kamba rAmAyanam

[Guest guest]

This is what I have heard about why Sri Kamban is negelected generally by Sri

vaishnavite acharyas.

 

Kamban, due to his deep gratitude to Sadaiyappa Vallal had referenced Sadaiyappa

Vallal or to his ansestors in the Kamba Ramayanam. This was in about every 100

verses. At the time of Arangetram of the Kamba Ramayanam in SriRangam Temple,

the scholars objected to this and said this is not very appropriate to refer,

that too every 100 verses. So Kamban readily removed the reference in most

places and kept the reference at about once every thousand verses. Apparently

Kamban made this remark "I thought Sadayappan was one in 100 and our friends

here have taught me, that he is one in thousand"

Even in the final Pattabishekam pasuram it is said

"Vennaiman Sadaiyan marabuloor kodukka vaangi Vashitane punainthan mouli"

Sadaiyappan 's Ancestors had handed the crown into Sri Vasishtar and he crowned

Sri Rama.

The reference to Sadaiyappa Vallal is not only objectionable but also kind of

distorts Sri Ramayanam.

In this same incident we all know that Kamban had sung the Sadagopar Andhadhi,

which itself makes him a great Sri Vaishnavite.

 

 

Adiyen

Murali Vanamamalai

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

________

Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com

http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

[Guest guest]

Dear SrI Mani Varadarajan:

 

Selava Nampi of ThirukkOshtiUr was

PeriyAzhwAr's AchAryan and not a benefactor

in the sense of Sadayappa VaLLal was to Kamban.

 

V.Sadadgopan

 

>bhakti-list, "murali vanamamalai" <VMURALI@T...> wrote:

>> Kamban, due to his deep gratitude to Sadaiyappa Vallal had

>> referenced Sadaiyappa Vallal or to his ansestors in the Kamba

>> Ramayanam. This was in about every 100 verses. At the time of

>> Arangetram of the Kamba Ramayanam in SriRangam Temple, the scholars

>> objected to this and said this is not very appropriate to refer,

>> that too every 100 verses. So Kamban readily removed the reference

>> in most places and kept the reference at about once every thousand

>> verses.

>

>This is very interesting. Could Hari Krishnan or someone else

>who is well versed in Kamban confirm if such verses do exist,

>and whether they rise to the level of nara-stuti? If so, why

>would not Periyalvar also be disqualified for his citation of

>'abhimAna-tungan-selvan' who is reputed to have been his

>benefactor?

>

>adiyen

>Mani

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, "murali vanamamalai" <VMURALI@T...> wrote:

> Kamban, due to his deep gratitude to Sadaiyappa Vallal had

> referenced Sadaiyappa Vallal or to his ansestors in the Kamba

> Ramayanam. This was in about every 100 verses. At the time of

> Arangetram of the Kamba Ramayanam in SriRangam Temple, the scholars

> objected to this and said this is not very appropriate to refer,

> that too every 100 verses. So Kamban readily removed the reference

> in most places and kept the reference at about once every thousand

> verses.

 

This is very interesting. Could Hari Krishnan or someone else

who is well versed in Kamban confirm if such verses do exist,

and whether they rise to the level of nara-stuti? If so, why

would not Periyalvar also be disqualified for his citation of

'abhimAna-tungan-selvan' who is reputed to have been his

benefactor?

 

adiyen

Mani

[Guest guest]

Yes. There are ten verses that mention the name of Sadayappa Vallal. That is

the least that a poet can do to one who provided the wherewithal for him to

enable him to write a bhaara kavyam like the Ramayana. More over, it is learnt

that Sadayappa Vallal was the one who financed his education. The erudition of

Kamban is an acknowledged and established fact. The number of puranas from which

he quotes incidents, so very casually, without effort, is really amazing.

'Kalviyil periyan Kamban' is the proverb. When someone goes overboard to

support this kind of a genius and when that someone is a staunch devotee

himself, what could be wrong in mentioning his name in ten places, when the

total size of Kamba Ramayana exceeds 12,500 verses! Would not the Lord himself

be pleased with listening to the praise of one of his devotees!

 

In my view, this cannot be treated as 'nara-stuti'. For a person of the

erudition, taste and flair of Kamban, it is not fair to think that he did not

know the difference between a genuine praise and nara stuti. Kindly recall the

fact that the Kamba Ramayana was approved by great Vaishnavite and Saivite

scholars in its 'arangetram'. Arangetram was the acid test for any poet in

those days. He would be grilled and tested to the juices. He would not be left

just like that if something objectionable is found.

 

When Kamban was reciting the verses from Iraniyan vadhaip padalam on Narasimam,

it is said a roar of approval was heard from the sannadhi of Narasimam.

 

I quote just two verses out of ten that mention the name of Sadayappa Vallal.

The first one occurs in the Sethu bandhana padalam.

 

manjinil thikaztharum malaiyai mAkkurangku

enjRak kadithu eduththu eRiyavE naLan

vinjaiyil thAngkinAn sadaiyan veNNaiyil

thanjam enRArkaLaith thAngkum thanmaipOl.

 

The monkeys plucked the massive mountains on whose peaks clouds rested quickly

and threw them at Nalan. Nalan caught them (thaanginan is a pun on catching and

supporting) like Sadayan supports those who seek refuge in him. (This 'thanjam'

cannot be equated with sarana gathi. I a a little wary of the possible

arguments. :-) )

 

The second one of course, is the pattabishekam verse.

 

ariyaNai anuman thAngka angkathan udaivAL Entha

parathan veNkudai kavikka iruvarum kavari paRRa

viraiseRi kamalaththAL sEr veNNeyUrs sadaiyan thangkaL

marapuLOr kodukka vAngki vasittanE punainthAn mauli.

 

The throne was held by Hanuman. Angadha held Rama's sword. (Imagine! The

sword is given in the hands of a person whose father was killed by Rama. Please

see the kind of trust and love that prevailed there. This sword of Rama passed

into the hands of Angada, at the very scene of Vali vadham.) Bharatan bore the

white-canopy and the other two brothers held the fan. The ancestor of Vennayur

Sadayan - whose land is graced by Mahalakshmi - took the crown and handed it to

Vasistha crowned Rama.

 

What can be wrong in this verse! What Kamban mentions is nothing more than 'so

and so' brought it to Vasistha.

 

I don't think that Kamba Ramayana is negelected for these ten verses. Can an

entire epic of 12,500 verses, singing the praise of Sri Rama be rejected

outright simply because it mentions the name of a devotee, and a supporter of a

very good cause? But for Sadayappa Vallal, Kamban could not have written the

epic at all. And we are witnesses to the shameless display of names on every

tubelight in our temples, every pillar and every step that leads to the temple!

If a donor of a tubelight can proclaim that it was donated by him, should a poet

not honour his benefactor, but for whom he could not have completed his magnum

opus? And should we reject that epic downright just for that reason? Or going

by that same logic, should we not go to such temples where names of donars are

inscribed on every other stone, tubelight et al! I wonder.

 

 

Sincerely,

Hari Krishnan

 

 

-

"Mani Varadarajan" <mani

<bhakti-list>

Friday, October 25, 2002 1:46 AM

Re: kamba rAmAyanam

 

 

| This is very interesting. Could Hari Krishnan or someone else

| who is well versed in Kamban confirm if such verses do exist,

| and whether they rise to the level of nara-stuti? If so, why

| would not Periyalvar also be disqualified for his citation of

| 'abhimAna-tungan-selvan' who is reputed to have been his

| benefactor?

|

| adiyen

| Mani

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

 

Dear Sri Hari,

I am able to understand your devotion to Kamba Ramayanam. To my knowledge, no

one rejected Kamban's Ramayanam at all. It is the position that is a point of

controversy. Why Kamban was not escalated to the level of Azhwars is the point.

No one could say Kamban did nara sthuthi and hence his 12500 verses have been

rejected. Well, the possible reason(s) why he was not escalated to the level of

azhwars are:

He was trying to re-write Valmiki Ramayanam in Tamil i.e he wrote the tamil

version of Ramayanam, which was different from the work of Azhwars. All the

Azhwars were in the highest state of bhakthi and saranagathi. They sang what

they enjoyed through their soul. Their intention was not to tell stories to

people or show their poetic skill. No one could ever disagree that Kamban did

not want to show off his poetic skill - the obvious proof is the ARANGETRAM.

None of the azhwars did arangetram of their prabandhams nor did they want people

to listen or evaluate the same. They had no intentions. They had no "humanly"

goals in their life, like, they should complete some kavyam or translate

something etc. Their only goal was to enjoy the paramathma and attain him and it

is the supreme who sang all those prabandhams through them. In case of Kamban,

it was definitely a nara-sthuthi (this is different from rejecting it:). Like

other poets, Kamban definitely tried to sing few verses in praise of sadayan.

Unlike Azhwars who say "Vaai kondu manidam pada vandha kaviyenallom"(We are not

those poets who praise human beings).

 

Of-course Kamban did worship Rama as the supreme and there is no doubt about

that. But the "state" was different. There was an intention to accomplish i.e

translate and to do arangetram, which was the humanly desire. Again, this has

nothing to do with rejection and to my knowledge no body ever rejected kamba

ramayanam. If my memory is correct, my grand father used to tell that he was

more or less called as kamba naattazhvan. The only thing is that he was not

placed in position equivalent to the "Panniru Azhwargal". There is no doubt that

Kamaba Ramayanam is one of the greatest work in the literature in the world and

no one denies that.

 

For example, Thiruarangatthamudhanar wrote iramanusa nootrandhadhi. He was a

'typical' vaishnavite. His prabandham is part of the 4000 prabandhams. But, he

was not escalated to the level of Azhwars. And this doesn't mean that Amudhanar

or his work was rejected. In fact Amudhanar wrote a nootrandhadhi before the

iramanusa nootrandhadhi that we see now. That work was completely in praise of

Sri Ramanujar. And when he read it out to Sri Ramanujar, Sri Ramanujar was so

annoyed and he burnt the entire work saying "Paramatman irukka kevalam ennai pol

oru naranai thuthi seyyum padal iruppadha?"(When the supremo is there, why would

some poem exist that praises a human like me). And then, amudhanar re-wrote the

nootrandhadhi. This time he made sure the first two lines were in praise of the

lord and the next two lines would be in praise of Sri Ramanujar who is a strong

devotee of that lord who was described in the first two line. And this time Sri

Ramanujar just let him have that. This work still contained a thuthi on Sri

Ramanujar and hence is probably one of the reasons why Amudhanar was not

escalated to the level of Azhwars.

 

One last thing! Honestly, I felt a little bad when I read the statement "And we

are witnesses to the shameless display of names on every tubelight in our

temples". It is usually the work of the kovil archagars who put the name of the

ubhayadhars in items they had contributed. PLEASE, DO NOT GENERALISE THINGS. I

have seen in umpteen places where people's name are written. But, neither can I,

judge the intention behind these, nor could any body else in this world. These

statements might offend people, which is not the intention of this forum. In

trying to defend kamban please don't offend others:)

 

If I had offended you by means, my humble apologies.

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

Lakshmi Narasimhan

[Guest guest]

SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

 

Interesting discussion in this topic.

 

Kamban is neglected in religious discourses, in Valmiki Ramayana in

particular, not for the intrusions he has made but for the deviations

he has made with the original version. Barring just one aspect,

kamban can not be quoted in discourses that purely deal with Valmiki

Ramayana -that aspect being the daya and yetram (greatness) of Sita.,

 

It is no exaggeration to say that Kamban is a fore-runner to Pillai

Lokacharya in this particular aspect.

According to the latter, the greatness of Sita forms the fulcrum of

Ramayana - "Ramayanththaal sirai irundavaL yetram sollugirathu" (Sri

vachana Bhooshanam). Valmiki too mouthed this opinion ("kAvyam

ramAyaNam karthsnam sItAyas charitham mahath") but was constrained to

present the facts as they were, though some of them went against

popular approval. His objective was to highlight the purpose of the

avatar than to eulogise Rama or Piratti. Therefore he had to remain

content with drawing the dharmic conclusions wherever possible that

ranged from pitru vAkya paripAlan to mithra samrakshna with

occasional exposition of ThirumanthrArtham.

 

But Kamban did not restrict himself like that but he faced the

burden of polishing certain facts as to suit the prevailing ethos. He

lived at a time when Bhakti-movement was at its peak and the society

had come to harbour definite notions on good versus bad.

So the main issue that he was was compelled to tinker with was the

mode of abduction of Sita. He greatly deviated from Valmiki when he

insisted not once but twice, in Jatayu's version to Rama too, that

Sita was lifted along with the Parnashala and taken as such by

Ravana. ("Ravanan manninodum eduththanan" -so says Jatayu to Rama)

Even touching the hair-locks of a woman was considered an affront to

the chastity of a woman.

 

But that was not all.

Kamban took the lead in waxing eloquent on Sita's daya (irakkam) much

before our PurvacharyaL had done.

In the verse

"arakkiar aLavu attraargaL

alagaiyin kuzhuvum anja

nerukkinar kaappa nin paal

nesamE achcham neekka

irakkam endru ondru thaane

yenthizhai vadivam aeidhi-t-

tharukkia siraiyRRanna

thagaiyaL ath-thamiyal amma!"

(There is no limit to the torture inflicted by the rAkshasis. Even

the Devas are a scared lot to come near them. But sita , as one daya-

personified, feels for those who are badly treated by the demons.

She is not at all scared as she is filled with compassion for

others)

 

Similar view is echoed in SVB. It is the daya bhavam of Sita towards

the chetanas who are born to endure the confinement of samsara that

is highlighted in the above verse of kamban. (courtesy:-eminent

scholar of yester years, Sri Te.Po. Meenakshi Sundaranar)

Nammazhvar's 'thani siraiyil viLapputtra kiLi mozhiyaL" and the

numerous related vyakhyanams glorify the 'irakkam' of sita as the key

point of Ramayana.

 

Kamban has gone further in extolling Sita's virtues and has

deliberately made inclusions to glorify womanhood in general. An

important comparison between kamban and valmiki that is generally

mentioned by scholars is this:-

That men do not look at women is a virtue applicable to all times.

When Rama showed Lakshmana the jewels thrown by Sita when she was

taken away, Lakshmana could recognise only the anklets (silambu) as

he always used to look at Sita's feet only. This is one aspect of

cultural ethos that Valmiki mentions.

 

Kamban brings this out much earlier in the epic- when Bhratha asks

Guha where Lakshmana is. Guha says that he stands with his bow near

the place where Rama, whose ThirumEni is incomparable in the beauty

that seems to conquer darkness in colour and 'she' are sleeping." (

pardon me for the poor translation)

("allai aandu amainda mEni azhaganum avaLum thunja")

Guha does not simply say that Rama is sleeping. He describes his

beauty whenever possible, but seems content with saying 'avaL' for

Sita and there is no special reference to her.

 

This part is usually praised by scholars as "pEraNmai" , the highest

virtue of a man in not looking even at the direction of a woman.

Guha sees Rama sleeping. But his pEraNmai had made him not to see

Sita beside Rama. It is only by inference that he says that Sita

(avaL) must have been alongside Rama! This and similar other virtues

are generally quoted in discourses.

 

But what keeps Kamban a little distance away from the purview of

Ramayana discourses is that his strength lies in his linguistic /

literary skills in Tamizh and leanings on cultural ethics that found

favour with the masses at his time, that more often than not were out

of tune with the original thread.

 

For example the above quoted one on Guha can be better related to

the 'piran manai nokka pEraNmai' (not looking at other women)of

ThirukkuraL rather than to the main story of Ramayana.

 

Likewise the lifting of Sita along with the ground as kamban sees it

is more closer to Thirukkural

("sirai kaakkum kaapaven seiyum, magaLir

nirai kaakkum kaappE thalai".)

Ravana was afraid of touching Sita while kidnapping her because he

had to respect the chastity of the woman. ( Based on this a separate

literary work with Ravana as the virtuous Tamil Hero was made a few

centuries later that has now been included in Tamil text for High

school students (for the 10th class also) in Tamil nadu)

 

A similar reference is to Hanuman's first words to Rama on coming

back from Lanka.-"kaNdanan karpinukku aNiyai…" (saw the one who is

the jewel of chastity)

 

In fact kamban is at his best as one upholding KuraL values and

Tamizh culture. Even the reference to his patron - the highest point

of which can be seen in the 'ariyanai anman thaanga' verse wherein he

finds sadaippa vaLLal in the act of handing over the crown is

demonstrative of the virtue 'sei nandri maravaamai' (gratitude)

extolled in a full adhikAram in KuraL.

 

Many descriptions on governance and societal values have close

allegiance to kuraL and nAladiyAr.

 

Similarly Kamban's descriptions at various places are reflective of

the way of life of his times. One scholar says that nowhere Kamban

mentions about the nose ring (there are quite a few places where he

has to describe the jewelry of Sita and how she was dressed) as it

was not worn by the women in Tamil nadu until the 16th century. The

words like bEsari, pullaakku and naththu for nose-ring are not Tamil

words. The nose ring made its way from the people of north-west, from

Turkey. The different pieces of jewelry that Kamban speaks about were

all popular ones in Tamil nadu then. But did Valmiki's Sita wear a

nose-ring is what I am asking the readers to find out.

 

We can go on like this. Kamban's Ganga and Sarayu bear more

resemblance to Kaveri and koLLidam, says To. Pa. Meenakshi

sundaranar. His Ayodhi and Mithila are more of Madurai and Vuraiyur

manifested. This is not his drawback but rather his strength. If only

he has transported Valmiki Ramayana verbatim, he might have been a

terrible failure with the masses.

 

His Tamizh is comparable to that of the literature of the sangam

period with all its 'Vosai nayam'. The sound effect of the words

speak well the emotions of the speaker, like the verses expressing

the hatred of Vali after he was hit and the remorsefulness of

Kumbakarna when he attempted to counsel Ravana.

The list continues and even today kamban is a favourite in debates

and discussions from school forums to highly literary forums. His

only competitor is Bharathiyar! Wherever the discussion / discourse

is about bhakti-literature in Tamizh ("bhakti -ch-chuvai nanai chotta

chotta paadiya kavi valava" -the one who composed poems dripping with

bhakti) and about the one and only literary work that brings out in

fullness the Tamizh culture, then kamban has virtually no contender.

 

But if it is about the tattwartha of Ramayana, well,

Kamban is for 'aRivu',

but valmiki is for the 'Atman'.

 

Pardon me for the mistakes, if any.

 

Jayasree sarnathan.

[Guest guest]

/Om namO nArAyaNAya |

 

/namastE Shri Lakshnmi Narasimhan.

 

I have a question: Is it true that each one of the /AzvArs was also in charge of

a temple at some stage or other? By charge I mean that the /AzvAr was directly

or indirectly involved with the administration of a temple including /arcanAs.

 

Thanks for an interesting point of view on /kampan. I am from Karaikudi, where

they still have the annual /kampan viZA.

 

/vantanam.

 

/nalan/tarum collai nAn kaNtu/koNtEn, nArAyaNa ennnum nAmam.

[Guest guest]

Srimathe Ramanujaya Namaha

Dear Sri Visu,

 

I don't know about whether Azhwars were in charge of a temple or not. As far as

I know, they were doing kainkaryams like Maalai thodutthal i.e pushpa

kainkaryam(periyazhwar and thondaradippodi), Perumal idatthil thannai arpanitthu

avanaiye ninaitthal i.e athma kainkaryam(Andal, Nammazhwar, of-course all the

other azhwars too but these 2 were doing it full-time:). Kaliyan and Kulasekarar

were those who were kings and were the ones who did some administration like

building the fort(kovil madhil) etc. Thiruppanan was just interested in singing

the praise(pannisaitthal) of Thiruarangan all the time while Madhurakavi did the

same, but on Nammazhwar. Mudhalazhwar moovar were involved in thirutthippani

kolluthal in a subtle way while Bhakthisarar was involved in the same on an

aggressive fashion i.e by condemning other deity worships. This all that I know

of. Sorry for not addressing your question, but I don't really know whether they

were involved in the administration or not - at the least - not that I heard of.

 

But again, as I mentioned in my previous mail, all that I know of is that, their

goal was only one thing i.e paramathma anubhavam. There were no other intentions

for any accomplishment or achievement other than that of attaining the

ultimate:)

 

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan,

Lakshmi Narasimhan

 

-

Visu9

Friday, October 25, 2002 10:02 PM

bhakti-list

Re: kamba rAmAyanam

 

/Om namO nArAyaNAya |

 

/namastE Shri Lakshnmi Narasimhan.

 

I have a question: Is it true that each one of the /AzvArs was also in charge of

a temple at some stage or other? By charge I mean that the /AzvAr was directly

or indirectly involved with the administration of a temple including /arcanAs.

[Guest guest]

Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya!

 

Jai Sri Krishna!

 

 

Astikaas,

 

On this subject of Sri Kamban, I have a basic doubt. Forgive me if

this doubt is improper. Why a prime vaishnava like Sri Kamban

should name his son as ambikapati, which is the name of Siva. This

sounds illogical.

 

namaskaram

 

jayaraman

 

[ I suggest we not have an extended discussion of topics like

this since this departs from the main purpose of this list.

Thanks -- Moderator ]

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, "Sadagopan gopan" <sgopan@c...> wrote:

> Dear SrI Mani Varadarajan:

>

> Selava Nampi of ThirukkOshtiUr was

> PeriyAzhwAr's AchAryan and not a benefactor

> in the sense of Sadayappa VaLLal was to Kamban.

 

Dear Sri Sadagopan,

 

Do we really know that the Selva Nambi mentioned

by Periyalvar was his acharya? I am reminded of

his own statement "peethaka aadai pirAnAr pirama

guruvaagi vandhu ennaip payiRRi paNi seydhu koNdAn"

which would suggest that the Lord Himself was

his acharya. This is supported by the traditional

taniyan, "gurumukham an-adhItya..."

 

ramanuja dasa

Mani

[Guest guest]

bhakti-list, Sadagopan <sgopan@c...> wrote:

> Dear SrI Mani Varadarajan:

>

> SrI Selva nampi of ThirukkOttiyUr

> is generally recognized as the AchAryan

> of PeriyAzhwAr prior to the time he was

> commanded by the Lord to go to the Madhurai

> King's sabha to establish NaarAyana Parathvam.

>

 

I understand apimAnatuGkan celvan to be the name of a Pandya royal

personage. (cf BV Ramanujam, History of Vaishnavism upto Ramanuja,

Annamalai University).

> PeriyAzhwAr until then was not tutored in

> VedAs and Upanishads . He was just doing Maalaa

> Kaimkaryam at SrIvilliputthUr.

 

I am not clear what textual or traditional basis there is for the

understanding that PeriyAzvAr was not tutored in sruti and smrti.

 

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that PeriyAzvAr was a

highly learned and scholarly person who had perhaps forsworn mere

sastraic erudition and adopted the way of service of a Vaishnava par

excellence. For one thing, Sri Vedanta Desika refers to him as a

commentator on the Kalpasutras. (cf kalpa sUtra AkhyAtAvAna

periyAzvAr, RahasyatrayasAram)

 

It is also interesting to compare his approach with that of Sri

ALavantAr in AgamaprAmANyam. Thus in the AgamaprAmANyam, the Vaidika

objector of Bhagavata practices speaks as follows:

 

"They offer puja to a god, undergo a special consecration, consume

the eatable offerings, observe a series of sacraments that deviate

from the traditional series, which begins with the planting of the

seed and ends with the cremation, " . Again, "they do wear the

offered garlands and do eat the offered eatables". (AgamaprAmANyam

transl. and edited by JAB Van Buitenen)

 

These and other objections of the Vaidika pUrvapakSin are refuted by

ALavantAr (yAmunAcArya) thus establishing the validity of the

Bhagavata practices.

 

PeriyAzvAr seems to be very much having this polemic in mind in the

opening verses of tiruppallANTu. But instead of negating and refuting

the objections of outsiders and proving the validity of Bhagavata

practices in the Vaidika value system (a sastraic methodology), he

states each one of these seemingly offending practices as an article

of faith of the Vaishnava (toNTarkulam).

 

Various phrases in the tiruppallANTu seem to echo what ALavantAr

lists as other people's objections:

 

"Etu nilattil iTuvatan munnam vantu eGkaL kuzAm pukuntu"

"vantu aTi tozutu Ayira nAmam colli"

"tIyiR polikinRa ceJcuTar Azi tikaz tiruccakkarattin"

"neyyiTai nallatOr cORum niyatamum attANI cEvakamum"

"uTuttuk kaLainta nin pItakavATai uTuttu kalattatuNTu

toTutta tuzAymalar cUTikkaLaintana cUTum ittoNTarkaLOm"

 

Thus it turns out PeriyAzvAr was well versed in all the sastraic

controversies of his time and could comment on it in sastraic terms

if he wished. It appears that he chose to be a singing devotee i.e.,

bhakta ("pATumanam uTai pattar uLLIr vantu pallANTu kURuminE!").

 

It may be pointed out that yAmunAcArya also adds a stanza, at the end

of the Agamapramanyam, glorifying the "impeccable scriptures, whose

spirit has been increased by the glorious Lord Nathamuni". He is of

course refering here to the Divyaprabandham.

 

Hope this helps,

 

Lakshmi Srinivas