmohan]

No shaivite hesitates to go to Vaishnav temple.But generally no Valshnavites of those days tolerate the very idea of going to Shaivite temples.

Now those days have gone.

Now sons and grandsons so called Vaishnavs are loitering in Bars and Thalappa kattis.

Dughters and grand daughters are running mad after the so called lowest class boys for reasons best known to them only.

 

[yesmohan]

The very words " Home Pooja Photos" sounds awkward. In case, if a person consider as mere photos one need not do any Pooja. Just throw them aside. If worshipped, they are not mere photos for the worshipper. God is a God in any form for the true believer.

 

[sangom]

You read my post carefully. One member in this forum maintains that Adi Shankara is a Shaivite and I countered that comment.

Saying Adi Shankar doesn't mean that it indulges in fight between Shaivite and Vaishnavite. It is only a question of who is a true Shaivite. Probably you may not like debate.

Once again, my strong contention is that a true Shaivite Saint will and should not recognize Vaishnavite Gods, let alone worshipping.

Shri Chandru Sir,

When we use the word "Saivite" in everyday use, it means only "not a vaishnavite" and, among Tabras, it will mean "Smaarthas". As you may well know, Vishnu is a name of a deva appearing in the rigveda itself and the smaarthas accept all the devatas from the rig-, yajur- and saama vedas.

Vaishnavam of the Ramanujacharya kind is very recent (A.D. 1200 or so according to scholars) in hindu history and it keeps a certain abhorrence for Siva and things saivite. Probably this step helps the vaishnavites to have more concentrated bhakti towards Vishnu and other vaishnava deities!

There is a third, the Saivite Aadheenams of Tamilnadu for example and I am not aware whether they reciprocate the anti-siva sentiments of the vaishnavites by abhorring all things vishnu and vishnu-related!

Once a person comes to understand and appreciate Siva vaakkiyar's advices as below:

நட்டகல்லைத் தெய்வம் என்று நாலுபுட்பம் சாத்தியே
சுற்றிவந்து முணமுணன்று சொல்லும்மந்திரம் ஏதடா
நட்டகல்லும் பேசுமோ நாதன் உள்ளிருக்கையில்
சுட்டசட்டி சட்டுவம் கறிச்சுவை அறியுமோ ?



கோயில்பள்ளி ஏதடா குறித்து நின்றது ஏதடா
வாயினால் தொழுது நின்ற மந்திரங்கள் ஏதடா
ஞானமான பள்ளியில் நன்மையாய் வணங்கினால்
காயமான பள்ளியில் காணலாம் இறையையே

or, the thirumanthiram of Thirumoolar which says:—

உள்ளம் பெருங்கோவில் ஊனுடம்பு ஆலயம்
வள்ளல்பிரானுக்கு வாய் கோபுரவாசல்
தெள்ளத்தெளிந்தார்‍க்கு சீவன் சிவலிங்கம்
கள்ளப்புலனைந்தும் காளாமணிவிளக்கே

then, humanity will appear at the right place and all these religions and beliefs will lose all significance.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Your contention Sir!

But I don't think you have the power to control Saivite saints!

For that matter, no individual has any power to control others. It is only imagination or due to too much of affection on an individual.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Dear Chandru,

Are there really any 100% Shaivites who do not worship Vaishnava Gods?

Its extremely rare we find people who only worship Shiva.

In fact I am yet to meet anyone who is a self proclaimed Shaivite who does not acknowledge Vishnu.

One should admire people who are open minded enough to see God in every form.

Its not healthy to be closed minded.

Madam,

You are mixing common people with saints attached to a specific religion or sect.

Normally, a Saint of a particular religion or sect will talk only about the religion or sect he belongs to. If he/she discusses about all Gods, he will not be considered to be exclusive. Religion or sect, in fact, expects only the exclusiveness from the saints.

Sometime back, a famous Bharanatyam dancer, in an interview, said that her grandmother used to give the first produce from her land to Velankanni and Nagore. The dancer hails from Nagapattinam.

Let us be clear about individual and Saint.

The contention is whether Adi Shankar was a Shaivite or not. Since he dealt with all Gods, he is only a Hindu and not exclusive to any particular sect.

 

[Vaagmi]

Shri Chandru Sir,
When we use the word "Saivite" in everyday use, it means only "not a vaishnavite" and, among Tabras, it will mean "Smaarthas". As you may well know, Vishnu is a name of a deva appearing in the rigveda itself and the smaarthas accept all the devatas from the rig-, yajur- and saama vedas.
Vaishnavam of the Ramanujacharya kind is very recent (A.D. 1200 or so according to scholars) in hindu history and it keeps a certain abhorrence for Siva and things saivite. Probably this step helps the vaishnavites to have more concentrated bhakti towards Vishnu and other vaishnava deities!
There is a third, the Saivite Aadheenams of Tamilnadu for example and I am not aware whether they reciprocate the anti-siva sentiments of the vaishnavites by abhorring all things vishnu and vishnu-related!
Once a person comes to understand and appreciate Siva vaakkiyar's advices as below:

நட்டகல்லை............... அறியுமோ ?
கோயில்பள்ளி ஏதடா ..........இறையையே
or, the thirumanthiram of Thirumoolar which says:—
உள்ளம் பெருங்கோவில் ................காளாமணிவிளக்கே
then, humanity will appear at the right place and all these religions and beliefs will lose all significance.

As everyone here is speculating without any reference to history or mixing history with their fancy-full flight of imagination, let me also try it here:

First the history:

Vaishnavam means vishnu worship and saivam means siva worship. Vishnu and Siva are names of the God entity. Though God entity can not be many, the way a human being captures that entity within its mind and intellect varies from religion to religion.

Now let us see historically how old is Vaishnavam.

Rig Veda has reference to Vishnu. Vishnu is worshiped in Rig Veda as the God who pervades everything. Rig veda refers to Thrivikrama. Vaikuntha is the place of Vishnu. The way to Vishnu by absolute surrender to him-This too is said in Veda. Rig Veda in it's 10th Book - 19th anthology is called Purusha Suktha. Vishnu is known by the term Purusha.
Yajur veda 31-22 has the same subject of Vishnu spoken about. There is similar references to Vishnu in Sama Veda and Atharva Veda also. There is reference to Vishnu in Aithareya Brahmanam. The word Narayana is used to mention Vishnu in the Black Yajur Veda for the first time.

So Vishnu worship or Vaishnavam is old beyond the times of Vedas.

In Upanishads too there are several references to Vishnu worship.

Panini's sutra 3;98 for which Pathanjali has written a bhashya speaks about the meaning of the word Vasudeva.

There is a place called Kosundhi in the state of Rajasthan. A stone engraving discovered there belonging to BC 2nd century speaks about worship of Vasudeva and Sankarshana. The stone engraving has been properly dated by the archaeologists.

Another stone engraving belonging to the same period found in Beznaagar speaks about a certain Greek pilgrim by name Eliadora who built a memorial Garuda sthamba. The engraved message speaks about this Greek pilgrim calling himself a Bhaagavatha.

In Naanaghat caves in a stone engraving, there is reference to worship of sankarshana and Vasudeva. This engraving has been determined by archaeologists to be from the BC 1st century.

In Itihasas there are several references to exclusive Vishnu Worship.

All this proves the indeterminably ancient origin of Vaishnavam. Ramanuja is just one of the several acharyas who were Vaishnavs. Period. To say that Vaishnavam started with Ramanuja is like telling Saivam started after Sankara.

About my flight of fancy I will write in the next third post. LOL.

 

[Vaagmi]

Now post #2:

As we are discussing things with reference to Tamil Brahmins' belief systems, it is worth looking at evidences which determine the antiquity of Vaishnavam in the Tamil country.

Tholkaappiyam is considered the most ancient literary work available in Tamil.

"மாயோன் மேய காடுறை உலகமும்" -- தொல். பொருள்.அகத்திணை- 5

"மாயோன் மேய மன்பெருஞ்சிறப்பிற்
றாவா விழுப்புகழ் பூவை நிலையும் -- தொல். பொருள். புறத்திணை-5.

These two references indicate the existence of Vishnu worship in the days of Tholkaappiyam.

கடல்வளர் புரிவளை புரையு மேனி
யடல்வெந் நாஞ்சிற் பனைக்கொடியோனுக்

மண்ணுறு திருமணி புரையுமேனி
விண்ணுயர் பொற்கொடி விறல் வெய்யோனும் --புறநானூறு.

(திருமணி-ஸ்ரீவத்ஸம்). இப்பாடலை நச்சினார்க்கினியார் தம் உரையில் கையாண்டிருப்பதைக்காணமுடிகிறது.

Also the reference in Tholkaappiyam as

காமப்பகுதி கடவுளும் வரையார்
ஏனோர்மருங்கினும் என்மனார் புலவர் and

குழவி மருங்கிலும் கிழவ தாகும்

These are from tholkappiyam puraththinai 23 and 24.

In Sangam Literature:

In Paththuppaattu (AD 2nd century):

"புள்ளணி நீள்கொடிச்செல்வன்" -- திருமுருகாற்றுப்படை அடி 151.
"நாற்பெருந்தெய்வத்து நன்னகர் நிலையிய
உலகம் காக்கும் ஒன்று புரிகொள்கை" -- திருமுருகாற்றுப்படை அடி 160,161.

"இருநிலங்கடந்த திருமறு மார்பின்
முந்நீர்வண்ணன் பிறக்கடை" -- பெரும்பாணாற்றுப்படை 29-31.

"காந்தளஞ்சிலம்பில் கயிறுபடிந்தாங்குப்
பாம்பணைப்பள்ளி யமர்ந்தோனாங்கண்" --பெரும்பாணாற்றுப்படை 372,373.

"......நேமியொடு வலம்புரி பொறித்த மாதாங்கு தடக்கை
நீர்செல நிமிர்ந்த மாஅல் போல" -- முல்லைப்பாட்டு அடி 1-3.

"கணங்கொள் அவுணர்க்கடந்த பொலந்தார்
மாயோன் மேய ஓண நன்னாள்" -- மதுரைக்காஞ்சி 591-9

Now the other major anthology called Ettuththokai speaks thus:

This anthology belongs to the BC 1st century.

Paripadal 1,2,3,4,13,15 may be referred to. These poems speaks of
thirumaal who has Adi seshan as his bed. He has Sri in his chest. He wears Koustubham, He has srivatsam in his chest. etc., etc., There is a poem which speaks about the Thirumaliruncholai, a divya desam.

Kaliththokai (8-10) speaks about

"பனைக்கொடிப்பால் நிற வண்ணன்"
"புகழ்நெமித்திரு மறு மார்பன்" etc.,

akananUru speaks as:

"கோகுலம் மேய்த்துக் குறுத்தொசித்தான் என்பரால்" (20)

நற்றிணை speaks about

"மாநிலஞ்சேவடியாகத் தூனீர்.......தீதற விளங்கிய திகிரியோனே" (1)

And there are several references in the other major anthology pathinenkeezhkanakku also. I am not giving them for space and time.

There are several references in the Silappathikaram and Manimekalai, the two Kaappiyamkal of Tamil.

All these go to prove beyond any doubt that vainavam or vishnu worship belief system was an ancient tamil belief system/religion which existed even before the time of Sangam literature.

 

[Vaagmi]

Before going into a flight of fancy let us complete out understanding of the native religions of Tamilnadu.

Saivam was also an ancient belief systejm in Tamilnadu as evidenced by several religious literature.

Let us be clear about what we speak of here. it is saivam and not smarthism.

Saivam or Saiva Sidhdhantam accepts Vedas/upanishads and puranas only wherever they agree with the Saiva sidhdhantam itself. Wherever there are differences (there are many instances of differences) the saiva siddhantists firmly reject Vedas as authority. Unlike smarthism this saiva sidhdhantham has its own strong belief in siva as the only Godhead. Smarthism accepts Siva, vishnu, Karthikeya, Surya, Ganapathy,Sakthi all as equally important godheads. Saiva sidhdhanties have their own system of unbroken chain of Acharyas (adheenams) and their matoms. They own large tracts of land in Tamilnadu and administer their own temples also. This saivam and Vainavam were the two major religions of Tamilnadu and later on the Jainism (samanam) and boudhdham came to compete for space in the Tamil country. There were several kings who whimsically switched their allegiance from one religion to the other and harassed all the competing other religions.

Smarthism with its polytheistic worship system came into Tamilnadu in a certain circumstance which will be explained later.

So smarthism is the latest to come into Tamilnadu whereas Saivism and Vaishnavism are ancient belief systems which are native to this Tamil Country.

Now we have to understand a few other minor but important other aspects of this history also:

1. Saivam is a sidhdhantham whereas vaishnavam and smarthism are vedantams.

2. Advaitam, visishtadvaitam and Dwaitam are all philosophical back-up systems developed to support the existing belief systems with a higher intellectual level explanation of the given situation.

3. Sankara gave Advaita to smarthas when they needed a higher philosophy. Ramanuja gave visishtadvaita when there was a need for it. These are philosophical explorations or organizing and systematizing efforts and are not religions in themselves. They were appropriated and owned by groups of people who were already vaishnavs or saivites.

4. It is also a fact that Sankara as well as Ramanuja did their explorations from within their respective inherited belief systems.

 

[Vaagmi]

Now the inferences and approximations and deductions: Flight of fancy!

When Tamilnadu was ruled it was ruled by the middle caste chieftains who were called Pandiyas, cholas and cheras. Also the northern part by Pallavas and some Naickas. These castes were always completely ignorant when it came to vedas and the knowledge in it. It could have been because of the language or culture. So the brahmins who knew vedas were many a time at loggerhead with the ruling chieftain and his nobles/side kicks.

Whenever a Chola king got closer to Saivam(saiva sidhdhantam) as against the Vaishnavam, a section of brahmins got converted to the saivam. Because brahmins followed vedic knowledge/teaching, they were closer to the vedic religion than the sidhdhantam based saivam of the Tamil Country. But in order to keep their body and soul together and to curry favours from the chieftains by way of grant of land and money they joined saivism. Being unable to give up all the vedic culture and knowledge, they became a special class of saivites who followed vedas. This also got diluted after some time and they became smruti followers as different from fully vedic. Thus came the smarthism into vogue. Sankara came and gave a philosophic mooring to the smarthism with the Shanmatha integration attempt. He made formal what smarthas were already doing practically for survival and wealth.

Thus came the smarthism which is neither saivism nor vaishnavam but an amalgam of the two; but as far as the God entity was concerned , it had to be only Siva because that is the only thing the Chieftain and the nobles/side kicks around him understood.

Smarthas could never give up siva or vishnu because it was a question of survival.

 

[prasad1]

Iyengars are an ofshoot of the Iyers. But Iyer didn't originally mean Smartha Brahmana. Iyer originally just denoted people of the highest jati (subcaste) of the Brahmana varna (caste). Then after the time of Adi Shankaracharya the Smartha philosophy became popular among Iyers. (Smarthas technically worship five gods whom they believe are manifestations of Ishvara, but in practical terms they're often called Shaivite, both because Ishvara is usually considered to be synonymous with Shiva and because Shiva is the god that they typically worship more than the other four. Also note that Smartha originally meant "follower of Smriti", and in that sense pretty much all Hindus in the Kali Yuga are Smartha, but I'm using it in the modern sense of the Smartha philosophy of Adi Shankaracharya.) And then after the time of Ramanujacharya, Iyers who converted to his Sri Vaishnava philosophy started calling themselves Iyengar. And so since pretty much all the Vaishnava Iyers (other than non-Visitadvaita Vaishnavas) were calling themselves Iyengars, the ones that still called themselves Iyers were the Smartha Iyers, so the term "Iyer" eventually became synonymous with "Smartha Brahmanas of the highest subcaste", which is the current meaning of the word.


Smartas believe that the worshipper is free to chose a particular aspect of God to worship. By contrast, a Vaishnavite considers Vishnu or Krishna to be the true God who is worthy of worship and other forms as his subordinates. Accordingly, Vaishnavites, for example, believe that only Vishnu or Krishna can grant the ultimate salvation for mankind, moksha. Similarly, many Shaivites also hold similar beliefs about Shiva. Notably, many Shaivites believe that Shakti is worshipped to reach Shiva, whom for Shaktas is the impersonal Absolute. In Shaktism, emphasis is given to the feminine manifest through which the male unmanifested, Lord Shiva, is realized.
Smartas, like many Shaivites and Vaishnavites, consider Surya to be an aspect of God. Many Shaivites and Vaishnavites, for example, differ from Smartas, in that they regard Surya as an aspect of Shiva and Vishnu, respectively. For example, the sun is called Surya Narayana by Vaishnavites. In Saivite theology, the sun is said to be one of eight forms of Shiva, the Astamurti. Additionally, Ganesh and Skanda, for many Shaivites, would be aspects of Shakti and Shiva, respectively.
http://www.thefullwiki.org/Smarthas


Ramanuja was not the head honcho in Iyer community so he created his own Iyyangar community.
Just like Guru Nanak Sahib, did not like some aspects of Hinduism and created Sikhism.

This is my own flight of fancy with borrowed wings. LOL like other fancies.

Just to balance the fancies being expounded as theories and histories.
By I do not understand this fight among followers of different sects, none of us really know GOD. Is is none, one, or many? Every thread is being dragged into this difference.

 

[Vaagmi]

Yes we have to learn about our religion and culture only from the unedited wiki postings. They are the most authentic final word on anything. That is after all a whiteman's creation and how can a whiteman be ever wrong? LOL.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Smarthas could never give up siva or vishnu because it was a question of survival.

Even if Smarthas try to give up vishnu, they will not be allowed; because it may stop the dominance of other B sect. Smarthas affinity to vishnu is a must for royal begging to construct rajagopuram.

 

[prasad1]

Yes we have to learn about our religion and culture only from the unedited wiki postings. They are the most authentic final word on anything. That is after all a white man's creation and how can a white man be ever wrong? LOL.

We do not know who wrote what? We do not know where we started? We do not know the transmigration of Humans? Knowledge (or some fancies) should be challenged. Just because the truth is inconvenient, one can not ignore it.

There is no need to proclaim themselves as Superior to others by dissing others and their beliefs.
We do not have to look for crooks in other part of the world, we have enough misguided souls right here.

 

[sarang]

Obviously white wiki is the refuge for them who have no roots, no respect for sanatana dharma, no knowledge of samskrit or Tamil to learn as from mother's lap.

Yes we have to learn about our religion and culture only from the unedited wiki postings. They are the most authentic final word on anything. That is after all a whiteman's creation and how can a whiteman be ever wrong? LOL.

 

[sangom]

Now let us see historically how old is Vaishnavam.

Rig Veda has reference to Vishnu. Vishnu is worshiped in Rig Veda as the God who pervades everything. Rig veda refers to Thrivikrama. Vaikuntha is the place of Vishnu. The way to Vishnu by absolute surrender to him-This too is said in Veda. Rig Veda in it's 10th Book - 19th anthology is called Purusha Suktha. Vishnu is known by the term Purusha.
Yajur veda 31-22 has the same subject of Vishnu spoken about. There is similar references to Vishnu in Sama Veda and Atharva Veda also. There is reference to Vishnu in Aithareya Brahmanam. The word Narayana is used to mention Vishnu in the Black Yajur Veda for the first time.

So Vishnu worship or Vaishnavam is old beyond the times of Vedas.

Indus Valley (IV) Civilization is supposed to be very old and there are no relics giving us any inkling about the religious beliefs and practices of the people in those days. The rigveda also does not give any indication about the IV people in any form. However, experts - even Indian experts - agree that the Pasupati and Rudra seals ( so named because of the closeness of the figures in these two seals) may represent the kind of god-belief which those people might have had.

Rigveda mentions vishnu, of course. But it is for everyone to see that the vishnu of the rigveda was a minor deva, subservient to the almighty Indra and most scholars agree that the rigvedic vishnu is no more than a sidekick for Indra, at best. I may add that in Satapatha Braahmana I.2.5.1, Devas fought asuras and the asuras defeated the devas. Hence the devas had to beg the asuras for a piece of land to live on. And the braahmana text continues in this way:—

"Now, vishnu was a dwarf. The Devas, however, were not offended at this, but said : much indeed they gave us, who gave us what is equal in size to the sacrifice.

Having then laid him (i.e., vishnu) eastwards, they enclosed him on all three sides with the metres, saying (Vaajasaneya Samhita I.27), on the south side, "with gaayatree metre I enclose thee!"; on the west side, "with the Trishtubh metre I enclose thee!": on the north side, "with the jagatee metre I enclose thee!".

Having thus enclosed him on all three sides, and having placed Agni on the east side, they went on worshipping and toiling with it (or, him, vishnu, the object of sacrifice). By it they obtained this entire earth and because they obtained this entire (earth), therefore it (the sacrificial ground) is called vEdi (the altar). ...and so on the story goes.

It should be clear from the above that vishnu was, after all, a spareable entity even for the Devas, which (who) could even be sacrificed in order to get some piece of land from the victorious asuras.

Hence it will not hold water to say that vishnu had become a "worshipped" entity even beyond the times of Vedas.

In Upanishads too there are several references to Vishnu worship.

Panini's sutra 3;98 for which Pathanjali has written a bhashya speaks about the meaning of the word Vasudeva.

There is a place called Kosundhi in the state of Rajasthan. A stone engraving discovered there belonging to BC 2nd century speaks about worship of Vasudeva and Sankarshana. The stone engraving has been properly dated by the archaeologists.

Another stone engraving belonging to the same period found in Beznaagar speaks about a certain Greek pilgrim by name Eliadora who built a memorial Garuda sthamba. The engraved message speaks about this Greek pilgrim calling himself a Bhaagavatha.

In Naanaghat caves in a stone engraving, there is reference to worship of sankarshana and Vasudeva. This engraving has been determined by archaeologists to be from the BC 1st century.

In Itihasas there are several references to exclusive Vishnu Worship.

All this proves the indeterminably ancient origin of Vaishnavam. Ramanuja is just one of the several acharyas who were Vaishnavs. Period. To say that Vaishnavam started with Ramanuja is like telling Saivam started after Sankara.

About my flight of fancy I will write in the next third post. LOL.

The vasudeva cult, the bhagavata cult, etc., were beliefs among some sections of the people living in the sub-continent and these could be no more than tribal beliefs which had begun to take the shape of cults. For example, the vasudeva cult had it that vasudeva -krishna was the brother of Samkarshana-Baladeva and that Vasudeva defeated his maternal uncle Kamsa in a fight and killed the latter. Kamsavadha was enacted as pantomimic drama in Patanjali's times and the people formed into two groups vasudevabhaktas and kamsabhaktas, the former overcoming the latter eventually as the drama closed. Having said in so much detail in his Mahabhashya (dated to 2nd. century BCE), Patanjali does not say that this vasudeva - krishna was vishnu, or was identified with vishnu.

The vishnu cult became popular during the Guptas' times most possibly and, in course of time, the three cults (Bhagavata, vasudeva-krishna and vishnu) merged to form what came to be known as Vaishnavam or Vaishnavism. Since most of the puranas also took shape during the reign of the Guptas (which came some time after the Sunga dynasty, and more as a rebellion against oppressive rulers), it was but natural that the newly formed vishnu cult got more than one purana/scripture to support its ancient origins etc.

 

[sangom]

Now post #2:

As we are discussing things with reference to Tamil Brahmins' belief systems, it is worth looking at evidences which determine the antiquity of Vaishnavam in the Tamil country.

Tholkaappiyam is considered the most ancient literary work available in Tamil.

"மாயோன் மேய காடுறை உலகமும்" -- தொல். பொருள்.அகத்திணை- 5

"மாயோன் மேய மன்பெருஞ்சிறப்பிற்
றாவா விழுப்புகழ் பூவை நிலையும் -- தொல். பொருள். புறத்திணை-5.

These two references indicate the existence of Vishnu worship in the days of Tholkaappiyam.

கடல்வளர் புரிவளை புரையு மேனி
யடல்வெந் நாஞ்சிற் பனைக்கொடியோனுக்

மண்ணுறு திருமணி புரையுமேனி
விண்ணுயர் பொற்கொடி விறல் வெய்யோனும் --புறநானூறு.

(திருமணி-ஸ்ரீவத்ஸம்). இப்பாடலை நச்சினார்க்கினியார் தம் உரையில் கையாண்டிருப்பதைக்காணமுடிகிறது.

Also the reference in Tholkaappiyam as

காமப்பகுதி கடவுளும் வரையார்
ஏனோர்மருங்கினும் என்மனார் புலவர் and

குழவி மருங்கிலும் கிழவ தாகும்

These are from tholkappiyam puraththinai 23 and 24.

In Sangam Literature:

In Paththuppaattu (AD 2nd century):

"புள்ளணி நீள்கொடிச்செல்வன்" -- திருமுருகாற்றுப்படை அடி 151.
"நாற்பெருந்தெய்வத்து நன்னகர் நிலையிய
உலகம் காக்கும் ஒன்று புரிகொள்கை" -- திருமுருகாற்றுப்படை அடி 160,161.

"இருநிலங்கடந்த திருமறு மார்பின்
முந்நீர்வண்ணன் பிறக்கடை" -- பெரும்பாணாற்றுப்படை 29-31.

"காந்தளஞ்சிலம்பில் கயிறுபடிந்தாங்குப்
பாம்பணைப்பள்ளி யமர்ந்தோனாங்கண்" --பெரும்பாணாற்றுப்படை 372,373.

"......நேமியொடு வலம்புரி பொறித்த மாதாங்கு தடக்கை
நீர்செல நிமிர்ந்த மாஅல் போல" -- முல்லைப்பாட்டு அடி 1-3.

"கணங்கொள் அவுணர்க்கடந்த பொலந்தார்
மாயோன் மேய ஓண நன்னாள்" -- மதுரைக்காஞ்சி 591-9

Now the other major anthology called Ettuththokai speaks thus:

This anthology belongs to the BC 1st century.

Paripadal 1,2,3,4,13,15 may be referred to. These poems speaks of
thirumaal who has Adi seshan as his bed. He has Sri in his chest. He wears Koustubham, He has srivatsam in his chest. etc., etc., There is a poem which speaks about the Thirumaliruncholai, a divya desam.

Kaliththokai (8-10) speaks about

"பனைக்கொடிப்பால் நிற வண்ணன்"
"புகழ்நெமித்திரு மறு மார்பன்" etc.,

akananUru speaks as:

"கோகுலம் மேய்த்துக் குறுத்தொசித்தான் என்பரால்" (20)

நற்றிணை speaks about

"மாநிலஞ்சேவடியாகத் தூனீர்.......தீதற விளங்கிய திகிரியோனே" (1)

And there are several references in the other major anthology pathinenkeezhkanakku also. I am not giving them for space and time.

There are several references in the Silappathikaram and Manimekalai, the two Kaappiyamkal of Tamil.

All these go to prove beyond any doubt that vainavam or vishnu worship belief system was an ancient tamil belief system/religion which existed even before the time of Sangam literature.

மாயோன் is the name of the god or deity worshipped specifically by one among the five kinds of land (as per the ancient Tamil system) and represents the "mullai" type of land in which Tulasi was abundant and Garuda was also commonly seen.

"ஐந்திணைத் தெய்வம்

[TABLE="width: 95%"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 50%"]“மாயோன் மேய காடுறை யுலகமும்
சேயோன் மேய மைவரை உலகமும்
வேந்தன் மேய தீம்புனல் உலகமும்
வருணன் மேய பெருமணல் உலகமும்
முல்லை குறிஞ்சி மருதம் நெய்தலெனச்
சொல்லிய முறையாற் சொல்லவும் படுமே”
[/TD]
[TD="width: 25%"](அகத். 5)[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​

என்பது தொல்காப்பியம்.
முல்லைத்தெய்வம் மாயோன்

மா = கருப்பு. மாயோன் கரியோன். மாயோனுக்கு மால் என்றும் பெயர். மால் = கருப்பு, மேகம், வானம், கரி யோன். முல்லைநிலத்தில், மேலே எங்குப் பார்த்தாலும் நீல அல்லது கரிய வானமும் மேகமுமாய்த் தோன்றுவதாலும், ஆநிரைக்கு வேண்டிய புல்லும் ஆயர்க்கு வேண்டிய வான வாரி அல்லது புன்செய்ப் பயிர்களும் வளர்வதற்கு மழை வேண்டியிருப்பதாலும், மேகத்தை வானத்தோடொப்பக் கொண்டதினாலும், முல்லை நிலத்தார் தங்கள் தெய்வத்தைக் கருமையானதென்று கருதி, மாயோன் என்றும் மால் என்றும் பெயரிட்டனர். திருமால் என்பதில் திரு என்பது அடை.
முல்லைநிலத்திற்குரிய கலுழனை(கருடனை)யும் துளசியையும், முறையே மாயோனுக்குரிய ஊர்தியாகவும் பூவாகவும் கொண்டார்கள்."

Here there is nothing to indicate that the ancient Tamils identified mAyOn with vasudeva-krishna or vishnu.


The Sangam literature is not as ancient as the vedas or braahmanas (a portion of vedas themselves). Experts date the sangam literature to the early christian era or one or two centuries before Christ. Shri Vaiyapuri Pillai has dated some of these to somewhat later times as well. Hence, as seen already, these sangam literatures must be coeval with the merging of the vasudeva, bhagavata and vishnu cults during the Gupta empire's times. It is for informed readers, therefore, to decide how far these sangam literature references give any antiquity to the Vaishnava cult.