Dear Sir,
Could it be possible that Agnihotram Ramanuja Thathachariar was mistaken due to the presence of plaits...i mean old time chieftains used to tie up their hair in ways which are reserved for females today. So what appear to be plaits on a sculpture could belong to a male as well.
Am reminded of napolean's hair as kulothunga chola in the kamalhassan movie dasavataram -- long hair which could easily be mistaken for a female, if seen from the behind. May be the key point is whether or not the idol has breasts. Here too again, the breastplate can get confusing with its protrusions, like this one.
The native tribes of gadaba and chenchu consider the deity a male. Am yet to come across traditions that it is a female, although i would not rule out the possibility of vrishnis considering it a female goddess. Am not very clear who were the vrishni tribes in those regions around the sangam period, although tamil literature knows of Mayon.
The key point IMO is that it is a rock cut idol. Rock-cut sculptures were the specialty of the pallavas before any other group in the south. The Pallavas conceptualized themselves originating from Vishnu. Maybe it was considered Murugun during the reign of Kumaravishnu who supposedly took himself to be the amsam of both Murugan and Vishnu. However, the details are not at all clear. The only thing clear is that Pallavas claimed descent from Vishnu.
Going by various possibilities, i would say the chances of this idol being Vishnu is greater than any other possibility. This may apply if we speak of 'religion' proper. However, instead of saying religion proper, as Jain, Buddhist or Hindu, i tend to go with the term 'tribal'. Because the period was still tribal. And specific deities were unique to specific clans at that time.
Padmavati and Saraswati are present in jain and buddhist literature, as Yakshinis. Maybe due to the presence of jainism and buddhism in the southern regions, both these religions were the first to absorb a large number of tribal deities into their religions.
Hindu literature mentions Kubera is Yaksha (which makes Ravana, Vidyadharas, Gandharvas, Kinnaras, etc all Yakshas). Kubera is mentioned for the first time in Atharvaveda. But in Shatapata Brahmana he is the chief of evil spirits -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kubera
Am not surprised to see brahmanas (texts) mentioning certain groups as evil. I suppose this merely brings out the antagonism between the atharvans against the trayee-veda groups. Perhaps the jaina traditions were right in saying they were against vedic sacrifices where animals were killed mercilessly, but perhaps there were deeper reasons why they got represented as evil in the brahmanas (texts). Culture conflict, ie, idol-worship versus the idea of non-idol-worship?? Or maybe even tribal-ethnic conflict...
Anyways, so far it appears perhaps Thiruvenkata, Padmavati, Saraswati, Murugan, Shiva, Kubera, and perhaps Rama and Ranganatha Swamy also, were Atharva gods of clans/groupings that were designated Yaksha at some point of time.
The context of Yaksha in folk literature is associated with Naga worship, or Sarpa Kavus. Or to say Yakshas and Yaskshinis are nature spirits guarding over kavus. Which would make them serpent divinities. Perhaps that is why we have Ranganatha Swamy resting on Sesha Naga.
There are also legends of historical alliances between Pallavas-Nagas, and Nagas with others. So apparently, the Nagas experienced gene flow and culture admixture due to mixing with a wide variety of groups.
But the Nagas were mundari austro-asiatic tribes. Would this mean the Yakshas were austroasiatic tribes...If yes, then this gets highly interesting. I support the thesis of South Asia origin for austroasiatic speakers, or at most neolithic farming dispersal from asia-minor. Very highly interesting indeed.....
Last edited:
!!
