THE SACRED PRESENCE OF THE GURU THE SACRED PRESENCE OF THE GURU: THE VELALA LINEAGES OF TIRUVAVATUTURAI, DHARMAPURAM, AND TIRUPPANANTAL By KATHLEEN IVA KOPPEDRAYER, B.A., M.A. A thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy McMaster University (c) Copyright by Kathleen Iva Koppedrayer, May 1990 DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (1990) McMASTER UNIVERSITY (Religious Studies) Hamilton, Ontario TITLE: The Sacred Presence of the Guru: The Velala Lineages of Tiruvavatuturai, Dharmapuram, and Tiruppanantal AUTHOR: K. I. Koppedrayer, B.A. (McGill University) M.A. (McMaster University) SUPERVISOR: Professor Paul Younger NUMBER OF PAGES: xi, 363 ii ABSTRACT This thesis examines a set of Saiva religious institutions, the Tiruvavatuturai Adhinam, the Dharmapuram Adhinam, and the Kasi Matha of Tiruppanantal, all located in Tamilnadu, India. Preliminary research indicated that models of monastic retreat and seminary yield incomplete and sometimes distorted pictures of the institutions in their social setting. Mindful of the dynamic character of these institutions, this thesis endeavours to construct a better model of understanding the institutions' basic structure. This work used a variety of sources to gauge the institutions' scope of activity. These sources ranged from classical material, inscriptions, hagiographies, doctrinal and ritual writings, to contemporary records, first-person observation and interviews. In addressing the question of basic structure, the thesis argues that though these three institutions are conveniently called Saiva matas, the matam and the religious institution represent two different abstract entities. The work suggests that the religious institution is structured around the concept of lineage. The institution is above all an aggregate of religious individuals tied together by "fictive kin" ties. Though ascetic, the members of the institution are individuals who see themselves as related to each other through their relationship to a line of preceptors, from whom they are reborn through the rites of iii initiation. The work discusses in some detail the nature of the different stages of initiation, it examines how group membership is articulated in ritual pat~erns, and it establishes that the self­ identity of the group as a-whole is intimately tied in with its description of its pedigree. The work also demonstrates that the matam, as part of the Hindu temple complex, often housed religious groups such as those studied, but the matam and the religious institution defined by the group are not coterminous. The thesis demonstrates that the matam is a site within the Hindu temple complex where ritualized forms of gifting occurs and suggests that a specific form of dana (gifting) informed by values of lineage propitiation helps account for the settlement of ascetic lineage groups at temple sites. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Doctoral fellowships awarded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada in the years 1982 - 1985 supported the research that made this work possible. These fellowships supported the field work that I conducted in India in 1983 - 1984 and 1985 at the Saiva centres discussed in this thesis. Sri-la-Sri Civaprakacatecikar Pantara Canniti, kurumakacannitanam of the Tiruvavatuturai Adhinam, Sri-la-Sri Canmukatecikar Nanacampantar Paramacarya Cuvimikal, kurumakacannitanam of the Dharmapuram Adhinam, and Sri-la-Sri Muttukumaracuvamittampiran, Head of the Kasi Matha of Tiurppanantal graciously permitted their institutions to be opened to me and so enabled me to gain an understanding of their centres. The staff members at all three Saiva centres were not only generous with their time and facilities, but also very patient with my questions. T.N. Ramachandran of Tanjavur; Ati Murukavel, Director of the Tiruvavatuturai Saiva Siddhanta Correspondence Course; Mu. Arunachalam of the Tamil University; V. Arumukam of Tirunelveli, T.N. Arunachalam of Dharmapuram, and A.V. Jeyachandrun, then Director the the International Institute of Saiva Siddhanta Research at Dharmapuram helped me with Tamil readings and offered insight into the workings of the Saiva centres. S.S. Ganapathy of Avudaiyarkoil deserves mention because of his hospitality. Dr. S.S. Janaki of the Kuppuswamy sastri Research Institute was generous with her knowledge of Sanskrit ritual v texts in the readings I did with her. Staff members of the Department of Tamil of the Madras University, the Adyar Library, the Saraswati Mahal of Tanjavur, and the Tamil University Library helped me with my sources and aided me in innumerable other ways. I am very grateful to Pulavar Ceo Iracu of the Department of Epigraphy, Tamil University Tanjavur, for providing me with the unpublished transcripts of the copper-plate grants in the possession of the Saiva centres, and to both him and Dr. Y. Subbarayalu, of the same department for the help they gave me in reading these copper-plates. Many other people in India helped me, too many to name here. My apologies to any names I have omitted. All of this help notwithstanding, I am alone responsible for whatever mistakes or misunderstandings that appear in this work. I would like to thank my advisors, Dr. K. Sivaraman, for bestowing upon me a knowledge of Tamil, for his help with the textual sources I used, and most of all for instilling in me humility in the face of wisdom; Dr. Paul Younger, for giving me the freedom to develop my own theories; and Dr. Phyllis Granoff not only for her unwavering support and encouragement and all those phone calls that jarred me out of lethargy, but more importantly for reminding me of what this work accomplished at a time that mattered the most. My colleagues in the Department of Religion and Culture of Wilfrid Laurier University also deserve mention. Thanks to my chair, Peter Erb, who has supported my position within the department, to Harold Remus has all along given me encouragement and to Ron Grimes who vi most generously gave me timely help with the intricacies of the mainframe computer. I would also like to thank Helen-May Eaton for her help. Most important of all was my husband Jaap, who served as a sounding board for my ideas all these years. I dedicate this work to him with love. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements v Note on Transliteration ix Abbreviations Used in Notes xi INTRODUCTION 1 PART ONE: LINEAGE CHAPTER 1: LINEAGE 63 CHAPTER 2: INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF LINEAGE 88 PART TWO: LINEAGE ROOTS CHAPTER 3: KAILASA PARAMPARAI 137 CHAPTER 4: TIRUMULAR AND TIRUMALlKAITTEVAR 157 CHAPTER 5: INSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS 209 PART THREE: MATAM CHAPTER 6: PLACE 225 CHAPTER. 7: MAHESVARAPUJA 250 CHAPTER 8: GURUPUJA 284 PART FOUR: CASTE AND CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER 9: VARNASRAMACANDRIKA 303 CONCLUSIONS 329 Appendices 340 Glossary 344 Bibliography 351 viii NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION AND NAMES In this thesis, the problem of rendering Indian terms into Roman letters is compounded by source material in not one, but two languages, Sanskrit and Tamil. To preserve the tenor of this material and to avoid any unwitting distortion, I use two schemes of transliteration in this thesis, one for Tamil sources and one for Sanskrit sources. I use the Tamil Lexicon system of transliteration for Tamil terms. For material from Sanskrit sources, I use the Library of Congress method of transliteration. Throughout, I note the language of the original source. For reasons of readability, I have chosen to omit diacritical marks. The glossary lists terms with diacritical marks in place. There are numerous terms common to both languages that are basic to the material in the thesis. Matha (Sanskrit) or matam (Tamil), a term at the very heart of the thesis, is one such example. In such instances, there is no simple answer as to which form of transliteration should be used, as the choice of one language over the other has implications that go beyond scholarly concerns. While aware of some of these implications, I have chosen to use the Tamil form, matam, plural matas, because this work deals with a set of Tamil institutions. When I am referring to such centres (mathas) outside of Tamilnadu, I use the Sanskrit term. In general, when my discussion deals with aspects of the Tamil institutions that are the focus of this work, I use Tamil transliterations. For example, I refer to the head of the institution as kurumakacannitanam (Tam) instead of gurumahasannidhanam (Skt). There are instances where I have deviated from this scheme for the sake of readability, especially for those familiar with Indian terms, but not necessarily trained in Tamil. For terms whose usage is _ almost standardized in English works on India, I adopt the commonly used form, e.g., puja, as opposed to pucai; brahmin, as opposed to piramanan. For other Sanskrit loan words whose Tamil transliteration would render them virtually unrecognizable, I use the Sanskrit transliteration. In places where the context demands a Tamil transliteration, as for example when I provide a translation, I use the Tamil form, but also provide a Sanskrit transliteration in parenthesis, e.g., titcai (Skt. diksa). In the glossary located at the end of this work, I have listed the terms I have used, providing both the Tamil and Sanskrit transliterations. I have also been slightly inconsistent with names, choosing to compromise between strict Lexicon transliterations and Anglicized (or Sanskritized) forms commonly encountered in South India. For example, I use "Dharmapuram Adhinam" instead of the more strict "Tarumapura ix Atinam", because the centre uses that form on its English letterhead and in its English publications. For that same reason, the name of another institution appears as the "Kasi Matha of Tiruppanantal", and not the "Kaci Matam of Tiruppanantal". Where a term appears in several forms, such as Dharmapuram Adhinam, Tiruvavatuturai Adheenam, Madura Aadheenam, I have, somewhat arbitrarily, chosen one form as standard, viz. Adhinam. I have not toyed with any spellings found in quotations, though I do give an alternate transliteration in brackets in instances where a clarification seems necessary.