The Glory of Polytheism

[JR]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

But Vaishnavas have the right to defend the validity of OUR WORKS - Ramayana, Mahabharata and other ithihasas, as they have been proven to be part of Smriti.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

I was not logging in for some time due to my health problems. Most probably.............
In any case, the panchaayatana pooja is nothing but polytheistic worship, even if some one were to hold that he sees the same god in all the five idols. My curiosity has been, and still is, how and why Adishankara closed his eyes towards the dualistic, polytheistic worship followed by most of his followers; or, is it that we failed to grasp the advaita philosophy and so are continuing our old methods of worship? I don't know.

1. I generally resist the temptation to speculate and hypothesise. But after reading this post of you-particularly the highlighted and underlined portion- and also post#46 and 74 I could not resist the temptation. As you indulge in speculation on and off I too try my hand in that here.
Disclaimer: I write this without any malise or illwill towards smarthas. I have many friends among smarthas and they do understand my point. This is written only to initiate a discussion and not to start a war of words. If any one thinks it is otherwise please be happy in your territory. I am least bothered.

2. Adishankara was a Namboodiri brahmin born in Kerala. The brahmins of Kerala are generally vishnu worshippers. You rarely come across a Nair (the community which is preponderant through the length and breadth of Kerala -from Kannur to Kanyakumari) with the name Pasupathi, Subramanyan, Ganesan or kailasanathan etc., And brahmins of kerala had close connections with these Nairs.

3. In Tamilnadu there were just two ancient religions. One was Vainavam and the other saivam. Later came Budhdhism and samanam or Jainism. The kings who ruled the three tamil kingdoms were from the Cheran, Chozhan and Pandyan dynasties. These kings were either saivists or vaishnavites depending on the level of influence the brahmins in their court were able to exert on them. The brahmins used to first convert the queens of these dynasties and then the Kings used to follow suit. When a King is a saivite he used to harass the brahmins belonging to vaishnavam and when he was a vaishnavite the harassment will be that of saivites. Later Samanam also joined in and we had a gala running battle between all these brahmins. When vital interests were under threat like the land being confiscated and life being threatened, the brahmins used to just convert and become saivites or vaishnavites. These brahmins being followers of srutis and smritis were originally worshipping only Narayana in a monotheistic religion. But Saivam was native to Tamil soil and even today the native saivites do not recognize sruti or smriti as authority. The saiva sidhdhanta differs substantially from the sruti based monotheistic religion. The brahmins, who had a large stake to lose because of the see-saw game played by the kings in following and discarding the two religions, had to accept the saivam even though saivam with its பசுக்கொள்கை and all, is different from the vedic religion. They did what best they could do under the circumstances. They rewrote the saivam to suit their indispensable orientation towards a monotheistic religion. Sankara came and was trying to unite the various disparate groups into one integrated entity. In this process he gave the panchayatana pooja because that was an instrument needed to unite the hindus. The brahmins of Tamilnadu who were struggling with their need to live with their adherence to vedic wisdom and the practical need to be saivites (to keep their bodies and soul together) quickly adopted the philosophical base of advaitam and thus was born smarthaism of Tamilnadu. Even today smarthaism is not 100% saivism of the saiva sidhdhantam. The saiva pillais and Mudaliyars who follow this saivism disown the smarthas brand of saivism as fake. Ask any of the Thampiran/pandAAra sannithanam of any of the important saiva matoms of Tamilnadu - Thiruvavaduthurai, Thiruppananthaal, Dharmapuram etc.,--and they will outright reject the brahmins' smarthaism and will explain why they do that.

4. I would like to know the counter points to this hypothesis so that truth will be found.

 

[Jaykay767]

Vaagmi –

Let me add my inputs:

Vedic Texts talk only about Brahma, Surya, Indra, Agni etc… & not about Shiva or Vishnu. Both these Gods were not recognized by Brahmins at the time the Vedas were created by Brahma. So there was no separate Vaishnavite religion at this stage. People used to worship Lingam, rudra, Nava grahams, Surya etc.. so it was polytheism. Brahma was the most important God in the Vedas & he is the originator of all Brahmins.

Shiva & Vishnu originate from the time of Ramayana, when3 kings ruled – Shiva from Gangavadi (Karnataka), Vishnu (Narasimhavarman) from Kanchi, Brahma (Ravana) from Lanka (Troy/Badami).

Ravana is the only Brahmin King as per our Sanskrit texts, & only the Chalukyan Kings established Nava Brahma statues & worshipped him. So Ravana is Brahma.

Ravana (Brahma) is the creator of the 4 Vedas & the creator of Brahmins. As I said earlier, Ravana followers are Shaivites since he was a worshipper of Shiva, Vibhishanan followers are Vaishanvites since he aligns himself to Rama. Again at this stage, there is no formal religion, but the Brahmins align themselves with these 2 kings. After the Ramyana war, Ravana hence Brahma is discredited & not worshipped.

Shankara propounds the crown jewel - Advaita, where the supreme being is Brahman. Now as you can see, he neither calls Shiva nor Vishnu as supreme being. For Brahmins, it is always Brahma.. even Ramanujam does not say Vishnu is the supreme being, he says from Brahman & Vishnu are on par.

So Shankara brings back the primacy of Brahma/ Brahman as the supreme being / creator of all Brahmins!

Cheers,

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

2.Adishankara was a Namboodiri brahmin born in Kerala. The brahmins of Kerala aregenerally vishnu worshippers. You rarely come across a Nair (the communitywhich is preponderant through the length and breadth of Kerala -from Kannur toKanyakumari) with the name Pasupathi, Subramanyan, Ganesan or kailasanathanetc., And brahmins of kerala had close connections with these Nairs.

Keralabelongs to Krishna cult. Hence, it is nosurprise that most of Kerala men have the names related to Krishna. Sometime back, in one of my replies, I mentionedthat Namboodris are not Saivites. They control Guruvayoor and Badrinath Krishnatemples. Actually, late MGR's original name was Neelakandan; but his fatherchanged to Ramachandran.

3. InTamilnadu there were just two ancient religions. One was Vainavam and the othersaivam. Later came Budhdhism andsamanam or Jainism. The kings who ruled the three tamil kingdoms were from theCheran, Chozhan and Pandyan dynasties.

Theorder is not correct. If Saivam and Vainavam existed before Samanam andBuddhism, how did the later two religion lost their significance. It shouldhave been Samanam > Buddhism > Saivam and Vainavam. After the establishmentof Vijayanagar Empire in TN, Vainavam might have had a firm footing andRamanuja's conversion to Vainavam from Vadama.

Thefive great works in Tamil Nadu (AYMPERUM KAPPIYANGAL) belonged to Samanam ormay be Buddhism also. Some scholars in Sri Lanka said Thiruvalluvar was aSaivite. But there is a village in South Arcot District, which distinguishesThiruvalluvar as Samanar.

Thesekings were either saivists or vaishnavites depending on the level of influencethe brahmins in their court were able to exert on them.

Mannanev vazhio makkal av vazhi. Very simple.

Thesebrahmins being followers of srutis and smritis were originally worshipping onlyNarayana in a monotheistic religion.

PerWikipedia:

Smarthas migrated from North. Brahacharanam first, followed by Ashtasahasramfrom Ennairum village in Tindivanam (some say), Vadamas and finally Vathimas.

Except Vadamas, the other three sects are more Saivites than Vadamas.

Mangudi Brahacharanam, one of the divisions of Brahacharanam sect, were staunchSaivites. They didn't even spell the name Narayana.

Sankaracame and was trying to unite the various disparate groups into one integratedentity.

Sankara'sinfluence would have played a great role on Smarthas, who have come from North, by playing the B and NB card, since NBs were powerfulin Saivite fold, and successfully converting them as Advaithies, but retainingthe presiding deity Shiva in tact, probably due to fear of persecution.

Eventoday smarthaism is not 100% saivism of the saiva sidhdhantam.

Thereare no Smarthas in TN today. All are Advaithies - pseudo vaishnavites.

Thesaiva pillais and Mudaliyars who follow this saivism disown the smarthas brandof saivism as fake. Ask any of the Thampiran/pandAAra sannithanam of any of theimportant saiva matoms of Tamilnadu - Thiruvavaduthurai, Thiruppananthaal,Dharmapuram etc.,--and they will outright reject the brahmins' smarthaism andwill explain why they do that.

Naturally.Poosuvathu Vibhudhi anal pesavuthu Rama/Krishna. Who will accept? Will youaccept an Iyengar always glorifying Shiva but sporting Pattai Namam.

 

[Jaykay767]

Shaivites in particular Iyers have worshipped all Gods incl. Vishnu/Rama/Krishna. The yajur vedam we follow is Krishna Yajur Vedam –shows the influence of Krishna on the Shaivite Iyers.

If the Murugan worshippers tomorrow form a separate religion, will we stop worshipping Muruga ?

That’s why I said, the Ramayana, Mahabharatam were all written by Shaivite Iyers.. and it was the Iyers who preserved most of the grantha texts, incl. Ramayana & Mahabharata. Grantha scripts were preserved in 1000s of Iyers homes for centuries.

It was a singular effort of the Iyers along with the British in the 1800s and 1900s who salvaged all the Sanskrit texts, Sangam texts which constitute the vast literature..we know today.

My view - till Ramanuja, there was no separate Vaishnavaite religion as we know today. Ramanuja was a Vadama Iyer. so at the time of Shankara (he lives prior to Ramanuja), there was no separate Vaishnavite religion & as you can see, Shankara being a Shaivite, praises Narasimha & writes many sanskrit hymns…

 

[Jaykay767]

The correct Varanasi is the Gokarna in Karnataka, it is anways known as "Dakshina Varanasi". Infact Shankara establishes all the 4 mutts only at Sringeri, & his disciples establish in Kanchi because he ascends to heaven from there.

 

[Jaykay767]

I agree with you 99%. But Idisagree with your statement that

needs to be modified to "Our ability to accept all, including atheists, isour unique cultural identity.
If it was "Strength", we failed miserably to stop Tipu Sultan. Hereis a sample report of what he did to the Hindus, as reported by Father Bartolomaco, aPortuguese traveller and historian.

“First a corps of 30,000barbarians who butchered everybody on the way… followed by the field-gun unitunder the French Commander, M. Lally. Tipu was riding on an elephant behindwhich another army of 30,000 soldiers followed. Most of the men and women werehanged in Calicut, first mothers were hanged with their children tied to necksof mothers. That barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christians and Hindus tothe legs of elephants and made the elephants to move around till the bodies ofthe helpless victims were torn to pieces. Temples and churches were ordered tobe burned down, desecrated and destroyed. Christian and Hindu women were forcedto marry Mohammadans and similarly their men were forced to marry Mohammadanwomen. Those Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam, were ordered tobe killed by hanging immediately. These atrocities were told to me by thevictims of Tipu Sultan who escaped from the clutches of his army and reachedVarappuzha, which is the centre of Carmichael Christian Mission. I myselfhelped many victims to cross the Varappuzha river by boats”(Voyage to EastIndies by Fr.Bartolomaco, pgs 141–142)

Tipu Sultan writing on 19January 1790, to Badroos Saman Khan, says :”I have achieved a greatvictory recently in Malabar and over four lakh Hindus were converted to Islam.I am now determined to march against the cursed Raman Nair (Dharma RajaKarthika Thirunal Rama Varma). (Historical Sketches of the South of India in an attempt totrace the History of Mysore, Mark Wilks Vol II, page 120)
Wikipedia article on Tipu Sultan,Mysorean_invasion_of_Kerala

Not True !!. Pl evaluate every statement made by the westerns, these are all doctored history !!

Tipu Sultan had at best 20K to 50K troops with many native chieftains & soldiers in this! So to convert 4 lakh Christians &Hindus, and marry them, one must have a larger army.

Lets assume that he did convert 4 lakh Hindus &Christians, Tipu died in the battle with the British in a few years after the Kerala war. Given such strong ethnic& tribal loyalties, do you think, these 4 lakh converted people, did not reconvert back to their original faith ???. that too when Tipu died in a few years & his kingdom fell to the British ?

Rulers always impose their language & culture on their subjects, but almost all the muslims in Kerala do not know Hindi / Urdu –the language of the mughal rulers… they only know Malayalam.

Most importantly, right through history & even today, Muslims have NEVER allowed their women to be married to another race that too when they were the rulers... you can see this even today…

So this historic account is not true… Also Tipu sultan has been viewed as a benevolent King by many non muslim local accounts – so this contradicts the so called west version.

Irrespective of this, today’s muslims in Kerala are not a result of this Tipu’s so called violent conversion!!

 

[Jaykay767]

Do you really think the highly qualified British historians appointed by the Royalty who came to India did not realize that Ramayana & Troy refer to the same war ?

That too when Megasthenes – Greek Philosopher writes that he heard a story called Ramayana strikingly similar to Troy ?. he also records that Ramayana had 126000 lines compared to the 86000 lines in Iliad Troy…

Why do you think the Nazis claimed the swastika as their symbol?, it is symbol of us Aryans & german researchers decoded correctly that it was the symbol of the Romans/Trojans who were here !! why do you think, they believed Samurai’s were Aryans ?.

Why do you think the Nazis were so interested in Aryans, when by all accounts, Aryan word comes only in Sanskrit? and we were/are a oriental race ?

Why do you think, the so called superior whites want to adopt our religious symbol ?????

The entire history has been doctored by the British/westerns to hide the fact that their entire religion & culture originates from the Oriental east – in specific India!

 

[Jaykay767]

And they have sent the entire world into a wild goose chase by coming up with wild illogical theories of Central Asian Aryan migration... etc...... LOL !!!!!!!!!!!

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

1. < Clipped >

2. Adishankara was a Namboodiri brahmin born in Kerala. The brahmins of Kerala are generally vishnu worshippers. You rarely come across a Nair (the community which is preponderant through the length and breadth of Kerala -from Kannur to Kanyakumari) with the name Pasupathi, Subramanyan, Ganesan or kailasanathan etc., And brahmins of kerala had close connections with these Nairs.

Dear Shri Vaagmi Sir,

Shankara's own name, Shankara, belies the above. There are/were many many Namboodiris with names of Shiva, Subrahmanya, etc. It is just like Tamil Iyers. Nairs and Ezhavas are also not very different but among Ezhavas only, we may not come across Saiva names. Neelakantan, Subramanian, Ganapathy, Velayudhan, Parameswaran (the lat two specially among Nairs - and these used to be disfigured to Velu, Paachu, because it was part of the caste dispensation that only brahmins should sport fully sanskritised names.) are all very common. Parasurama, after reclaiming the land from the sea, is supposed to have consecrated 108 Shiva temples and 108 Durga temples for the well-being and prosperity of the people in Kerala. Please not that not one Vishnu or Krishna temple was set up; even the Padmanabhaswamy Temple according to legend starts with Vilvamangalam Swamiyar who is a much later entity compared to Parasurama.

It will therefore be incorrect to say that Kerala was/is a Vaishnavite land. Because the Saivite names were considered a prestige, to be given to the highest caste only, non-saivite names became more prevalent as we go down the caste ladder. That's all.

3. In Tamilnadu there were just two ancient religions. One was Vainavam and the other saivam. Later came Budhdhism and samanam or Jainism. The kings who ruled the three tamil kingdoms were from the Cheran, Chozhan and Pandyan dynasties. These kings were either saivists or vaishnavites depending on the level of influence the brahmins in their court were able to exert on them. The brahmins used to first convert the queens of these dynasties and then the Kings used to follow suit. When a King is a saivite he used to harass the brahmins belonging to vaishnavam and when he was a vaishnavite the harassment will be that of saivites. Later Samanam also joined in and we had a gala running battle between all these brahmins. When vital interests were under threat like the land being confiscated and life being threatened, the brahmins used to just convert and become saivites or vaishnavites. These brahmins being followers of srutis and smritis were originally worshipping only Narayana in a monotheistic religion. But Saivam was native to Tamil soil and even today the native saivites do not recognize sruti or smriti as authority. The saiva sidhdhanta differs substantially from the sruti based monotheistic religion. The brahmins, who had a large stake to lose because of the see-saw game played by the kings in following and discarding the two religions, had to accept the saivam even though saivam with its பசுக்கொள்கை and all, is different from the vedic religion. They did what best they could do under the circumstances. They rewrote the saivam to suit their indispensable orientation towards a monotheistic religion. Sankara came and was trying to unite the various disparate groups into one integrated entity. In this process he gave the panchayatana pooja because that was an instrument needed to unite the hindus. The brahmins of Tamilnadu who were struggling with their need to live with their adherence to vedic wisdom and the practical need to be saivites (to keep their bodies and soul together) quickly adopted the philosophical base of advaitam and thus was born smarthaism of Tamilnadu. Even today smarthaism is not 100% saivism of the saiva sidhdhantam. The saiva pillais and Mudaliyars who follow this saivism disown the smarthas brand of saivism as fake. Ask any of the Thampiran/pandAAra sannithanam of any of the important saiva matoms of Tamilnadu - Thiruvavaduthurai, Thiruppananthaal, Dharmapuram etc.,--and they will outright reject the brahmins' smarthaism and will explain why they do that.

4. I would like to know the counter points to this hypothesis so that truth will be found.

Vaishnavam was an off-shoot from the total brahmin community in Tamil Nadu and Ramanuja spearheaded this vaishnavism, is the impression I have got so far. There was no saivism in the earlier Sangam works like ‘Agananuru’, ‘Nattrinai’ and ‘Kurunthogai’; these works refer to 'Velan Veriyaattu', a ritual dance associated with the worship of Murugan and Murugan, then was not the Subrahmanyan/Murugan of later times. Hence the vedic brahmins from the north must have brought their vedas, Yaagas and gods to the Tamil country. As a result the Saivam might have got a fillip during the Pallava rule and the famous Nayanmars did much to increase the spread and depth of Siva devotion or Saivism.

All through this period, there was a deity called maayOn who became Krishna later on. Vaishnavism was later to Saivism, it was a break-away group which separated from the whole body of brahmins and the Vaishnavism again split into the two "kalais", the thenkalais upholding the Tamil scriptures and the Vadakalais sticking on to their ancient vedic brahmin scriptures.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Parasurama, after reclaiming the land from the sea, is supposed to have consecrated 108 Shiva temples and 108 Durga temples for the well-being and prosperity of the people in Kerala.

Sir,

If Parasurama was an avatar of Vishnu, why did he consecrate 108 each Shiva and Durga Temples? Some people say he belonged to Veera Saiv sect. Is it true?

 

[sangom]

Sir,

If Parasurama was an avatar of Vishnu, why did he consecrate 108 each Shiva and Durga Temples? Some people say he belonged to Veera Saiv sect. Is it true?

Shri Chandru,

Parasurama, though now considered as an avataara of Vishnu, was, generally a Shiva devotee as may be seen from the following excerpts:—

"Parshuram (Parashurama, Parashuraman) is the sixth avatar of Vishnu, He is son of Renuka and the saptarishi Jamadagni. He lived during the last Treta Yuga, and is one of the seven immortals or Chiranjivi, of Hinduism. He received an axe after undertaking terrible penance to please Shiva, who in turn taught him the martial arts. Parashurama is most known for ridding the world of kshatriyas twenty-one times over after the mighty king Kartavirya killed his father. He played important roles in the Mahabharata and Ramayana, serving as mentor to Bhishma, Karna and Drona. Parashurama also fought back the advancing seas to save the lands of Konkan, Malabar and Kerala.

Parashurama is worshipped as mool purush, or founder, of the Bhumihar Brahmin, Chitpavan, Niyogi, Daivadnya, Mohyal, Shukla, Awasthi, Tyagi, Kothiyal, Anavil, Nambudiri Brahmin communities." (Parashurama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)


I may add that some scholars are of the view that the name 'Parasurama' might have indicated a 'Rama' from 'parasu' (Persia) or a 'Rama' with a 'Parasu'= hatchet, battle axe or 'mazhu' in Malayalam. Historically, he may be typifying a section of martial Brahmanas who were at loggerheads with the Kshatriyas and were able to completely subjugate the latter (Kshatriyas) as indicated by the legend of Parasurama "ridding the world of kshatriyas twenty-one times over".

(If we go by this analogy, Kshatriyas might have regained their social status after some time and this is typified by Daasarathy Rama of the Ikshvaaku dynasty killing Ravana, whom Rama himself is shown as praising as "mahabrahmana"; also, Rama had to perform Aswamedha for atoning his sin in killing the Brahmana, Ravana who was the son of Visravas, a rishi. Hence, indirectly, we are being told by our ancient scribe-historians that the Kshatriyas subdued the Brahmanas!)

The circumstances in which the ten avataaras legend came to be included in the mainstream hinduism is not clear. According to Srimadbhagavatam, Vishnu has taken many more avataaras.

Veerasaiva sect, as we know it today, was created by Basava who lived in the 12th. century. Therefore it will not be possible to place Parasurama within this Veerasaiva sect; but Parasurama was very clearly a "veera" (brave warrior) and also a "saiva" in the sense of a siva bhakta.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Parashurama is worshipped as mool purush, or founder, of the Bhumihar Brahmin, Chitpavan, Niyogi, Daivadnya, Mohyal, Shukla, Awasthi, Tyagi, Kothiyal, Anavil, Nambudiri Brahmin communities." (Parashurama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Sir,

Thanks for your reply.

My understanding is as follows:

Bhumihar Brahmins are in Bihar. Former CM Jagannath Mishra belongs to this sect.

Chitbhavans are in Maharashtra. I presume, Acharya Vino Bhave and Godse belonged to this sect. Some Cricktters are in this sect.

Niyogis are Telugu Brahmins. Former PM Narasimha Rao belonged to this sect.

While Niyogis and Chitbhavans are probably smarthas (some Niyogis were my colleagues in the Office), I have no knowledge about other Brahmins' Sect.

You may please enlighten, if available.

 

[sangom]

Sir,

Thanks for your reply.

My understanding is as follows:

Bhumihar Brahmins are in Bihar. Former CM Jagannath Mishra belongs to this sect.

Chitbhavans are in Maharashtra. I presume, Acharya Vino Bhave and Godse belonged to this sect. Some Cricktters are in this sect.

Niyogis are Telugu Brahmins. Former PM Narasimha Rao belonged to this sect.

While Niyogis and Chitbhavans are probably smarthas (some Niyogis were my colleagues in the Office), I have no knowledge about other Brahmins' Sect.

You may please enlighten, if available.

Please click the words and see the wiki page.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

Your post #85 for reference:

....... Parasurama, after reclaiming the land from the sea, is supposed to have consecrated 108 Shiva temples and 108 Durga temples for the well-being and prosperity of the people in Kerala. Please not that not one Vishnu or Krishna temple was set up; even the Padmanabhaswamy Temple according to legend starts with Vilvamangalam Swamiyar who is a much later entity compared to Parasurama.

Please give me the source of this info. I would like to look up. If it is just hearsay we will leave it aside for this discussion because it would be unreliable.

Vaishnavam was an off-shoot from the total brahmin community in Tamil Nadu and Ramanuja spearheaded this vaishnavism, is the impression I have got so far. There was no saivism in the earlier Sangam works like ‘Agananuru’, ‘Nattrinai’ and ‘Kurunthogai’; these works refer to 'Velan Veriyaattu', a ritual dance associated with the worship of Murugan and Murugan, then was not the Subrahmanyan/Murugan of later times.

This is not true. This is the wrong impression many people have-that vaishnavam started with Ramanuja like smarthaism started with Sankara. This is not true. Much before Ramanuja came into the picture (1017-1137 AD)Vaishnavam was there as a religion of the Tamils. Alwars' time was much before this-at least 5 centuries earlier. I hope you won't say that Alwars were not vaishnavites. The man by name Nathamuni who gave us the anthology of 4000 pasurams lost in the labyrinth of time belonged to the period 800-857 AD. These are the findings of historians. The sangam period is placed at 2000 years back from this century by historians. Now coming to vaishnavam's antiquity with reference to Sangam period:

1. Tholkappiyam which is a work that preceded sangam period has this to say:

a)"மாயோன் மேய காடுறை உலகமும்…"
b)”மாயோன் மேய மன்பெருஞ்சிறப்பின்...” and
c) “மண்ணுறு திருமணி (கௌஸ்துபம்) புரையுமேனி....”

2. பத்துப்பாட்டில் திரு முருகாற்றுப்படை says:
a) “புள்ளணீ நீள்கொடிச்செல்வன்”
b) “இரு நிலங்கடந்த திருமறு(கௌஸ்துபம்) மார்பின் முந்நீர்வண்ணன்”

3) பத்துப்பாட்டில் மதுரைக்காஞ்சி says:
a) “மாயோன் மேய ஓண நன்னாள்”

I can give you references from another anthology called எட்டுத்தொகை in Tamil which too belongs to the sangam period. Thus there are references in (1) paripaatal (பரிபாடல்),
அன்னச்சேவலாய்ச் சிறகர்ப்புலத்தியோய்....... (2)kaliththokai (கலித்தொகை) மல்லரை மறஞ்சாய்த்த மால் (3)Natrinai (நற்றிணை) மாநிலஞ்சேவடியாக and (4) pathitruppaththu (பதிற்றுப்பத்து) செல்வன் சேவடி பரவு (incidentally this is about the temple in Trivandrum and the murthy there). I can give you references even from the Naladiyar (நாலடியார்), thrikadukam (திரிகடுகம்), naanmanikkadikai (நான்மணிக்கடிகை), kaar naarpathu (கார் நாற்பது) etc., where Vishnu is clearly referred to as God. For space and time I am skipping them.
If you take the Aimperungkaappiyangal (ஐம்பெருங்காப்பியங்கள்) there is reference to Srirangam and Thiruvenkatam in a conversation between Kovalan, the hero and Maangaattu MaraiyOn. And you must be familiar with the Aychchiyar kuravai stanzas (ஆய்ச்சியர் குரவை பாடல்) popularized by M.S.Subbulakshmi particularly the lines “சேவகன் சீர் கேளாத செவியென்ன செவியே, திருமால் சீர் கேளாத செவியென்ன செவியே, கரியவனைக்காணாத கண்ணென்ன கண்ணே, கண்ணிமைத்துக்காண்பார் தம் கண்ணென்ன கண்ணே,.........நாராயணா என்னா நாவென்ன நாவே” In silappathikaaram there is reference to the four out of 5 states (para, vyuha, vibhava, archa) of Srimannarayana.

Though you have not questioned yet the antiquity of vaishnavam in the gangetic plains,going back in time further I would like to point out these:

1. Rig Veda refers to Vishnu with “threeni pathaani” and “thath vishno paramam patham sathaa paschyanthy sooraya:” etc., and in Purusha suktha which is also part of Rig Veda there is clear references to Vishnu as the God who pervades everything in the universe.
2. Yajur veda also similarly speaks about Vishnu as “hreeschathe lakshmeescha pathnyou”
3. Sama veda speaks about Vishnu in the second part, eighth prapathaka.
4. Atharva siras speaks about Srimannarayana as the lotus eyed Vishnu.
5. Narayana suktham says “Narayana parambrahma thathvam naraayanappara:

Narayana parojyothir AtmaNarayanappara:”

1. In the Upanishads which are called vedasiras, there is reference to Vishnu/Srimannarayana/vasudeva in several places. I skip for time and space. I would just add this: in the yajur vedasiras it is said “....... ப்ரஹ்மா நாராயண: சிவச்ச நாராயண: சக்ரச்ச நாராயண: காலச்ச நாராயண: திசச்ச நாராயண:விதிசச்ச நாராயண: ஊர்த்வஞ்ச நாராயண: அதச்ச நாராயண: அந்தர் பஹிச்ச நாராயண: நாராயண ஏவமிதம் ஸர்வம்....”

So vaishnavam is as old as Vedas and older than sangam period.

Hence the vedic brahmins from the north must have brought their vedas, Yaagas and gods to the Tamil country. As a result the Saivam might have got a fillip during the Pallava rule and the famous Nayanmars did much to increase the spread and depth of Siva devotion or Saivism.

No. Vaishnavam coexisted side by side with Saivam (as different from the smarthaism of today's brahmins) in the ancient Tamil country as evident from the mass of evidence given above. Only the smarthaism of Brahmins who came from the gangetic plains was alien to the Tamil country. Again as I hypothesized in an earlier post that was the need of the time for those hapless Brahmins to keep their body and soul together. Like a past generation housewife they did not leave either the kattil (cot) or the thottil (swing). The cot had their sruti smriti truths to which they were permanently wedded to and the thottil had the crybaby of local saivam. They mixed these two to give us smarthaism.

All through this period, there was a deity called maayOn who became Krishna later on. Vaishnavism was later to Saivism, it was a break-away group which separated from the whole body of brahmins and the Vaishnavism again split into the two "kalais", the thenkalais upholding the Tamil scriptures and the Vadakalais sticking on to their ancient vedic brahmin scriptures.

You are parroting the line expressed by many ill informed iyers/smarthas who know little about vaishnavam.

1. The same pre-sangom Tholkappiyam which speaks in a general way about the “maayon” speaks also about the God who wears koustubam which is a distinct identity of Vishnu/Narayana alone (please read about this again in the above paragraphs). So the maayon is none but Vishnu.
2. It may be true that some of the Brahmins who came from the north were vaishnavites and when they found vaishnavam well established as a religion south of Vindhyas, they must have been pleasantly surprised.

There was no breaking away from an integrated mass. Perhaps integration with the Southern vaishnavism was that much easier for these Brahmins.

1. The split of vaishnavam into thenkalai and vadakalai has nothing to do with

Languages. It is a misunderstanding which many smarthas have. The difference is based on philosophical interpretations. Thenkalais are as much vedic Brahmins as vadakalais are and vadakalais are as well read in Tamil scriptures as the thenkalais are.

Hope this clears the position for those who are not familiar with vaishnavam.

 

[prasad1]

The Golden age of Hinduism is the Gupta period. Giptas were Vaisyas, not brahmins. The Guptas supported Hinduism, and helped create the Ithihas of our religions. They literally created the "history" and placed it in antiquity to make it authentic.

Similarly the Cholas of south India were the preservers of Hinduism, again they were not brahmins. The brahmins were given a platform by these NB Kings, and Brahmins might have influenced the writings, with their own biases.

According to some writings the Ram of Ramayana was inspired by Chandragupta II

 

[Vaagmi]

The Golden age of Hinduism is the Gupta period. Giptas were Vaisyas, not brahmins. The Guptas supported Hinduism, and helped create the Ithihas of our religions. They literally created the "history" and placed it in antiquity to make it authentic.
Similarly the Cholas of south India were the preservers of Hinduism, again they were not brahmins. The brahmins were given a platform by these NB Kings, and Brahmins might have influenced the writings, with their own biases.
According to some writings the Ram of Ramayana was inspired by Chandragupta II

King Richard II of Great Britain secretly assembled a band of historians in India and got the history of India written. They created the history of India as well as the itihasas. They placed it all in the antiquity (just by opening a vault) to make it authentic. When Henry who defeated Richard II and put him in prison in the Tower of London created another band of historians who rewrote the Ramayana and we all have only this copy and not the original. Naturally the "historians" who formed the band were beholden to Henry and so their Ram (our Ram today) was inspired by Henry aka Bolingbroke and Ravana was an exact duplicate of Richard II naturally. LOL.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

Your post #85 for reference:


Please give me the source of this info. I would like to look up. If it is just hearsay we will leave it aside for this discussion because it would be unreliable.

< Clipped >

Dear Shri Vaagmi Sir,

I feel I will be correct - just as you had done in another context - to let me know if you have any source of info. to rebut this.

BTB, I am awaiting the details of Sudras getting educated in vedic times just as ordinarily as the higher castes and sources for that info.

As regards Vaishnavam, I admit that my knowledge may not be adequate or correct, but what are the sources (again) which will prove that the Vaishnavam of the pre-sangam period, or sangam period was identical to what it became post-Ramanuja? Most importantly, do we have authentic sources to prove that the ancient Vishnavam of the Tamil country had the same kind of monotheistic worship of Narayana and His six different states, and so on? Were there brahmins who adhered to this kind of maayon worship only and eschewed all worship of Siva even in those ancient times? If they did was there no fear from the saiva group? What did they do with their Kattil & Thottil then? Were those people professing the ancient vaishnavism in Tholkaappiyam, Thirumurukaarruppatai, etc., wearing the naamam as it is today or was it absent?

Unless there is clear supporting evidence for the above, what we will have is that the vedic people had already been known to the Tamil country by the Sangam period (either because there was an influx, as evidenced by the legend of Agastya going south, etc.) or that there was trade or political contacts between the Tamil people and the vedic people in the Gangetic plains as a result of which some bits and pieces of religious lore had permeated down south also.

References in the vedas to Narayana were not to the Srimannarayana of present day Vaishnavism; it was referring to 'the son of Nara, or the original man' who is the "Purusha" of the Purushasookta. In the absence of any evidence/proof that the vedic, upanishadic, etc., refer only to the Vaishnava Narayana, those denote Narayana as Purusha or the naH +ayana = one without change, i.e., the Brahman.

Therefore, what we are left with is that a deity called maayon, maal etc., who had similarities to the present day Narayana of the Vaishnavas.

Also relevant is when the paancharaatra & vaikhaanasa aagamas were compiled and whether those sangam-age people singing about maayon, maal, etc., followed any one of these.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

If you take the Aimperungkaappiyangal (ஐம்பெருங்காப்பியங்கள்) there is reference to Srirangam and Thiruvenkatam in a conversation between Kovalan, the hero and Maangaattu MaraiyOn.

If there is a reference of Srirangam and Thiruvenkatam in Aimperungkaappiyangal, then it might belong to Samanargal. Some time back, an MLA mentioned that Srirangam and Tirupathi belonged to Samanargal. The word 'chirappalli' in the name Thiruchirapalli was a Samanar's terminology. He said still there are samanar padukkais in and around Trichy.

This definitely requires introspection.

Jain works also need to be closely reviewed whether it any work contains the word 'MAYON'. Jainism is probably the oldest in TN.

 

[prasad1]

Most historians agree that people in South India (including parts of Maharashtra and Gujarat) up until the 9th and 10th centuries for the most part were Buddhists and Jains.Shaivism and Vaishnavism were unknown to most South Indians until Chola kings of the 10th century (who were mostly Vaishnavites) started to spread their religion.Many Buddhist and Jain places of worship were converted over period of time to places of worship for the Vaishnava gods like Lord Venkateswara.One of the Buddhist traditions that is still practiced in the Thirumala temple is the shaving of the head by the devotees. Buddhism allows men, woman and children to shave their heads as part of the initiation ceremony. It is an important first step in a person’s journey towards enlightenment. Vaishnavism prohibits shaving of head except in the case of death of a close family member. Women are allowed to shave their head only if the husband dies. Vaishnava priests (modern day Brahmins) never shave their head completely.
It is also interesting to note that even today anyone who is a “Hindu” can perform Abhiseka to the Lord or perform Archana directly irrespective of the persons caste or sex. This practice is absolutely rare in Vaishnava temples or for that matter other Hindu temples. The local tribes known as Chenchus not only perform Archana and Abhiseka but also take part is almost all important temple festivities. The week caste and sex barriers are signs of Buddhist.

The Sangam period was one of the greatest periods in Indian literature. This collection contains over 2300 poems by over 473 poets. The period spanned over 900 years starting from 600 BCE to 300 CE. These poems and other texts were written in Tamil and the subjects covered were largely secular in nature which is not surprising since most of this literature was written by Buddhist and Jain monks. NOTE: The word “Sangam” is from Sanskrit and is never mentioned in a single text from that period. The actual word used is “Sangha” which is a Buddhist and Jain term for “assembly of monks”.
The works from the Sangha period (particularly Silappatikaram written by the Jain monk Ilango Adigal) talk about the Tirumala temple but many Sanskrit texts particularly the Vishnu Purana do not mention anything about the shrine (obviously the temple is not mentioned in Mahabharata or the Ramayana). Ilango Adigal claims he visited the temple. But why is the Vishnu Purana silent on one of the most important Vishnu temples in India?
http://www.quora.com/Was-Tirupati-Balaji-Temple-an-old-Buddhist-temple

 

[prasad1]

King Richard II of Great Britain secretly assembled a band of historians in India and got the history of India written. They created the history of India as well as the itihasas. They placed it all in the antiquity (just by opening a vault) to make it authentic. When Henry who defeated Richard II and put him in prison in the Tower of London created another band of historians who rewrote the Ramayana and we all have only this copy and not the original. Naturally the "historians" who formed the band were beholden to Henry and so their Ram (our Ram today) was inspired by Henry aka Bolingbroke and Ravana was an exact duplicate of Richard II naturally. LOL.

A weak laughter usually means that the person has no intelligent escape.

 

[JR]

The works from the Sangha period (particularly Silappatikaram written by the Jain monk Ilango Adigal) talk about the Tirumala temple but many Sanskrit texts particularly the Vishnu Purana do not mention anything about the shrine (obviously the temple is not mentioned in Mahabharata or the Ramayana). Ilango Adigal claims he visited the temple. But why is the Vishnu Purana silent on one of the most important Vishnu temples in India?
Was Tirupati Balaji Temple an old Buddhist temple? - Quora

Namaste,

The Tiruvenkata Mahatmiya or the descent of Sri Vishnu as Sri Srinivasa to marry Padmavathi happened only in Kali-yuga. Whereas Ramayana and Mahabharata happened in previous yugas, and thus are much more ancient to the formation of the Tirupathi Temple. Vishnu purana precedes even that. That is why we cannot find reference for Tirumala temple in Vishnu purana, Ramayana or Mahabharata.

 

[sarang]

The kutharga and vidabdavadis are back to the antics of anti hindu secularists- A quoting B quoting C quoting A as authentic evidence. Ramjanmabhoomi judgement has censured the false historians in strong terms. Sada log with a laptop and internet connection fall for askme sites as gospel truth to quote chandragupta commissioned valmiki to ghost write ramayana for self promotion.

These perverse theories get due burial they deserve is the strength of hindu dharma, faith and way of life.

 

[sarang]

The eminent quoter says 'vishnu purana does not mention tirupathy; what other temples are listd in this purana? we must conclude all present day temples not listed are usurped by force by the vaishnavites who shave or do not shave their heads.

 

[prasad1]

Instead of flying off the handle in a tangent
read other posts
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...lization-christianity-islam-4.html#post267384

In my post I said that Vishnu purana does not mention Balaji and not Tripathi. An average person will know that purana do not talk of temples. But some are not average.