Tamil maRai

[Guest guest]

I posted the following in SCT in a thread that

meandered into the question of, among others, whether

knowledge of vEdhaas was common and whether 4000

dhivya prabandham contains vEdhik truths. I thought

it may be relevant here as well.

 

 

-- Dileepan

=================================

 

 

 

 

In article <DEso5F.7vn

selvakum (C.R. Selvakumar) writes:

>

>In article <431v9j$lc2,

>Raghu Seshadri <seshadri wrote:

>

>>Finally, there was a third source specially

>>for the Tamils. This was the Divya Prabhandam

>>of the Sri Vaishnavas. It is maintained

>>that the Prabhandam contains all the ideas

>>present in the Veda ( though personally

>>I think "all" maybe stretching it, but

>>certainly it does contain the Srivaishnava

>>interpretation of the Veda) ; indeed it

>>is given the title "tamil marai" or the

>>"Veda in Tamil". This , again, was widely

>>read.

>

> RS, I hope you would see the serious distortions that result

> in saying that everything comes from Vedas or everything

> that there is is a summary of Vedas.

 

 

 

 

 

In the following two issues are addressed, (1) vEdhik

status for thamizh prabandhams and (2) knowledge of

vEdhaas among the ancient thamizhs. Obviously, these

two points are interrelated.

 

A word of caution, I am not talking about

"everything"; all I am concerned with is

dhivya prabandham.

 

 

Sri vaishNavaas of south India have always accepted the

dhivyaprabandhams in general and the prabandhams of

nammaazhvaar in particular, as thamizh vEdhaas.

Sriman naadhamuni called nammaazhvaar's

thiruvaaymozhi "dhraavida vEdha saagaram." Others

have said, "arumaRaigaL andhaathi,satakOpan

senthamizh vEdham,aanRa thamizh maRaigaL

aayiram," etc., etc. The four prabandhams of

nammaazhvaar are mapped to the four vEdhaas as

follows:

 

thiruviruththam : rg

thiruvaasiriyam : yajur

thiruvaaymozhi : saama

periya thiru_vandhaathi : atharvaNa

 

I am not sure whether the ideas of the respective vEdhaas

are reflected in the corresponding nammaazhvaar

prabandhams. But it is clear that the sri vasihNavaas

accorded vEdhik status to the prabandhams. Some

would say that the prabandhams occupy a higher status

than vEdhaas. During ceremonial processions of the

Lord, prabhandham chanters go in front, followed by the

Lord, and finally, in the back, the vEdha chanters. This

practice is offered as evidence of higher status for

prabandhams relative to vEdhaas.

 

It is widely held among sri vaishNavaas that

the vEdhik principles are highlighted and made easy in

the prabandhams for those who lack Sanskrit knowledge.

It is believed that a study of prabandhams alone is

sufficient to understand the vEdhik truths.

 

Even though the later day sri vaishNavaas treat

prabhandams as thamizh vEdham there is no indication

that aazhvaars themselves made any such claim. There

are two exceptions to this. (1) Periyaazhvaar, in his

thirumozhi 2.8.10, asserts, "vEdhap payan koLLavalla

vittuchiththan than sonna maalai...," and (2) in 8th and

9th paasurams of kaNNinuN siRuththaambu

madhurakavi aazhvaar says of nammaazhvaar's

prabandhams, respectively, "aruLinaan avvaru maRaiyin

poruL," and "vEdhaththin utporuL, niRkkappaadi en

nenchuL niruththinaan."

 

Even though aazhvaars did not claim vEdhik

status for their verses they do repeatedly

invoke vEdhaas with phrases such as "vEdha

mudhalvan,vEdhaththaan vEngadaththaan,vEdhap

poruLE, en vEngadavaa,vEdhaththaay, vEdhaththin

suvaip payanaay,vEdha nalviLakku,naal

vEdhaththuLLaan,vEdha mudhaR poruL,"

"munnuruvil vEdha naan_gaay," etc. etc. Therefore, it

seems to me that the aazhvaars gave enough reasons for

the later day sri vasihNavaas to revere the prabandhams

as thamizh vEdhaas. Considering the reverential use of

the term "vEdha" by the aazhvaars, they could only feel

honored that their works are considered equal to

vEdhaas. At the very least they would not take it

as a distortion.

 

The evidence of vEdhik knowledge among the authors

of paripaadal, dated prior to the early aazhvaars,

is even more remarkable. Phrases such as "naaval

andhaNar arumaRaip poruLE,pugazh iyaindha

isaimaRai uRukanal muRaimootti," and "vaaymozhi

yOdai malarndha ...," are found in them. One of the

most fascinating passages of paripaadal occurs in the

third verse:

 

"theeyinuL theRaln^ee poovinuL naaRRan^ee

kallinunuL maNiyun^ee sollinuL vaaymain^ee

aRaththinuL anbu nee maRaththinuL maindhu nee

vEdhaththu maRain^ee boothaththu muthalun^ee

venchudar oLiyun^ee thingaLuL aLiyun^ee

anaiththun^ee anaiththinut poruLun^ee ..."

 

The similarity between the above and vEdhik ideas is

unmistakable!

 

All of these do give us good reasons to speculate that

among the ancient thamizh learned, irrespective of caste,

vEdhik knowledge and reverence was not uncommon.

Lack of knowledge among the general public was

perhaps attributable to illiteracy or indifference rather

than taboo or religious sanction.

 

 

-- Dileepan