6. TAMIḺ AND SANSKRIT RELATIONSHIP ________________________________________ 6.1. Introduction The earliest known written records in Tamiḻ are assigned to the 2nd cent. BCE and are in Brāhmi script. They show an evolved fusion of spoken Sanskrit (also known as Prākṛt) and Tamiḻ with no sign of conflict at any point of time. In the past 2000 years of its known history Tamiḻ and Sanskrit are the two main languages that existed in this part of the country that have always been beneficial to each other and have evolved in an inseparable manner. Any attempt to jettison Sanskrit from the other language by artificial or autocratic approach is bound to fail miserably. It is an attempt to undo what has gone on for over 2000 years in every walk of Tamiḻ life that can be demonstrated with the irrefutable evidence of epigraphs. This paper is an attempt to examine a few examples on some aspects of this subject. 6.2. Anti-Brāhminical Tone in Academics We have some commendable studies on the earliest written Tamiḻ records in recent times. However, some observations of a discordant note found in them by Iravatham Mahadevan deserve attention. Writing about the northern tradition especially of Jains and Buddhists, this author stated “As protestant movements against the Vedic Brāhminical Hinduism these faiths kept away from Sanskrit in the initial phase and conducted their missionary acitivities in northern India in the local Prākṛt dialect”. (p.160) From the previous chapter we learned that Buddhisam was never anti-brahminical as revealed by Aśokan inscriptions. Therefore this statement of Mahadeven is motivated. Right from the beginning of his history, Buddha was considered an incarnation of Nārāyaṇa as mentioned in Buddhacarita by Asvaghoṣa and Lalitavistara of a slightly later period. Buddha was never interested in polemics and never protested. When he was not satisfied with the teachings of any great man he quietly went to another person to learn and when not satisfied to another and so on. Whenever conflicting views were presented and questioned he did not comment on them but asked his followers just to follow the right path he suggested. The question of protestant mission was neither present in Buddhism nor Jainism. In order to reach the common man in their popular language, they were using the spoken Sanskrit (Prākṛt) that was recorded and that was all. The following view of no less an authority than Moriz Winternitz deserves attention in this regard. “However greatly rich and vast the Pāli literature of India, Ceylon, and Burma may be, it represents only the literature of one particular Buddhist sect namely Theravadas. In addition to it even in India - apart from other Buddhist countries - several sects have produced their own literary works, whose language is partly Sanskrit, and partly a central Indian dialect resembling Sanskrit which we will call mixed Sanskrit. The finds of manuscripts in Central Asia include fragments not only of Sanskrit texts but also of translation of Indian works in Central Asiatic languages”. (History of Indian literature vol II Winternitz, p. 218, reprint 1999) “The Sarvāstivada school of the Hīṇayana which had its adherents more especially in Kashmir, and Gandhara and spread thence to Central Asia, Tibet and China had a Sanskrit Canon of its own”. (Ibid, p.222) It is abundantly clear that the claim “the Buddhists abandoned and kept away from Sanskrit” is a pedestrian statement if one refers to Mahāvastu, Divyavadana, and lalitavistara and Asvaghosha's Buddhacarita. Similar is the case with the Jains. We may reject the view of Mahadevan as hearsay and unsubstantiated statement. The other statement by Mahadevan is more curious. “There was no priestly hierarchy in early Tamiḻ Society with vested interest in maintaining the oral tradition” (p.162). This is a questionable statement. For, though in his list of contributors to Tamiḻ literary tradition, this author mentions “princes, monks, merchants, bards, artisans, and common people”, he deliberately omits Brāhmin poets, who, like Kapilar, Paraṇar, and others were considered the leaders among Tamiḻ poets. 6.3. Brāhmins’ Role in Saṅgam Period There are not one but several poems of the Saṅgam age that extol the Brāhmaṇas, learned in the four Vedas and as performers of Vedic sacrifices, as priests and foremost counsels of Cēra, Cōḻa and Pāṇḍyā kings. The following citation from the Patiṟṟup-pattu would show that the Brāhmaṇa, who were great in the six branches of their profession and interpreters of Dharma, served as the priests of the King Cēra Palyānai Celkeḻu Kuttivaṉ, one of the very early kings, who had as his priest Bhārdvāja of great learning and fame. This poem was sung by Gautamaṉ. ஓதல் வேட்டல் அவை பிறர் செய்தல் ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்று ஆறு புரிந்து ஒழுகும் அறம் புரி அந்தணர் வழிமொழிந்து ஒழுகி 6.4. Patiṟṟup-pattu The following poem by the poet Neṭṭimaiyār on the Pāṇḍyā Mudukuḍimi Peruvaḻuti will further illustrate the above point. “Using the sacred poems (mantras) in the four Vedas and famous ritual called īkṣana kriya and pouring large quantity of ghee as āhuti in the sacrificial fire you have completed many Vedic yāgas and planted the yūpa sthambas (sacrificial posts) at many places”. நற்பனுவல் நால் வேதத்து அருஞ்சீர்த்திப் பெருங்கண்ணுறை நெடுமா ஆவுதி பொங்கப் பன் பார் ஈயாச் சிறப்பின் வேள்வி முற்றி யூப நட்ட வியன் பரப்பில் களம் பலகொல் - புறம் 15 Another poet of the Saṅgam age, Manguḍi Kiḻar, sings the greatness of the same king stating that he had Vedic scholars who were foremost in the hierarchy, “Nāṉmaṟai mudalvar”, and who were known for their judicious approach and as performers of Yāgās, as his advisors. ஆன்ற கேள்வி அடங்கிய கொள்கை நான்மறை முதல்வர் சுற்றமாக மன்னவர் ஏவல் செய்ய மன்னிய வேள்வி முற்றிய வாய்வாள் வேந்தே - புறம் 26 Tāmaṟppāl Kaṇṇanār of the same age rebukes the Cōḻa Nalam-Kiḷḷi, saying that “your ancestors would not do any act that would hurt the feelings of the Brāhmana”. ...நின் முன்னோர் எல்லாம் பார்ப்பார் நோவன செய்யார் - புறம் 43 The famous poet of the Saṅgam age, Kapilar, sings the Malaiyamān Chieftain Thirumuḍikkāri praising him by saying that “your entire country belongs to the Brāhmins, performers of sacrifices”. கழல்புனைத் திருமுடிக்காரி நின்னாடே அழல்புறந் தரூஉம் அந்தணர் அதுவே - புறம் 122 These citations are sufficient enough to show that the contention of the author that there was no priestly class in early society is untenable. 6.5. Approval of Tolkāppiyam by a Vedic Scholar The earliest Tamiḻ grammar Tolkāppiyam has generally been studied for grammatical and linguistic analysis, but it also furnishes extraordinary information about Tamiḻ society and its cultural traits. As it refers to the morphology of script in the chapter on script/syllables in eḻuttu, it is certain that it is to be assigned to an age when Brāhmi script was employed, probably from the first cent. CE. It is also certain that the present collection of Saṅgam classics date from the first cent. BCE to 2nd cent. CE and may be taken as contemporary with the Tolkāppiyam A verse attributed to poet Paṇampāranar found at the beginning of the Tolkāppiyam mentions that the author of the Grammar, Tolkāppiyar, obtained the approval of his composition from a great Vedic scholar of his time, Adankōṭṭu Ācāṉ, who was a great a exponent of Dharma-Śāstra and a master of the four Vedas, a Caturvedin. “Aṟam kaṟai nāviṉ nāṉmaṛai muṟṟiya Adankōṭṭu ācārkku aril tapatterindu” 6.6. Vedic Nature of Eḻuttu in Tolkāppiyam The text also says that “the text expounds the eḻuttu muṟai, a system of writing and pronunciation without any ambiguity”, “mayaṅgā maṟabin eḻuttu muṟal”. Here the term eḻuttu muṟai refers to the phonetic intonations as well as to the written form, with the former being well known to the Vedic tradition. Several sūtras in the maṟapu-iyal, are related to Vedic Brāhmaṇās and their role in the society. “ella Eḻuttum --- akattu eḻu vaḻi isai aril tāpatterindu alabiṉ kōdal antaṇar maṟaittē” It illustrates that Tolkāppiyam follows the Vedic tradition in many places. There are other sūtra that deal with the long and short vowels, which is indicated by the sound kara and kāra (1-4-32). The section on “kaṟpu” is based on the Vedic tradition of Kalpa sūtras. The word kaṟpu itself is derived from the Sanskrit word kalpa. The section on kaṟṟppiyal starts with “marriage by gift of a girl” (kanyā-dāna) with a document of “legally binding instrument in writing” called karaṇa. According to the sūtra there was only kaḷavu originally of ‘a man and woman coming together by mutual love and consent’, but when the society witnessed falsehood, deceit and abandonment (which left the women without any protection), the Brāhmins introduced the kaṟpu, a bondage with karaṇa. Obviously, this was a code of marriage contract introduced by the Vedic Brāhmaṇas, as prescribed in the Kalpa sūtras. This is no doubt the civilizing process ushered in by the Vedic Brāhmaṇas in the Tamiḻ country (3-4-4). Karaṇa is mentioned in Dharma Śāstra as a legally binding document akin to registration in modern times. While the registration is done the Registrar’s office in modern times in front of an officer, the karaṇa of ancient times was entered into in the presence of the entire village community and elders. poyyum vaḻuvum tōnṟiya piṉṉar aiyyar yāttaṉar karaṇam eṉpa At this stage, I may mention that Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar, the famous commentator, gives an interesting information that has come down to his time. The Pāyiram says that Tolkāppiyar studied the following works earlier to him, Akattiyam, Mahā-puraṇam, Bhūta-purāṇam, and Icai-nuṇukkam. These are said to have grammars of syllables, eḻuttu, col (words) and poruḷ (meaning), Aṟam (legal system), artha-śāstra (polity), amaiccu-iyal (administrative system), pārppana-iyal (Brāhminical knowledge system), jyotitam (astronomy), gandharvam (musical system), kūttu (dance), and others. It may be noted that among the systems, the Brāhminical knowledge system is one he studied before writing the Tolkāppiyam. This is corroborated by many references to antaṇar maṟaittu. The mahā-puraṅa, which may be a Jaina text, while bhūta-puraṇam might refer to the Śaiva system of the Bhairava school. That Tolkāppiyar also studied music and dance treatises must be noted. The Brāhminical knowledge system included the Dharma-śāstra texts and also logic, for among various categories of poetry one is called pārppana-vāhai which means ‘conquest over others in logical disputations’. If Tolkāppiyam is the earliest Tamiḻ grammar, it already shows the study of many other Sanskrit and Prākṛt sources including that of Brāhminical systems before formulating its own Tamiḻ system, thereby indicating that the assimilation process between Sanskrit and Tamiḻ must have been going on from far earlier to Tolkāppiyam. Describing Adankōṭṭu Ācaṉ, Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar says that the Ācaṉ was a master of Dharma-śāstra and the tradition of the Ṛg-veda, Yajur-veda, Taittirīya-samhita and Atharva-veda. Tolkāppiyar is said to have answered all objections and questions raised by this Vedic scholar Ācaṉ and finally got his approval. Undoubtedly, Tolkāppiya leaned heavily on the Vedic system, which is reflected in many sūtras of Tolkāppiyam. Further, the reference to Music and Dance (gandharvam and kūttu) among the subjects studied by Tolkāppiyar is also reflected in nāṭaka vaḻakku and ulakiyal vaḻakku in the ahat-tiṇai of Tolkāppiyam. More will be shown on this aspect in the sequence. 6.7. Brāhmins not against Writing The Vedic Brāhmaṇas were not against writing as such, but used writing in many of the worldly transactions including poetry that is included in this grammar as eḻuttu. Study of script and writings was compulsory for a Vedic Brāhmaṇās according to Tolkāppiyam which is included in pārppanap-pakkam as he has to deal with written documents in his judicial capacity and this study was called Brahmmam (see the chapter on Brahmanical studies in this volume). As the Vedas were believed to be revered sacred poetry and were transmitted through oral tradition for long, they insisted that the Vedas be continued to be learnt through oral tradition, as it has come down to this day in the same oral system. So, it is wrong to hold that the Brāhmaṇas were against writing as held by some Scholars. Kautilya, the author of the Artha-śāstra, who is considered a contemporary of Candragupta Maurya of third cent. BCE (though it is not unlikely that the present text may belong to 2nd cent. BCE), refers to legal documents as an essential requirement in the administrative set up, pointing to the Brāhminical tradition. It must also be admitted that it was not confined to Vedic Brāhmins alone, but a number of functionaries like officers, ambassadors, accountants, judicial officers and craftsmen, and also courtesans were literates. However, the number of those learned in reading and writing was very limited. But as the villages were administered through the Sabhas and these official functions were to be carried out at the village level as well, a few people in the villages were also literate. Among them the village potters, carpenters, goldsmiths and masons and Ganis were such literates found spread out in the villages. It has been stated by some scholars “that the inscriptions found on ancient pottery were engraved after firing. The potters would not have inscribed them, but it were the traders who inscribed them”. Pottery firing and engraving were two different works which would justify two different persons. It is known that the potters were great painters as well and we do have many examples both of pre-firing painting and post-firing paintings on pots done by the potters to this day. That they were also artists making terracotta figures is more than attested. It is also evidenced that the lekhakas of kings belonged to the artisan class such as painters, Silpakāra, and so on. Nothing prevented the potter from making the engraving on demand. That does not also mean that all traders were literates, for most of the sales were made orally till very recent times. The village accountant and scribe were called Karaṇattāṉ. That is the reason why Aśoka in his edicts makes a specific rule that his officers should read out his edicts to the villagers on specific days when the villagers could assemble, especially on such days as full moon days etc. This also gives a lie to the contention that literacy was widespread in Tamiḻnāṭu in the beginning of the Current era. Till very recent times, hardly six to ten people, less than five percent of the population, with a knowledge of reading were present in average villages in Tamiḻnāṭu. The requirement of the villagers was met by these literate men, and so the proposition that writing was very widely prevalent in all the villages among common people does not seem acceptable. The percentage of literacy in villages may be found in the Survey Reports for the past 200 years for a better picture. 6.8. The Fourfold Classification of land The Tolkāppiyam deals with the fourfold classification (also a fifth one) of the land into Kurṟiñci, Mullai, Marutam and Neytal, whose presiding deities were Kumara, Viṣṇu, Indra and Varuņa (also Kāli), all Vedic deities. Neither the Buddha nor the Jina are mentioned in the same way as the Vedic Gods of the Brāhmins in either Tolkāppiyam or the Saṅgam classics.
6.9. Caste System in Tamiḻnāṭu The Tolkāppiyam refers to the life style of the fourfold castes in the Tamiḻ society as Vedic Brāhmins, Kṣatriya (kings), Vaisya (traders) and Velaṉ (mantar) - agriculturists, in the ahat-tiṇai, puṟat-tiṇai, kaḷaviyal, kaṟppiyal and maṟabiyal and all sections of the poruḷ-adhikaram. It is also evident that Brāhmins were held in great esteem in the Tolkāppiyam, which frequently refers to the uyarntōr and antaṇar maṛai moḻi and so on. I have already cited how the Vedic Brāhmins were the priests of the king and the kings respected them. Thus, Mr Iravatham Mahadevan’s statement that there was no priestly class in the early Tamiḻ society is not academically supported by any evidence. What is puzzling is Mahadevan’s statement that Brāhmins were motivated by the intention to thrust Sanskrit and that they were not there in Early Tamiḻ society. Mahadevan’s writing needs to be faulted as unacceptable. We have seen that Tolkāppiyam is the earliest grammar in Tamiḻ. It shows a happy blend of Sanskrit and Tamiḻ from the very beginning in classical Tamiḻ. It would be advantageous to note here that in the Ahat-tiṇai-iyal chapter on Poruḷ-atikāram, Tolkāppiyam deals with the employment of two classes of Tamiḻ poetry, the Kali and Pāripādal as most suited to depicting the moods of both nāṭaka-vaḻakku and ulakiyal-vaḻakku, the dramatic conventions and worldly conventions. The usage nāṭaka-vaḻakku and ulakiyal-vaḻakku, which are termed Naṭya-dharmi and Loka-dharmi in the Sanskrit tradition, would show that it is dealing with both Tamiḻ and Sanskrit grammatical structures. nāṭaka vaḻakkinum ulakiyal vaḻakkinum pāṭal cānṟa pulaneṟi vaḻakkam kaliye paripāṭal ayiṟu pāvinum uṟiyatu cīr? enmanār pulavar”. This must be read with the introductory Pāyiram to Tolkāppiyam by poet Panamparanṇar, which declares that this grammatical composition was formulated after studying poetical usages and spoken usages as found in earlier texts and also after evaluating them critically. “vaḻakkum ceyyuḷum āyiru mudaliṉ muntu nūl kaṇḍu muṟaippada eṇṇi வழக்கும் செய்யுளும் ஆயிரு முதலின் எழுத்தும் சொல்லும் பொருளும் நாடி முந்து நூல்கண்டு முறைப்பட எண்ணிப் Though Tolkāppiyam is an independent treatise, it had many earlier texts before it and obviously incorporated many earlier traditions. Panampāraṇar, also says categorically that he obtained the approval of a great teacher of his time, Adankoṭṭu Ācaṉ, who was an expert exponent of the Dharma-śāstra and a Vedic Caturvedin Brāhmaṇā. The poet Panamparaṇar, was a co-student of Tolkāppiyar, “oru sālai mānākkar”, according to commentators. Tolkāppiyar was certainly inspired by the Vedic grammatical tradition, which he exhibits in many sūtras in his work. The Ācharya Adankoṭṭu Ācaṉ is said to be a master of two systems, the Dharma-śāstra and the Vedic lore (aṟam kaṟai nāviṉ nānmaṟai muṟṟiya). The sastric tradition is reflected in the ahat-tiṇai, purat-tiṇai, meypāṭṭu, and kaṟpu-iyal section and the Vedic tradition as seen in the eḻuttu section of Tolkāppiyam and also the necessity for proper intonation to grasp the correct meaning. This indicates the use of the Prātisakhya (Vedic grammar) and Mīmāmsā texts of the Vedic schools. I have already mentioned that the reference to the presiding deities of the fourfold lands classified in the Tamiḻ tradition, namely Indra, Varuṇa, Viṣṇu and Subrahmaṇya as the deities of Marutam (cultivated lands), Neytal (coastal region), Mullai (forest), and Kuriñci (hilly) regions. These deities worshipped by the ancient Tamiḻs are no doubt the Vedic Gods par excellence. 6.10. Sanskrit and Eḻuttu Atikāram The employment of kara and kāra as in “A-kāra" and “Na-kāra" in the very first sūtra of Tolkāppiyar to indicate vowels and consonants would show that it is the varṇa krama patha usage of the Vedic school. For example, the word Gaṇapathi would be pronounced as “gakāra-akāra, ṇakāra-akāra, pakāra-akāra, takāra- ikāra Gaṇapati”; that is, the origin of each sound would be clearly spelt in the Vedic tradition. This was the method by which the Vedic texts were transmitted in oral tradition. Again, the time measure as short and long vowels and the consonants and syllables as “māttirai” in Tolkāppiyar indicate the adaptation of Vedic pronunciations. It is known that the earliest script employed for writing Tamiḻ is Brāhmi of the northern school. The basic form of the consonantal letter is always shown with the inherent vowel “a” and to denote the pure consonant, a dot is used as marker which indicates the removal of the vowel sound from syllables. “mey uyir niṉkin tan uruvākum" 1-4-57 The following sūtras of Tolkāppiyam would show the presence of Vedic Brāhmaṇa in the early Tamiḻ society and their influence: ōtalum tutum uyarntor maṟṟē (2-1-27) Vedic studies, “ōtal”, and embassy, "tūtu", are the functions of the Brāhmins. Another sūtra in the same chapter says: uyarntor porulvayin olukkattan (2-4-36) i.e., the greatest wealth of the Brāhmins is their discipline. 6.11. Sanskrit and Col Atikāram P.S. Subrahmanya Sastri has pointed out that Tolkaāppiyar has mastered the following texts: Prātisākhyas, Nirukta of Yaska, grammatical works, etc., which are reflected in the piṟappu-iyal section of the eḻuttatikāram, moḻi-maṟapu, uṟi-iyal and veṟṟumai-iyal. P.S. Sastri has also drawn our attention to many Prātisākhya sūtras that are literally translated into Tamiḻ sūtras, contained in Tolkāppiyam (PSS Introduction pp xv-xvi). PSS has also pointed out to the sūtra on the origin of phonemes, in sūtra 102, as an example of the adaptation of Tolkāppiyam from Vedic tradition. He has given many Sanskrit words from Tolkāppiyam which are clear examples of adaptation from Sanskrit. I am giving a list that includes more words in addition to what he has already given: • Amarar • Avai (sabha) • Avip-Pali (havir-bali) • Deivam (teivam) • Desam (teyam) • Emam (Kshemam) • Kāmam • Karanam • Kaṟpu (Kalpita) • Maṇḍalam • Maṅgaḷam • Mārāyam • Patai (bhata) • Pakkam • Pārpaṉa pakkam • Pintamod • Tānai (sthāna) • Tāpatar • Ulakam • Uvamam • Vaduvai Dealing with the concept of nūl (text), Tolkāppiyam defines different compositions as nūl, pici, mudumoḻi, and mantram. Further, the nūl is subdivided into sūtra, ōttu, paṭalam and piṇtam. Note the words like mantra, sūtra, ōttu, paṭalam, and piṇtam, in Tamiḻ poetry which are Sanskrit words. 6.12. Sanskrit in Poruḷ Atikāram The whole of poruḷ-atikāram of Tolkāppiyam is based on Sanskrit literature. The first part of poruḷ-atikāram is ahat-tiṇai-iyal. The word aham is a Sanskrit word that stands for inner emotions, among which śṛṅgāra is not only of universal appeal, but also pleasing to all, while the second chapter puṟam is the counterpart of aham. The word puṟam is also a Sanskrit word derived from the indeclinable “pra” which appears as “pura” standing for “front” (opposite of aham) or ‘before’, or, more precisely, ‘external’. Monier Williams gives the following equals of this word: zd “fra", German “vor", latin “pro", and English “fore". Thus it is evident that the word “puṟam” is the exact Sanskrit counterpart of “aham” and the divisions aha-ṉāṉūṟu and puṟa-ṉāṉūru are based on this classification aham dealing with śṛṅgāra and puṟam dealing with the Dharma, Artha, Mokṣa aspects of the four Puruṣārthas, also known as external exploits. It may also be pointed out that the art of dance is divided into two broad categories, as ‘iru-vahaik-kūttu’, in which ahak-kūttu and puṟak-kūttu are considered the two fold kūttus in the Cilappatikāram and its commentaries. It is also pertinent to recall that the two tiṇais ahat-tiṇai and puṟat-tiṇai include the aspects of naṭaka vaḻakku and ulakiyal vaḻakku (nāṭya-dharmi and loka-dharmi of the Nāṭya Śāstra). I am certain that the ahat-tiṇai and puṟat-tiṇai classification is derived from Sanskrit tradition. 6.13. Legal Marriage, a Brāhminical Introduction The third and the fourth chapters of poruḷ deal with kaḷavu and kaṟpu-iyal, pre-marriage and post-marriage consummation. The kaḷavu-iyal begins with the inbam - that is kāmam, artha, poruḷ and aṟam (dharma), evidently based on Sanskritic sources. “Inbamum Porulum aranum ena āngu Anpodu punarnta aintiņai marungil Kāmakkuttam kāņum kālai Maraiyor deyattu manral ettanul Turai amai yaḻ tunaimaiyor iyalpe” 3-3-1 The first sūtra of kaṟppu-iyal begins with “kanyā-dāna”, gifting the girl in the hands of the bridegroom, which is explicitly mentioned as the creation of the Vedic Brāhmaṇā. “kaṟpu enappaṭuvatu karaṇamodu puṇartal koḷḷaṟkku uṟi maṟabin kiḻavaṉ kiḻattiyai kodaikku uṟi maṟapinōr kodukka koḷvatuvē”. term “karaṇam” used in this sūtra stands for a document of legal action. All marriages were registered through document approved by the village assembly and the elders who witnessed the marriage. A succeeding sūtra in the same chapter declares that this was introduced by Brāhmins when the society witnessed falsehood and abandonment (of the girl and her progeny). poyyum vaḻuvum tōnṟiya piṉṉar aiyar yāttaṉar karaṇam eṉpa This sūtra is a clear indication that Vedic Brāhmins brought this legal safeguard, which is a civilizing process for an orderly Tamiḻ society. This was already a prevalent mode among the Brāhminical society. As this system was introduced based on the Vedic system it is called “maṟaiyiṉ vanta mana?” (vaidiki gṛham).
6.14. Pre-marital Sex in Ancient Tamiḻnadu The most ancient grammatical work in Tamiḻ called Tolkāppiyam assigned to first century current era (AD) devotes one complete chapter “kaḷavu-iyal” to pre-marital sex. But contrary to popular belief that a man and a woman could come together at their will for it is their private affair, the ancient Tamiḻs believed in coming together in stages that may be described as “poetic Union” of human behaviour, culminating in lawful marriage bondage. The word Kaḷavu stands for stealing or thievery, and so Kaḷavu iyal means the chapter on “stealthy union” and denotes that which can not be done in public. The very word to denote the pre-marital union as Kaḷavu shows it is not an approved behaviour. So long as it is in secrecy it may be their affair but once it is known to the public, it has no legal approval unless it is converted into a legal marriage “Kaṟpuḷ”. It arises from the word Kalpita, newly formulated. The chapters on Kaḷavu and Kaṟpu in Tolkāppiyam virtually give the code of legal life which must be held as a law book besides being a grammatical work. The legal nature of Tolkāppiyam has not yet been recognized by the Tamiḻ Scholars. Two important sūtras in Tolkāppiyam are relevant in the present context. One sūtra defines what is a lawful marriage (Kaṟpu). Tolkāppiyar states that it meant “to give a bride in marriage by a lawful person and accepted by a legally entitled youth in order they may lawfully unite”. “Kaṟpu enap paduvatu karanam odu punara Kolarkkuri marapinor Kilavanum Kilattiyai Kodaikkuri marabinor koduppa, kolvatuve” The above definition shows that Tolkāppiyam has precise legal terminology and should therefore be considered a book on law. The word karaṇam in this sūtra is an important legal term which stands for “a written instrument of legal action”. The word is used in many mediaeval Cōḻa inscriptions as “written instrument of legal action”. Those who knew to draft legal documents at the village level were called karaṇattān or karṇam till recent times. A meaning attributed to the term as “ritual action with Vedic mantras in the immediate presence of Agni, as witness” by Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar, a commentator in mediaeval times only partially covers the act. In fact, it goes beyond the religious connotation and is essentially a legal term. So, the word karaṇamōdu puṇara in the sūtra mentioned as kaṟpu-iyal, stands for “lawfully approved to unite” . This shows that the ancient Tamiḻs had a system of registering their marriages with written document of agreement. Such an ancient system survives to this day in which the lawful parents of the bride and bridegroom, their near relatives and the village assembly headed by the village elders will be present and the agreement read by the Brāhmin priest and all authorized signed the deed which will be deposited in the village Record office. This deed is called in all Hindu marriages as “muhūrta patrikā”. Without a legal deed, the marriage is not lawful according to ancient Tamiḻ tradition. Another sūtra of Tolkāppiyam says this system was codified and introduced by Brāhmins when falsehood and crime appeared in society (while the earlier form was kaḷavu - premarital union). poyyum vaḷavum tonṟiya piṉṉar Aiyar yāttaṉar karaṇam enpa A man and a woman could come together in tribal state of life for the tribal man will not utter falsehood. He would rather sacrifice his life than break his word. Similarly crime was not known in the tribal stage. But, when false hood and crime appeared in soceity, the Brāhmins (aiyyar), as guardians of the law, found that women and children were worst affected if stealthy union continued. So, they made it a law to bind the couple to the marriage bondage. The men tended to commit rape and other crimes and escaped by telling falsehood and it was the poor womenfolk who had to bear the consequences. Marriage was imposed as a social obligation on the bride groom to protect her (pādukāppāka) if he needs her company. The women who conceived by stealthy union kaḷavu will live in life long ridicule in the society and needs to be saved with dignity and livelihood. The children born of stealthy union need to be brought up till they attain majorhood and the man cannot escape from his responsibility. Further, psychologically the children born of illegal conception are generally prone to turn vagabonds in course of time and will create generations of suffering and anarchy in the society and civilized living. Premarital sex is prevalent even to this day among some hill tribes in South India but it is conditioned on legalization when known. The people’s insistence on lawful marriages is not exclusive to any one religion, for no religion in the world approves in public, the stealthy union. But it had another ramification too, as in the case of prostitutes and their children. In ancient times, the dancing girls (not all) were generally prostitutes. They had no legal code of lawful deed of marriage. However, their children were given preferential right to practice some professions. The rights of prostitutes who were also called nāṭaka gaṇikaiyar (actresses), and the role of the court are mentioned in a body of literature called virali vidu tūtu in Tamiḻ that appeared in the 17th to 19th cent. Though a number of such texts were produced, they had a stereotype format in which a higher caste man goes to a dancing girls residence and the clever girl drained all his wealth and throws him out of her house when he had lost all his property. The man goes to the village court. The dancing actress stoutly refused that she had taken his money, which was a blatant lie. The village court told him that she had no legal obligation to keep him because they had no marriage system and they are known for acting. As a learned man of diginified family he ought to have known the consequences of his action and so the verdict went in favour the actress. The elders advised him to get back to his home and tell his wife who though might be angered by his behaviour, will not throw him out but as a family women, look after him. These instances in Tamiḻ literature do tell us that insistence of lawful marriage, as opposed to stealthy union was a result of centuries of human experience and the learned men of Tamiḻ society benefited by them. The other chapter in the same section of poruḷ-iyal named meypāṭṭu-iyal with bhāvas and realizations of rasās are dealt with as in the dramatic treatise Nāṭya Śāstra. Similarly, maṟabu-iyal, uvama-iyal, etc., fully reflect the integration of the northern and southern traditions. 6.15. Tolkāppiyam and Dramatic Theories John Marr has already drawn our attention to the fact that except sections 1 and 2 of poruḷ-atikāram of Tolkāppiyam, the other sections are drawn from Sanskrit sources. “The first two sections of poruḷ-atikāram appear to embody many features peculiar to the literature of Tamiḻ. While they elaborate on these sections 3 to 6 (kaḷaviyal and poruḷiyal), much material may be found in Sanskrit treatises. Section six and seven may be later additions or interpolations in Tolkāppiyam, poruḷ-atikāram, treating as they do of dramatic theory and according to...” (p.9-10). But, as I have shown, much material in the first two chapters, eḻuttu-atikaram, and col-atikaram, also draw from Sanskrit and Prākṛt sources, and the akat-tiṇai and puṟat-tiṇai also deal with much of dramatic and dance traditions found in Nāṭya Śāstra of Bharata, the Tolkāppiyam needs to be taken as a whole. All the material found in it is of homogenous origin and none can be considered later or interpolation. All that can be said is that Tolkāppiyam is not a treatise of a very early date like 3rd cent BCE, but may be held to be a work of 1st or 2nd cent. CE. 6.16. Bharata's Nāṭya Śāstra and Tamiḻ The Nāṭya Śāstra of a Bharata is one of the earliest texts essentially codifying various aspects of dance and dramatic themes, which has influenced Indian art and culture for over two thousand years. The date of its composition is not precisely known, but scholars believe that it is of considerable antiquity, some time later than Pāṇini, but earlier to Bhāshyakāra Patañjali, around 3rd cent. BCE. It is possible that there might have been some additions to the original, but it is not possible at this stage to decide which is original and which is not. So far as Tamiḻnāṭu is concerned, I may cite three earlier landmark references to Bharata and his work. The earliest epigraphical reference to Bharata occurs in an inscription of the Pallava Rājasimha at Māmallapuram in which he makes a specific reference to Bharata’s name as one who is a master of all aspects of dance and music, Nṛtta, Gīta, and Vādya. “yadi na vidhātā bharato na harir nārado na vā skandaḥ boddhum ka iva samarthah saṅgītam kālakālasya” The verse is a sleṣa referring to Śiva and also Rājasimha, who had the title Kālakāla. The verse says, “who can fathom the art of Kālakāla, that of Śiva (also Rājasimha's) dance, if he were not Brahma, Bharata, Hari (Viṣṇu), Nārada or Skanda?”. It suggests that all those masters of the art of dance are experts in dance who can appreciate the achievement of Śiva / Rājasimha. The latter ruled from about 690 to 728. Thus, by about 700 CE, Bharata was considered the master of dance dramatic art in Tamiḻnadu. Hundred years earlier to Rājasimha, the great Pallava emperor Mahendra wrote a drama in Sanskrit, “Mattavilasa-prahasana” (Satire). Mahendra refers to four kinds of Abhinaya in the invocatory verse of this drama, Bhāṣa, Veṣa, Vapuhkriya, and Guṇa Abhinayas. These aspects illustrate the influence of Bharata’s Nāṭya tradition in the Tamiḻ country. This is further corroborated by a verse of Saint Appar, who was a contemporary of Mahendra Pallava. He defines Nṛtta (pure dance) as the bringing together of beautiful movements of the legs and hands (“hasta pāda samayogah nrttasya Karanam bhavet” - Bharata). Appar gives virtually a Tamiḻ rendering of this definition of Bharata as “Kaḻalōṭu tiru virālal karaṇam ceydu tān ādumme”. Kaḷal stands here for leg and viral for hasta of Bharata. It is the earliest Tamiḻ rendering of this aphorism of Bharata which shows that Bharata's tradition was well established among the Tamiḻs long before 600 CE. Another important source to bring out the importance of Bharata’s work especially in temples is the Kāmikāgama, one of the influential Āgamas in the Tamiḻ land. It mentions procedures of worship in Śiva temples during various parts of the day, sandhi, in which dance is to be recited as a part of ritual as prescribed by Bharata, “bharatoktam yatha Nṛttam sandhim prati sukarayet” . Bharata's dance was a part of all the temple rituals. The date of the Kāmikāgama is not known, but it certainly is one of the earliest Āgamas known, as it heads the list of 28 major Śiva Āgamas and is widely practiced to this day. 6.17. Bharata's Vṛtti in Cilappatikāram Much earlier to these attested sources is the Cilappatikaram, the great Tamiḻ work that devotes a whole chapter to dance in the ‘dance of Mādhavi’, which forms the theme of this dance drama. I have shown elsewhere that the Cilappatikaram is essentially a dramatic composition. A knowledge of dance treatises is essential for a fuller understanding of this work, which should rightly be termed a dramatic piece of literature rather than an epic. Volumes can be written on Bharata’s influence on this text, but I would cite only one aspect from it. Bharata has dealt in one chapter with four kinds of Vṛttis (Chapter 22), styles that are to be employed in dramatic performance. Vṛtti is the style of expression, of words and gestures suited to the emotional situations. These are classified as Bhāratī, Ārabhatī, Sātvatī, and Kaiśikī, out of which three are mentioned in the Cilappatikaram. A composition that gives pre-eminent position to speech with Samskṛta is called Bhāratī. The Ārabhati emphasizes courageous exploits of the principal character. Kaiśiki is mainly employed by women dancers, while the Sātvatī uses Guṇas. It is known that the Cilappatikāram is divided into three Kāṇṭas, Puhār kāṇṭam, Madurai kāṇṭam, and Vañci kāṇṭam. At the end of each kanṭam, Ilaṅgo Aḍigaḷ sums up the essential elements in each kāṇṭa in what is called “Kaṭṭurai”, which serves as a colophon of the kāṇṭam. At the end of Puhār kāṇṭam, the Kaṭṭurai declares that it was the “Bhārati Vṛtti”. paranticai mēviya Bhārati vṛtti (P.265 The Kaṭṭurai of Madurai kāṇṭam states that it has employed two Vṛtti, namely Ārabhaṭī and Sātvatī. The name of the Kaiśiki Vṛtti is not mentioned in the third Kāṇṭa. Among the fourfold (styles) Bharata of Bhāratī, Ārabhaṭī and mentioned in the text. It would be difficult to interpret these chapters without a knowledge of Bharata's Nāṭya Śāstra. 6.18. Iruvakaik kūttu There were different schools of dance which were grouped into pairs mentioned as iruvakaik kūttu in the Cilappatikāram. They are listed as under: • Sāntik-kūttu and Vinōdak-kūttu • Vacaik-kūttu and pukal-kūttu 6.19. Āryak kuttu and Tamiḻkuttu, Vettiyal and Poduviyal, etc. The ahak-kūttu and puṟak-kūttu in the epic Cilappatikaram illustrates the happy blend of Tamiḻ and Sanskrit in all these pairs of dances. One such pair in which Māhdavi was proficient is mentioned as the āryak-kūttu and tamiḻ-kūttu, āryak-kuttu standing for the Sanskritic school and tamiḻ-kūttu for the regional school. The commentator says that Mādhavi depicted in her araṅgēṟṟam, the sāntik-kūttu and vinōdak-kūttu. Among the various aspects of sāntik-kūttu, one was called “cokkam”. Cokkam consists of 108 karaṇās classified by Bharata in his Nāṭya Śāstra, Chapter 4. These karaṇas have been depicted in relief in the Great temple of Tanjore, the Naṭarājā temple of Chidambaram and the Sāraṅgapāṇi temple at Kumbakōṇam, indicating their popularity in Tamiḻnāṭu. That the cokka nṛttam, also called suddha nṛttam, is essentially Bharata’s dance and has been so inseparably interwoven with the Tamiḻ tradition as early as the days of the Cilappatikāram needs to be noted. This integration of such a long time is mainly the reason why the dance form of Tamiḻnadu is known the world over by the term ‘Bharata Nāṭyam’.
6.20. Bharata’s treatment of linguistics Bharata’s Nāṭya Śāstra is not confined only to the grammar of dance and dramatic performance, but it deals with the grammar of script, poetics, language, and other theories, alamkāras, style, theatre, lifestyle and the behaviour of men of various languages. Remarkable information is available about classical language, spoken dialogues, even of foreign words, etc. These are treated in several chapters including social relevance. Strikingly, the Cilappatikāram sums up at the very end under what is called “Nūl Kaṭṭurai”, the colophon of the entire text in exactly the same order as the contents of the Nāṭya Śāstra regarding the “eḻuttu", “col” and “poruḷ” arising out of the former two, the meters and then the division of poruḷ into aham and puṟam- and music, the ragas, rhythm, theatre and drama. All these are happily woven together, as a reflection of the mirror for the benefit of the people. A critical analysis of this Kaṭṭurai shows that the Cilappatikaram follows the order and connects with Bharata’s Nāṭya Śāstra. Here we are concerned with the grammar of language and its employment as mentioned in the colophon. We have already seen the link between Tamiḻ and Sanskrit tradition in Tolkāppiyam, a treatise on Tamiḻ grammar. The colophon of the Cilappatikāram, indicates clearly, that the Tolkāppiyam is greatly oriented towards dance tradition. We have seen that the Tolkāppiyam provides a canvas for naṭaka vaḻakku and ulakiyal vaḻakku. Unfortunately Tolkāppiyam's poetic tradition has not been examined for its dance ethos nor the Nāṭya Śāstra has been examined for grammar of language. It is proposed to point out some linguistic filatures of grammatical theories included in Bharata's Nāṭya Śāstra that would stand comparison with the Tamiḻ tradition. Bharata’s Nāṭya Śāstra deals with script, words, their meaning and poetic conventions in the Chapters 14-23. The dance productions are basically divided into two categories, sukumara and āviddha, i.e., aham and puṟam. The former is based on soft and delicate themes and movements, while the latter has aggressive and vigorous themes and actions (Ch.14) 6.21. Nāṭya dharmi and loka dharmi in Tolkāppiyam Then, the Nāṭya Śāstra goes on to define what is nāṭya dharmi and loka dharmi. Nāṭya dharmi is defined as a mode in which there are more bodily movements (bhāvas) with suggestions and emotions emphasized, as the play employs characteristic features of dance and poems with alamkāras (aṇis). These used with excellent music and rhythmic play of instruments, all employed in a well-organized format and carried emotionally to the spectators, are called nāṭya dharmi. The latter, namely loka dharmi, we may call realistic presentation. The Tolkāppiyam, as mentioned earlier, deals with nāṭaka vaḻakku and ruulakiyal vaḻakku in the chapter on ahat-tiṇai. A study of this chapter indicates that all that is treated in the chapter are conventions to be adopted on the stage for dramatic presentation to realize the environment for realistic enactment (ulakiyal vaḻakku) or dance creation (nāṭaka vaḻakku). These conventions are to bring to the spectators mind the environment of the act that takes place. So is the division of the landscape into four regions as kuruñchi, mullai, marutam and neydal (and, as a fifth, pālai) in which the aham theme is enacted. A point of interest in this regard is the fourfold division of land mentioned in Nāṭya Śāstra, as (1) hilly tract (Giri), (2) forest land (Vana), (3) coastal (Varṣa) and also (4) settled land (Nagara). “nagare vā vane vāpi varṣe vā parvatepi vā yatra vārtā pravartate tatra kakshyam vidhiyate The division of the stage into these fourfold landscapes is called kakshi-pardhi. One part of the stage identified with one landscape to convey the idea of one landscape conventionally. It is clear that Tolkāppiyam has taken the same environmental division and termed them as kuriñci, mullai, marutam and neydal. Varuṇa is said to be the presiding deity of waters (ocean), Subrahmanya the deity of hills, Viṣṇu the deity of mullai, the forest (he is the lord of domesticated animals as Govinda), and lastly, the god Indra, Purandhara, as the king of 33 crores of devatas of the city, which is said to be surrounded by fortifications. The capture of fortified cities in puṟam - is considered uljnai, the counterpart of marutam land (in aham). marutam is presided by Indra as king. There is therefore reason to believe that the fourfold classification of land in Tolkāppiyam, ahat-tiṇai-iyal, is solely devoted to Bharata’s dance tradition.
puṟat-tiṇai broadly accepts the twofold division of nāṭaka vaḻakku and ulakiyal vaḻakku. The first part is applicable to actual life (and also actions as in actual life), while the second part conforms to the dance tradition. It thus turns out that both Ahat-tiṇai-iyal and puṟat-tiṇai-iyal of Tolkāppiyam are reflections of Bharata’s Nāṭya Śāstra, Chapters 21-30, first part, and 31-40, second part. Bharata’s Nāṭya Śāstra, deals with svara and vyañjāna, prakṛti (vaḻakku of Tolkāppiyam), vowel and consonant. The verbal rendering in Nāṭya Śāstra is called paṭya. The paṭya is of two kinds, as prakṛti (vaḻakku) and Samskriti (ceyyuḷ of Tolkāppiyam). The following aspects of paṭya are studied in Nāṭya Śāstra, Namaṉ (peyar-col), vinaic-col of Tolkāppiyam, upasarga, nipāta, taddhita, Compounds, vibhakti etc. The word is called śabda (Col). • śabda - col • nāman - peyarc-col • kriyā - verb • upasarga - prefix • nipata - particles • pratyaya - suffix • taddhita - nominal affixes • vibhakti - phonetic compounds • samasār - change Words are formed as nibaddha (verse) and curni (prose), pāda (adi), metrically arranged and not metrically arranged. handas, yappu or vṛtta metre are 26 in number based on the number of letters in each foot. The pada can be sama, of equal length and viṣama, half or uneven. The list of chandas are one syllable, two syllables, etc. The svaras are classified as taram, manda and madhya (pritches). Then, Nāṭya Śāstra deals with chandoviccitti and kavya lakṣana. The next chapter of Nāṭya Śāstra is called Bhaṣa Vidhana- (moḻi). This chapter deals with prākṛti (vaḻakku). The prākṛti words are divided into three categories: (1) which are as found in Sanskrit, (2) which are corrupt words and (3) which are regional words. This is very important, as the regional words were assimilated into prākṛt at the time of Bharata, but were also used in theatrical performance. It also points out that some words are common to both Prākṛt and Sanskrit. It is important to note that Tolkāppiyam classifies the words into four categories, as (1) iyar-col, (native to the region), (2) tiri-col - corrupted or changed words and (3) tisaic-col words of different boundaries, and (4) vada-col - Sanskrit / Prākṛt words. Thus, both Nāṭya Śāstra and the Tolkāppiyam allow free assimilation of words as in Bharata's Nāṭya Śāstra as they came on and did not encourage isolation. 6.22. Nāṭya Śāstra on the Use of Syllables The following rules of Nāṭya Śāstra are interesting and deserve to be noted. According to the Nāṭya Śāstra there are no “ai” or “au” sounds in Prākṛt. Please note that the early Brāhmi inscriptions of Tamiḻnadu do not use these vowels either. The “r” in a conjunct consonant is dropped in Prākṛt. Dharma will appear as Dhamma. The word Dhammam occurring in early Brāhmi inscriptions of Tamiḻnadu is a Prākṛt word used as such without any change. The “sa” changes into “ca” in Prākṛt. It is known that Raja is written as Rācā in ancient Tamiḻ. “va” changes into “pa” (apana will occur as avana), “au” changes as “o” (aushada as oshadi), “ca” changes in some as “ya”. Rācā will change optionally into Rāyā which is also adopted in Tamiḻ as such. The use of different languages (Bhaṣās) are also recommended by Nāṭya Śāstra which classifies them into four broad categories as: • Āti bhaṣā used by the gods and celestials and with highly sophisticated characters (refined language) • Ārya bhaṣā, the language of the king and court • Jāti bhaṣā, language of the laiety, and • Yonyantara bhaṣā, language of animals like cows, elephants, horses, dogs, birds, etc. The jāti bhaṣā of the common people is further divided into two categories: • The language used in Bhārata varsha • Mlechcha bhaṣā, foreign language. The Nāṭya Śāstra gives the convention of using these languages. It holds the Jāti bhaṣā is generally used extensively by people of all castes, which consists of two groups - Prākṛt and Sanskrit. Generally heroes of exalted categories speak in Sanskrita, but if necessary they can speak Prākṛta bhaṣā, as well as there was no prohibition but only permission in using Prākṛt. Sanskrita did not prevent its use as an antagonist at any stage in Nāṭya Śāstra. An interesting passage in Nāṭya Śāstra deserves attention in this regards. The rule in verse 33, chapter 18, prescribes the use of regional languages. 6.23. Use of regional languages welcomed “Even in the case of Superior persons, no Sanskrita should be employed if they are maddened with prosperity, or deprived of it through poverty, want of study or other wise”. In the case of ascetics, saints, Buddhists, Sanskrita should be used as also in the case of Śrotriyas and the remaining ones, who are well trained, wearing the prescribed dress and have paraphernalia”, (verse 36 of Ch.18). It is evident from these citations that all people other than Brāhmins could also speak in Sanskrita. Even female courtesans were speaking in Sanskrita (verse 41 of Ch.18) In the case of actors appearing as Barbars, Kirātas, Āhīras and Dravidas they could use Prākṛt or instead use their native language if felt appropriate. It is left to the sponsors of the dramas to use regional language for even poems, if the dramas take place in the region for local requirement. (verse - 46 Ch. 18.) There was no prohibition for the use of regional language any where and so Mahadevan’s attribution of “motive and intention to Vedic Brāhmaṇa aganist regional language” (P.162 163. Im) is not in accordance with what are facts. “atha vā chandataḥ kāryā deśabhāṣā prayoktṛbhiḥ nānādeśasamutthaṃ hi kāvyaṃ bhavati nāṭake” (C.17. v47.) The great commentator on Nāṭya Śāstra Abhinavagupta says that languages are of two kinds, Sanskrita and Vibhaṣā that is prevelant in the respective regions. For those who live in towns, forest, i.e., the ordinary people, the local language should be employed. For easy understanding, authorities recommended usage of local language. Both Bharata and other commentator have approved the usage of local language. Both Bharata and Abhnavagupta are Vedic supporters. Bharata is earlier to Saṅgam classics and grammar. The question of Sanskrit suppressing any deśa-bhāṣā does not arise and those who project antagonism are clearly ignorant of the Indian tradition. The following citation from the Nāṭya Śāstra would show the Brāhmins are addressed to make use of Sauraseni and other desa bhāṣā in dance poetry. The same text also recommends the use of foreign languages of different countries. sarvāsu eva hi śuddhāsu jātiṣu dvijasattamāḥ śaurasenīṃ samāśritya bhāṣāṃ kāvyeṣu yojayet atha vā chandataḥ kāryā deśabhāṣā prayoktṛbhiḥ nānādeśasamutthaṃ hi kāvyaṃ bhavati nāṭake (C.17. v47.) apabhramsah thu vibhāshā sã tattad deśa. gahvaravasinām prakritavāsinam ca tã eva natye tu, anye tu nidarsanarthatvāt asya Paisachyadayapi ityāhuh P.1388 (Chapt. 17h verse 46 and 47; 10th cent commentary of Abhinava gupta in his abhinava bhārati) Here I may draw attention to the definition of cēri-bhaṣa incorporated in Tolkāppiyam chapter ceyyuḷ-iyal, verse 233. 6.24. Sanskrit not antagonist to Prākṛt It is not correct to say that Sanskrit was against the use of Prākṛt. Most of the Sanskrit dramas by eminent Brāhminical poets like Bhāśa, Kālidasa, Rakṣasa and others have used mostly Prākṛt for dialogue in their dramas and used Sanskrit for poems. Prākṛt also had its own stylistic division such as Māgadhi, Pāli, Suraseni, and Drāvidi (sometimes mentioned as Damili in Bharata’s Nāṭya Śāstra). The Nāṭya Śāstra makes specific mention of the use of regional languages in the production of dramas. The Mahābhārata mentions the use of even foreign language mleccha bhāṣā by Yudhiṣṭira and Vidura in their conversation. It is seen that even the use of foreign language is approved by the Nāṭya Śāstra.
The authors of these inscriptions were either Jains or their followers. Evidently, they have used the vocabulary commonly used by them in their lifestyle and religious faith. The words used by them should therefore be interpreted in terms of their usage and technical sense. They were making profuse use of Prākṛt in the inscriptions. As these inscriptions are not poetical compositions but proclamations and therefore Sanskrit grammar does not apply. But there is substantial Prākṛt usage, especially in the early inscriptions listed by I. Mahadevan. When the very first inscription listed by IM is studied, there are only 12 words in it, out of which six, Kani, Nandaka, Siri, Kuvakaṉ, Tarumam, and Pāli, are indisputably Prākṛt words. In such a usage, the language cannot be asserted as Tamiḻ, as claimed, but clearly a mixed language of Prākṛt and Tamiḻ, as has been rightly pointed out by early Scholars, and we will not be wrong in calling the early inscriptions as Manipravāḷa. If the rules of earliest Tamiḻ grammar have been adopted, such usages as Siri, Dharmam, Pāli, etc., could not have found a place in these inscriptions. Secondly, we have seen that Tolkāppiyam has been codified some time after the adoption of script for Tamiḻ language, (a derivative of Ashokan Brāhmi). These inscriptions then cannot be ascribed to the date assigned by IM, but should be held later. 6.26. Questionable Chronology The writers of these early inscriptions were either faltering in adopting the script to Tamiḻ for the first time, or the Prākṛt words were pronounced as found in the inscription, which underwent further changes in course of time. Regarding the dating of these inscriptions, a somewhat confusing picture is perpetuated in IM's work. For example, IM says: “The Brāhmi script reached upper South India (Andhra, Karnāṭaka regions) and the Tamiḻ country about the same time in the wake of the southern spread of Jainism and Buddhism. The earliest Tamiḻ inscription in the Tamiḻ-Brāhmi script may be dated from about the end of 3rd cent. or early 2nd cent BCE on paleographical grounds and epigraphical and stratigraphical evidence of inscribed pottery”. From the categorical statement of 3rd cent BCE in the first para, IM's chronology drops to about 2nd cent. BCE in the next paragraph. Not a single stone inscription has been dated to 3rd cent. BCE in the corpus, but all of them are assigned to 2nd cent. BCE. It is not possible to date a script straight away from its beginning “on paleography" without verifiable dated data before and after as in the case of Aśoka's inscriptions. No evidence of stratigraphic data has been cited, though this is mentioned as a reason for such a dating. This lack of evidence shows that the whole chronology is on slippery grounds. It is not unlikely that these inscriptions belong to one century later. Recently, Subbarayalu has shown that there is neither evolution in the Tamiḻ Brāhmi script nor is it possible to provide any stratigraphical sequence to the inscriptions on pottery. Thus, there is neither any archaeological, paleographical nor stratigraphical sequence available to date the pottery inscriptions as claimed by Mahadevan. So is the case with the cave inscriptions. Consequently, Mahadevan’s chronology of the early Brāhmi inscriptions of Tamiḻnāṭu are purely his subjective postulates, arbitrary and of doubtful nature. As he is changing his views frequently, his approach is speculative and does not stand the scrutiny of critical evaluation. At best one can give only a very broad time bracket for these inscriptions. 6.27. Zvelebil’s Remarks Regarding the nature of these inscriptions, Kamil Zvelebil remarks: “The caṅkam literary output comprises Tolkāppiyam, Eṭṭutokai and Pattuppaṭṭu. The first is a work of comprehensive and matured ratiocinative and imaginative intelligence. Supposed to have been written by Tolkāppiyar, it is a treatise on language and literature and life. It not only contains time honoured theories of language and a comprehensive set of literary codes for the guidance of the creative artists but also embodies a visionary and prophetic portrayal of the texts of human living and relatedness". But nowhere he has connected it with the dramatic and dance tradition, which seems to us the main purpose of these texts. Similarly, Zvelebil eloquently summarizes the theme of aham poetry and its universal and psychological themes, but has not appreciated its role of depicting śṛṅgāra in dance recitals, both in vēttiyal and poduviyal (the royal court dance and public dance, respectively) (Zvelebil, literary conventions in Aham poetry, introduction).
6.28. Paisāci Prākṛt The original place from where Paisāci Prākṛt emanated is disputed, as some Scholars place it in a north-western province from where it spread to Rajasthan and down south to Karnataka. However, as it is associated with the Surasenis, D.C. Sircar places it in Madhya Pradesh, where the Surasenis are located. Some Scholars also hold that it had close relationship to Māgadhi Prākṛt which is also called literary Prākṛt.
6.29. Paisāci in Brāhmi inscription of Tamiḻnadu In whatever way it came, it seems to have been the literary Prākṛt prevalent in the Karnataka country. It is well known that the famous Prākṛt text Brahad-katha by Guṇadhya was written in Paisaci language. The Gaṅgā ruler of Karnataka, Durvinita, is mentioned in his copperplate inscription, as a commentator on Brahad-Katha. There is also a significant evidence from the Gaṅgā country. The world famous monolithic sculpture of Bāhubali at Śravaṇa Belgola bears an inscription on its leg side in three languages - in old Mahārāshtri, old Kannada, Tamiḻ and Grantha, all the three mentioning that the monumental sculpture was his creation. Here we find three languages, i.e. Mahārāṣhṭr, Prākṛt, Kannada and Tamiḻ, happily blended together in a Jaina context of the 10th cent. It is not unlikely that the ancient Jains of Karnataka used the Paisāci language. As the authors of the ancient Brāhmi inscriptions of Tamiḻnadu, the Jains came mainly from Kannada region and used Paisāci Prākṛt words in these inscriptions. So we may have to scrutinize Paisāci Prākṛt for the Prākṛt words found in these early Tamiḻ inscriptions.
6.30. Presence of Paisāci attested We do find some Paisaci grammatical rules on word formations applied in the old Brāhmi inscriptions of Tamiḻnadu, which is revealing. It would not be possible to go into the details of all these aspects, but point out a few examples here. The second letter of “tha” in a word will become the first letter “ta” of the varga in Paisaci. Similarly, the third and fourth letter (da and dha) are changed to the first letter “ta” in Paisāci examples: stha becomes sta (p.250), hṛdayam becomes hrtayam (p.243). Similar is the case with “ja”, which will become “ca” as in the case of Rāja would become Rācā (p.24.) The varga letters changing into the first letter of the same varga as in the case of Gaṇi becoming Kaṇi, which is a Prākṛt tradition and not an exclusive Tamiḻ tradition as IM postulates. The Tamiḻs have simply written such Prākṛt words as they occur, without any change. Mr. I. Mahadevan has held that this is a Tamiḻ phonetic system, which is one of major grammatical rules he presents for the Tamiḻ claim. One of the words appearing in inscription is given as Sapamitā (IM 41.1) is derived from Prākṛt Sappamitta by Mahadevan which is further traced to Sanskrit given as Sarpamitra and is interpreted as ‘friend of a snake’. But in Prākṛt, “p” frequently derived from “va”. The word should stand for Sarvamitra i.e., ‘a friend of all’ (Prākṛt Prakasa, 253). e.g., Savvajna. 6.31. Real meaning of Upācaka abandoned Upāsaka: Mahadevan in his earlier reading of this word translated it as “lay disciple", but now has changed the meaning into “spiritual teacher", deriving it from the Sanskrit word Upādhyaya-upajhaya and uvājha. There arises no need for revising its meaning from what has been so far published and a new meaning provided arbitrarily. Such change in most of the other words in the corpus causes confusion in the mind of those who followed him so far. The following information is provided by IM on the word (p.130): “The Upādhyāya is venerated as one of the Pañca-parameṣṭhi (along with Arhat, Siddha, Acariya and Muni) by the Jains. In the Tamiḻ Jain tradition, the Upādhyāya is a lay teacher of scriptures. He functions as the priest in local Jain temple and also conducts religious ceremonies in the Jaina households. In course of time, with the waning of Jaina influence in the Tamiḻ country the ‘uvacar’ became priests in the shrines of pidāri (Bhatari), originally Jaina and other village Goddesses. Still later they figure as temple drummers, dance masters and musicians in medieval inscriptions)”. There are many inaccuracies in this interpretation, which shows that the real basic import of Jainism has not been grasped. The word upāsaka, which also appears as upāca-aṉ, should be read as upācakaṉ, the “aṉ” at the end of the word being actually “kaṉ”, in which the consonant “k” is dropped in Prākṛt and the vowel “a” is retained according to a special rule. The word as found in the inscriptions is correct and there is no need to change it into uvaccaṉ and then derive it from upādhyāya. According to the Jain tradition, upāsaka is a specific stage in the evolution of an individual in his spiritual path. It is mentioned as dasā, a stage. It is the seventh aṅga of the Jaina path. There is a separate text in Prākṛt named Uvāsaga-dasāo, i.e. the religious profession of an upācaka expounded in ten lectures. A translation of this text from the original Prākṛt with copious notes by A.F. Rudolf Hoernle was published by “The Asiatic Society - Calcutta" in 1885. The text is competently assigned to the 3rd cent. BCE by the translator. It is held as sacred as the Acaranga-sutta that lays down the rules and codes for Jaina monks. This Uvāsaga-dasāo lays down rules and codes of conduct for lay disciples. The following definition of upācaka is given in the text: “An uvāsaga (Skt. upāsaka) is a person, who has become a follower of Mahāvira, without, however, renouncing the world and taking the monastic vows peculiar to Jainas. He takes on himself a certain set of vows, which while distinguishing him as a ‘believer’ or servant of Mahāvīra, are not inconsistent with his remaining an ordinary member of the society. The term “uvāsaga” is usually translated as ‘lay man’ or ‘lay disciple’, which, though a convenient rendering, imports a set of ideas foreign to Jainism”. Uvasaga dasāo, by A.F. Rudolf - Hoernle, Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1885.) As the Brāhmi inscriptions in Tamiḻ are closer to this text in point of time, the Jaina original texts in Prākṛt need to be studied while interpreting these Jaina inscriptions, than to allow our speculation to run riot. Thus the word as it appears in the inscription is correct and does not represent a teacher Upādhyaya as held by IM but an ordinary Jain, a servant of Mahāvīra, who lives as an ordinary member of the society, observing certain codes of conduct.
Further, the historical meaning suggested by IM for the term uvācar and that Bhatari as Jain Goddess’ priest betrays a lack of understanding of Hindu deities. Even Durgā, a highly classical goddess is called Durga Bhatari. The word Bhatara is common to all Hindus, Buddhists and Jains. Even in the early Prākṛt charters, the Pallavas call their fathers as Bappa Bhatāra, i.e., a revered personality. Nor the term Bhaṭara was originally a Jaina, who took up the worship of village goddesses of the Hindus very late in history. According to the Dharma-śāstra, some of the progenies of mixed castes are called Uvaccars, who are different from Upadhyāyas (see F. Gros and R. Nagaswamy, Uttaramerur, in French, - IFP - Pondichery 1970). A large number of Prākṛt words are found in old Tamiḻ inscriptions. Therefore a study of Prākṛt grammar is important for their understanding. Prākṛt and Sanskrit are the two main languages that provide the exact equivalents for vaḻakku and ceyyuḷ, respectively. vaḻakku is the spoken form and Ceyyuḷ is the poetic form. Prākṛt, according to the tradition, is of three kinds - namely (1) Sanskrit derivatives, Sanskrit * (derived from Sanskrit), (2) equal to Sanskrit (Samskrita sama), and (3) Desi (regional). The Desi are regional languages further developed into styles like Māgadhi, Sūraseni, Paisāci, Mahārāṣṭri, etc. There is an ancient grammatical work for Prākṛt named “Prākṛta prakasa” by Vararuci, who wrote a commentary on Pāṇini’s Vyākaraṇa, which is post-Pāṇini in date. He preceeded Patañjali, who wrote an elaborate bhaṣyā on Pāṇini, therefore dated around 3rd - 2nd cent. BCE, which may be held as contemporary with the old Tamiḻ inscriptions. A study of Prākṛta prakāsā shows that its grammar is in some instances in nature and in other instances applicable to specific words or groups of words. Further, it shows that the divisions into Sūraseni, Paisāci and Mahārāṣṭri, etc., are not rigid grammatical dictions but overlap. As the rules relate to spoken language, which are applicable to evolving languages, there are variations, and mutual borrowings. So, there is an interesting sūtra which says that “whatever cultured people speak, that is accepted as the permissible form”. Thus, even within our style there may be variations. In phonetic or syntactical changes in words, multiple rules may also be applied one after the other (even in Tamiḻ we find - iyarc-col, tiri-col and ticai-col in addition to vada-col, and their uses are dealt with in Tolkāppiyam. 6.32. Prākṛt words and not Tamiḻized words In many of the word formations of old Tamiḻ inscriptions, what Mr. Mahadevan formulates as Tamiḻ grammatical (reconstructed) rules, it may be seen, they were well established Prākṛt words. While there are more than 50% of Prākṛt words in the very first inscription of Meenakshipuram, ‘Maṅgalam, No.1 of Mahadevan's corpus’, there is no reason to believe that Prākrit grammatical rules were not used. The claim that they belong to the Tamiḻ linguistic tradition is therefore not acceptable. What and where is the Tamiḻ linguistic tradition before these inscriptions? Obviously, for interpreting old Tamiḻ inscriptions, one needs to be acquainted with Prākṛt grammar or rather rooted in it in order to present an acceptable form and meaning. The Word Pali We may take up two basic words, pali and tāna, in the inscription, in the Jaina context. The foremost aim of the Jaina monk is sacrificing his life by fasting called Sallekhana. Those monks who performed such ‘fasting unto death’ are revered and a memorial was raised, which was called pali or palli. Such memorials were raised even for Hindu kings, referred to as paḷḷip-paḍai. These memorials are akin to hero stones (see paliya - pp.140-142, Memorial Stones - eds. S. Settar and G.D. Sontheimer - Institute of Art History and Archaeology, Karnaṭaka University, Dharwar, and South Asia Institute, University of Heidelberg, Germany, 1982). The construction of memorials is linked to the cult of the dead. As it originated from the Paṣāna sthāpana, planting a stone for the dead, a Vedic tradition for the word pāli or pallli in Prākṛt and also kal in Tamiḻ denoting memorial may be postulated. The Pugalūr inscription also mentions a kal caused to be made for a monk which Mahadevan translates as 'a rock shelter, which has been carved and converted into an hermitage. In many Puranānūṛu verses memorials to the dead are called as kal (Puṟa- 265). அணிமயிற் பீலி சூட்டி இனி நட்டனரே கல்லும் - புறம் 265 The word kal here stands for ‘memorial stone’ and is not an isolated reference, but the previous verse also refers to such kal. வில் உமிழ் கடுங்கணை மூழ்க கொல் புணற் சிறையின் விலங்கியோன் கல்லே - புறம் This would certainly indicate that the kal chiselled by the Cērā king Ilaṅkaduṅgo in the Pukalūr inscription is clearly a memorial to a dead Jaina monk. Mr. Mahadevan’s rendering as “the abode of the monk” does not reflect the tradition of the Jains. An internment over which a memorial structure was erected was called adhiṣṭānam in many places even in modern times. These should not be rendered as seats, abodes, hermitages, etc. (as done by Mahadevan), but as “sacred memorials to the dead” (* nos. 71-81 of IM's corpus).
Ins. No 65 mentions a pali caused to be made for a monk at Pugalūr. This has been read as pali but taken to read pāli and rendered as hermitage is clearly pali a memorial. The original form as it occurs in the inscription is correct and does not call for a different reading and meaning. IM translates pāli as a hermitage or temple, especially of Buddhists and Jains (p.547). The word paḷḷi is derived from the word sphatika in Sanskrit and pālikā in Prākṛt. The word further undergoes a change and becomes pāliya (“ka” becoming “ya”) - special stone. That sphatika becomes palika is a transformation for which there is a separate sūtra in the Prākṛta Prakasa. Some derive it from pal, i.e., deserted. It remains deserted because of its association with death. It may also be mentioned in the Buddhist context that several Stūpas have yielded caskets made of sphatika containing the relics of the Buddha or his followers. This container is the paliya. The term paliya is applied to a memorial stone (sometimes with a wooden post), is well known in Gujarat, Rajasthan etc. (see ibid., Settar and Sontheimer 1982). In fact in many ancient cave inscriptions of Tamiḻnāṭu, the word occurs as “paliya” with “ya” but this has been dropped by IM as explitive “y”. It is not unlikely that in the early context the Jains called the meorial as paliya in Tamiḻnāṭu as well. The term palli is also associated with a memorial to the dead in all the inscriptions. In an inscription of Kampavarmaṉ, a certain Mahadeva died and his son erected an “atitagraha” at the place where his father was cremated, “tam appanārai paḷḷip paddutta idattu atitagrahamum īśvarālayamum eḍuppittāṉ”. This is a pointed reference to paḷḷi associated with atītagraha. It is our contention wherever the word occurs as pāli it, should be taken as found in the original and should not be changed into Palli in early Tamiḻ inscriptions and should be taken to denote a “sacred place of death” and not a hermitage where disciples and the preceptor live. Similarly, the word tāna should be taken to be a place where Jainas met with voluntary death and not as dāna, the act of gifting in the Jaina context. Tāna refers to the place of death of the monk. This also concerns a reference to adhiṣṭāna in some caverns rendered as a “seat”, equally applying to the memorial of the dead Jain. As there are many such bed carvings in the same cavern, many ‘monks’ who chose to voluntarily embrace death in the Jaina way of life, chose the same cavern as a sacred place, where they followed their illustrious predecessors. Many such “beds” carvings are found as memorials to all those monks. These memorials were mentioned by different names like tānam, kal, atittānam, pāli, mungru etc.
Prākṛt impact on verbal formation We may also note Sanskrit and Prākṛt impact on verbal formation of the cave inscriptions and IM's approach to them. One of the word that appears frequently in the cave inscriptions is koṭṭupittān i.e., caused to be carved (chiseled). This word occurs in different forms as koṭṭupittan, koṭṭupiton, Koṭupiton (without the doubling of the consonant ‘ṭ’, koṭiya, and kuṭupiton. IM has taken them as arising from two roots ‘koṭṭu’ to engrave, and koṭu i.e., to gift the difference between them being the doubling of the consonant. But as may be seen the attributions of these meanings are arbitrary. For example, he gives the meaning for engraving to koṭṭapittāṉ and koṭiya though the later one is without the doubling of consonant. But in the case of koṭupittōṉ to mean gift because there is no doubling of consonant. Doubling of consonant is optional in many instances in the Prākṛt as for example “Dhammam” appearing also as “Damam” in the same inscription of the same place. What is more the same word occurs in another form with a long vowel in place of doubling of consonant. This is a clear case of one and the same word occurring in the same place in consecutive inscription all ascribed to the same period and meanings are chosen arbitrarily. It is my contention all these words mean the same thing namely to carve or chisel which is warranted in the context.
Further, it is important to note that act of giving is intended for acquiring religious merit for the donor and so it is the donor’s name that need to be mentioned in the record. If it is made by another person, the merit will accrue to him. If we take the meaning a “Caused to be given”, the donor is clearly not the person mentioned in the record. But in the case of the meaning “caused to be carved” or chiseled can only be caused to be made by an artisan. All the casual verbs occurring in the inscription should be viewed from the religious point of view. Also the four different form in one and the same place show that authors had the same meaning in mind.
Influence of Prākṛt usages Another aspect that deserve attention here is that most of the causal verbal forms found in the Cave inscriptions are not of Tamiḻ forms, but Prākṛt and sanskritic forms. For example the causal form appears by adding a suffix “kta” to the root like “kotṭṭu”. This suffix “kta” becomes “ita” in actual form as in the Sanskrit form 'kalp + ita', 'arp + ita', 'samarp + ita', 'kar + ita' etc. It may also be noted that the word “koṭṭu”is of Sanskrit origin (see Monier Williams). Koṭṭu + p + ita is the form that is clearly Prākṛt/Sanskrit (vada col). Another form that appears in Sanskrit a uses is also mentioned as kalpitavaṉ. In the cave inscription the word used for the one who caused to be engraved is koṭṭupitavaṉ and exactly the same Prākṛt tradition. Unfortunately, IM has read it as koṭṭupittavaṉ with short vowel in 'vaṉ' to call it it a Tamiḻ tradition. Similarly, another word kuyittavaṉ occurs as kuyittavāṉ which has been read as kuyittavaṉ to make it Tamiḻ. The word is derived from the root 'kuj' which appears as kuyittavān caused to make (see Monier Williams) and also another word in the Cave inscription is Itta which is derived from the word “ijy” to make sacred offering) (Monier Williams). The ending “avan” is a Prākṛt tradition as in kalpita-v-aṉ that appears with a long vowel at the end as kalpitavaṉ. The verbs mentioned above from the Cave inscription end with long “ā” in the original writing but read with short “a”, to make it look Tamiḻ. koṭṭupittavān, kuyittavān, ittavāṉ read with short vowel. As they occur with long ‘ā’ in the original they must be taken as they appear. We are therefore satisfied that much of both nouns and verbal forms in the cave records are Prākṛt and the Tamiḻ reconstruction by Mahadevan is clearly off the nature of these records, which show greater cohesion than postulated.
The role of Puḷḷi One of the distinct Tamiḻ traditions is the marking a dot over the syllable with an inherent 'a' that removes the vowel sound 'a' and reduces it to a consonant. For example, if a puḷḷi is marked over the form of a syllable, it becomes a pure consonant by dropping the vowel sound 'a'. This concept of applying a dot is a Prākṛt tradition. The dot is called bindu in the Prākṛta Prakasa of Vararuci. It is applied to a word which ends in 'am', by marking it with a dot by which the 'a' vowel sound is removed and only the 'm' remains, according to the sūtra, “mo binduh” (Prākṛta Prakasa, Chapter 4, sūtra 11). This is called anusvāra, ‘partial vowel’. As the Tolkāppiyam adopts the same technique of marking a letter with a puḷḷi which has exactly the same function of removing the inherent “a”, the introduction of a dot is undoubtedly derived from Prākṛt. It may be mentioned that this is a sūtra applicable to graphic, written script and does not relate to phonetic forms. At this stage we may point out that the so called “ma-kāra kurukkam” will become meaningful with reference to a written letter and not to the spoken form. I have shown that the concept of bindu - puḷḷi being placed on top of a syllable to remove the inherent 'a' occurs in Prākṛt of the 2nd cent. BCE and was derived by the Tamiḻ orthographic system. 6.33. The special Tamiḻ characters like Ḻ,Ḷ,Ṟ,Ṉ - ழ, ள, ற, ன Mahadevan arbitrarily cites the rule of marking with a puḷḷi mentioned in Tolkāppiyam as a major introduction of the Tamiḻ tradition. I have traced the so-called special Tamiḻ characters from the concept of writing conjunct consonants. IM summarily rejects these propositions. It may be seen that I have shown specific Prākṛt sūtras for word formation based on facts. As the words in Tamiḻ use the first letter of the varga, Mahadevan considers this as a genuinely Tamiḻ tradition. Further, his statement “that only two non Tamiḻ sounds (dha and sa) occur marginally in the Tamiḻ Brāhmi inscriptions” (p.109), is to say that other sounds like “ka”, “ni”, etc., do not exist in Prākṛt. “The proportion of non-Tamiḻ sounds is relatively much less than what one would expect from Indo-Aryan element present in the Tamiḻ-Brāhmi cave inscriptions, as most of the loan words are adopted to the phonetic system”.
This is a sweeping statement without understanding the Prākṛt nature of the words. For example, the very first words of the first inscription “Kani Nandaka Siri” are written in Prākṛt in exactly the same form as found in the inscription, which is nothing but Prākṛt rendering. They cannot be claimed to be adapted to Tamiḻ phonetic system. Curiously, IM contradicts his own statement in the very next one, “The employment of single consonants in the Tamiḻ Brāhmi inscriptions to represent the doubled consonants in the language is due to the influence of Prākṛt inscriptional orthography. This orthographic feature is seen not only in loan words but also in native Tamiḻ words”. It is our contention that the orthographic system is Prākṛt, adapted to Tamiḻ words. The profuse use of Prākṛt should be considered irrefutably a mixed dialect, as held by early Scholars that “The language of the cave inscriptors, despite the presence of Prākṛt loan words, is old Tamiḻ not materially different from the language of later Tamiḻ inscriptions or even literary texts in its basic phonological, morphological and syntactical features” (p.103). On the contrary, the old Tamiḻ is a mixture of Prākṛt and Tamiḻ, from its very beginning. We also feel that many words in the corpus of Mahadevan are tailored to fit into his new propositions, rather than real, as found in the inscriptional context. For example “kural” of his earlier reading is now revised as “ural”. The word Dhammam appears in one inscription as the doubled consonant (no.1) and in the next inscription it appears without doubling Dhamam, which is a Prākṛt tradition in which doubling of consonant is prescribed as optional. Take also the word “upācaka", which occurs in one inscription as ‘upāca’, which was actually read as upācaka, in which ‘ka’ is prescribed as optional. e.g., Bhramara - can appear as Bhamaraka, or Bhamara. Krishna can appear as Krishṇakah or Kasano. In some instances, ‘ka’ is optionally deleted and becomes ‘a’ , which further changes into ‘o’ by the rules (p.87). This is the rule that applies to upācakaṉ is written as upānca-a., the ka having been deleted becomes upaca-an. In the next inscription upāsā (ka) is found as upaca. This alternative occurrence is as per Prākrit rules. Thus, the word upacakan should be read as upacakan - with long 'a' and not short as read by Mahadevan. Further, the ‘aṉ’ in inscription no.11 is taken by Mahadevan as a suffix, which is not correct. It should be ‘Upācakaṉ’ with the deletion of “K”. If one takes all the 89 inscriptions listed by Mahadevan, there is not a single inscription without a Prākṛt word, which shows that predominantly Prākṛt speaking persons authored the inscriptions. Our conclusions are that this whole corpus is based on speculative propositions and do not tally with either the prevalent grammatical rules or Jaina nature of the records.
6.34. Early Royal charters of the Tamiḻ king The early Pallava chareters from 3rd to 6th cent show they used Prākṛt as the language of administration in addition to the use of Sanskrit in their grants. There are a few early charters which for example the Guṇapadeya copper plates of Carudevi is in Prākṛt of the 4th cent but ends up with two Sanskrit verses like bahubhih vasudha datta bahubhisca anupalitā yasya yasya yatha bhūmih tasya tasya tatha phalam svadattam paradattām va yo hareta vasundharam gavām sata sahasrasya hantuh pibati dushkritam Thus though the grant is in Prākṛt (spoken Sanskrit), the citations are from literary Sanskrit and point to the fact that both were rooted in the same tradition. It may be seen in the pāyiram of earliest Tamiḻ grammar Tolkāppiyam the grammatical theories are intended for both spoken and written forms “vaḻakkum ceyyuḷum ayiru mutaliṉ”. In this copper plate we find both spoken and poetic forms are employed, pointing out that both were acceptable and there existed no prejudice. I have shown earlier else where that the Pūlāṅkuṟucci inscription of King Cēndaṉ of 3rd cent illustrates that the administrative system of the Mauryas influenced the Tamiḻ Society. Similarly the Hirahadahaḷḷi copper plates of Śivaskanda varman, issued from Kāñchipuram is in spoken Sanskrit (Prākṛt) with a Sanskrit ending. “Svasti gobrhamana lekhaka vācaka srothribhyah iti" More important are the titles of the king given in Prākṛt at the beginning in this grant read “aggittoma, vajapeya, assamedha yāji, dhammamahārājādi raja bharaddhyo pallavanam sivakhandavammo”. Here the Pallavas, performers of important Vedic sacrifices are seen using what we call Prākṛt (spoken Sanskrit). This would prove that use of Prākrit is not a protestant language against Sanskrit. From the next king onwards the charters use literary Sanskrit. 6.35. Sanskrit in later Pallava period The copper plates of the later Pallavas are bilingual, employing both Sanskrit and Tamiḻ from the middle of the 6th cent. The Tamiḻ parts are more elaborate giving details of the operative part of the grant. The Pallavas saw that those who did not know either of the language was not in any way handicapped and used in both the languages, one acting as a supplement to the other. The Tamiḻ vocabulary used by them is so perfect as a legal document as in the case of Paḷḷaṉkōyil record of Simhavarmaṉ, the father of Simhaviṣṇu, mid 6th cent. It shows that Tamiḻ has advanced to a great extend in drafting documents and has not suffered in any way by the employment of Sanskrit. In fact it is evident even Sanskrit has grown from the early period.
6.36. Sanskrit in the Pāṇḍyāṉ Region. The earliest Pāṇḍyāṉ record is that of Arikēsari Parāṅkusa Māravarmaṉ of mid 7th cent. Two records of this king have come to light; one from the Vaikai bed at Madurai and the other a recently found copper plate charter. This Pāṇḍyā was a contemporary of Tiru-jñāna-sambandar and a victor of many historic battles. He was a great patron of Tamiḻ literature as may be seen from the work Pāṇḍikkōvai sung in praise of him. The recently found Copper plates is a bilingual charter in which the Tamiḻ part mentioning the details of the grant (even the portion dealing with king’s pedigree) shows the use of a highly poetic Tamiḻ language. Tamiḻ has developed to such great heights that revenue documents of administration were drafted in poetic format which even the modern Tamiḻ administrators can not dream of. அமிர்து கடைந்து அமரர்க்கீந்த அமரராஜனோடு அத்தாசனத்திருந்து மற்றவன் தன் பணி முடிமிசை விக்ரமத்தால் வளை உடைத்து At the same time, his Vaikai bed record in Tamiḻ, shows a free employment of Sanskrit and is a fine example of Maṇipravāḷa literature. பாண்டிய குல மணி பிரதீபனாய் பிராதுர்பாவம் செய்து விக்ரமங்களால் அரைசடக்கி மறம் கெடுத்தரைசடக்கி அக்ரஹாரம் பல செய்து அபரிமிதமாகிய ஹிரண்யகர்ப கோஸஹஸ்ர மகாதானங்களால் கலி கடிந்து The recently found copper plate refers to the Mahābhārata war and also “Sethu bandha”, the bridge across to Srilanka. The king is said to have built several Śiva temples such as the Arikēsari Iśvaram. The grant shows that technical details about land grant could be given in beautiful Tamiḻ poem. This is an illustrious record showing that Tamiḻ has grown into an unsurpassed literary status even in matters of secular administration. It maybe seen, that at the same time there is a free and copious use of Sanskrit words in the middle of Tamiḻ Poetic forms, in a fluent way, it has not hindered the development of Tamiḻ language. This growth is witnessed also in two subsequent Pāṇḍyā records of 8th and 9th cent; the Vēḷvikkuḍi grant of Parāntaka Neḍuñcaḍaiyaṉ and the other the Daḷavāypuram grant of Parāntaka Vīranārāyaṇa. Both are in bilingual language and are judgments issued by the king, written in poetic Tamiḻ. It is a clear example of the Gadya and Padya kavya tradition of Sanskrit influencing Tamiḻ in judicial records. It must be remembered that the judicial procedure in the Tamiḻ country was based on Dharma-śāstra even from the time of the Saṅgam age. The Vēḷvikkuḍi record of Pāṇḍyā Parāntaka Neḍuñjaḍaiyaṉ refers to a grant given to a Brāhmin family which was in their enjoyment for several generation (nīdu bhukti tuyttapiṉ), but the family was deprived of the possession and so a descendant approached the King seeking restoration. The king asked him to produce evidence that the family had the ownership right “nāttāṇiṉ paḻamaiyadāl kātti ni koḷka”. The plaintif produced the document there itself and the king had no hesitation in restoring the property. The use of the term “Nīdu Bhukti” shows that the procedure was as prescribed in the Dharma-śāstra in which the legal nature of the bhukti is defined. Also the importance of written deeds, lekhya pramāṇa to claim the property ownership, is dealt with in the Dharma-śāstra. The use of these Sanskrit terminologies in Tamiḻ judicial records shows that Sanskrit has enriched the Tamiḻ in a natural way. The second record from Daḷavāypuram, issued by Parāṇtaka Viranṇrāyaṇan is also about a land dispute. The gifted land deed was lost in political commotion and usurped by another person. The king enquired into the dispute and restored it the rightful party. The deed uses the term “suddha patra lekha” for a degree called renewal deed also called purity deed to be issued when the original deed was eaten away by ants, fire or lost in flood or war. These are defined in the Dharma-śāstra and the employment of such words like “suddha patra lekha” shows the integration of these two traditions. 6.37. Judiciary Here, I take up for discussion the judicial subject for this study as we are on the subject. There are four inscriptions dealing with this subject that are important in this context. • the Mānūr Record of Pāṇḍyā Mārañjaḍaiyaṉ of 8th cent.in Tinnelvēli district. • The Thiruninravur inscription of the age Parantaka Chola 10th cent, in northern part of Tamiḻnadu, • The third and the fourth come from Kongu nādu in the West, dated 13th cent. These are found in different regions of Tamiḻnadu and belong to different period spread over nearly 500 years. The first one shows that the village assembly of Mānūr met and passed a resolution relating to the procedure of appointing judges to the Village court by the assembly. The record stipulates that those who are well versed in mantra and brāhmaṇa including one Dharma-śāstra text and is of upright conduct should be permitted to serve in the court. Those who own a share in the village alone can serve in the court. The acquisition of share in the village could be either by purchase, gift or 108 by stri-dhāna i.e., bridal share. According to the Dharma-śāstra, mortgage is another method of acquiring a land in villages. But this village excluded those who acquire land in the village through mortgage for the land could be redeemed at any point of time and the person loses his share. However, even among them those who acquire the land and consequently a share in the village by purchase was expected to pass an examination in one Dharma-śāstra text and should be well versed in one Vedic tradition and mantra and brāhmaṇa. This shows that the judicial procedures were well regulated and a form of examination was conducted to admit a person to serve in the court. It may be seen that as it is a Brāhmin settlement, knowledge of Veda and Brāhmaṇā were prescribed among the essential qualifications. The second inscription from Tiruniṟavūr is almost a supplement to the former for it deals with the service tenure of Judges, the duration for which one can serve and other eligibilities, also relating to a Brāhmin assembly. The third is from Pērūr near Coimbatore which is an interesting constitution. The village fell into distress. So, the King constituted a new village from out of the village and gifted it to the local temple as Temple village, dēvatanā. In order to constitute a judiciary for the village he created seven posts of manṟāḍu for the village. Four posts were allotted to Brāhmins of the village and its surrounding and three others were cultivators. Thus village assembly consisted of not only Brāhmins but also cultivators. Besides the manṟādus the king also appointed some as village chiefs, ūrāḷi. The record is a 13th cent one that shows the Brāhminical or we may say Sanskrit tradition has not prevented or excluded any section of the society to sit with it in judiciary. However, in this inscription it is said that the King appointed the posts. The next inscription is more telling. This was also a constitution of a new village by the same King. He allowed new cultivators to settle in that village and gave them right to appoint judges agreeable to them. The right to appoint was vested in the village cultivators and all those appointed were cultivators. This suggests that all sections of the society served in the judicature and the Tamiḻ society made no distinction. 6.38. Conclusion From the known history of Tamiḻ language and life there has always been a great enthusiasm for assimilation of Sanskrit and Prākṛt tradition for the benefit of progress, comfort and happiness of the people of Tamiḻnadu. This is proved by literature, grammar, music, dance art and in all walks of life. The concept that assimilation will act against the development of language and life never occurred to the people at any point of time. On the other hand, such a synthesis has only strengthed and helped in uniform growth towards a global outlook as mentioned in the ancient Tamiḻ saying “yatum ure yāvarum kēḷir”. This was certainly the living faith of the ancient Tamiḻs.
