There has been a tradition in India to seek earlier sources for ideas propounded by any author. These sources are termed in Sanskrit ‘pramaanas’ and one often raises a question as to whether any idea presented by a current author has a pramaana. The word pramaana as such means a ‘fair evaluation’. Such an evaluation is only, generally, possible either by physical verification or by logical discussion to the conviction of those who study an idea. When it comes to philosophy the idea may be conceptual (e.g. about existence of a Supreme Being) and may need convincing faith for acceptance in the context of knowledge of the cosmos and the activities around it. To cite an instance of such a conviction (beyond verification and logical derivation) we have Thirumazhisai Aazhvaar’s statement:
Terungaal thevan oruvane enru uraippar
aarum ariyaar avan perumai orum
porul mudivum itthanaiye etthavam seidhaarkkum
arulmudivadhu aazhiyaanbaal.
Naanmuhanthiruvandhaadhi -2.
(If one analyzes, there can be only one Supreme Being. None can know His greatness. With this conviction, to any one with any kind of penance, blessings come from this Supreme Being – the holder of the wheel.) This verse succinctly describes the concept of the need for a unique Supreme Being whose greatness and kindness cannot be evaluated by any other entity.
Thirumazhisai Azhwar
Coming to the idea of pramaana, it amounts to an earlier source as (interpreted in a way to justify an idea proposed with the help of logic) justifying a new idea. This means that ‘old is gold’ – an aphorism which made even the famous Kaalidhaasa frown on it, in the context of acceptance of his now renowned work Saakuntalam- Puraanamityeva na saadhu sarvam na chaapi kaavyam navam iti avadhyam santa: parîkshya anyatharat bhajanthe. (An old work is not necessarily good. Nor a work is unworthy of mention because it is new. Wise people think otherwise after examination.) Thus any work needs to be evaluated by one who studies it in the context of its theme with reference to assumptions and conclusions backed up with convincing rationale rather than backing up by earlier works. As such, trying to put the Aazhvaars as followers of Vedas and going to the extent of saying that all their assertions are translations of Vedic assertions in the past, was forced by the circumstance when Aazhvaars works were to be made acceptable to a community which was oriented only towards Sanskrit and Vedas. This attitude has neither helped the Aazhvaars’ ideas (and philosophy) spreading throughout the country nor spreading extensively in the community, which was targeted as many of its members felt that Sanskrit is the only language for communication with the gods (dhevabhaasha) and the assertions in the Vedas are infallible. The pity is that, barring a few perhaps, they do not know Sanskrit and do not know what the Vedas convey.
With this convention of evaluation (which has universal acceptance) there is no need to compare works in different systems of philosophy in terms of sources which have influenced the system. The evaluation is completely left to the student of the system and if there is an error in judgment by a student there is scope for exposing it by another. Though there has been a tendency to say that the Aazhvaars are only echoing the statements in the Vedas, the real fact that some of the Vedic Brahmins who had exposure to the Aazhvaars works could interpret some of the Vedic statements intelligently only because of the exposure. To cite an instance the statement ‘sa vu sreyan bhavathi jaayamaana; ‘ in Thaithiriyayajurbrahmana (3-6-3) sandwiched between unrelated vaakyas preceding it and after it, which was interpreted by the Srivaishnavite Aachaaryas as conveying the message that the Supreme Being gets more fame by His birth (or avatar), cannot be even now explained by those who have no exposure to Aazhvaars. For example, Nammaazhvaar says “intruivvaayarkulatthai veeduyyatthonriya karumaanikkacchudar’ (the Lord who took the avatara as Krishna to provide salvation to this cowherd community -Thiruvaaimozhi 6-2-10). That the ideas propounded by the Aazhvaars are to be taken as pramaanas (without backing from earlier sources) if they are not in the Vedas, itihasas and puraanas has been propounded in a work entitled “Dharmajna-samaya-praamaanya-prakaasika” in the 17th century by one Srinivaasaachaarya.
Again, the convention makes it worthless to compare the Vedas with Aazhvaars’ works and say that both are of equal greatness or otherwise unless there are loopholes in the systems created by either plugged up by the other. The Aazhvaars speak well about Vedas and Vedic rituals since these were in vogue among members of the society which was held in high esteem by other communities. Statements by them like;
“maraiyaaya naalvedatthul ninra malarchudare”
(Thiruvaaimozhi 3-1-6)
“maraiyaai maraipporulaai”
(Moonraam Thiruvandhaadi -39)
are instances of their praise. Their conviction was that the Vedas were intended to praise the qualities of the Supreme Being.
Ôthin porul mudivum itthanaiye utthamanper
Çtthum thiramarimin çzhaikaal - ôtthathanai
Valleerçl nanru athanaimaatteerçl maadhavanpçr
Úolluvathe otthinúurukku.
Irandaam thiruvandhaadhi 39.
The quintessence of Vedas is this: ‘Just eulogize the qualities of the Supreme Being’. With this in mind if you are capable of reciting the Vedas well and good. If not, have the conviction to praise His qualities.
Unlike Vedas and ithihaasapuraanas, the Dhivyaprabhandhams of the Aazhvaars do not concede that people act by themselves. It is always the Supreme Being who acts. It is the Supreme Being (in the form of Raama) who chopped off Surpanakha’s nose “arakkiyai mookkirndhaayai” – Thiruvaaimozhi 2-3-6. It is again He who set Lanka on fire through an animal “vilangeri oottinaan” –Periyathirumozhi 6-4-6. It is by the blessings of the Supreme Being that Maarkandeya was saved from the claws of death by Siva. “pukkadimaiyinaal thannaikkanda maarkandeyanavanai nakkapiraanum anruyyakkondadhu naaraayanan arule” Thiruvaimozhi 4-10-8.
The principles upheld by the Aazhvaars can be very easily listed and understood:
Existence of a single Supreme Being. They take Him as Naaraayana. The creation and the existence of the entire cosmos, which is a reality (together with its conceptual appurtenances mentioned in the Vedas, accepting them, like svarga, naraka, paramapadha etc.) are under His conduct and control. As a consequence other entities which may be conceptual like Brahma, Siva, (katkariya piraman, úivan, indiran.. Thiruvaaimozhi 7-7-10) or physically real, act with His blessings or ordinance.
The Supreme Being has qualities which cannot be equalled or surpassed. He is bereft of bad qualities (including wants or expectations). Of His qualities, His kindness (kripa classified as vaatsalya, souseelya, saulabhya) is distinguished from other qualities, which are a must for His conduct and control of the cosmos.
The individual souls get deliverance from the ills of the mixed sorrow and happiness prevalent in the cosmos attaining the state of unsurpassed joy, by the will of the Supreme Being. This deliverance is figuratively described as reaching His abode enjoying His presence or doing service to Him in His abode. This is because He has unequalled and unsurpassed joy and any soul is under His control and conduct.
With the conviction that they will be delivered, the best blessing any living being can have from the Supreme Being is to be of service to fellow beings when it is in this world.
All other principles are derivations from the above four basic tenets. For instance, the individual soul should not have ego (ahankaara-mamakaara) is a derivation from (1) above. That the Supreme Being blesses for nothing (“veridhe arulseivaar’) is derived from (2) above because He has unsurpassed kindness and does not have any expectation. That the Supreme Being is the means and goal (upaaya-upeya) is a result of (1), (2), and (3) above. To elaborate a little; He is upeya because He has maximum aanandha (2) and He acts (1) with no expectation (2) to make the soul get deliverance at His will (3). Service to His devotees is more pleasing than service to Him is derivable from (4) above juxtaposed with (2) and (3), since the transient being need not worry about his/her/its deliverance this being His concern (3) and He has no expectations to bless anybody, be it through deliverance (2).
That rituals in general and even those directed towards worshipping Him or reaching Him cannot achieve any goals is, consequence of (1),(2), and (3) above put together. Explicitly, because of (1), the Supreme Being is the only independent entity and all acts in the cosmos are His making. Thus there is no question of action by other entities independent of Him to attain some goals or to reach Him.
By (2) He has no expectations for blessing His subjects in some form or other and by (3) deliverance is His concern and not of the others. Thus the thinking that the souls are acting and gaining thereby punya or papa, is the real impediment for deliverance as a consequence of (1),(2), and (3) above. Once one understands from (2) above His unquestioned and unquestionable kindness (krpa), which is personified as His consort (living in His heart –thiruvaazhmaarban…Periya Thirumozhi7-6-7), this thinking vanishes (“verimaaraadha poomeliruppaal vinai theerkkume” Thiruvaaimozhi 4-5-11). It is this consort who makes (purushakaaram) Him purusha (the greatest giver – Bhagavathgunadarpanam). The concern of the Aazhvaars, as ordained by the Supreme Being according to them, is to make life here useful for the human beings and keep them in (at most) peace here and after life (thondarkku amuthunnaccholmalaihal sonnen …. Thiruvaaimozhi 9-4-9). Punya to anybody is resplendent qualities of the Supreme Being, according to them. The only paapa for them is the state in which they are made to forget that they are under His feet (i.e. the servitude or seshatva to Him). In consonance with the principles adhered to by them as listed above, it is His taking the soul under His feet that they long for and not putting themselves under His feet. Thirumazhisai Aazhvaar says that if one puts his mind under His feet (an action by the soul with ego) He is capable of removing it there from and keeping it away (Thirucchandaviruttham85). To put in Tamil they advocate the Supreme Being’s adimaikolludhal in preference to ‘adimai seithal’ by themselves (so that if they suggest the latter, they always have in mind that He has blessed them with adimai kolludhal). Thus the philosophy (and, if one desires a religion there from) formulated by the Aazhvaars is applicable to all times and is universal. It cuts across divisions in this world and does not require earlier sources for conviction about its validity. It is not that the entire works of the Aazhvaars need to be studied to arrive at the philosophy. In the context of the Thiruvaaimozhi of Nammaazhvaar, Azhahiya manavaalapperumaal naayanaar points out that, that work alone suffices to get to the basis of the philosophy. Thiruvaaimozhi became popular because of availability of commentaries written in a language which mixed up Tamil and Sanskrit so that scholars in Sanskrit of those days in Tamil areas could have scope in getting exposure to the ideas of Nammaazhvaar. A formal comparison with the Sanskrit tradition relating to Vedas, angas, upangas and the mention of Thiruvaaimozhi as ‘saaram’ (essence) of all Aazhvaars’ works, has created an impression without any justification that the aacharyas considered the former as of greater or more importance than other works. This is a misconception. In Tamil literature, it may be suspected that the Alankaara Saastras ( Aòi in Tamil) were late comers. In fact though there are parallels in Tamil of several alankâras in Sanskrit, the nahi nindhyaa nyaayam (no letting down) which involves comparison of two ideas or works and speaking about one as superior to the other without meaning any insult for the latter, does not find explicit mention in Tamil grammatical works. When Vaishnavite aachaaryaas (like Manavaalamaamunihal in his Upadesaratnamaalai) utilize this allegory, they have been obviously influenced by Sanskrit literary tradition.
The main tenets of the philosophy are explicitly stated or implicitly made out by apt words or phrases or through references to some parables in any one of the Aazhvaars works, be it small or big.
ThiruppAN AzhwAr
For instance, in Amalanaadhipiraan, which people think is a description of the reclining Lord from foot to head, the principles enunciated above are covered as follows.
Aadhipiran, - the foremost Lord.
vinnavarhon, - master of those in heaven,
needhivaanavan, - the Supreme Being who conducts,
ayanaippadaitthadhu,- Creator of Brahma,
amararkkariya, - not capable of comprehension by the Devas.
amalan, -with no blemish
nimalan - bereft of blemishes by having become available at Thiruvengadam.
nisaasaraikkavarndha venkkanaikkaakutthan (power), - the destroyer of demons as archer Râma.
paaramaaya…..puhundhaan (krpa), - annihilating the burden of earlier acts, making the soul His property, entered in me.
thundavenpiraiyan thuyartheertthavan(kripa), - remover of the distress of Siva.
andaranda…..kandan (krpa), - protector of the entire cosmos by swallowing it during the deluge.
kaiyinaar…aazhiyar (protection), - holder of the shell and conch.
kovalanaai vennaiyunda vaayan (soulabhya) – in the form of making Himself available to innocent cowherds and milkmaids.
uyyakkondathe, - delivered me
adiyaarkkennai aatpadutthavimalan, - losing His blemish by making me serviceable to His devotees.
More than emotional attachment to any one Aazhvaar or Aachaarya, study of a few verses from the Aazhvaars, even one of these, with an eye on the message they convey creates mental peace and meaningful behaviour in any human being. In terms of its contents this literature deserves being presented in the languages of the world emulating the late A.K.Ramanujan (Hymns for the Drowning -Penguin).