We have to take note since when the Tamil society came under sanskrit influence; before we move on to Dharmashastras. Definitely there was a stage in tamil history where there was no sanskrit or dharmashastra influence.
Smt. HH,
This itself is something to be proved by further research. For example, there is a section of opinion which holds that even Tolkappiar and Tolkappiam tend to indicate Tamil-Sanskrit co-existence and borrowings from the same source of aindram sanskrit grammar. Hence, just making an assumption, like a bolt from the blue, and saying that "Definitely there was a stage in tamil history where there was no sanskrit or dharmashastra influence." may at best relate to the
paleolithic/neolithic stage but that also will depend on archaeological findings.
I will agree with George Hart that vedic-brahmins started arriving in tamilakam from 100 AD to 700 AD. But during this time the vedic brahmins were still taking over the roles of the panars, anthanars, etc. IMO, Sanskrit influence established itself full scale in the 8th and 9th centuries AD.
If Tolkappiar could mention the four castes, vedas, aindram grammar, etc., and if the mythology of Agastya has anything to do with migration of some people from Dwaraka (one view is that these were the vELir) to the Tamil country, Hart's thesis may not be acceptable unless we have enough data to show that before 100 A.D. Tamizhakam was not even aware of vedas and brahmins. The Girnar rock-edict of Ashoka dated 257 B.C. mentions Cholas and Pandyas and says
"Everywhere [2] within Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi's domain, and among the people beyond the borders, the Cholas, the Pandyas, the Satiyaputras, the Keralaputras, as far as Tamraparni and where the Greek king Antiochos rules, and among the kings who are neighbors of Antiochos,[3] everywhere has Beloved -of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals. Wherever
medical herbs suitable for humans or animals are not available, I have had them imported and grown. Wherever medical roots or fruits are not available I have had them imported and grown. Along roads I have had wells dug and trees planted for the benefit of humans and animals.[4] "
If, as Ashoka claims, the Cholas and the Pandyas were in good terms with him and if as he (Ashoka) claims, there were facilities for medical treatment of man and animal, wells and trees etc., it is difficult to envisage that all such facilities would have been made use of by the Tamil people of those days (BC 3rd. century) without even an idea of the northern empire, its emperor and its people, language etc. I agree that the Tamils might not even have known sanskrit but that the
northern people spoke a different tongue would definitely be known here.
Tolkappiar also says —
இயற்சொல் திரிசொல் திசைச்சொல் வடசொல் என்று
அனைத்தே செய்யுள் ஈட்டச் சொல்லே.. -pg-63
வடசொல் கிளவி வட எழுத்து ஒரீஇ
எழுத்தொடு புணர்ந்த சொல் ஆகும்மே – pg-64
(
Influence of sanskrit over Tamil – breaking the dravidian racism | Senthilraja’s blog)
Hence it will appear that there must have been some contact between the sanskrit-vedic-dharmasastric north and the pre-sangam south itself. If so, can we rule out infiltration/migration of people (of all castes, for that matter) from very early times themselves to the south and also visits for trade, pilgrimages, etc., between south and north?
Lets view this from the temple tradtions pov. The institution of patikam patuvar first appears in the late ninth century Pallava inscriptions. It became part of temple worship under the early Cholas (10th century). Under Rajaraja I (11th century) it became firmly established as a pre-eminent socio-religious activity of the temple. The ritual singer were velala Ouduvars.
Now the period of the hymns are interesting. Because the saiva hymns absorbed various influences into its fold through the institution of the temple, including folk elements, Sanskritic forms and sects like the Kapalikas and Mahavratins. The hagiographical works expanded and brought the Siddhas into their fold during this time period, by canonising Siddha Tirumular.
So Saivism now established itself, under royal patronage, as the dominant religion, starting with the Chola rulers after Parantaka I (A.D. 907-955), and becoming consolidated by the time of Rajaraja I and Rajendra I (A.D. 985-1044) as the royal cult. It is after Cuntarar, whose work Tiruttontattokai lists all the Saiva bhakti saints (62 of them before him); that the three groups of hymns of the trio become a single text, structured as the Tiruppatikam and was introduced
into temple rituals.
I hold somewhat different views. We do not seem to know the older temple worship practices. Some scholars say that the Tamizh word "poosai, poosei" meant adorning the idol with flowers and that was the main facet of the temple worship. The devolution of work to the "Othuvaars" or "patikam paaDuvOr" may signify the advent of the brahminic style of pooja in the temples and demotion of the older class of native Tamil priests to the othuvaar class which imo was considered non-brahmin, ab initio, I think.
Cholas were held to be Saiva Siddhanta adherents. If this is true, we would have seen real Tamil names like -kiLLi, -sembiyan, -vaLavan, etc., but the medieval Cholas were conspicuous with their sanskritic names, Parantaka, Raja Raja etc. Hence there seems to be a basic error in saying that Saivism gets established during the medieval Cholas; if anything, I will hazard that the medieval Cholas might have been responsible for deposing the old form of Temple worship and bringing in the separate priestly brahmins from out of the northern immigrants who gradually switched over from their traditional Dharmasastra views to the Saiva Siddhanta system, thus forming the Gurukkal community - kudumi, sacred thread, some amount of sanskrit knowledge, and all - as a "fallen" group and that is why even today certain distance is there socially between the two groups.
In my view, therefore, the Gurukkals or Temple priests and the true Brahmins would have got more or less equal recognition and munificence from royalty during the medieval Chola regime. All that is said about the Saiva hymns may be true but that will not alter, imo, the conclusion above.
The messages encoded in these hymns are clear. There is a a voiced protest against caste hierarchy in the religious sphere, emphasis on devotion to a personal god, an emerging sacred geography and concept of pilgrimage, and above all a sense of community above caste.
What we see is that caste structures existed ofcourse, but were not rigid once upon a time. Caste by itself is not discrimination, especially if they allow people
to move from one caste to another. Sangam literature does mention caste, but does not prohibit change of caste (occupation) with regard to temple activites.
It would seem like anyone could become an anthanar or a panar bard. There was no birth right on temple roles, bhakti and moksham.
Manikkavasagar did not develop a defiant attitude towards the caste rules, and so it is difficult to appreciate the statement that "There is a a voiced protest against caste hierarchy in the religious sphere". If "community above caste" was the credo of the Saivaite poets, what was their concept of "community"? Did it simply replace caste as a label?
But this fluid system changed. It was replaced by the dharmashastra type of rigid caste structure. It must have happened because Sanskrit influence became dominant. Sangam literature does not mention Pallavas and is centered around the muvender trio, Chola, Pandya, Chera. The Pallavas supposedly brought Sanskrit to tamilkam. From there on things must have started changing. But the social-clamp-down should be atrributed to the cholas IMO.
Sanskrit brought local tamil kings into mythical sanskrit genealogy. From around 8th century onwards sanskrit became continuously used by various rulers. In the Velvikudi inscriptions of the Pandyas of the eighth/ninth century AD, Tamil was used side by side with Sanskrit, giving two prasastis, one in Sanskrit and one in Tamil.
But apparently the Pandyas were trying to elevate Tamil on an equal scale as Sanskrit. Because Cholas and Pallavas usually left inscriptions in tamil but restricted their prasastis to a single language, Sanskrit.
Typically, Sanskrit prasasti provides rulers with a purely mythological ancestry. In the case of Pandyas, it traces their dynasty back to its mythic ancestor Pandya, who at the beginning of the present Kalpa was reborn as Budha, son of the Moon, and so on. This is in contrast with the tamil prasasti which is a piece of detailed local history enumerating seven ancestors of the then present king Netunchezian with many details of battles and conquests.
The concept of "high born" with such mythical ancestries became prevalant with sanskrit influence. This resulting in social caste-rigidity was only a matter of time IMO. After the rise of the brahmins, what happened in chola domains, is the rest which i have already dealt in the Arakshan thread.
When we find that the North-South contacts existed from very early times and the possibility of brahmin/vaisya/sudra influx, at least in negligible quantities, cannot be ruled out, it requires much more solid evidence to prove that "The Pallavas supposedly brought Sanskrit to tamilkam." (note the word "supposedly" here; beyond supposition and some rock-cut "prasastis" we have no irrefutable evidence to go by. "Prasastis" might most probably have been written in single language in some cases merely because the engravers of that area did not know the other languages. Hence, to generalize on the basis of a few prasastis here and there and then forming very important conclusions, may not be appropriate, imho. For example you say, "In the Velvikudi inscriptions of the Pandyas of the eighth/ninth century AD, Tamil was used side by side with Sanskrit, giving two prasastis, one in Sanskrit and one in Tamil.
But apparently the Pandyas were trying to elevate Tamil on an equal scale as Sanskrit. Because Cholas and Pallavas usually left inscriptions in tamil but restricted their prasastis to a single language, Sanskrit. Velvikkudi, as the name indicates must have had a brahmin population, engravers knowing Sanskrit, etc. But to expect that from this single instance we can form generalized opinion like "apparently the Pandyas were trying to elevate Tamil on an equal scale as Sanskrit. Because Cholas and Pallavas usually left inscriptions in tamil", etc., is too far-fetched, according to me.
From the above promotion of Sanskrit, you go to mythical ancestry in Prasastis >sanskrit influence> caste rigidity. I cannot somehow agree that any ruler of those times would have needed all such circuitous methods to implement whatever social changes/alterations he desired. We have the claim from some quarters that the Vijayanagara rulers appointed Nayaks, dispossessed the original "Mallar" landholder cultivators and made them to be called "pallars" and decreed that they will be scheduled (untouchable class) serfs to the appointed landholders. The Pallu Paattus depict cruel landlords from vaishnavas also. This I feel goes against your pet notion that only the smarthas were the repository of everything evil.
So sir, imo, it would be a speculative assumption to think that social codes of temple-priests were similar to dharmashastras. Shamans, and ritualism centred around idols have existed in various tribes. There is no evidence that they involved in the dharmashastra-type of social clamp-downs.
Do we have to assume that the temple-priests are necessarily a development of the Shamans? Even assuming that the Shamans did not have social stratification and rigid castes, is it not possible that some of the meemamsaka brahmins from the north could have taken up the Temple-priest's job and eventually seceded from their original, migrant group? As of today I believe (but have not found anything to support this) the Gurukkal community essentially follows the Dharmasastras in so far as their "samskaras" are concerend; if this is wrong, kindly furnish me with refernces relating to this subject.
Anyways, in tamilakam the emerging scenarion of sanskrit influence seems have given rise to new conflict situations. Conflicts created due to royal patronization of brahmins, and the changing form of "tamil hinduism". A deepening sectarian rivalry emerged between the Saivas and the Vaisnavas. Another rivalry emerged as the Velala community wanted a greater share in the authority structure of the temple through the matha.
The Velalas initiated the process of the composition and organisation of the Saiva Siddhanta canon, in which the Tēvāram is arranged as the first seven books, followed by other books containing hymns of other saints not sanctified till then; and finally organising hagiographical literature and Saiva Siddhanta philosophical treatises. The Vellala elite created a whole series of interpretational techniques to relate Tēvārams to the Saiva Siddhanta. The ritual singers of
Tēvārams (velala ouduvars) were now trained and supported by the mathas. This process of change began after 1200 AD.
So, quite obviously around this time, caste ridification was complete. So much that the velalas had to create a matha to get a greater share of temple roles.
It is not made clear as to how sanskrit influence gave rise to deepening Saiva-Vaishnava conflicts, why Vellala community got restive because of Sanskritic influence, and how these two, along with temple singers of Tēvārams (velala ouduvars) were now trained and supported by the mathas, can be taken as sure proof of complete rigidification of castes. Needs further explanation imho.
[/QUOTE]AFAIK, the terms Chaturvedi Mangalams and Brahmadeyams refer to brahmins (fire priests). The term Devadanam refers to lands donated to temples; which may have been controlled by temple-priests, vellalars and brahmins. But then brahmins took over the temples, so things must have changed.[[/QUOTE]
The vedic brahmins or fire-priests you refer to would not have associated with temple affairs because it was considered improper, against smritis and held to cause a demotion from caste. They would have managed lands and estates included in the Chaturvedimangalams. But is there any supporting evidence to show that the brahmins took over the temples? If so what were their roles and duties in relation to those temples?
It is rather clear, the native-priests (anthanars, etc), were not following smrithis. The roles of anthanars, etc got 'taken over' (hijacked imo) by incoming vedic brahmins, and thereafter smrithi adherence started.
We do not know if the native-priests grew in stature so much that they could get Pallar slaves / serfs. Perhaps in later times (to compete with incoming
brahmins) they adopted smrithis in some places and became transformed into Smartha brahmins (??). Will try to look up details on these points.
Regards.
Here I feel you are equating the antanars of the sangam age with native-priests and keeping them as separate from the vedic brahmins who came down south with their sanskrit and Dharmasastras and spoile things in Tamilnadu of yore. I will be able to accept this view only if the various assumptions made are backed up by reliable evidence/s.
.
