3. TOLKĀPPIYAM 3.1. Tamiḻ Grammatical Text Tolkāppiyam The Tamiḻ text Tolkāppiyam is the most ancient grammatical work available today. Its date is debated and swings from 7th century BCE to 4th century CE. However, as it has a chapter on phonetics and written script it cannot be dated earlier than the date of Aśōka Maurya, (3rd century BCE) whose Brahmi script has been adapted to Tamiḻ, possibly in the first century BCE and more probably in the first century CE. The work is in three sections as 1) Phonetics including script (eḻuttu/varṇaḥ), 2) Word formations (pada) and 3) Contents/meanings (poruḷ/artha). All Tamiḻ poems composed subsequently follow this grammar. It shows the integration of Sanskrit traditions in all three sections. I have shown that it follows the Nāṭya Śāstra leaving out the dance chapters.
There is a colophon at the beginning of this text ascribed to poet Panampāranār who sums up the whole of Tolkāppiyam. He says that this text was composed by Tolkāppiyar who called it after his name as Tolkāppiyam. This text was inspired by another earlier text called Aintiram which relates to the land between northern Vēṅkaṭam (Tiruppati) and southern Kumari. He further points out that Tolkāppiyam was composed after studying both common popular usages and poetic usages. The work was intended to study phonetics (eḻuttu), word formations (col/pada), and the meaning of sentences and poems (poruḷ/artha). Tolkāppiyar had for this purpose studied earlier texts on the subject and after reflecting duly on them, compiled this sutra text as a grammar (pōkkaṟu panuval/lakṣana). He published this text in the royal court of Nilam Taru Tiruvil Pāṇḍya. But before making it public, he showed it to the Ācāṉ (teacher) of Ataṅkoṭṭu, who was a great scholar of the four Vedas and an exponent of the law codes (aram karai nāviṉ nānmaṟai muṟṟiya ataṅkōṭṭu ācāṟkku aril tapat-terintu), after benefiting from several discussions and guidance from his teacher.
This colophon shows that Tolkāppiyar had examined spoken usages and poetic conventions. Secondly, he made this as a technique of communication. The author mentions dance convention (Nāṭaka-vaḻakku) and worldly conventions (Ulakiyal-vaḻakku) during the course of the text. It is indisputable that Tolkāippiyar was guided by a Caturvedi Brāhmaṇa, who was also a master of Dharma Śāstra as seen by the prolific use of Vedic concepts discussed in this text.
Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar, the celebrated commentator of this work, cites a Tamiḻ text that says Tolkāppiyar mainly followed Agastiyar and all the technical vocabulary employed were the one formulated by Sage Agastiyar.
A Tamiḻ poem in a medieval work called Paṉṉiru Pāṭṭiyal says that the first work on Tamiḻ grammar was composed by Sage Agastiyar and was followed by Tolkāppiyar. ஆனாப்பெருமை அகத்தியன் என்னும் முனிவன் ஆக்கிய முதல் நூல் பொருந்தக் கற்று புரைதப உண்ர்ந்தோர் நல்லிசை நிறுத்த தொல்காப்பியனும் There is also a tradition that Tolkāppiyar was a student of Agastiyar. This Agastiyar is not the Vedic poet Agastya but a descendent of him (belonging to the same gōtra). Many inscriptions of the Chōḻa period mention many persons of this Agastya gōtra as Vedic scholars settled by the Chōḻa emperors. The Agastya gōtrins’ continue to live to this day among Brāhmaṇas. Obviously, Agastyar, the author of first Tamiḻ grammar Agattiyam was a scholar who lived in the first century CE. 3.2. Dating Tolkāppiyam The commentator of Tolkāppiyam deals with certain aspects of land division of Tamiḻnāḍu. According to Iḷaṅgō, the author of Cilappatikāram, the Tamiḻ country consisted of the land lying between Vēṅkaṭam mountain in the north and Kumari ocean in the south. But, Aḍiyārkkunallār, the commentator of Cilappatikāram explains that there existed a river named kumari-āru in the south. Iḷaṅgō ought to have mentioned the southern boundary as Kumari river!
“During the first Saṅgam period, particularly toward the end of this period, there were four thousand four hundred and forty nine (4449) poets, including Agattiyar, Iraiyanār, Kumaravēl (Murugaṉ), Muṭi-Nāgarāyar of Murañciyūr and Nitiyiṉ Kiḻavar in the city of South Madurai. These poets composed innumerable poems including Paripāṭal, Mudunārai, Mudukuṟuku, Kalariyāvirai and others during the four thousand four hundred and forty years. Among the 89 poets listed who lived between the times of poets Kāycina Vaḻuti and Kaḍuṅgoṉ there were seven Pāṇḍya rulers. Among the seven rulers one was Mākīrti Nilam-taru-thiruvil Pāṇḍyaṉ, in whose court the famous author Tolkāppiyar composed his grammatical treatise”.
If this account is correct it would amount to the existence of Kumarik-koṭṭam when Tolkāppiyar wrote his work but became submerged after its composition. However, it is now certain that Tolkāppiyar lived after the introduction of Brāhmi inscription into Tamiḻnāḍu. Kumarik-koṭṭam is said to have consisted of forty-nine nāḍus - cultivated regions, brought under seven territorial divisions each, including seven nāḍus. The following were the seven major territorial divisions: • Seven Teṅga nāḍu • Seven Madurai nāḍu • Seven Muṉ Pālai nāḍu • Seven Piṉ Pālai nāḍu • Seven Kuṉṟu nāḍu • Seven Eastern kārai nāḍu and • Seven Kuṟum Paṉai nāḍu These seven major territorial divisions were lost when Kumarik-kōṭṭam was swallowed by the sea except perhaps the seven Madurai nāḍu. This is mentioned in the commentary on a work called “Iraiyanār ahap-poruḷ” by Nakkīrar, son of Madurai Kanakkāyanār. Similarly, the same information is also found in the commentary of Iḷampūranar on Tolkāppiyam. It seems that the Kumari-kōṭu was swallowed by the sea, was a popular notion or repeated by the ancient poets. Evidently, there existed seven major cultivated zones and under each cultivated zone there were seven territorial units making a total of forty-nine units. All these lands grouped together between the great hilly track north of river “Pahruḷi āru”; and the river “Kumari-āru” and named Kumarik-kōṭu went under the sea. Included among them were other hilly regions in the vicinity enclosing Kollam. This commentator also says that the author of Cilappatikāram refers to the southern boundary of Tamiḻnāḍu as the Kumari ocean. It is quite possible that a part of land around the modern Kanyākumari was devastated and engulfed by the sea as the region was prone to sea erosion during rainy seasons between October and December.
However, another writer Sikhanṭi mentions Vēṅkaṭam in the north and Kumari in the South as the boundaries of Tamiḻ speaking land. This Sikhanṭi was a student of Agastiyar and author of a musical treatise “Isai-nuṇukkam”.
It is however clear, some of these facts were mixed up with hearsay accounts. Secondly, the number of poets said to have lived during the first Saṅgam age is given as 4,449 and the total years they lived is also mentioned as 4,440 which appears as assigned rather than actual.
Further the following poets are said to have lived in the first Saṅgam age: 1. Agastiyar, 2. Iraiyanār, 3. Kumaravēl, 4. Murañciyūr Muṭināgarāyar, 5. Nitiyiṉ kiḻavar
They are said to have composed innumerable poems like Agattiyam, Paripāḍal, Mudunārai, Mutukuruhu and, Kalariyāvirai. Of these, except Paripāḍal, others have not come down. From other sources we understand Mutunārai was also called Perunārai and Mutukuṟuhu was also called Peruṅkuṟuhu and both were musical treatises in Tamiḻ.
Another group of poets numbering 89 are mentioned, among whom seven were Pāṇḍya rulers of Madurai, who lived between the times of two Pāṇḍya kings, Kāicina Vaḻuti and Kaḍuṅgoṉ. One of the Paṇḍyas named among them was Māk-kīrtī alias Nilamtaru thiruvil Pāṇḍiyaṉ, who patronized the famous Tamiḻ grammarian Tolkāppiyar, the composer of the grammatical treatise Tolkāppiyam. This suggests that the 89 poets lived in the second Saṅgam age which would fall under the historical period.
We may hold the first king of this list, Kāicina Vaḻuti, was probably identical with Pal-yāgasālai Mutukuṭumi Peruvaḻuti. The Pāṇḍiyaṉ king Kaḍuṅgoṉ is mentioned in copper plates. If we take that the listed eight Pāṇḍyas ruled successively, we have to assign around two hundred years for this period. As Kaḍuṅgoṉ ruled around the middle of 6th century (560 CE) Peruvaḻuti’s date would fall around the end of 3rd century, and the date of Māk-kīrtī the patron of Tolkāppiyar may have to be placed in the fourth century. This date cannot be accepted for the following reason: -
Dr. R. Kriṣṇamūrti has shown that a coin bearing the name “Peruvaḻuti” with the letters is assignable to early period. This shows that the identity of Kāicina vaḻuti with Peruvaḻuti cannot stand. Also, it must be remembered that the Cēra ruler Peruṅg-kaḍuṅgo, of the Pukaḷūr record is identical with the conqueror of Kolli hills who assumed the title “Kollippuraiyaṉ”. The paleography of the Brāhmi inscription of Pukaḷūr, and the Brāhmi script on the Kollippuraiyaṉ coin is of the same age namely 1st-2nd century CE. This Cēra and his conquest of Kolli hills are sung by Kapilar, Paraṇar and other Saṅgam poets who were his contemporaries. Tolkāppiyam belongs to the period of these great poets and kings and cannot be dated later.
3.3. Vedic tradition in Tolkāppiyam Tolkāppiyam is the most ancient Tamiḻ grammatical treatise available to this day. Fanciful dates are assigned to this text, but it could not be dated earlier to the introduction of Brāhmi script during the time of Aśōka in the 3rd century BCE. As no Aśōkan inscription has been found in Tamiḻnaḍu and the earliest written script, which already shows evolution from Aśōkan script, it could at best be assigned to a century or two later than Aśōka. The origin of the Brāhmi script in Tamiḻnaḍu could not be taken earlier than the first century BCE. As Tolkāppiyam refers specifically to Tamiḻ script, it could be either contemporary with first century BCE or later, we are satisfied to note that it could be firmly placed in the first century CE.
One thing that would stand out for a serious student of Tolkāppiyam, that through all the chapters, the Vedic tradition of four-fold caste system of Antaṇar (Brāhmaṇas), Arasar (kings), Vaṇikar (Vaisyar/Vaṇikar), and Veḷḷāḷar runs as the essential backbone of the Tamiḻ society. The rules and code of conduct prescribed in many sections in each chapter, declare that they fall back on the Vedas of the Brāhmaṇas, and they declare that some of these rules are applicable to the upper three castes (uyarntōr māṟṟu). It must be noted that the Veḷḷāḷar/Śūdras were divided into two classes, the upper and lower caste. In most cases, the rules were applicable to the upper caste Veḷḷāḷars’. The upper caste Veḷḷāḷars’ were regional chieftains, who received honours and recognition from the kings and those who were wealthy landholders who can employ and sustain servants. They were treated on par with the upper castes. The caste system was not rigid on the fourth varṇa but had enough fluidity for the upward movement of the lower castes. This situation may be seen in the chapter’s ahatiṇai-iyal, puṟatiṇai-iyal, kaḷaviyal, kaṟpiyal, poruḷiyal, maṟapiyal etc. There are specific sūtras in these chapters, justifying these conventions. Existence of such a system had not been properly addressed in previous studies.
The Tamiḻ grammar begins the contents of poetry with Aham, which means Śṛṅgāra/Kāmam also called inpam or erotic delight which is a dharma, based on the union of a man and a woman. It is followed by Puṟam which deals with external activities and where Dharma, Artha and Mokṣa play a main role. The division of poetry into Aham and Puṟam, is rooted in Bharata's Nāṭya Śāstra, in which dance is mainly divided into sukumāra/lāsya dance and tāṇḍava or āviddha. At the beginning of the text, Bharata categorises the dance traditions into one dealing with Śṛṅgāra/Kāmam and the other dealing with Puṟam into Dharma, Artha and Mokṣa. The former is called sukumāra dance mainly depicting Śṛṅgāra, danced by Apsaras, and the latter is āviddham/tāṇḍavam. The Tamiḻ tradition also divides their poetic dance conventions into Inbam dealing with Kāmam, and the other as Puṟam dealing with Aram (Dharma), Poruḷ (Artha), and Vīḍu (Mokṣa), There could be no doubt that the Tamiḻ division of Aham and Puṟam is based on the Sanskrit tradition. It is also known that Bharata's Nāṭya Śāstra is rooted in Vedic tradition of Tripuradāha. As it would not be possible to deal with all the sūtras, it is proposed to take up only select sūtras and their commentary to study the impact of the Vedas and the relation.
The third sūtra of Ahat-tiṇai is very important for our study. It deals with the four-fold divisions of landscape as 1) hill region, 2) forest region, 3) cultivated region and 4) coastal region. The basic land division of the Tamiḻs was presided over by Indra (Vēntaṉ), Varuṇa, Māyōṉ (Kṛṣṇa), Tirumāl (Viṣṇu) and Cēyōṉ (Muruga/Kumāra) who are Vedic gods. The hill region is dear to Kumāra/Cēyōṉ, the high land or forest region is dear to Māyōṉ/Kṛṣṇa, the cultivated region is dear to Indra/Vēntaṉ, and the coastal region is dear to Varuṇa. Thus, the Tamiḻs locate their life on Vedic traditions. Some modern scholars, who read little about what is in Sanskrit literature about Kumāra/Cēyoṉ, hold that Muruga is exclusively a Tamiḻ deity. With exhaustive citation from Sanskrit sources, P.S. Śastri has shown there are several absolute parallels in Sanskrit sources to prove Kumāra/Muruga is a Vedic deity. I have shown elsewhere that even the word Muruga is derived from Sanskrit mṛgya meaning hunting to show Muruga's character as a hunter. Similarly, Māyōṉ illustrates Tirumāl who is equally a Vedic deity. Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar says that Kṛṣṇa manifests in the hilly (mullai) land, where Gōpālas (cowherds), offer music and dance called Āycciyar-kuravai praying that cows should be protected so that they may yield more milk for use in Vedic sacrifices. The people of kuṟiñci perform a dance called Kuṉṟa-kuravai-āṭutal, depicting their hunting expeditions. So, they worship Vēlaṉ for boosting erotic delight by union and love quarrel through dance and engage in love sports. Apsara’s invoke Indra, the god of cultivable land during his flag festival and believe that he manifests. The coastal people join together, plant a horn of a crocodile on seashores and invoke Varuṇa’s presence in waters where he manifests. Koṟṟavai is worshipped as the deity of desert (sūtras of Tolkāppiyam 27 through 34). Naccinārkkiniyar’s commentary is not confined to explaining just the sūtra but also cites extensively from Saṅgam anthologies. So, this reflects the social status of not only the lakṣaṇa sūtras, but also from actual poems. Clearly, the Vedic deities, Indra, Varuṇa, Māyōn, Cēyōn and Durgā were the essential gods of the ancient Tamiḻs. This shows beyond doubt that the Tamiḻs were followers of Vaidika Mārga from the very beginning of their history. Sūtra 18 in Ahat-tiṇai uses the word deivam which is a Sanskrit concept. தெய்வம் உணாவே மாமரம் புள்பறை Sūtra 24: ஏவல் மரபின் ஏனோரும் உரியர் ஆகிய நிலைமை அவரும் மன்னர் i.e., ஏவல் மரபின் - as defined in Vedic tradition. ஏவல் ஆகிய நிலைமை அவரும் - the commentator says, “I relate antaṇar (Brāhmaṇas), kings, merchants, regional chieftains who were honoured by the king, and veḷḷāḷars’ belonging to the land-owning class who had the right to command service from others are considered to become the worthy of ownership (uripporuḷ)”. Besides the above comments, Naccinārkkiniyar cites a number of poems from the Saṅgam anthology in which Brāhmaṇas and Brāhmaṇa women also appeared as uripporuḷ (puṟam text 5). This sūtra illustrates that the Saṅgam poetry had the four-fold caste system as the backbone of the society as presented in the Vedas. Sūtra 25: ஓதல், பகையே, தூது இவை பிரிவே and Sūtra 26: அவற்றுள் ஓதலும் தூதும் உயர்ந்தோர் மேன, This sūtra deals with separation (or division) as a result of ōtal (Vedic study) and messenger-ship are scheduled for the three castes, Brāhmaṇas, kings and merchants. Veḷḷāḷar (labourers) were not considered suited for this duty.
Sūtras 27, 28 also deals with eligibility of the kingly and merchant caste. The next sūtra 29 speaks of the eligibility for all the four castes. Naccinārkkiniyar comments, that it empowers both types of Veḷḷāḷars’, high caste and the labourers. It means he distinguishes two categories of Veḷḷāḷars’ as upper caste and the cultivators, both having equal rights as the high caste Hindus.
The sūtra 26 otalum tūtum uyarntōr mēna is of great significance in the present context of social tensions. P.S. Subrahmaṇya Śāstri in his translations of Tolkāppiyam writes:- “separation” under study and messenger-ship are found among higher classes of men. Writing his note under this P.S. Subrahmaṇya Śāstri says “Iḷampūranar takes Antaṇar and Arasar under uyarntōr in this sūtra which follow where the word uyarntōr appears. According to Iḷampūranar, uyarntōr refers to uyarntōr ākiya vaṇikar and antaṇar. However, Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar takes it to refer to antaṇar mutalāya mūvar, antaṇar, aracar, vaṇikar uyarnta veḷḷāḷar and uyarnta nālvakai varūṇattār respectively. But it seems to me in all three sūtras it may refer to Brāhmaṇa, Kṣatriya and Vaśiyas”, (P.S.Śāstri, Poruḷ adhikaram, English Translation, of Poruḷiyal, sūtra 27) . I am sure Naccinārkkiniyar is correct as far as uyarntōr is concerned. There are hundreds of references to Vēlāṉs or Kiḻāṉs in the inscriptions of Tamiḻnāḍu almost from the beginning of historical period pointing to upper caste Śūdras who were honoured by the king for their services to the state or to their agricultural wealth or at times who have given their daughters in marriage to the king. They were certainly of high caste under whom several hundred had worked. Socially, economically and in commanding services, they were on par with Brāmaṇas, royal men and the Vaṇikar. Thus, Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar's interpretations are correct.
There are few more sūtras that deal with the eligibility and duties of the four castes. All these are in the Ahat-tiṇai chapter of poruḷ-adikāram of Tolkāppiyam. These sūtras clearly show that the Tamiḻ society revolved around the four-fold caste system prescribed in the Vedas.
I will examine one more Sūtra from Ahat-tiṇai chapter from a different angle. Towards the end of Ahat-tiṇai chapter, Tolkāppiyar, gives a sūtra in which he refers to Nāṭaka-vaḻakku, and Ulakiyal-vaḻakku. Without entering into the details of explanation, I may say these two words were defined in Bharata's Nāṭya Śāstra as Nāṭya-dharmi and Loka-dharmi. It is known that Nāṭya Śāstra is an early text and evidently show that Tolkāppiyar has followed Nāṭya Śāstra in his text. It is also known that Nāṭya Śāstra is rooted in Vedic tradition. It turns out that from the beginning to the end of the chapter, the Ahat-tiṇai chapter is based on Vedic concepts that are the main social concepts of the ancient Tamiḻs.
The Purat-tiṇai-iyal chapter of Poruḷ-adikāram, seems to be in three sections. The first section deals mainly with the king, his conquests, the stages of his war expeditions, both offensive march and defensive battles, sending soldiers and border guards to lift cattles of the opponent’s territory or rescuing the cattle from lifters. This section deals with dharma yuddha regarding wars in which the invading king is duty-bound to protect Brāhmaṇas, aged, women, children, those who have no progenies and the cows. One of the puṟam songs cited from Saṅgam anthology mentions Brāhmaṇas’ who had the nature of cows (Pārppana mākkaḷ), women, and children of the opponent's territory should be warned to move away to safe places to protect themselves from war zone. As cows are helpless creatures, the invading king himself should send cattle lifters and bring them to his territory safely and later distribute them among his warriors. The recognition of veneration received by the Brāhmaṇas’ is illustrated in this early Saṅgam song. ஆவும், ஆன் இயல் பார்ப்பன மாக்களும், பெண்டிரும், பிணியுடையீரும்… Āvum, Āṉ iyal Pārppana mākkaḷum Peṇdirum Piṇiyudaiyīrum…(Puṟam 9) The second section of the Purat-tiṇai-iyal is far more important to this study. It deals with a stage called vāhai meaning conquest. A sūtra here states the conquest to be obtained by Vedic Brāhmaṇas, kings, merchants, Veḷḷāḷars, recluses, yogins, dancers and others each in their own profession. The Brāhmaṇas head this list which is called pārppana-pakkam, arasar-pakkam etc. Dealing with pārppana-pakkam, the sūtra assigns six approved actions; a Brāhmaṇā can undertake (aṟuvahaip-paṭṭa pārppana-pakkam). Similarly, five actions approved for kings, six for merchants and Veḷḷāḷars and others. Here the word Pārppanar refers to Vedic Brāhmaṇās. Sūtra 75: அறுவகைப் பட்ட பார்ப்பனப் பக்கமும் ஐவகை மரபி னரசர் பக்கமும் இருமூன்று மரபி னேனோர் பக்கமும் As this is elaborately commented by Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar we may deal with it here. Sūtra 74: தாவில் கொள்கை தம்தம் கூற்றை பாகுபட மிகுதி விடுத்தல் This is called vāhai which conveys the four castes (varṇas) following their own nature and without power or inflicting suffering on others can improve their own attainment. Achieving this greatness generally makes others speak highly of oneself. One should not use aggressive powers and inflict suffering on others.
Chanting and reciting the Vedas, performing Vedic sacrifices, officiating others in Vedic sacrifices, making gifts and accepting gifts are the six acts of the Brāhmaṇās. Ṛg, Yajus and Sāmam are the most important Vedic studies. These prescribe Vedic sacrifices, which are the lakṣaṇas and the lakṣyas. Atharvaṇa and the six aṅgas are the second level of studies. Atharvaṇa, does not specify performing Vedic sacrifices but mostly have details relating to Āyurveda, and deal with chants on healing diseases that create suffering in others. Atharva Veda is not included with the other three Vedas. The six aṅgas are 1) nirukta that enquires meanings into Vedic words and not the words of worldly usage, 2) vyākaraṇa with aindram which enquire into both the Vedic usage and worldly usage, 3) kalpas that describe rituals performed in yāgas as described by Bhāradvājam, Āpastambam, Ātreyam, Bodhāyanīyam, etc., 4) gaṇita texts are Nārāyanīyam and Varāham etc., 5) brāhmam that enquire into letters (eḻuttu) and 6) chandam enquiring into poetics. The 18 Dharma Śāstra texts that deal with legal actions, like Manu, are also aṅgas of the Vedas. The Itihāsa and Purāṇas, tantra texts, that refute the opposing views of Vedic tenets and other texts that expound other views are the final studies. As script, words, and meanings (எழுத்து, சொல், பொருள்) are useful for contemporary life, Agastyam, Tolkāppiyam were studied, and other middle level Tamiḻ texts are also worthy of study. The texts like the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata are important lakṣya granthas.
Even among Tamiḻ poems, the works of Iraiyanār, Agastya, Mārkaṇḍeyar, Vānmīkar, Yājñavalkyar and others of the first Saṅgam should be studied first and those composed by the poets of the middle Saṅgam (idaic-caṅgattār) should be studied next. The ones composed in the last Saṅgam (kadaic-caṅgattār) should be studied at the end. Thus, the Vedic study was divided into three categories as first, the middle, and the last grade depending upon their usefulness. Among them Tarka and Gaṇita are appropriate for Veḷḷāḷars.
These three-fold studies are also applied for teaching (as foremost, middle, last grade). Similarly, performing Vedic sacrifices (வேட்டல்) is classified into three categories as the foremost, middle and the third class, be it the three fires (mut-tī: āhavaniya, gārhapatya, and dakṣiṇāgnī), or the worldly fire. It may be performed as maṅgaḷamarapu, auspices with sumptuous gifts. The havis should be cooked as prescribed in mantra vidhi etc. The term Vēḷāṇmai is used to convey a priest’s command over the sacrifices, guiding others to perform the sacrifice. He was expected to have all qualifications to officiate as priest and should be capable of conferring the fruits of the sacrifice on the performer. The details of the three categories of officiating in sacrifice and gift to those who have assembled may be found in texts like Bodhāyanīyam.
In the case of receiving gifts (dakṣiṇā) threefold categories should be followed. One should know the nature of a gift whether it is suitable to be accepted, the laukika nature (worldly) of the gift, or if food, the nature of the sacrifice, and willingness of the one who gives it. The suitability of the object gifted or its acceptability etc., should be evaluated before acceptance.
Similarly accepting fees from one’s students, the sacrifice he officiated, accepting material or property of a person who died without an heir, lost property of another, accepting rulership, take to weapons like Droṇācārya or whatever the case may be, it should be properly examined and brought under any one of the three categories. It clearly shows that even acceptance of materials or property should be thoroughly examined.
When a Brāhmaṇa marries a girl of other caste, the progeny through her had right to wear tuft and sacred thread. However, he is not eligible for the six acts of life but could do other professions reserved for them. All these stipulations are mentioned in the section called pārppanap-pakkam and not pārppana-iyal. This detail of sixfold system of Brāhmaṇas is applicable only to Vedic Brāhmaṇas. In other words, Brāhmin-hood is concomitant to Vedic life.
Similarly, Tolkāppiyam deals with fivefold system for kings, sixfold system for Vaṇikars’, Veḷḷāḷars’ and for the recluses, Yogins and Poruṇans. These cover the entire lifestyle of all the Tamiḻ people clearly stipulated in the Vedic and their auxiliary texts like Dharma Śāstra. This sūtra makes it abundantly clear that ancient Tamiḻ people were followers of Vedic systems as in other parts of India. Thus far we have examined the sūtras in the Aham and Puṟam chapters of poruḷ adhikāram of Tolkāppiyam.
We may now see two more chapters of Kaḷaviyal and Kaṟpiyal dealing with marital life. Kaḷaviyal deals with secret love or what we may call pre-marital sex life. The first five sūtras stipulate the Vedic tradition of recognizing eight kinds of marriages. They are brāhmam, prājāpatyam, ārsham, deivam, āsuram, gāndharvam, rākṣasam and paiśācam. In the first five, the father of the girl gives her in marriage. In the gāndharva system of marriage mutual love of both is a prerequisite. In the svayamvara category the girl selects her partner. The sūtra makes it explicit that Kaḷavu or secret love union, is one (gāndharva) approved among the eight kinds of marriages, in the Vedas. Even in this Kaḷavu system, the hierarchy of caste is recognized though not prohibitive. Clearly, what is fully dealt with in this chapter is the Vedic tradition.
Naccinārkkiniyar when introducing the chapter Kaḷaviyal, says the main chapter of the grammar Tolkāppiyam, deals first with inbam which is happiness or joy, dealt with in a general way in Ahat-tiṇai while Puṟat-tiṇai deals with wealth and righteousness. Inbam is dealt with again and joy is elaborated in Kaḷaviyal which is connected with Ahat-tiṇai-iyal. This chapter is also called life of worldly engagement i.e., a man and his lady love, united in their mind, live together before the elders give the girl in marriage. This union is also approved by the Vedas (P. Tok. Kaḷaviyal, intro). Out of the three puruṣārthas, dharma/aram, artha/poruḷ and kāma/inbam, when a lover and a lady love unite out of love which produces joy, such a joy appears in five oḻukkam. Naccinārkkiniyar says that it appears as one of the eight forms of marriages described in the Vedas. He also mentions the eight forms of marriages listed in the Vedas. 1. brāhmam is marriage between a girl of 12 years of age after her puberty, with a Brāhmaṇa, who has remained a bachelor up to forty years, the girl presented with jewels, given in marriage by her parents. 2. prājāpathyam is the marriage between different gōtras gifting their daughter to the bridegroom, for getting a child. 3. āridan/ārṣam is presenting a girl to a suitable person with a cow and a bull with their horns covered with gold and pouring water; 4. deivīkam is a marriage when a great Vedic sacrifice is performed with many participants, presenting a girl in front of the sacrificial fire to a groom as Dakṣinā (gift). 5. āsuram is presenting a bride to a good person who captures a deadly bull or kills three wild boars. 6. rākṣasam is capturing a girl by force without the consent of the parents. 7. paiśāca is the marriage of an oldman and a woman who has lost her piety. 8. gāndharvam is a category where a man and woman unite, loving each other like a gandharva and apsara. 9. These eight forms are listed in the Vedas among which Kaḷavu falls under the category of gāndharvam. The next chapter called kaṟppu-iyal chaste marriage is also a form that was introduced by the Vedic Brāhmaṇas. The first sūtra of this chapter is important. It says a suitable bridegroom, who is qualified to marry a girl, accepts a bride who is qualified to be given by a legal agent to unite with a legal instrument. Is this what is called kaṟppu?
This sūtra imposes legal requirements for the man; the bridegroom should be of appropriate age, gotra and status. So, also the bride; marrying within the same gotra (clan) is not approved by the Dharma Śāstra. The bride should be gifted by her parents, brother or relatives who have authority over her. This is a legal requirement. Further this must be committed to as a document in writing called Karaṇa (Karaṇa is an instrument of legal action). Karaṇa is a legal commitment on the part of the bridegroom to take care of the bride throughout her life. Koḍuppa is an act of presenting the girl by pouring water over the hand, Koḷḷa is to receive her hand with the document thereby having the right to enjoy her company.
Karaṇa is interpreted as “performance of ritual” in front of Agni in a marriage ceremony. The ritual is no doubt a part of the marriage, but the written document is an essential worldly legal document. This is made explicit in another sūtra, where it says that in ancient days this Karaṇa was not a prerequisite for marriage of lower castes. But when men started cheating and lying, it became necessary to safeguard the interests of the girl and so the Brāhmaṇas introduced the marriage-commitment by writing a patrika (legal document).
Thus, we find the marriage customs and marital life of the ancient Tamiḻs followed the Vedic tradition as reflected in the chapters on Kaḷaviyal and Kaṟppiyal.
I have shown elsewhere, the chapter on meypāṭu of Tolkāppiyam is the rasa theory of Bharata’s Nāṭya Śāstra. A careful study of Tolkāppiyam indicates it follows Nāṭya Śāstra of Bharata and so the whole text reflects Nāṭya Śāstra and shows unmistakable role of the Vedas.
3.4. Tolkāppiyar on translation Tolkāppiyar, the great grammarian deals with translating texts from other languages to Tamiḻ, in his chapter on maṟabiyal. First, he gives the definition of vaḻinūl (derivative text) - “vaḻi enappaṭuvatu ataṉ vaḻiyākum”.
It means that vaḻinūl is a derivative text from an original text (sūtra 650; maṟapiyal 70). Pērāciriyar, the commentator, says that texts like Tolkāppiyam and Palkāppiyam are no doubt derivative texts. So, according to this commentator Tolkāppiyam is not an original composition. He comments later that it followed “Agattiyam”.
Citing a verse, Pērāciriyar says that it is the duty of Tamiḻ scholars to follow Tolkāppiyar as he had ordered the previous text, though he had abridged the original text at places. Tolkāppiyar outlined the tenet of the original (Agattiyam) and it is virtually an obligatory injunction.
Pērāciriyar continues by saying: “This author does say in the same vein the text of Palkāppiyar, or Palkāyanār cannot be considered as authoritative as Tolkāppiyar”. The question arises when such an authoritative text by Tolkāppiyar exists, what is the need for Palkāppiyar to write his work? To this Pērāciriyar answers that Palkāppiyar did not write in detail about “eḻuttu, col, and Poruḷ”. Tolkāppiyar saw that Agattiyam had a more detailed treatment of Ceyyuḷ (prosody), he condensed the same subject noting that it was important. Further he followed the science of the original text.
According to Pērāciriyar, Tolkāppiyar carefully followed Agattiyam. He also shows that Kākkaipāṭiṉiyar who wrote her text later followed Tolkāppiyar. Pērāciriyar questions the attitude of some Tamiḻs asking what was derogatory if they followed an original text and translated into Tamiḻ.
Tolkāppiyam then divides secondary texts into four categories. Pērāciriyar says that the original text can be only one, but secondary texts can be many. tokuttal, virittal, tokaiviri, moḻi-peyarttal, atarpaṭa yāttaloṭu anna marapinavē.
“Tokuttal” means the parts which appeared as elaborate text in the original manuscript are summarised for the benefit of small unlettered men. “Virittal” means that which is not clear in the original text are elaborated for making the content understandable. “Tokai-viri” means elaborating those parts both in summary and elaboration that are further enhanced. “moḻi-peyarttal” means the text that was in other languages being translated into Tamiḻ. That is also called vaḻinūl in Tamiḻ tradition. Pērāciriyar is also of the opinion that the translated text (moḻi-peyartta) is also a “vaḻinūl”.
“Atarpaṭa yāttal” is conforming to conventions. The translation should follow the same layout of the original. As translation can be an abridgment, elaboration or further enhancement, there need not be any fear for both the Tamiḻs and the Āryas. As this process is called translation - moḻi-peyarttal - the meaning will not be twisted or faulted. It seems that there were some who opposed translations into Tamiḻ claiming that Tamiḻ language would be affected. Pērāciriyar dismisses this apprehension. He assures the Tamiḻs and the Āryas (Sanskritists) that there is no likelihood of incorrect meaning during the translation process.
For the question, “Is there translated texts in Tamiḻ among the derivative texts?”, Pērāciriyar answers that these are required. When meanings of the Vedic, Āgamic and logical texts are rendered into Tamiḻ they serve as grammar for these texts. “So, Tolkāppiyar included translations also as derivative texts”, says Pērāciriyar.
We know from the chapter on words “col atikāram”, of Tolkāppiyar, Tamiḻs were never against using northern words (vaḍa col) and translations of Sanskrit texts such as the Vedas, the Āgamas, and logical texts which included all scientific texts from any language. Pērāciriyar goes further and states that Tolkāppiyam belongs to the middle Saṅgam age, and it is followed to this day. This holds good for translating all texts into Tamiḻ. Scholars did not consider it an anti-Tamiḻ as held by some modern translators. It also points out that the Tamiḻs remained forward looking for the past two thousand years until we arrive at the second half of twentieth century.
We have seen that Tolkāppiyar followed Agattiyar and wrote his work as a derivative text - vaḻinūl. Agattiyar is said to have composed three texts on Iyal, Icai, and nāṭakam. Pērāciriyar states that Agattiyar wrote three texts on mut-tamiḻ (uvama-iyal - commentary). By the time of Tolkāppiyam, specialisation in each Tamiḻ had already been established and Agattiyar was the pioneer who wrote texts on all the three Tamiḻs. Pērāciriyar who wrote his commentary on Tolkāppiyam is assigned to the time of Vikrama Chōḻa in the 12th century and mentions this in chapter on uvama-iyal.
3.5. Tolkāppiyam - Meyppāṭu One of the chapters that appears in poruḷ-atikāram on meaning deals with “meyppāṭu” which means bodily reaction as a result of inner feeling of either the actor or the spectator when he was acting or witnessing a dance. It may also be the basis of aesthetic joy while witnessing a dance. This feeling might be under any one of the eight categories called rasa.
Any inner feeling might manifest visibly like shivering, trembling, sweating and the like which is called “meyppāṭu”. As it is especially a matter of nāṭya, the subject matter of this chapter is related to the previous and succeeding chapters and is mainly related to dance. The sūtra reads: “paṇṇai toṉṟiya eṉṉāṉku poruḷum kaṇṇiya poruḷe nāṉāṉku enpa”
The commentator Pērāciriyar says that it applies to all the sūtras. Evidently, the whole text is on a dance theme. Secondly, the first word of the sūtra “Paṇṇai” is pointedly related to dance. The commentator renders the sūtra as follows. The thirty-two subject matters are divided into four each which arise from erotic sports as a result of enjoying kāma by the crowned kings, regional chieftains, and others, who witnessed and heard the dancing girls, called nāṭaka makaḷir. Thus, the first sūtra is set against a background of the king and chieftains listening and witnessing dance in their pursuit of Śṛṅgāra rasa or happiness. The commentator also says this sūtra was written by the author Tolkāppiyar following “the original text” (on which it was based).
Further the commentator says that “meyppāṭus” are related to dance masters, who reduce the number of subdivisions to 16. Evidently, this text rightly followed the Nāṭya Śāstra. Also, the commentator points out that Tolkāppiyar followed an earlier text (āti nūlai nōkki kūṟiyavāṟu pōlum). He also mentions that the four referred to in the sūtra are: - 1. Objects of rasas (cuvai); 2. experiencing rasa (cuvai uṇarvatu); 3. Suggestive gestures and 4. viral which means sattva.
The third sūtra of this chapter states that the sixteen subsections could be further reduced to eight. This is elaborated by Perāciriyar, as: 1. Heroism - vīram 2. Fear - bhayānakam 3. Wonder - adbhutam 4. Disgust - bībhatsam 5. Love – śṛṅgāram 6. Graceful - karuṇa 7. Laughter - hāsya 8. Middle state - śānta Here the commentator omits raudra rasa and in its place includes śāntam as one of the rasas. The commentator also states that this is the subject matter of the poruḷ adhikāram (evidently meaning of poruḷ-atikāram is the main content of Tolkāppiyam). It means Tolkāppiyam deals with realisation of rasa that relates to dance as its main purpose. It also suggests all these materials of enjoyment should be depicted on the stage. The dancer kūttaṉ who exhibits these suggestive gestures and the inner sāttvika feelings through his bodily movements enjoyed by the audience relate only to dance convention - nāṭaka-vaḻakku (sūtra 350). This commentator had no doubt that Tolkāppiyam was not an original text, but a derivative text (translation from Nāṭya Śāstra).
Bharata’s Nāṭya Śāstra is the earliest Indian text to deal with the rasa theory in great detail. This ancient text recognizes only eight rasas and does not include śānta as the ninth rasa. The raudra rasa was an important one that was not included by the commentator Pērāciriyar, instead he includes śānta rasa. He even cites a sūtra that includes raudra as a 9th rasa. This is an error on the part of this commentator who probably took a later tradition. For in the next sūtra of Tolkāppiyam, the “sthāyi-bhāva” of raudra is clearly included as one of the 8th bhāva and no mention of “naṭunilai” which is not a nāṭya rasa in Bharata. Tolkāppiyar has two additional sūtras which also mention the bhāvās of raudra and does not include śānta. For example, in a subsequent sūtra (sūtra 251) that gives the names of eight bhāvas, he lists only vehuḷi-bhāva and no mention of naṭunilai (bhāvā of śānta). Also, there are lists of four vyabhicāri bhāvās for each of the eight rasas, in Tolkāppiyam as seen in sūtra 258 which refers to four vyabhicāri bhāvās for raudra rasa and no such list for śānta. Therefore, Tolkāppiyar did not recognize śānta as a Nāṭya rasa and was always referring to eight rasa’s which is an important factor to show that Tolkāppiyar followed Bharata’s Nāṭya Śāstra.
Meyppāṭṭiyal The Chapter called Meyppāṭṭiyal which we shall see, refers to realisation of (suvai) “rasa” mentioned in Bharata's Nāṭya Śāstra. The question then is what is this Meyppāṭṭiyal? We shall see this in a sequence. Let us see the commentary on this first sūtrā by the medieval commentator Pērāciriyar who says “ivvottu eṇṇutal uṭṭṟoveṉil meyppāṭṭiyal eṉṉum peyarttu”.
It means this chapter deals with what is called “Meyppāṭṭiyal” - “meyppāṭṭu eṉpatu cila poruḷ uṇarttiṉamaiyil appeyartāyiṟṟu”. That is owing to some meaning being communicated is called meippāṭu. “itaṉāle ottu nutaliyatuvum, meyppāṭu uṇarttutalālum eṉpatu peṟṟām”. By this we understand what meyppāṭu is – that which is communicated. “meyppāṭu eṉpatu poruḷ pāṭu”. Here he says Meyppāṭu means realisation of meaning. atāvatu ulakattār uḷḷa nikaḻcci āṇṭu nikaḻntavāre, purattārukku pulappaṭuvator āṟṟāḷ veḷippaṭutal.
That means persons who realise certain feelings in their own inner consciousness, communicate the same to outsiders, to see or visually understand it. atāvatu ataṉatu ilakkaṇam kūṟiya ottu ākupeyarāl meyppāṭu āyiṟṟu.
So, the sūtra which gives the lakṣaṇa is also called meyppāṭu. The feeling in one’s mind which cannot be shown externally and can only be shown through verbal communication mentioned in subsequent sūtrās. So, this sūtrā is connected to all the other subsequent sūtrās and applicable to the entire text. Hence, a separate sūtrā is introduced to define what is precisely meyppāṭu.
The commentator gives a very important information at this stage pertaining to the first verse of the sūtrā. That is kings, his commanders and chieftains who witnessed dance of dancing girls and listened to their singing, experienced a sexual delight by both listening and witnessing which appears in 32 chapters. This can be brought down to 16 chapters for dramatic authors nāṭaka āciriyar or composers. It seems that this has been mentioned with reference to the original text.
It means that this first sūtrā of meyppāṭu chapter is related to witnessing and listening to the dancing girls by kings and chieftains and from that they enjoy the sāttvika rasa. Thus, it is evident that this chapter is totally related to nāṭya. The commentator says onpatu suvai eṉappaṭṭavaikku rutraṉ moḻiṉta eṭṭaṉaiyum kūṟuvatāl cuvaikkappaṭum poruḷum ataṉai nukarnta kuṟiyum pori uṇarvum atu maṉattuppaṭṭavaḻi uḷḷattinikḻum kuṟippum kuṟippukkuḷ piṟnta uḷḷattāl kaṇṇīr arumpal, meyi cilirttiṭuṭal, mutalāka uṭampiṉ kaṇ varum vēṟupāṭākiya tatuvaṅkaḷum eṉa nāṉku ākki accuvai eṭṭoṭum kūṭi oṉṟu nāṉkaicetu viraḻa muppattireṇṭām eṉpatu.
These are four times eight equals 32, that are discussed in this chapter. That is each cuvai out of eight has got four secondary factors. One is communication, second the reception in the mind of the spectator, third the effect that it leaves in the mind of the spectator and fourth the bodily reaction. These are the four factors in every realisation of the cuvai. Obviously, it deals with the “rasa theory” originally propounded by Bharata in his Nāṭya śāstra.
