365bet娱乐

[Full title: A Continuing Legacy: The Making of a Hindu Sectarian Community]

Who invented 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫颈蝉尘? Was the tradition created ex nihilo through the abstract discourses of an intellectual elite, or did it emerge organically through the unfolding of social dynamics over the course of the early modern centuries? As with the purported 鈥渋nvention鈥� of Hinduism, to identify the moment and circumstances of birth of a particular sectarian tradition raises a number of vexing theoretical questions about historical causation鈥攖he process by which a genuinely new cultural edifice comes into being. My aim in this work has been to sketch the unmistakable impressions of public theology on the embodied, socially embedded boundaries of 厂尘腻谤迟补 religious life, its role in shaping emerging modes of religious identity鈥攁 process that cannot be reduced either to hegemonic domination or to elitist fancy. Indeed, the impact of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 on contemporary religious culture in Tamil Nadu extends far beyond the boundaries of 尘补峁环补 or 蝉补尘辫谤补诲腻测补, 鈥渕onastery鈥� or 鈥渓ineage.鈥� Much in the way that the 鈥淪acred Games of 艢颈惫补,鈥� the distinctive legend of place of Madurai, has historicizable discursive origins in the public theology of the seventeenth century, the same can be said for the wider public 厂尘腻谤迟补 culture of the Tamil region. The subsequent inauguration of a public regional culture, from the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 inflection of Carnatic music (Shulman 2014) to the public esotericism of contemporary Chennai (Kachroo 2015), bears the distinct impressions of the actors and events of early modernity.

The 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 community鈥攚ith its perduring alliance between 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 renunciant lineages, the monastic institutions they maintain, associated temple complexes such as the 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ� Temple of Kanchipuram, and a laity comprised largely of south Indian 厂尘腻谤迟补 Brahmins鈥攁n integral feature of Tamil 厂尘腻谤迟补 culture today, began to emerge under specific and eminently observable social circumstances in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As I have documented throughout this book, the intellectuals who found themselves in the midst of this rapidly emerging network were by no means passive observers; rather, they actively contributed to the constitution of the network itself and the continual rethinking of its dimensions and boundaries. Precisely by doing so, in fact, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and his colleagues forged systems of religious meaning that opened new avenues for public religious participation in the 厂尘腻谤迟补 community and, concomitantly, new models for lived religious identity. Although seemingly confined to palm leaves and paper through the medium of written text, the intellectual work of these scholars played a foundational role in the conceptual constitution of the emergent 厂尘腻谤迟补 system, articulating new boundaries for the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of participant devotees, stabilizing the social structure of the system by delimiting it from competing sectarian systems, such as the more transgressive 艢腻办迟补 esoteric lineages or the vibrant 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫补 traditions of the region.^[1] Niklas Luhmann (1995), indeed, insightfully observes that systems, composed of socially embedded institutions, cohere not on the basis of institutions alone but, rather, through the shades of meaning they acquire through the communicative endeavors of social agents. Such meaning supplies the very rationale for preserving religious institutions鈥攁nd the religious publics they cultivate鈥攊n the face of constant competition from neighboring communities and perpetual fluctuations in the fabric of society. It is no surprise, then, that court-sponsored intellectuals of the seventeenth century should have exerted their most formative influence on extratextual life through their work as public theologians.

Indeed, the public memory of their influence in shaping the boundaries of a new religious community is palpable throughout the writings of their descendants, from the eighteenth century down to the present day. Take, for instance, the following excerpt from the decidedly southern 笔耻谤腻峁嘺, the 艢颈惫补rahasya: As the text-critical acumen of our early modern theologians has taught us, some Pur膩峁噄c extracts offer representations of seemingly modern phenomena and so warrant suspicion of interpolation. Some passages, however, occasion no room for doubt.

The following vignette allays our fears that the practice of scriptural forgery may have somehow diminished under early colonial rule:

All twice-borns will be devoted to barbarous conduct, poor,
And of meager intellect. In such a world, a sage will be born.
O 艢颈惫腻, 艢补峁卥补谤补, born from a portion of me, the greatest of the devotees of 艢颈惫补,
Will take incarnation in the Kali Yuga, along with four students.
He will bring about the destruction of the groves of heretics on earth.
To him I have given the wisdom of the 鲍辫补苍颈峁�a诲蝉, O 惭补丑别艣惫补谤墨.
In the same Kali Yuga, O Great Goddess, the twice-born named Haradatta^[2]
Will be born on the surface of the earth to chastise the non-艢补颈惫补s.
There will also be a certain [Appayya] 顿墨办峁�i迟补, a god on earth, a portion of me, O 础尘产颈办腻,
Ceaselessly engaged in radiant practices, born in a 艢补颈惫补 厂腻尘补惫别诲补 lineage.
And other Bhaktas, O Mistress of the Gods, in the 颁脓谤补, 颁艒濒补, and P膩峁嘾ya countries,
Supremely devoted to me, will be born in all castes:
Sundara, J帽膩nasambandha, and likewise, M膩峁噄kyav膩caka.^[3]

艢补峁卥补谤补, Haradatta, and Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补: in this eighteenth-or nineteenthcentury Pur膩峁噄c accretion, the 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 legacy has rewritten the canon of saints of the Tamil country, elevating the progenitors of the 厂尘腻谤迟补 tradition above the common 鈥渄evotees鈥� of 艢颈惫补, the Tamil 艢补颈惫补 bhakti saints. This particular passage, in fact, was adduced as the prototypic source text for the divinity of Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补 by his nineteenth-century biographer, 艢颈惫腻nanda 驰辞驳墨苍诲谤补, born 艢别峁�a 顿墨办峁�i迟补. The tradition he inspired, however, reaches far beyond the printed pages of his classic chronicle to inform the religious identity of the present-day 顿墨办峁�i迟补 family, who pride themselves on their descent from a genuine 补峁兣浤乿补迟腻谤补, or partial incarnation,^[4] of 艢颈惫补.

Intriguingly, hagiography, if not history, has never ceased to remember the formative theological influence of Appayya and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 on the nascent 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 community. From within the tradition, such hagiography blurs the line between theology and Indological scholarship.

Spokesmen for the Appayya Deekshithendrar Granthavali Prakasana Samithi, for instance, advertise the intellectual legacy of their forefather in polyglot newsletters with theologically inflected taglines such as:

鈥淪rimad Appayya Deekshithendrar is regarded as the aparavathara of Srimad Sankara Bhaghavathapadal and also revered in this country, as an incarnation of Iswara.鈥�^[5]

The divine status of these scholars is commemorated most frequently, however, by means of narrative. Short anecdotes depicting the exploits of Appayya and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 have circulated over the course of multiple generations, preserved with the stamp of authority of their influential biographers. Swami Sivananda,^[6] founder of the Divine Life Society, to name one highly visible example, includes both Appayya and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 in his Lives of Saints, in the company of Jesus and the Buddha, 艢补峁卥补谤补 and 痴颈诲测腻谤补峁噛补. His narratives, moreover, capture something of the deeply sectarianized climate in which the scholars actually moved, hinting at the highly charged community boundaries that solidified over the course of their lifetimes.

Such is the case with this memorable account鈥攆orced English versification and all鈥攐f Appayya鈥檚 ostensive pilgrimage to Tirupati, stronghold of south India 痴补颈峁ａ箛补惫颈蝉尘 par excellence:

Once to Tirupathi the sage
Went on a lonely pilgrimage,
And there the Mahant to him told:
鈥淓nter not the fane; it can鈥檛 hold
Within its precinct a Saivite;
To enter here you have no right.鈥�
Wrath was the saint and quietly he
By occult power did o鈥檈rnight change
The fane鈥檚 image of Lord Vishnu
To Siva. The Mahant turned blue
When in the morn he, aghast, saw
Vishnu鈥檚 image changed to Siva.
To the great sage he now did run
And of him humbly beg pardon,
And asked the image be restored
To the shape he loved and adored.
Such was the great saint Appayya,
An incarnation of Siva,
Whom men still love and have reverence
For his wisdom and intelligence. (Sivananda 1947, 313)

Such stories abound in the public memory of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 and Appayya鈥檚 descendants: Appayya leaves his body in Cidambaram in the presence of 狈补峁璦谤腻箩补, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 is granted the gift of sight by 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�, Ratnakhe峁璦 顿墨办峁�i迟补 garners the favor of 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ� in Kanchipuram. More often than not, these episodes have been dismissed out of hand by contemporary Indologists as an impediment to reconstructing a lost intellectual history. In this case, however, beneath hagiographical adulation lies a kernel of historical fact: these narratives serve as communal sites of memory for the socioreligious transformations of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the systemic restructuring of the religious landscape that had been publicly facilitated to no small degree by Appayya, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, and their intellectual contemporaries. A few generations before the fact, these narratives superimpose the same 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 culture that was born from their public theological interventions. These stories are replete with rivalry between 艢颈惫补 and 痴颈峁ａ箛耻, the veneration of 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 ascetics, the adulation of 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ� and 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�, and initiation into the mystery of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻. Like most hagiographies, the exploits of Appayya and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 tell us less about their actual biographies than about the lives they shaped in future generations, when such motifs were no longer novel inventions but fixtures of the fabric of 厂尘腻谤迟补 religiosity.

As a point of fact, neither the cultural icons of south Indian Sm膩rtism nor the everyday religious practice of the community could be conceived of today, in their present shape, were it not for the theological innovations of Appayya鈥檚 and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 social circles. For instance, the tradition of Carnatic music would not have been the same without the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻-inflected kirtans of 罢测腻驳补谤腻箩补 and Muttusv膩m墨 顿墨办峁�i迟补r,^[7] whose compositions practically constitute the canon. Nor is it an accident that among the ranks of influential scholars in twentieth-century Tamil Nadu, many were devotees of the Kanchi and Sringeri 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 lineages, initiates in 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 ritual practice, or descendants of the 顿墨办峁�i迟补s themselves. Indeed, the very same P. P. S. Sastri who is responsible for orchestrating the preservation of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 厂补耻产丑腻驳测补肠补苍诲谤腻迟补辫补 was also the chief contributor to the editing of the southern recension of the 惭补丑腻产丑腻谤补迟补. The authority of the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 Society of Mylapore, at one time the defining institution of Chennai鈥檚 quintessential Brahmin neighborhood, rests squarely on the shoulders of Appayya and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补; and the neighboring academic bookstore, 闯补测补濒补办峁�m墨 Indological Bookhouse, maintains itself largely through the sale of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 scriptures and paddhatis, consumed voraciously by local intelligentsia. The Sanskrit curriculum in Tamil Nadu pairs the transregional classics of 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补 with the highly regional centuries of the mute poet M奴kakavi,^[8] a devotee of 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ�, largely unknown to Sanskrit literature beyond the Tamil region but celebrated with reverence as an icon of Sanskrit 厂尘腻谤迟补 culture.

That this particular confluence of cultural currents is prototypically 厂尘腻谤迟补 in character鈥攖hat is, that these features are universally definitive of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 religious culture鈥攊s captured eloquently by Sankara Rama Sastri, remembered as one of the most prolific critical editors of works of 办腻惫测补 and 础濒补峁卥腻谤补艣腻蝉迟谤补 of the period.

Speaking for the twentieth-century 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 practitioners of Chennai, Sastri writes, in his Sanskrit introduction to a handbook of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 ritual, the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻sapar测腻paddhati:

This [tradition] was first taught by 笔补谤补艣颈惫补, the primordial Lord, to the auspicious goddess. Partisanship to this tantra, which independently aggregates the entirety of the aims of man, was manifested by the Blessed Feet of 艢r墨 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, composing the 厂补耻苍诲补谤测补濒补丑补谤墨, which encapsulated the entirety of 惭补苍迟谤补艣腻蝉迟谤补, and the commentary on the Lalit膩tri艣at墨. The ancient great poets, crest jewels of the Vedic tradition, such as 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补 and M奴kakavi, and those of more proximate times, such as 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补, had firmly secured their affections to the pair of lotus feet of the goddess, as is celebrated repeatedly by numerous anecdotes. It has also been ascertained that 痴颈诲测腻谤补峁噛补 and others, although the highest of preceptors of the knowledge of Advaita, engaged in the practice of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻. It is well-known by word of mouth that the great treatise on 惭补苍迟谤补艣腻蝉迟谤补, titled The Forest of Wisdom, was composed by the sage 痴颈诲测腻谤补峁噛补, and likewise, the treatise on 惭补苍迟谤补艣腻蝉迟谤补 known as the Parimala was written by the illustrious Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补. These two works, however, are no longer extant. Through an unbroken succession in sequence from the Blessed Feet of 膧di 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补, the worship of the 艢谤墨肠补办谤补, performed in various locations in the monasteries of the 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 lineages, establishes beyond a doubt the Vaidika status of the tradition of the fifteen-syllable 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 mantra.

For, the great goddess R膩jar膩je艣var墨, the supreme deity of 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻, known by the name of 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ� as she adorns the domain of Kanchipuram, has been worshipped by many thousands of the leading traditions of 艣谤耻迟颈 and 蝉尘峁泃颈; likewise with 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ�, illuminating the city of Madurai, who is renowned as the Advisor (惭补苍迟谤颈峁嚹�) in the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 tradition, and the goddess referred to as Akhil膩峁囜笉e艣var墨, lighting up the sacred site of 闯补尘产耻办别艣惫补谤补, who indeed is known in 惭补苍迟谤补艣腻蝉迟谤补 as the Chastiser (顿补峁囜笉颈苍墨), bearing titles such as 顿补峁囜笉补苍腻迟丑腻, and likewise, 艢r墨 碍补苍测腻办耻尘腻谤墨, illumining the sacred site of Kanyakumari, who indeed in 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 is renowned by the name of the three-syllabled goddess 叠腻濒腻. Every single twice-born who is intent on the practices of the 艣谤耻迟颈s and 蝉尘峁泃颈s worships daily the mother of the Vedas, 厂腻惫颈迟谤墨. This is precisely why it is commonly said that all twice-borns on earth are externally 艢补颈惫补s, and internally 艢腻办迟补s. Therefore, the 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 tradition itself is included within the 厂尘腻谤迟补 tradition.^[9]

The peculiar aphorism cited here bears repeating, as its theological import cannot be underestimated: as S. R. Sastri informs us:

鈥淎ll twice-borns on earth are externally 艢补颈惫补s and internally 艢腻办迟补s.鈥�

The above passage outlines the conceptual, historical, and geographical territory of a homogenized, unified 厂尘腻谤迟补 sectarian tradition. While modern 厂尘腻谤迟补 religiosity is orthodox 艢补颈惫补 in its public image and was founded on 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 esotericism at its core, it is anchored on the authority of the figures who were narrativized in the seventeenth century as the progenitors of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫颈蝉尘, such as 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 and 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补, and those who set in motion those very narratives, such as Appayya and 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 顿墨办峁�i迟补. And for the 厂尘腻谤迟补s of present-day Tamil Nadu, 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫颈蝉尘 is as intimately bound up with Tamil geography as with the intellectual heritage of 艢补峁卥补谤补: 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻, in its highest abstractions, abides for south Indian 厂尘腻谤迟补s in the embodied form of the newly domesticated 艢腻办迟补 sacred sites of the Tamil country, where scripture maps perfectly onto spatial territory.

In practice as well as in theory, the legacy of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 generation synecdochically invokes the characteristic 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 religiosity preserved by 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 contemporary descendants. Nearly twenty years ago, the residents of Palamadai, the ancestral 补驳谤补丑腻谤补 of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 lineage in southern Tamil Nadu near Tirunelveli, honored the memory of their illustrious forefather by allocating a plot of land in the village as a branch 尘补峁环补 of the 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 lineage of Sringeri. The inauguration ceremony was graced by the presence of Sringeri鈥檚 Jagadguru 叠丑腻谤补迟墨 罢墨谤迟丑补 Sv膩miga岣�, whom present-day descendants of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 have commonly accepted as family guru. In the adjoining shrine to the village鈥檚 Ma峁単alan膩yak墨 Temple, presently venerated as 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 蝉补尘腻诲丑颈 shrine, rests a set of three photographs: a reproduction of a mural painting of Appayya bequeathing scriptural manuscripts to 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, flanked by portraits of the two most recent Jagadgurus of the Sringeri lineage, 叠丑腻谤补迟墨 罢墨谤迟丑补 and Abhinava 痴颈诲测腻迟墨谤迟丑补. Three and a half centuries later, now that Brahmin scholars are no longer sponsored by local rulers to compose works of Sanskrit poetry and philosophy, some things have changed very little for the descendants of early modern south India鈥檚 leading intellectuals. A hereditary devotional relationship with 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 preceptors remains to this day a cornerstone of the religious observances of both Appayya鈥檚 family, who profess allegiance to the 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补s of the 碍腻帽肠墨 碍腻尘补办辞峁璱 笔墨峁环补, and of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚, devotees of the Sringeri 艢补峁卥补谤腻肠腻谤测补 lineage who continue to accept 惭墨苍腻办峁Ｄ� as their 办耻濒补诲别惫补迟腻, many of whom recite the 尝补濒颈迟腻蝉补丑补蝉谤补苍腻尘补蝉迟辞迟谤补 on a daily basis.^[10]

Through this book, I have endeavored to capture the process of public theology in the making鈥攖he point of intersection between discourse and social system. I have chosen to highlight three instances of theological trajectories鈥攇enuinely revolutionary in the scope of their agenda鈥攖hat exerted a fundamental influence on the future shape of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 sectarianism. I chronicle the birth of the formative features of 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 religiosity from within the sectarian community itself. On one hand an epoch-making development in the history of Indian religion and intellectual life, the birth of the 厂尘腻谤迟补 sectarian tradition also provides an optimal illustration of the widespread acceleration of Hindu sectarianism throughout the centuries of the early modern era, in south India and beyond. When placed in the context of a wider sectarian community in the process of coming into existence, these works begin to speak with a cohesive voice, telling the story of the earliest articulations of the religious values that came to structure the experience of an enduring religious tradition. It is not merely the historical facticity of the 厂尘腻谤迟补 tradition鈥攁nd the circumstances of its origin鈥攖hat I have aimed to elucidate in this book; it is also, more crucially, the process of its emergence. Public theology, I contend, provides us with a powerful model for accounting for both the diverse, multivalent texture of Hindu religious experience and the historically contingent phenomena鈥攖he genuine theological efforts鈥攖hat allowed these traditions to assume the shape we observe today.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Luhmann (1995, 17) anticipates such a circumstance, in which shared resources come to play a role in constituting a distinct system: 鈥淭he concept of boundaries means, however, that processes which cross boundaries (e.g., the exchange of energy or information) have different conditions for their continuance (e.g., different conditions of utilization or of consensus) after they cross the boundaries.鈥�

[2]:

Haradatta, author of the 艢谤耻迟颈蝉奴办迟颈尘腻濒腻, also known as the 颁补迟耻谤惫别诲补迟腻迟辫补谤测补蝉补峁単谤补丑补, is cited as early as 艢ripati鈥檚 艢谤墨办补谤补产丑腻峁�y补, a 痴墨谤补艣补颈惫补 (艢aktivi艣i峁ａ弓膩dvaita) commentary on the 叠谤补丑尘补蝉奴迟谤补蝉 (circa thirteenth or fourteenth century), and 鲍尘腻辫补迟颈鈥檚 commentary on the 笔补耻峁�k补谤补 (circa fourteenth century).

[3]:

mlecch膩c膩rapar膩岣� sarve daridr膩艣 ca dvij膩taya岣� | bhavi峁�yanty alpamataya岣� yatis tatra bhavi峁�yati || 艣ive mada峁兣沘sa峁僢h奴ta岣� 艣a峁卥ara岣� 艣膩峁卥arottama岣� | caturbhi岣� saha 艣i峁�yais tu kal膩v avatari峁�yati || tasmai copani峁�advid测腻 ma测腻 datt膩 mahe艣vari | bh奴mau p膩峁�a峁囜笉a峁�a峁囜笉膩n膩峁� kha峁囜笉ana峁� sa kari峁�yati || kal膩v eva mah膩devi haradatt膩bhidho dvija岣� | a艣aivada峁囜笉an膩rth膩ya bhavi峁�yati mah墨tale || d墨k峁�ito 鈥榩i bhaved ka艣cin mada峁兣沷 bh奴suro 鈥榤bike | bh膩sur膩c膩ranirata岣� 艣aivacchandogava峁兣沘ja岣� || anye 鈥榩i bhakt膩 deve艣i cere cole ca p膩峁囜笉yake | bhavi峁�yanti mah膩bhakt膩 mayi sarv膩su j膩ti峁�u || sundaro j帽膩nasambandhas tath膩 m膩峁噄kyav膩caka岣� |

[4]:

The term 补峁兣浤乿补迟腻谤补 typically implies not that the individual is only partially a divine incarnation, but rather that he or she is a full incarnation of a portion of the god in question.

[5]:

Ramanathan (1966). These newsletters published short essays in Sanskrit, English, Tamil, Telugu, and Hindi celebrating the remembered life of Appayya 顿墨办峁�i迟补, both historical and hagiographical, and advertising the publication ventures of many of his previously unpublished works.

[6]:

This Sivananda is not to be confused with the nineteenth-century biographer of Appayya of the same name, author of the Appayyad墨k峁�itendravijaya, although both are descendants of the 顿墨办峁�i迟补 family. Swami Sivananda, in fact, was born in Palamadai, 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补鈥檚 ancestral 补驳谤补丑腻谤补.

[7]:

Shulman (2014).

[8]:

M奴kakavi, known only by the name 鈥渢he Mute Poet,鈥� is reputed by legend to have been deaf and dumb until granted the blessings of the goddess 碍腻尘腻办峁Ｄ�, at which point he spontaneously burst into poetry, composing the 惭奴办补辫补帽肠补艣补迟墨. Unsurprisingly, the very same narratives about his divine gift of poetic virtuosity are often applied in south Indian 厂尘腻谤迟补 circles of 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补 as well (see chapter 2 for further discussion). As for his historical origins, the editor of the 惭奴办补辫补帽肠补艣补迟墨 (碍腻惫测补尘腻濒腻, vol. 5), writes, 鈥淚t is not certain when this poet, originating in the 顿谤腻惫颈岣峚 country, was born, but it appears that he was not very ancient.鈥� His verses are scattered with 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻 terminology and specific references to the deities of Kanchipuram; in short, he could not possibly have lived earlier than the seventeenth century, as his writings evoke a full-fledged south Indian 厂尘腻谤迟补-艢补颈惫补 religiosity. I have seen no evidence that 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补 or any other scholars of his generation were aware of his existence.

[9]:

ida峁� hi para艣iven膩din膩thena prathamam 耻辫补诲颈峁ａ弓补峁� 艣r墨devyai. akhilapuru峁Ｄ乺thaikagha峁璦n膩svatantre 鈥榮mi峁僺 tantre sud峁涐笉he 辫补办峁�a辫腻迟补 膩vi峁�k峁泃a岣� 艣r墨艣a峁卥ar膩c膩ryabhagavatp膩dair mantra艣膩strasarvasvabh奴t膩峁� saundaryalahar墨峁� lalit膩tri艣at墨bh膩峁�ya峁� ca pra峁嚹玹avadbhi岣�. vaidika艣ikh膩ma峁嘺yo mah膩kavaya岣� 辫谤腻肠墨苍腻岣� k膩lid膩sam奴k膩d测腻 arv膩c墨n膩 n墨laka峁囜弓had墨k峁�it膩daya艣 ca 诲别惫墨cara峁嚹乵bujadvandve 诲峁涐笉丑补峁� baddhabh膩v膩 iti gha峁囜弓膩gho峁�o jeg墨yatetar膩m. vid测腻ra峁噛aprabh峁泃ayo 鈥榙vaitavid测腻de艣ikavar测腻 api 惫颈诲测腻峁� samup膩s膩峁僣akrira iti nirdh膩rito 鈥榶a峁� 惫颈峁�a测补岣�. vid测腻ra峁噛amunibhir vid测腻r峁嘺v膩khyo mah膩mantra艣膩stragrantho vyarac墨ti, tathaiva 艣r墨madappayyad墨k峁�itai岣� parimal膩bhidh膩no mantra艣膩stragrantha岣� pra峁嚹亂墨ti ca kar峁嚹乲ar峁噄ka测腻 艣r奴yate. 辫补谤补峁� tu granth膩v imau s膩k峁Ｄ乶 na d峁涐梗峁璦carau. 膩di艣a峁卥arabhagatp膩dopakramam avicchinnap膩ramparye峁嘺 tatra tatra 艣膩峁卥arama峁環e峁�v 膩caryam膩峁嚹� 艣r墨cakrap奴j膩 ca pa帽cada艣膩k峁�ar墨vid测腻蝉补尘辫谤补诲腻测补vaidikatva峁� 苍颈岣�s补苍诲颈驳诲丑补峁� prati峁ａ弓h膩payati. para岣�sahasrair hi 艣谤耻迟颈蝉尘峁泃颈蝉补尘辫谤补诲腻测补pravarair 膩r膩dhyate k膩帽c墨ma峁囜笉ala峁� ma峁囜笉ayant墨 k膩m膩k峁�yabhidh膩n膩 r膩jar膩je艣var墨 yaiva 辫补谤补诲别惫补迟腻 艣r墨vid测腻, tath膩 madhur膩pur墨峁� vidyotayant墨 m墨n膩k峁Ｄ� 测腻 艣r墨vid测腻测腻峁� mantri峁嚹玹i prathit膩, tath膩 jambuke艣varak峁�etra峁� bh膩sayant墨 akhil膩峁囜笉e艣var测腻hva测腻 诲别惫墨 测腻 kila mantra艣膩stre da峁囜笉in墨 da峁囜笉an膩thet测腻d墨n vyapade艣膩n bhajate, tathaiva kan测腻kum膩r墨k峁�etra峁� prak膩艣ayant墨 艣r墨kan测腻kum膩r墨 ya hi 艣r墨vid测腻测腻峁� tryak峁�ar墨 b膩leti prathit膩bhidh膩n膩. 艣rautasm膩rtakarm膩nu峁ａ弓h膩natatpar膩 诲惫颈箩腻岣� sarve 鈥榩i 辫谤补迟测补丑补峁� 蝉补尘耻辫腻蝉补迟别 蝉腻惫颈迟谤墨峁� vedam膩taram. ata eva 鈥榓nta岣ヅ浤乲t膩 bahi岣ヅ沘iv膩 bhuvi sarve dvij膩taya岣モ�� iti v膩do 鈥榩i sa峁僩acchate. tena 艣r墨vid测腻sa峁僷rad膩ya eva sm膩rtasa峁僷rad膩ya iti su艣li峁ａ弓am. Sastri, 艢谤墨惫颈诲测腻sapar测腻paddhati, 1938, pg. 3.

[10]:

Personal communication with various descendants of 狈墨濒补办补峁囜弓丑补, January 2011.