THE TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER* _ _ _ (Studies in Cekkilar’s Periyapuranam I)

´ PROLOGUE: AGHORASIVA’S LITTLE PROBLEM ´ As Aghorasivacarya, the foremost proponent of the Saivasiddhanta ´ ¯ ¯ ¯ living in Cidambaram in the middle decades of the twelfth century, l neared the conclusion to his commentary on the Ratnatrayapar"k sa of _ l u ur"ka nthas"ri, he took up as his theme a topic beloved of his school, _ _ the sublime uninvolvement of Siva with the created world. That ´ that of ´ Siva, as pure consciousness, is utterly free of this contagion of material existence formed one of the fundamental theses of the Siddhanta, yet ¯ this was a transcendence that needed always to be reconciled with the equally central fact of God’s compassion and grace towards all beings. Accounting for this provides one of the principal motivations for the ´ architecture of the Saiva cosmos as seen by the Siddhantins, and ¯ l ´ occupied most of the argument in Sr"kantha`s doctrinal precis. __ l a What Aghora seeks to clarify ad Ratnatrayapar"k s" 313 emerges _ from a corollary to this fundamental thesis: why is it that some beings achieve liberation while others remain caught in the snares of existence? ´ Or, as he puts it, if Siva creates the universe for the sole purpose of bestowing grace, Bwhy is it that He gives liberation to some people and not to everyone? Is this His essential nature? In that case, He would be subject to inward passion and hatred.[1

* This essay would have been impossible in both design and execution without the help and encouragement of Dr. R. VIJAYALAKSHMY, who originally suggested that I look into the story of Kannappar, and who with patience and great learning first guided me __ through the text. Earlier versions of this article were presented to the Theory and Practice of South Asia workshop at the University of Chicago and to the second Classical Tamil Winter School held at the Ecole Fran$ aise d`Extr^me-Orient, Centre de c e Pondichery. I would like to thank all those involved. Thanks especially to Harunaga ´ ISAACSON, Christian NOVETZKE , Sheldon POLLOCK , and David SHULMAN for their comments, suggestions, and corrections. Finally, I should note that MONIUS 2004, which contains an interpretation of the story of Kan nappar rather different from mine, _ only came to my attention after the completion of the_ draft of this article. 1 ´ ...sivah katham kesancid eva moksam karoti na sarvesam, ayam evasya svabha vo ¯~ ¯ ¯ . . .¯ _ _ va tarhy antah r"gadvesayuktah sy"t: a _ a ¯ _ _ _

Indo-Iranian Journal 48: 223Y252, 2005 DOI: 10.1007/s10783-005-2198-7

* Springer 2006



The Lord is like the sun, the text before Aghora reads (continuing an image begun several verses earlier): just as the sun is unaffected when its ´ rays at once dry a patch of earth and melt a piece of beeswax, so too Siva either binds or give liberation to souls because of their actions, deemed either good or wicked, are either in balance or imbalance with each other. Following Aghora’s reading:2
´ It is true that Siva grants his grace to all. Furthermore, he has no passion or hatred, given that he is eternally free from Stain. Further, [he] is the agent of the bondage and liberation of souls, owing to [the souls’] fitness [scil. for their particular destinies]. This has already been explained. And therefore, just like the sun, precisely insofar as it possesses a single form, can, by virtue of its proximity, render liquid beeswax (i.e. something suited to liquification), while drying out earth (i.e. something suited to desiccation), ´ Siva too causes the liberation of those fit for liberation (i.e. those whose Stain has matured) [and] he causes the bondage of those fit for bondage (i.e. those whose Stain has not yet matured). [In the latter case, he does so] for the sake of [the Stain’s] maturation. Hence, there is no contradiction. And thus here by the use of the phrase F[works] said to be meritorious and unmeritorious_ ½ puny"puny"khyaabdenaŠ, he refers to the pair of actions Y a a s _ _ either beneficial or harmful Y in line with the principle that, FThe man who is equal to all beings Y who neither delights in benefits nor becomes angry at harm Y that man is said to be liberated-in-life._ Liberation occurs when there is an awareness of the equality of these two [kinds of actions] owing to the ´¯ complete maturation of the Stain [malaparipakavasat]; when this is not the ¯ case, there is only bondage. However, [the text] should not be interpreted to say that it is the equality of two actions, one meritorious and the other not Y such as performing a horse sacrifice and murdering a brahman Y that is the ´¯ cause of liberation, for this contradicts sastra. [Also, this interpretation is incorrect] because this kind of the equality of action [karmasamya] is ¯ possible even in the state of worldly existence. [Further this is incorrect], 

" satyam sarvanugr"hakah sivah: na c"sya r"g"dir vidyate an"dimalarahitatv"t. a a aa a a _ ´ bandhamoksakartrtvam c"tman"m _eva yogyatv"d ity uktam. tatas ca yathaik"k"ra a _ a a a a _ _ a _ ev"rkah svasamnidh"nena dravatvayogyasya madh"cchistasya dravat"m sosatvayogy"y" a u a  a a _ _ _a a _ a_ a  m rdah_ suskatvam ca karoti, tath" sivo _pi pakvamal" n" m mok sayogy" n"m moksam a ´ _ _ _ _ an" _ _ _ _ " karoty apakvamalanam bandhayogyanam tatp"k"rtham bandham _ karot"ty avirodhah. a a l ¯ ¯ _akhyaabdena: Fna hrsyaty up"k"rena n"_pak"rena kupyati, ya_h _a ´ ¯ atas catra puny"puny" a s a a a _u _ l __ _ _ _ samah sarvabh"tesu j"vanmuktah s a u c y a t e _ i t i ny"yenopak"r"pak"r"tmakam a a a a a _ _ _ _ ´¯ ¯ karmadvayam ucyate. tayor malaparipakavasat samyabuddhau saty"m mokso bhavati, a ¯ ´ tadabha ve tu bandha eva. na tv as vamedhabrahmahatya dir upau pun _y"pun yau; a ¯ ¯ " _ _ ¯ _ ´¯ tayoh s"myam moks ahetur iti vy"khyeyam sastravirodhat, t"dr asya karmasamyasya a a ¯ a s _a a _ " a s"m sar avasth"y"m _api sam bhav"t svanasamatra eva caritarthatvat, samastakara _ ar" ¯´ ¯ ¯_ ¯ _ ¯ myasyapi vijnanakevalitvamatra eva hetutvat, moks ahetutv"sambhav"t: mala_ ˜¯ masa a a ¯ ¯ ¯ _ paripakasyaiva proktakarmasamyacihnanumeyasya d"ks adv"ren a moks ahetutv"c ca. l " a a ¯ ¯ ¯ _ _ _




because in that it succeeds only in the destruction of the actions themselves [svanasamatra], the equality of all of one’s actions brings about only the ¯´ ¯ ˜¯ state of being a vijnanakevalin [i.e. a spiritually advanced but unliberated ´ denizen of the upper reaches of the Saiva cosmos], [and thus] cannot act as a cause of liberation. And [finally, it is incorrect] because it is only the complete maturation of Stain, which is inferrable by the sign of karmasamya ¯ spoken of earlier, by way of the mediation of the ritual of initiation, that is the cause of liberation.

Thus, on the strength of a single compound word in the text he was preaching, Aghora introduces the concept of malaparipaka (Bthe com¯ plete maturation of Stain[) as the prerequisite to initiation. The importance of this notion is not original to Aghorasiva; rather, he has borrowed ´ it wholesale from the tenth century Kashmirian thinker R"makan tha, a __ especially from the latter’s commentary on the Kiranatantra.3 The stakes _ n tha as well as of this are as follows: for thinkers prior to R"maka a __ ´ ´ crucially in a number of works of Saiva scripture, the descent of Siva’s liberating grace was thought to arise from a karmic blockage Y when two actions were seen to come to fruition simultaneously, their ensuing results are checked by one another. It is only through the intercession of ´ ´ Siva’s salvific power or sakti that this impasse could be brought to an end. This notion, then, is of a stasis arising in the mechanisms of how one undergoes one’s own karma, the idea being that there occurs in certain souls’ career on Earth a crisis where the consequences of two existing actions clash, and the soul is accordingly unable to have new experiences without divine intervention. Aghorasiva satirizes this view ´ in the passage quoted above, foisting upon it the absurdity that this crisis could emerge as a consequence of a person performing both an act of great merit and a moral atrocity. The same idea had been found unacceptable first by R"makan tha, who in an act of virtuoso semantics a __

3 The recent work of Dominic GOODALL (1998) has provided not only a critically edited text and scholarly translation of this very important early work of scriptural exegesis, but has also opened up the whole question of the problematic history of the interpretation of karmasamya (pp. xxxiiYxxxvii). R"makantha’s new interpretation a ¯ _ emerges principally in his interpretation of two text places _in the Kirana: 1.20Y1.22 _ and 5:8Y10 (text pp 26Y31, 116Y121; trans. 215Y221, 331Y341). The same passage from the Ratnatrayapar"ksollekhin" is cited and translated (with some slight differences) by l l _ GOODALL on p 218 n. I would like to thank Dr. GOODALL for first drawing my attention to this passage and to its importance.

. Outside of the elevated realm of soteriological argument. for precisely the reasons he adduces: an unforseen consequence of the acceptance the older view could be that ´ l a the Saiva ritual of d"ks" would forfeit its fundamental importance. l a warranting the guru to perform d"k s".e. But Aghora’s problem does not _end here. inseparable from the complete maturation of the Stain. This equanimity could be witnessed through certain outer signs (cihna-s) of the aspirant. The reason he adduces for this reading has a certain finality to it. as a locative a absolute with the negation of the_ following finite verb. transmitting a verse then that says precisely the opposite of its intended sense ´ (Bwhen there is a conjunction of two actions. that acts as the cause of liberation. through the destruction of [one’s existing] karma. although one can perhaps detect in it a slightly defensive tone: ´ l ´ a . tasya malaparip"ka eva p"taravan"t.karmanoh samnip"te sati saiv" sivatvadayikanugrahika saktir ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯´ _ _ a t m ani na _ patati. but rather to the equanimity towards action. Aghora’s emendation had real consequences. Aghorasiva had to come up with a stopgap. he reads *samnip"te na. _ ´ When there is a Fconjunction of two actions_ the FPower_ [said to be FSiva’s ´ because it] grants the favor that is the state of equality with Siva does not descend on the soul.Siva’s Power does not descend on the soul[).226 WHITNEY COX reinterpreted karmasamya to refer not to the equality (-s"mya) of two a ¯ actions. by_ resegmenting the phonemes of the verse. as its descent is taught [to occur] only when there is the complete maturation of the Stain. For ´ Aghora.it is initiation alone. . . Instead of ´ ´ l  a karmanoh samnip"tena saiv" saktih pataty a nau with samnip"tena as a _ _ _ an unproblematic instrumental of _ cause. That is. i. . each preventing the other’s fruition through their mutual opposition. .patati. the earlier author argues for precisely the interpretation that Aghora had just rejected.. whose view _ the Saiva religious community was that of a of . a a s a ¯ ¯ _ d"ks"y" eva malaparip"k"vin"bh"t"y"h karmak sayadv"rena l a a a a a ua a a _ _ _ _ mok sahetutvam. . . . __ parasparavirodhena niv"ritavip"kayoh a a _ ´ l  karmanoh samnip"tena saiv" sa ktih pataty anau a _ _ _ _ ´ Siva’s Power descends on the soul because of the conjunction of two actions. for in the very next verse  Srikantha writes. Unable to accept that his received text says what it does. . ´ cultivated by a spiritually advanced Saiva aspirant. be it good or evil.

this would be disastrous. however warranted. thanks to his repeated references to the form of Siva under worship in Cidambaram. ´ __ provides a paradigmatic example of the Fharsh devotee_ whose stories are ´ said to typify the unique and extreme spirit of southern Saivism. one might say. might ´ seem an odd way to begin a discussion of the figure the S aiva n"yan"r Kannappar as he appears in the Cekkilar’s medieval Tamil a a _ masterpiece.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 227 series of guru-disciple generations receding back to an originary dis´ ´ ˜¯ pensation of sivajnana. He would appear emblematic of the world of bhakti enthusiasm at diametrical odds from the Sanskritic. in telling the story of Kannappar’s sal__ vation. whose masterpiece was written Y again. the same world from which Aghorasiva issued forth his reinterpretation ´ r"kanthas"ri. Thus for Aghora. " I. The gruesome yet transfixing image at the heart of the story of . the text before him simply could not have been read in any other way. Cekkilar shows himself in a crucial way to be a contestant in the world of theological argument current in twelfth century Cidambaram. the worlds of hagiography and theology could be conceptualized in terms of the faith of the laity (Fpopular religion_) versus the speculations of the elite. the logic of the narrative text of the text of S  u __ depends in a significant way on precisely the conundrum that Aghora labored there to resolve. however. who blinds himself out of devotion to Siva. identified with Kul"ttunga II (ruled 1133Y o 1150). The story of Kannappar at first glance a _ __ seems totally divorced from the sort of abstraction that occupied ´ Aghorasiva: Kannappar. the community’s preeminent source of authority._ the Periyapur"nam. He was thus an almost exact contemporary of Cekkilar. dogmatic world of Aghora’s theological writing. and the presence of a chronogram at the end of his Kriyakramadyotika dating the completion of that work to 1157 ¯ ¯ CE. at Cidambaram Y under the patronage o _ of the C"la king Anapayan. As I shall argue. Aghorasiva’s location in space and time is a ´ ´ largely settled issue. Indeed. At most. To devalue d"ks" _ ´ would thus unseat the guru from his place as central figure in any Saiva’s ritual and social life. For it is only the Saiva guru who was thus empowered to perform the forensic task of reading 1 a the signs of an initiand’s readiness for liberating grace. THE PERIYAPURANAM AND THE _ " " " YANARPURANAM KANNAPPANA _ _ _ This sort of commentarial sleight-of-hand.

he is touched by the grace-filled gaze of Siva and a _ undergoes a sudden and dramatic conversion. His birth to the tribal _chieftain N"kan a a a _ was the result of boon given by Murukan after long _ and his wife Tattai austerities performed by the couple.228 WHITNEY COX Kannappar Y that of a man offering his own eye to his god Y had by this _ time_ already attracted plastic representation. _ _ Along with his army of hunters. 174. K"latti. how Kannappar comes to this final transfiguration can form the poet’s prin__ cipal theme. Bthe tough _ " one[) for the strength he already displayed as _an infant. in an elaborately detailed ceremony of initiation. magnificent denouement would have already been known to Cekkilar’s initial audience. Told of the presence of Siva atop the mountain. The main narrative may be briefly summarized as follows: Tinnan Y _ 1 a a who is later to receive the name Kannappar as a sort of d"k s"n"ma_ Y was _ near the holy __ born into a hunter clan in the wild country of Pottappin"tu. a _ It is significant that the story’s horrific. . _ whose eligibility was to depend on the success of his Bmaiden hunt. Tinnan first prepares the chosen site _ by penning up the woods and sending _out beaters to flush out the game. Tinnan is separated from the rest of the hunters. and insists upon climbing to the summit. No longer wishing to be 4 Thanjavur Art Gallery acc. After killing and dressing the animal. _ 975. forming only the final seventeen of the pur"nam’s 180 verses. Once thus enabled.[_ the kanniv"t tai. the naya ar is ayan" described as leading a childhood filled with the mischief typical of genres such as the later pi l laittamil or Bchild’s song[. date according to NAGASWAMY 1983. Tinnan is strangely _ ´ As_ he crests K"latti. his father Y whose advancing age could no longer endure the privations of the hunt and of the tribe’s wars with its neighbors Y prepared to pass on the chieftaincy to Tinnan. thus. they a_ _ _ set off in search of fresh water and come upon the Mukali river. Tinnan sets off at the head of a hunting e "" a _ _ __ party. Assured of success by the portents seen by his lineage’s e t"var"t ti. Giving chase to an especially fierce boar. except for a two youths. at the ´ foot of Mt. no. a mountain of K"latti ð¼ K"lahastiÞ. a _ drawn to it.4 Yet this image comes almost as an afterthought in Cekkilar’s telling. __ he is trained in the bow and other weapons. They then descend upon the trapped and frightened animals and slaughter them with terrific violence. as in the bronze masterpiece _ a of Tiruvenk"tu (now held in the Tanjore art gallery) dated to ca. N"_nan and K"tan. an elderly shamaness. While still a boy. Named Tinnan (roughly. 113.

C"kkil"r n a e " _ employs material from the earliest body of literary Tamil. he clears away the flower offerings with his foot and offers the ´ meat and spittle-water to Siva. Tinnan again tears __ himself away in the day to hunt for more offerings. and returns to the summit of K"latti with a plateful of meat and a a _ mouthful of water to offer to the god. Sivagocarin). His point proven. When this fails. Panicking. appearing in a dream to the brahman and tells him to watch the hunter’s offering the following day. he cooks the meat of the boar. The poet does this not only to lend suggestive undertones to the story of Tinnan’s life. and blood ´ begins to pour from Siva’s second eye. _ _ a There are two principal themes within C"kkil"r’s telling of this e story to which I would like to draw attention here. Tinnan first returns o a __ ´ to find the eye of Siva bleeding. His exit cues the return of the brahman who had earlier made the pure. as it happens. These occur sequentially within the pur$nam and. he tries to staunch the wound with his hands and forest medicines. to the shock of his companions. saying three times BKannappa. to cumulative effect. but in order to pointedly locate his narrative within a __ . the _ a kuri~ci theme. ¯ ´ one Civak"cariy"r (=Skt. Secreting himself near the summit. he remembers the adage Bflesh for flesh[. with Tinnan hunting by day and __ keeping watch by night. Tinnan forces himself back to the a __ _ foot of the mountain. whom N"nan recalls meeting years before). They _ are:  The remounting of motifs and thematic material adopted from one of the five tinai-s or landscapes of classical Tamil poetics. There. takes an arrow and gouges out his own eye to replace the god’s injured one. His perfect devotee. Civak"cariy"r sees all of the day’s awesome events. and Civak"cariy"r coming by day and bemoano a ´ ing the sacrilege wrought by Bsome hunter[. But the final test yet remains. Now abandoned by his two fellowhunters. stop![. removes it. This devout brahman is horrified o a by the sight of the barbaric offering he finds in the presence of the god.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 229 separated from the Lord. but wanting desperately to give offerings (and dismissive of the flowers and water left there by Bsome brahman[. From the very beginning of the pur" nam. This cycle continues for some days. does penance and offers flowers and water as is his habit. Tinnan readies himself to take his other eye. After keeping watch over the god for the night. and shows his favor to the hunter. Siva then brings this cycle to an end. throws the rest away. agamic offerings. Placing his foot on the god to direct his hand. __ ´ Siva then stays his hand. viz. tastes it to find the choicest piece.

the earliest works of theory inform us. For one thing. While it is worthwhile to give a . has three sets of element typical of it: Fprimary elements_ ðmuta rporulÞ of time and space. it is readily apparent that the world of the mountain-dwelling hunters into which Tinnan is born possesses a long genealogy.  The logic of the transformation of Tinnan from barbaric hunter to __ perfect devotee. the mountainous landscape of the akam _ poems of the Ca"_ kam corpus of classical Tamil. In the mountain __ fastnesses where they make their homes. And. It is the third of these that in turn provides a C"kkil"r with his set of diagnostically recognizable borrowings from the e earlier poetry. merely recording that a medieval Tamil poet reworks the _ conventions of the Cankam forms a rather banal exercise. further. a as I mentioned. in which the situations of idealized lovers from first meeting to post-marital infidelity are projected onto a spectrum of five landscapes. GODS. and one particular to the Tamil literary sensibility. and the relation between the PP and the circum´ ambient world of Saiva systematic thought. as we shall see. the debt owed by C"kkil"r to the akam tradition is e obvious. Cekkilar _ unexpectedly raises the question of the _ individual’s readiness for ´ aiva beatitude. AND MOUNTAINS For a reader with even a casual knowledge of Tamil literary history. Each landscape. his own novel S answer. II. practically every literary work of middle Tamil borrows material from the older corpus. Fthematic elements_ ðuripporulÞ " _ _ of the love situation. and in the wild revels that form their commerce with the divine. but especially in the tradition of criticism and theory that they inspired. in their diet. and Fgenerative elements_ ðkarupporulÞ. Tinnan’s clan are the direct literary descendants of the _ n peoples of the _ kuri~ci tinai. the raw _ in their _ materials of nature and culture utilized by the Ca nka m poets description of each landscape. Now. Within the akam n _ (Finner_ or erotic) poems of the Ca nkam texts. From within the frame of the pronouncedly Tamil story of Tinnan’s early life.230 WHITNEY COX longer literary continuum. and can offer. one can observe a taxonomic imagination at work. MEAT. in the animals they hunt and keep.

653. 698 Iravular: 665 Ku nravar: 652 " _ "" Not mentioned by either commentator is the noun v"ttuvar (Bhunter[) which. 698. 655. X = no occurrences in the KP.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 231 brief accounting of the lexical and thematic indebtedness of the story of Kannappar. pa nri (boar): 652. 679. 654. kili (parrot): X " _ drums: veriy"ttupparai (Fdrums of possession_) X but see below. however. tontakam (-drum): 687 a " __ " occupation: t"nalital (gathering honey) no reference as such but see the following e " references to honey: 656. . 679. 692. 697. 681 u " _ " " ethnonyms: Kuravar: 664. 729. vetirnel (Ilamp"ranar only) X u " " _ _ animals: yanai (elephant): 651. elegantly yet forcefully. while WILDEN 2004 lists it _as 22): this lexeme occurs at vs. 727. 669. 727. The motivation for e the poet’s reliance on this earlier material is introduced. the Bull-rider who destroyed the cities of his enemies: It is the Pottappi n"tu. 660. 679. 688.5 it is altogether a more interesting question to see what __ a use exactly C"kkil"r makes of his inherited material. a _ surrounded by gardens and flower-filled tanks. 665. fertile and far spreading. 19Y20) who cites the Tolkappiyam c"ttiram as his"authority). 723. etc. (the "" synonymous enam:) 693. from the very first verses of the KP: _ m"valar purankal cer ra vitaiyavar v"tav"ymai e e a " _ " ka _ " k avalar tirukk alattik " nnappar tirun"tenpa a __ _ ni _ o n" valar pukalntu p"rru nalvalam peruki " nra a "lai c"lnta pottapin"tu " " "" _ a p"valarv"vi c" u a o u " _ To tell of the country of Kannappar of Tiruk"latti. 663. 675. 672.. ¯ birds: mayil ( peacock): 658. 674. 679. puli (tiger): 652. 653. (650) The following is a working list of the kuri~cikkarupporul material to be gleaned n " from the Kannappan"yanarpur"nam (hereafter KP). hamlet) 657. c" 23 (ayar v"ttuvar atuut ti u e __ the text number this as c" 21. 731. 661 (referring to Murukan ). foods: ti nai (millet) 683. ku ri~ci 706 a n " __ _ (kinds of) water: aruvi (waterfall): 651. kuricci (mt. 653. P. k"ntal X. e _ 5 . aivanam (wild rice): 652. a _ _ home to the guardian of the _truth of the Vedas. 737 ff. 16) and Nakkra nar_ on Iraiyan"rakapporul ad c"ttiram a u u " _ _ 1 (p. 658. e _ _ naipeyar. different editions of bears the warrant of Tol. Verse _ numbers are u ¯ ¯ given as in MUTALIYAR’S edition. 735. . The list _follows that of the two a a __ " _ earliest commentators on the poetic treatises (Ilamp"ranar on the Tolk"ppiyappou a _ a rulatik"ram. 736. but ci r"r 664. cunai (mountain pool): 705 " The following two categories are found only in Nakk"ran"r: l a " settlements: cirukuti X. 684. honored by poets. 714. 750 musical mode: X _ flowers: venkai (kino) 708. 728. 684. ¯ etc. u 654 while the synonymous v"tar occurs passim. 670. ad c"ttiram 20 (p.

(651) The Kun ravar dwell there. There are boars. and a fence built of the tusks of wild rut-elephants. In the first of these verses. into higher _ relief than the foregrounded town.232 WHITNEY COX The conventional beauty of the final line’s epithet for the n"tu Y one a which could just as easily apply to one of the many regions in _ C" la the o " heartland of the Kaveri delta Y immediately gives way to starker images. mainly in the third line’s enumeration of wildlife. (652) Already the sustained inclusion of the generative elements associated with the kuri~ci country is in evidence: the details of the natural and the lived n " environment are all borrowed from the older poetry. waterfall and elephant (all diagnostic of the kuri~ci n " land) build up to the final mention of the Utupp"r at verse’s end. it would be the ancient town of Utupp"r. in an effect that the translation does not attempt to duplicate. tigers. as it were. the mention of mountain. their nets and straps hang " thick-growing wood-apple trees. Over the course of following verses the pur"nam continues to be front-loaded with a the kuri~ci elements: the children_ of the village play with tiger-cubs. drawing u the background. with waterfalls filled with pearls. " ittirunatu tannil ivartirvuppati y"t’ ennin a "" " "" _ u a_ N nittil aruvicc" ral n"lvarai c"lnta p"nkar a _ttuvanrotar v"li k"li " e o _ mattavenkali r ruk k" o "" _ _ "" u _ ottap"rarana~ c"lnta_ mutupati u tupp"r akum e n u " " _ _ " kunravar atanil v" lv"r kotu~cevi~amali a rtta a a n n "" " " _ _ vanriral vilavin k"ttu v"rvalai marunku t"nkap o a u_ "" _ _ " _ _ _ _ panriyum puliyum enankun katamaiyum m"nin p"rvai a a "" "" _ _ _ _ anriyum p"rai munril aivanum unankum enkum a "" " "" " _ And should one ask what is his place in that country. more fitting to the poet’s theme. and stags kept as decoys. and fawns (653). from the " where bent-eared dogs are tied. the sound of the hunters’ drums and horns cannot drown out the sound of mountains’ many cataracts (654). n young"elephants. The litany of kuri~ci motifs Y beginning with the crucial n " ethnonym kunravar (Bpeople of the mountain[) Y continues in the "" following verse. bears. u _ with its two surrounding battlements: its sides girt by tall mountains. and the lowing of the animals seized in cattle-raids rivals the trumpeting of wild elephants and the thunderous rain-clouds (655). not only that. in every stony fore-court wild rice is laid out to dry. .

Ke. Their leader was named N"kan. Cuppiramaniya MUTALIYAR. as can begin to be gathered from his next narrative Fmove_: maiccerintanaiya m"ni vanrolil maravar tamp"l e a " " " accamum arulum en rum a"" " ar u" taivil" taivan r"l"r oa "" "" _ _ _ " poccaiyin a ravum unin pulukkalum unavu kollum " " "" " __ _ naccalarpakali v"tarkk’ atipati n"kan enp"n e a a "" " _ " " " " a a a a pe r riyar rava’ mu n ceyat"n "yi num pi rappi n c"rp"l " " "e " " a "" " " kur ram" kunam" v"lv"n kotumaiy" talai nin rull"n e a a a "" " " _ "" " _ vi r rolil vi ralin mikk"n venci na matankal p"lv"n _ a _ o a_ e ""r" avan ku ricciv""kkai manaiviyum tattai enp"l " " " "a _ ma r ’ al " _ "" " " " " Among the Maravar. Joined with him in his life in the mountain hamlet was Tattai. like a ferocious lion.6 Ma ravar is " " a name appropriate to the bandit tribes of the blasted desert landrather scape of palai.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 233 This deployment of the karupporul in these early verses is an an_ nouncement to the presumptive audience of the text. _ would seem motivated by the name’s etymological link to the lexeme ¯ pace Ci. C"kkil"r begins to e a subtly add undertones to the picture of the mountain world. who adds the note ad loc ( p. 836) ¯ Bma ravar . alerting the audience that the imagined world of the mountain peoples will serve as a C"kkil"r’s raw poetic material in what is to follow. through the propensities of his birth. Rather than simply a e a mannerist reworking of a stock of available themes. his wife. he lived as if crime itself were a virtue. an a effect that is heightened by C"kkil"r’s deliberate choice of the ethnonym e ma ravar . who live on rice mixed with meat and mountain honey. clad in rough leather. He was a great archer. C"kkil"r’s mountain e village sustains an implied argument. sanctioned by the rubric of ¯ tinaimayakkam. The violence of the hunters’ lives is inescapably made present in the first verse. (657) In the matter-of-fact narrative tone of these verses. their labours fierce and their bodies heavy with blackness. its employment here. " 6 . the editor and learned commentator of the ¯ _ _ Kovait Tamilc Cankam edition of the PP. which is not among the peoples listed as appropriate for the "n kuri~ci landscape in the early commentaries on poetics. " there were hunters. and cruelty was his highest aim. (656) a Though he did penance in an earlier life. their arrows dipped in a fiery poison. knowing neither fear nor mercy.ku" nci nila makka l peyar[ (BMa ravar: name for people of the kuri~ci ri~ n " _ " " country[). the Bconfusion of landscapes[ of the traditional poetics.

334Y341. worship _ they performed the dance in which ananku is great[ (B. to the reliance on flesh as food. 659) to honor the god of the kuri~ci e n " country. he stands at a " the center of its moral logic: pirappin c"rp"l / kurram" kunam" v"lv"n. Indeed. each of the monthly protective u_ e _ _ rites after conception were performed Bwith the requisite entranced dances[ ðkatanuru veriy"t t"tumÞ Y all speak of the putatively autocha o " __ _ _ " " _ thonous outpourings of Tamil religiosity as figured forth in the Cankam texts. and may be found wanting. and its bounded limitation Y figure into the following verses on e a Tinnan’s conception and birth. vs. whose meaning and social locus shift within the anthologies themselves.[ The life of the hunters is one of force " and death. Yet. 7 . see especially SIVATHAMBY 1981. kuravai _ _ a t"nkap=p"ranank"tal ceytu. The ku ravai " dance. while the veriy"ttu is a dance most often (though not exclusively) a " __ associated with the shaman-priest of Murukan (v"lan. The universe bounded by the commonplaces of the kuri~ci landscape is an n " ethically coherent one: it is a form of life with its own set of criteria. linked crucially.[.7 Of greater importance here is the use of the lexeme ananku. C"kkil"r turns to the __ world of ritual practice of the kuri~ci country. . there is a transcendent standard Y a means whereby crime and virtue can be absolutely distinguished Y by which the hunters’ lifeworld may be measured. a grounded in the embodied fact of karma-determined birth. connotes especially a group-dance accompanied by song.[ Here we see the first glimpse of the questions of ethics and a subjectivity that link C"kkil"r’s narrative with the theological spece ´ ulations of the Saivasiddhanta. a possessed frenzy where the priest _ powers. C"kkil"r e already implies. violent power. significantly this benighted life is not the ¯ result of an ill birth. .234 WHITNEY COX ma ram Bviolence. however. as N"kan stands judged as soon as he enters the nara " rative. N"kan is seen to typify this life. 660). I _ On these dance-forms. . as we already see here. a a e a a a " " " _ " " Bthrough the propensities of his birth. _The "" " "" they perform Y Bwhile marking the kuravai. . Tinnan’s parents __ e take themselves to Bthe courtyard of bright-speared Murukav"l[ (celvel ¯ _ murukav"l mun rir cenru. Bwho bears a e " acquires soothsaying " spear[). filled with collective rites of dance and possession. Both of these central themes Y the coherence of mountain dweller’s world. much discussed in secondary literature. Here. it is rather the fruit of previous lives well lived. a commonplace in the n earlier literature. Hoping to attain"the birth of a son. he lived as if crime itself were a virtue. 188Y190.

687. a " a In crafting this image of a cultural and moral order. RAJAM (RAJAM 1986).8 but I do think its use by Cekkilar is both deliberate and meaningful.9 along with a " its synonym eyinar=eyir riyar (vss. inter alia). especially chaste women (HART 1976. 658. Ren " lying upon the technique of the confusion of landscapes ðtinaimayakkamÞ. Recently. 683. and his initiation into the life of a hunter is " passage is marked by a Rabelaisian tumult of feasting and drink. 677. with the innovations and improvisations that draw upon this preexisting matrix. 8 . 656. as it comes in the medieval period to refer to a variety of feminine spirit or demoness. there is Cekkilar takes with his sources. it is the substance emblematic of what distinguishes their life from that of others. This view was subjected to a thorough critique by V. While by no means de´ bunked or delegitimated Y it is after all linked here with the Saiva figure of Murukan Y it would seem to typify for the poet the wild and the " uncontrollable aspect of the kuri~ci lifeworld Y a supernatural corollary n " to the ethical quandary presented by N"kan. while acknowledging Rajam’s demur. who con_ vincingly showed the untenability of Hart’s interpretation within the Cankam corpus as a whole Y wherein ananku and its derivatives refer to a generalized feeling of a sort of _ awesome intensity _Y and further demonstrated the semantic change undergone by the lexeme over time. 9 With the exception of the ubiquitous v"tar (Bhunters[) Y itself a name of an oce _ cupation rather than some sort of ethnic label Y ma ravar is the most frequently de" ployed name in the whole puranam. etc. a rite de in which meat plays a chief part (683Y685). cf. 735. Alexander DUBIANSKY. The most striking and thematically the most important of these innovations is the recurrent presence of meat ("n. C"kkil"r doesn’t e merely depend on the self-conscious adaptation of the kuri~ci motifs. 653. Especially as it is intoxicatingly mixed with honey Y a kuri~cikkarupporul that coats and incorporates the cooked flesh into n " _ the order of the landscape Y meat reoccurs throughout the account of Tinnan’s early life. We can identify in this a _ For George HART ananku is descriptive of a Fpotentially dangerous sacred force_ that _ inheres in places and persons.S.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 235 do not intend here to enter into the controversies that have sprung up around this difficult word’s interpretation. _ 740. He does so as was already seen through the use of the p" lai ethnonym ma ravar. _ a C"kkil"r is able to modulate his implicit message by drawing in material e _ from elsewhere in the Cankam poetic universe. 737. iraicci). Outside of this sort of " the altogether more interesting question of the liberties "" bricolage. The young Tinnan is fed flesh night and day by an __ _ old _Ku rava nursemaid (676). has attempted to salvage much of Hart’s old argument to produce a mythopoetics _ exhaustive of the Cankam poetic corpus (DUBIANSKY 2000). vss. tacai. 704. 678. This makes a certain intuitive sense u " " Y meat is after all the inevitable outcome of the hunters’ violence. 685).

12 There is no reference to t"var"t ti (or either of its components in juxtaposition) in e a __ e a any of the published indices to the anthologies. Yet the noun t"var"t ti itself apo a " e a " Ca nkam_ corpus._ priestess of Murukan in the Tirumuruk"rrupatai. also Hart’s observation that the PP’s version of Ciruttontar is " __ centrally concerned with the Btransformation of human values[ (ibid. pollution: the consumption of dangerous foods [such as flesh -wmc] leaves one in a precarious position that is almost impossible to rectify.v.cit. repeatedly and pointedly connected with _ _ unseen forces of the mountains. The MTL. see HART 1980 and SHULMAN 1993. t"var"t ti gives this very _ passage of the Kannappan"yan"rpur"nam as attestation.[ 10 . 698: mutu ku rak"lappatimatt"l). It is to this prophetess of _ a the Ku ravar tribe that N"kan turns when he _wishes to pass the rule of his " people" onto Tinnan. as it is even more radically to be found in Ci ruttontar’s " __ cannabilistic filicide. s. 242Y244: kurutic centinai parappik kuramakal " " murukiya niruttu muraninarutka _ " patutta urukelu viyanakar muruk" rrup a "" _ In Ramanujan’s evocative translation (RAMANUJAN 1985. Ancient.236 WHITNEY COX commonplace in the PP. While the long history of the equation between ´ Tamil Saivism and vegetarianism has yet to be written. not external. a statement that precisely captures the tone of the KP. BEating " __ can produce internal. sounds Murugan’s favorite instruments and offers worship to Murugan until He arrives and comes into her to terrify enemies and deniers. in which the instinctive horror that segments of the poet’s audience would have felt towards the idea of meat-eating is taken up and transvalued. _ tress of the t"var"t e a a " " "" __ _ _ ln. s.] where the daughter of the hill tribe. and exuberantly nonpossession by the vegetarian Y both feeding on flesh and adorned with earrings cut from stag-horns and a brow-mark of musk of deer stomach (vs. spreading fearful blood-smeared millet. 219Y220) cf.[ (op. identifies as a colloquialism.[ as the text itself has it (vs. As HART aptly puts it.10 one can see this troped poetic play upon the prejudices of the upper caste vegetarian ethic here. 697) Y the t"var"t ti seems the most powerfully drawn character of the old mountain e a __ taxonomy.. and the image that emerges from __ _ _ pears nowhere in the 12 the PP is without precedent in the early literature. told later in the poem. somewhat modified): B[the awesome vast temple.11 The figure that best captures the dynamic between renvoi and invene a tion in Cekkilar’s text is that of the t"var"t ti . 11 On Ciruttontar. Bthe very image of an old Korava woman. a usage that the Madras University Tamil Lexicon. 216.. The character of the The word caivam in the modern language itself denotes vegetarian food and practices. Perhaps one _can see an ancesa a a _ti in the kuramakal.v.).

who had praised him in this way. and she came. a o e a " __ " " "" " "" _ "" _ "" " . that woman who bears the presence of the god. Tinnan. fresh meat. having given the forest-offering of honey. is _ possessed of a glory far oustripping _his warrior-father Y serves only to magnify the distance between the story’s inception and its promised dee a nouement. he offered service in return. though it only is the n " power to prophesy her own supersession. and parched rice came before that man. 700: unmaintan tinnan"na = ve r rivariccilaiy"n ninn alavil an ri m"mpatakin r"n.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 237 t"var"t ti in the PP is clearly one of mediation: she praises the omens that e a attend_ _ young Tinnan to be the best she’s ever seen Y pointedly telling N"kan that Bthis_ _triumphant bowmen. That her __ prophecy is perfectly correct Y Kannappar. shall a _ in attain"a greatness greater than even your own[13 Y and thus sets _ motion the hunt that begins Tinnan’s progress to transfiguration. is possessed of real power. 13 vs. The t"var"t ti . your strength is great. who shone black like a cluster of blue lilies. this son of yours. or his father Y truly. the priestess of the gods of the mountain. indeed __ the iconic representation of the physical and ethical universe of the kuri~ci. possessed of ananku . Cekkilar tells us. as the world of flesh and spirittrances that she represents is to be replaced by the higher truths of the ´ Saiva path. (714) The crowding hunters gave way. and sent her on her way. she put yellow rice-paste on that generous man’s forehead. toddy. as slave of the Lord.[ (715) _ To that women. it surpasses us all. in a_way that defies words. and said: BThe omens were not this good for your father. Her last words to Tinnan before his departure are pregnant __ with this power. made all the more prominent by the narrated silence of his reply: m"naccilaiv"tar murunku’ nerunku p"tir a e _ _ o p"" rkulam"malari r patarc"tiy"r mu n " ana a_ o a " _ " r"" "racai t"ral caruppori mar rum ulla enar e " " "" " "" k"nappali n"rkatavu tpo raiy" t ti vant"_l_ a e a a " _ _ " __ _ N_ nin r ’ e_ ku ’moykkuD cilaiv"tarkal n"nkap pukkuc n e "" _ _ a cen r’a_ ku vallal tirune r riyi r c"tai c "tti n e "" " _ "" __ un rantai tantaikkum innanmaikal ulla alla "" " _ __ nan rum perit ’ unvi ral nammalav ’ an rit ’ en r"l a "" " " "" "" _ _ " appe r r iyin valttum a na nkutaiy"tti tannaic _ a "" " " _ __ "" _ ceppark` arit$ya cirapp` etir ceytu pnkkik " " r riya tincilaik k"rma laim"kam e nna kaippa a e "" "" " meypporputai _ e t taiyin m"rkont’ e luntu p"nta" v" e o r " _ " __ " __ " As the strong-bowed hunters gathered all around.

728Y740. stretching out before them like the [reddened] feet of the goddess of victory. at home on the tip of the hunters’ bows[(718). While the first sixty-six verses of the KP are by no means bare of figures of speech and of explicitly poetic language.14 With a fanfare of trumpets and thundering drums.238 WHITNEY COX Then. there is a sudden density of elaborately troped language in the description of the hunt. In the first half of the passage. release the dogs. the beaters dive into the thicket and.Šn"ykal: as IRACAMANIKKANAR points out (1978. so none of the creatures can escape what is to come (724). as the stuff of language itself becomes thick and tense with the anticipation of what is to come. 717Y727 and vss. K"latti. Tinnan and the __ other hunters nock their arrows. As Tinnan passes across the __ limit of the circumscribed world of the kuri~ci village. he set out on the wondrous hunt (716) So impelled by familial duty and foretold by omens. the army of the hunters plunge into the forest. Hunting dogs run everywhere before them. as the frightened animals of the forest emerge and try to escape. Btheir red tongues lolling from their mouths. based on an internal shift in the meter: vss. and so heads off towards his destiny. along with their preparations for the hunt.[ as 14 . this use of vakrokti forest and towards his destiny atop Mt. through the wild n "K"latti. . like a rain-darkened cloud. To a adopt a Sanskritic idiom that is (I think) by no means alien to C"kkil"r’s e modus operandi. In a _ this brief passage (it covers only 24 verses) of sustained poetic intensity. e " " _ _of the hunt forms an indispensable transition from the world The episode of the mountain hunters to the awful transfiguration atop Mt. Cekkilar signals the import of his theme through two principle means: that of meter and that of figuration. his maiden hunt. a _ continues. . laying nets and leather straps throughout it. the early verses depicting the mountain world are cast in a predominately svabhavokti mode. The description of the maiden hunt can be divided into two sections. "" a "" 254) this phrase recalls Na r rinai _ " " _ _ 252 Y muyalv"tt ’ elunta mutukuvicaikkatan"y=nann"ppuraiyum c"rati Ba little " foot e a a  __ " _ _ [red] like the good tongue of a savage dog rushing "" it gives chase"to a hare. ¯ the march of Tinnan and his hunting party into the cloud-swept forest of the mountain is_ _described. Tinnan departs on __ the kanniv"ttai. _ ve n rimankai v"tarvillin mMtu m8vu p"tamun=cen ru n"lum"ru pnlva ceyya n"vin e a  a a " " " _ " _ " " " ½. composed in a variety of aciriyaviruttam. while in the description of the ¯ hunt itself proceeds by way of vakrokti. the hunters fall upon them (725Y727). bow in hand.

On Tamil meter generally see Niklas’ excellent descriptive study (NIKLAS 1996). producing unexpected effects:16 kuttinar utal mu ripata e rikulama ravarkal talaivar. Caught up in the a a " " _ leader of _ the violent tribe of berserk fury of the hunt. cf. While " exist[ (MTL). a terrific slaughter ensues. the effect rests on the insistent syncopated rhythmic pulse that emerges from within the basic structure of the verse (called cantam in Tamil metrical theory). Its a stability allows C"kkil"r to play with the relation between sound and e sense.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 239 In the second half. 15 . charges the animal. 16 In order to emphasize their rhythmic dimensions. the primary sense is something like Bto snap in two[. it is an easy rhythm to recite or for a listener to anticipate Y sweeping up the audience in the rush of movement described. so appearing as if they were the deerin-the-moon fallen from its resting-place. Bthe maravars [ forgets the arrow _ _ on his bowstring. it subtly imitates the tattoo of drums that are said to accompany the hunting party. divided according to the 1 boundaries of the metrical feet (Tamil c"r). In the first section. and seem to stripe the forest floor with day and night come together (729Y 731). closest perhaps to Bsuch that [its] body might snap like a " _ _ murital can bear the sense of Bbe defeated. broken half of a coconut[ (ibid ). I have reproduced the text of this verse and the two following exactly as they occur in the edition. Chasing a boar. I have not followed this practice. and have occasionally resolved the sandhi-s that occur metri causa. lions and elephants fall dead beside each other. The animals are cut to pieces in the cross-fire of arrows (728). The forest becomes a gruesome phantasmagoria: boars vomiting blood fall into the mouths of dying tigers.733). This provides a martial cadence that is meant to excite. the key phrase here being the " " " " _ _ unexpected utal mu ripata_. while the dead of other beasts fall upon the forest floor like black rain on the ocean (732. Tinnan. to cease to twig[. be discomfited. pursued by the eclipse of the hunters’ arrows. _K"latti along _ with his two remaining companions N"nan and K"tan. stags seem to charge one another as arrows rip through their heads. the noun muri " Bpiece. set " draws his sword and Bstabs it and breaks its body in two[ (740). half. Many deer leap into the sky. the two metrically differentiated halves of the episode pronouncedly differ in their tone and affective power. This pattern remains the same as the narrative reaches the climax of the hunt. in kaliviruttam. Tinnan is drawn _a away from the hunting party and into the vicinity of Mt. Elsewhere in this article. This effect of the narrative is carefully augmented by the prosodic shape of the verses.15 As even this cursory description hopefully illustrates.

just like the Kalinti river. plunged straightaway into the great forest. as throughout this passage. who seem to have ferociously captured them. In this verse. The verse is marked by _ extensive compounding Y save the plural noun kulankal . The meter. and even more. the two contrasting adjectival participles varum and porum. the boars fall into the teeth of tigers. here working in an internally maintained tension with the careful craft of the simile. the verse form. (722) The perfectly elaborated and quite Sanskritic uvamam here is played out. The rhythm here thus provides a contretemps to the meaningful semantic units of the verse. and blood pours out of their mouths. across this rhythmic pulse. (729) Here. In contradistinction to the earlier cadence the audience now is faced with a series of staccato lines. an urgency of motion provides the dominant impression. its waters great with huge black waves. filled with copses of dark green trees. each foot now becomes an isolated unit. few words cross the boundaries between metrical feet. in which very few long vowels or geminate consonants make the lines tense with the details they record: _ " venkanaipatu pitarki lipata vicaiyuruviya kayav ay " _ _ _ _ _ " ce nkanalpata vatanotuka nai ce riyamuniru karum a " _ _ _ _ va nkelucira muruviyapolu tataleyi rura vatanaip " " " _ po_ kiyacina motukavarvana puraivanacila pulikal n " _ _ " Arrows rip through the backs of huge boars’ necks driving all the way through their mouths. no words in the verse are even minimally inflected Y while the individual words are largely spread across the boundaries of the metrical feet. when these shoot through their heads. as it were. the affective tone: all of these shift radically with the onset of the description of the hunters’ grim work in the forest. and the_ final finite verb ottatu. The result is a temporary merger of the swinging rhythm of the march with the irresistible rush of a river in flood pouring into the sea. black bows in their strong hands. goes into the great billows of the far-spreading sea.240 WHITNEY COX _ neru nku painta rukku lanka ntu k"tu k"tan"r _ " a u e _a _ _ _e a ˜ varunka runci laitta takkai m"na v"tar c"nait"n _ e " " " _ _ _ta rpa rappi taippu kumperun porunta tanti raikka _ranka nlpu na rka linti kanni yottat8 _" _ karunta _ " _ "" _ "" That army of hunters. their forequarters are filled with arrows. a series of disconnected images of the . The drums of the march carry the scene through to the very moment the killing begins.

and hints at the bloodlust that drives his sword as he kills the boar at the passage’s end. a _ III. Yet before this final act of violence closes the hunt narrative. delivered with a rapid. and his com_ panions_ look on in amazement. BEARING WITNESS As Tinnan stands over the shattered carcass of the boar. deer plunge in to break the nets strung on the many trails. (734) Here it is unexpectedly the language of emancipation to which Cekkilar turns: the desperate straits of the animals’ escape are likened to the well-nigh impossible striving for release of men in the world. Cekkilar continues with the conceit that so tremendous was the violence that the maravars visited upon the forest that he must cast around for language fit " describe it. to Yet the language is very different indeed: palatu raikalin veruvaralotu payilvalaiya ra nu laim" a " " " _" _ valamotupatar vanatakaivu ra vu rucinamotu kavarn"y a " " _ nilaviyaviru_ vinaivalaiyitai nilaiculalpavar _ne ric"r e " " " e _ pulanu rumana nitaitataiceyta po rikalinala vulav" " " " "_ " _ _ _ _ Fearful. rushing down rocky paths. but now the language takes on a distinct quality of horrific hypertrophy. as elsewhere.and papakarmans). A wild propulsive energy remains to undergird the description of young Tinnan as he tears through __ the forest. the drama of salvation is ´ introduced into the minds of the audience. The metrical effects remain the same as before and. the narrative enters into its final and most significant phase: the relation of the transfiguration of Tinnan into the __ ´ " " Saiva n ayan ar Kannappar. Caught up in the insistent movement of the " __ . just as in the hidden truth: minds set on release of those men caught up in the nets of their fulfilled prior deeds. which summons up the quandary that as ¯ _ we’ve already seen so troubled Aghorasiva. The tension which this verse is meant to evoke is perfectly captured by the staccatissimo of the third line’s nilaviyaviru vinaivalaiyitai . good and bad. The high degree of figural language continues in this passage.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 241 slaughter. strobe-like tempo.e. With this _ phrase (Bwithin the nets of their two fulfilled "prior deeds. just before Tinnan breaks __ away from his clansman and sets out towards K"latti.[ i. as savage hunting dogs block their way. their pu nya . there occurs a striking moment when Cekkilar suddenly and surprisingly changes the tone of the description. are impeded by the senses.

Fthe divinity atop the mounn a ¯ " __ _ _ tain_ = Murukan (cited in HARDY 1983. especially as the localized presence of the divine.. on the peak of the god-haunted mountain. yet charged with new __ a meaning: ka tavunm"lvarai (Bthe god-haunted mountain[17).[ Bbewilderment. Bconfusion. as is perfectly captured by N"nan’s ingenuous reply: trying to accoma " modate what he is experiencing. Kuri~cipp"ttu ln. especially. 136). In this verse. laden with resonances of the world of the is a very pregnant _ kuri~ci.18 Yet intercession Tinnan took birth among the hunters __ it is not Murukan whose presence is announced by a fanfare of divine " music. he finds himself near the foot of the holy mountain that is to be the site of his trial and rebirth. giving a roar like the ocean.having worshipped her family god. a _ BIs and. and DUBIANSKY op cit pp 4Y6.[ 18 Cf. also cf. malai ma micai ka tavul . for whom m al ¼ periya Bbig. Ainku run"ru 259 u " n k atanmatamakal . . 17 . But as Tinna À and his companions Á Á n approach the mountain’s foot. 207.[ pace MUTALIYAR’s commentary " ad loc.242 WHITNEY COX hunt. one of his two remaining companions. the five sounds thundered forth. malaiyu rai katavul kulamutal v" lutti Fthe sim1Y3: ku nrakku rava _ " a " " " " " _ " " _ _ _ ple girl. the hunters have now gone beyond the world of the familiar. Less _definitely.. the divinity ð katavulÞ one n " _ expects to encounter atop mountains is Murukan. the very god by _whose " in the first place. the divinity that dwells on the mountain_. "the beloved of the man of the hills. _he places this portent within the everyday world of the honey-combs said to dot the mountains of the kuri~ci n " country. In the universe of Cankam reference. in a certain sense the pivot around which the entire narrative turns. _ _ usage. Tinnan’s a " __ reaction begins _ as mere curiosity. in reply ½N"nanŠ said: " it that the bees who swarm around that a " _honey-combs are rising up everywhere mountain’s great and making such a sound?[ (750) Tinnan’s old life still seems close at hand. . the physical and ethical order on which Tinna À existÁ Á n ¯ " m al ¼ mayakkam. they see the first glimmer of the transformations yet to come: katiravan ucci nannak katavunm"lvaraiyin ucci a " " __ " "_ atirtarum ocai aintum arkali_mulakkan k"tta _ a " perunt"n__ ulntu itu enkol n"n" en r"rkk’ immalaip a a a e c" " "" " " _ matumalar"_ l moyttu marunk’ elum oli kol en r"n 1 ka a "" " _ " As the Sun reached its peak. On the semantics of the word ka tavul gener_ _ ally. Told of the mountain and of the god at its summit by N"nan. N"nan?[ he asked. BWhat could this be. see HARDY op cit pp 131ff.

he left them. a _ and the lord climbed that wide-terraced peak. tattvas) extending from ´ base earth to the utterly pure Siva. (751) His love Y and N"nan Y went before him. ´ just as those who cleave to the truth that is Siva climb the great staircase that are the tattvas. Equating the mountain to these. the first stage of Tinnan’s transfiguration into Kannappar follows: __ __ muncey tavattin n tta mutivil" inpam"na a a " " " _ a "" anpinai etattuk k"_t_ alavil" a rvam ponki a ta _ __ l a " nperun_ atal k"ra va_ lal"r malaiyai n" kki " _ k" ma u o " __ " enpunekkuruti ullatt’ eluperuv"tkai otum e " __ " _ _ " a n"nanum anpum munpu nalirva ra i eratt"mum a " " _ o a " e p"nutattuvankal ennum perukuc"p"nam " ri e_ " _ " " _ ""a "naiy"~ civattaic c"ravanaipavar pola aiyar a _ an ¯ _ nilai malaiyai "ri n"rpatac cellumpotil _ n e e ¯ _ " _ _ tinkal cer ca taiy"r tammaic cenravar k"n" munn" a a a e ¯ ""o _ _ anka_nar karu_ k"rnta aru t tirun"kkam eytat "" nai u _ _ _ _ _ _ tankiya pavattin munnaic carpu vit t` akala n nkip ¯_ "  lal"poruvil anp’uruvam " n"r " __ _ ponkiya oliyin n a a _ " " " " That noble man looked towards the mountain. transfigured into matchless love. Á Á n’s As Tinnan Blooks towards[ (nokki. he Bshowed[ (k"ÁtÁta. as his very bones grew soft. (752) Before that man who was approaching the One in Whose locks rests the moon could catch sight of Him. Cekkilar here invokes one of the ´ central speculative concerns of Saiva theology. the One with lovely eyes cast a grace-filled glance charged with His compassion. as all of the propensities from his previous births fell away. and the events"yet to take place are set within a grander context. Fto intend_) ¯ ¯ __ aÁ Á the mountain. worthy of reflection. Yet a more significant indication of Cekkilar’s craft is the primacy of vision in the narration of Tinna À final passage to salvation. Continuing ´ with the language of Saiva systematic thought that we have seen already informing the narrative of the hunt. he showed the devotion.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 243 ence rests begins to irrevocably change. and as his limitless enthusiasm swelled. Fto see_. in a shadow of spreading light. the effective form of k" n nutal. from nokkutal. (753) Several points in these verses are worth drawing attention to. and as his great steadfast love increased. Immediately. the given natural world of the kuri~ci is further charged with a larger species n of meaning. the set of thirty-six hierarchically ranked constituent principles (skt. the endless joy that was the treasure of the tapas done in earlier births. up that cool mountain. and as his desire grew great. Fto a .

244 WHITNEY COX see_. Tinna À continues to kill Á Á n_s Á Á n ´ animals to offer worship. The twinning so implied is made explicit at the close of this brief episode: Cekkilar in successive verses describes each of the two men identically Y tanneriyil olkuv"r. _ e ¯ thing?[ (vs. 790Y801). Feye_) his newly arisen bhakti. the benevolent gaze of Siva (aruÁtÁtirun"kkam. 785: inta anucitan keÁtÁt"n yar ceytar). the scandalous remnant of Tinna À old life. K"latti and his final ordeal. wipes away the other’s ¯ ¯ Á Á n offering. however. K"Álatti. related to ka n. even more transgressively. it is perhaps unsurprising that the paired motifs of vision and blindness come to dominate the final sections of the KP. but of course fails to ¯ see the would-be culprit. after ¯ ¯ n Tinna À has again set out to hunt. Seeing Bthe flesh and bones[ left by Á Á Tinna À the brahman cries out. C"kkiÀar even describes Tinna À wiping off the pure. do penance. and take this as the a a " leitmotif of the entire pur"nam: the moral blindness of the lifeways of a _ the v"tar give way in the course of the narrative to the liberating insight e _ Saiva path. powerfully articulated in the final. The very moment he Á ´ o crests Mt. That the two men somehow mirror one another in their limitations of vision is made clear enough: it is tempting to see as comic the parallel lives lived by the two during the week’s time between aÁ Tinna À taking up residence on Mt. just like Tinna À Civakocariyar’s incomplete insight is relevant to the logic of the ¯ ¯ Á Á n. worn the flowers on his head. Bhe a " " . This is " crucially important. One may carry the conceit even _further. narrative’s climax. for. carried the water in his mouth. No sooner does Civakocariyar depart than Tinna À returns. it is the flesh. and gives his own (vss. paradoxical image of _ the Bshadow of spreading light[ ðponkiya oliyin nilalÞ that envelops the " " n"ya n"r. agamic e l" ¯ Á Á n offerings that are already present with his sandalled foot (vs. Of all of these transgressions. the pious Brahman comes in stage left to remove the cooked flesh. this dynamic is figured forth in the play of light and darkness. This much is made clear by the return of the ´ S aiva brahman Civako cariya r to the mountain’s summit. that most clearly indexes the unfinished Á Á n course of his transfiguration. his impure leftovers Y he has tasted the meat. as is made clear by the anarchic presence of meat in Tinna À devotions to the Lord atop K$Álatti. To make this all the more clear. Yet this process of dawning insight is in a crucial way of the ´ incomplete Y the moral horizon of the benighted world of the hunters has not yet been totally overcome. 772). noun a derived from the same nokkutal) falls upon him. Given the story’s well-known climax. and perform his own worship. Á Á n as it were. As Á Á n Tinna À ends his watch over the Lord every morning and exits stage right. and he becomes firmly set ¯ on the path to liberation. Here. his offering to Siva are his ucchiÁsÁta. BDamn me Y who did this horrible Á Á n.

but the aÁ pur"nam’s finale is now close at hand. 800. Fgreat mass_. and of Á Á n Civakocariyar in 801). As they realize the impossibility of pulling Tinna À away from his devotions. This theological dilemma. What can be seen here is ¯ the ability of literary narrative to at once accommodate the significance of systematic thought while providing a solution unique to itself. here we encounter theology en clair. the Bpair of actions[. however.[ the t"var"ÁtÁti. Again. In contrast to Á Á " able to provide his own the theologian’s efforts. as it is the soul that is transformed. Just as in the Á " synonymous occurence of iruvinai in verse 734 (discussed above). the poet is novel solution to the question of karmasamya. the agency at work here is the compassionate gaze À Á ´ o aruÁl þ n"kku of Siva raining down on Tinna À in this case. return to the scene along with Tinna À " father and Á Á e a Bthe woman possessed of a nanku. I contend. pilampu] of love. with which we began. however. How could they have possibly understood him? (803) After a series of its sidelong introductions. ¯ ¯ Such cyclic half-ignorance could continue indefinitely. the poet himself Á Á n addresses the audience: munpu tirukk"Álatti mutalvan"r arun"kk"l a a Áo a " e inpuruv"takatt’ irumpu pon" an"r pol yakkai n" a ¯ ¯ "" " " tanparicum vinaiyirun tum c"ru’malam" n rum a ra a u Á " " tirivar Á avar karuttin alavi" o " " nar" anpupilamp"yt a ¯ Á " " " " There. For. N"nan and K"tan. was also present in the mind of a a aÁ Cekkilar as he composed the Kannappan"yan"rpur"nam. the question of the interpretation of the Sanskrit theologeme karmasamya. the triad of eternally present stains Y "Ánava. the pair of actions and the three stains that had clung to him were all destroyed Y like iron become gold through joy’s alchemy. a sort of doctrinal s0leÁsa. through the gracious gaze of the god of holy K"Álatti. and karma Y are all cast off. They all entreat Tinna À Á _ Á Á n to return to the life he had known before. we see the actual workings of God’s grace on the individual. before them. one can see in Tinnan as he approaches the moment of his final transÁ Á À formation a figure at once embodying both pak Ásas of the theologians’ controversy.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 245 remains steadfast in his ways[ (said of Tinna À in vs. Tinna À a aÁ Á Á n’s " _ n’s erstwhile companions. Here is a man divided by the . a he became a fiery column [or. which ¯ necessitated Aghorasiva’s tendentious interpretation of the text of the ´ 1 a Ratnatrayapar"k Ás". " as his corporeal nature. Á Á n. may"ya. The body is left behind. Most a ¯ l ¯ significant of all is the vinaiyirunÁtum. this " evokes the theological controversy with which we began.

recalling the cultivated equanimity of R"makantha’s and Aghoraa Á Á siva’s version of karmasamya. the mundane world Y as figured in the group of his father. In his new´ ¯ found singlemindedness. 12:185. the flesh points to his precarious position halfway between the hunter’s life ´ of violent ignorance and the good of the Saiva religion. the god whose majesty. Tinnan Á ÀÁ À has become emblematic of the man Bequal towards all beings[ yah Á samah sarvabh"teÁsuÞ that formed Aghorasiva’s ideal image of the libu ´ Á erated soul. mirroring the existential stalemate between the effects of two actions that one side of the controversy sought to resolve. As depicted. On this view. At the same time. ¯ ¯ 12:254.g. and for whom a clod of dirt.34): 1 ¯ 0 samaduhkhasukhah svasthah samalost" smak"~canah a an _ priyo dh"ras tulyanindat masa mstutih _ _1 _ __ tulyapriya ¯ ¯ _ _ BThe wise man is established in himself. and a piece of gold are the same. one_for whom happiness and sorrow are equal. a stone. Yet. his comrades. the samaloÁsÁtak"~cana for whom dirt and gold are one and the same.24 (Poona critical edition 6:26. Tinnan acted in a fashion completely at a Á Á À ´ odds with the Saiva ethic of the initial audience of the PP. and of the lifeways which guided his actions up to the ´ encounter with Siva atop K"Álatti. At the same time. as seen most clearly in the hunters’ horrific violence. e. Both of these rival interpretations. etc. Tinna À has also achieved the clarity of Á Á n vision regarding the things of the world that is consonant with the interpretation of karmasamya championed by Aghorasiva. As a result of the circumstances of his birth. elsewhere in the Mahabharata: 3:247. one who is equal in the face of agreeable and disagreeable things. are made tangible in the tainted remnant of cooked flesh used in worship by the hunter.13. it is implied. [and] who is indifferent to praise or blame. also BhG 6. in Bhagavadg"ta 14. As ´ a the material means of Tinna À propitiation of Siva atop K"ÁlaÁtÁti obtained Á Á n’s through his adherence to the moral order in which he was raised.42. the tableau of Tinna À ´ ¯ Á Á n’s ´ iva can be seen as a hypertrophic echo of the classic uncanny offerings to S an topos of the man indifferent to worldly things.19 Unattached.3. transcends the details of place and station.8 (=6:28. his ethically scandalous prior life is placed in the balance with his sudden and dramatic devotion of the ´ worship of Siva. The particular yet pervasive evils of the life of ´ the kuri~ci hunter is countered by the immeasurable good of Saiva belief n " and practice. Cekkilar portrays Tinna À indifference to the fundamental transgression contained in its Á Á n’s offering. and the t"var"ÁtÁti Y no longer holds any power e a over him. it may be seen. 19 .[ cf.8).246 WHITNEY COX consequences of his birth and prior actions.

focuses on the god’s grace-giving gaze ´ ´ mediated (arunn"kku) as the instrument of Tinnan’s inner transformation. or Fliberating initiation._ This formed in aÁ l a effect the raison d’etre of the entire religion: it provided the necessary ˆ ´ condition for liberation. ¯ ¯ 20 . And so o __ __ " 0 0 ˜¯ ¯ . the model of authority for the community. Recall Aghorasiva’s specification that the cause of liberation is Bonly ´ the complete maturation of Stain. Befitting _ a the pur"nam’s economy of vision. a _ somewhat _ _ rako gurur a l a l _ different text is _given_ in the South Indian Archaka Association edition of the Kriyakramadyotika (vol. that of the Saiva rite of ini´ l a tiation or d"kÁs". 159. the principle goal of the Saiva householder. cited in BRUNNER_ 1977..20 It is precisely this moment Y that of the guru’s forensic assessment of the aspirant’s readiness for liberating initiation Y that I take to be encoded in the conclusion of Cekkilar’s account of Kannappar. of assaying the ¯ readiness of the initiand for the all-important ritual event.samvatsarositasya sisyasya malaparip"kam saktinip"tam ca jnatva sampannak"a a a _ nirv"_nad"ks"m vidadh"ta. especially with regard to its highest and most important form. as Á Á ´¯ l with Aghorasiva. The centrality of this ritual for a medieval Saiva cannot be overestimated. once he has assembled everything that is necessary. the condition of the maturation of the indwelling impurity. the poet. instead of_ the abstract and _ fall of Siva’s sakti.. the significance of karmasamya lies ´ ¯ ´ in an altogether more proximate domain. much less about the PP as a whole? For the Tamil poet..TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 247 But. while also providing through the figure of the initiating guru. The task of reading these signs. In his own liturgical writings. the teacher. which is inferrable by the sign of karmasamya spoken of earlier[ (malaparipakasyaiva proktakarmasa¯ ¯ ¯ myacihnanumeyasya). the nirv"nad"kÁs". According to the mature Saiddhantika theology current in ¯ ´ Cidambaram in Cekkilar’s time (as espoused by Aghorasiva and others). the Sanskrit sastr". which is interpretable through the outward signs of karmasamya is itself the effect ¯ ´ ´ ´ of the descent of Siva’s sakti (sakti[ni-]pata). should perform the liberating initiation[. 1. 304). is that of the guru. an event that must always ¯ precede the process of initiation.having first come to know of the ´ maturation of the Stain and the descent of sakti of his student who has dwelt [with him] for a year’s time. why is this important? What does Cekkilar’s knowledge of what is now a dimly-remembered theological polemic tell us about story of Kannappar. Aghorasiva stipulates a year-long period in which the guru should assess ´ the readiness of his disciple: B..

g. 812 ittaku t"ya puÁtkaÁl "nÁta’ mun utiran k"ÁtÁtum). Tantraloka ¯ 15. water. he catches sight of kites wheeling in the sky over the summit. She.21 As Tinna À offers one and then the other of Á Á n ´ his eyes. blood a Á Á " " his begins to pour from one of the god’s eyes._ pour savoir si leurs reves sont fastes [ou en _ ˆ ´ non][ (trans.. but this is never actually said.22 In " panic.demande a a _ _ _ aux _ disciples ce qu’ils ont vu _ _ _ dormant. to which Tinnan thinks Bthese evil birds show that blood’s being shed near here[ Á Á À _ a l lÁ (v. ´ ˆ xxxix. 21 . e.483 (I thank Harunaga ISAACSON for this reference): 0 0 _ pr"tar guruh k rt"sesanityo ’bhyarcitasankarah a a 0 _ svapnad rst"v "rthau vitte bal"bal"t _ _ a a sisy"tmanoh a a _a _ morning [of the_ _initiation] the guru performs all of his regular worship and _ _ BOn the ´ honors Siva. the dream itself just might contain a reference to the d"ks"-liturgy. however.. K"ÁlaÁtÁti forms an o a a absolute necessity. cites no authority for this claim.. BFlesh for flesh is o l "" the cure for true illness[ Y pointing at once " back to"the violence of his old life (as mediated through the substance that is its chief consequence) In fact. it is the Saiva guru who bears witness to the depths of his devotion. Then. there is an insistent focus on signs and on sight. and flowers for offering. the dreams of both the guru as well as the initiand are specifically mentioned: see. however. one that the god himself must conspire to ensure through a dream visitation. and who thus renders possible the final transfiguration and salvation of Kannappar. One presumes that the god is present in the form of a linga. __ As the conclusion draws near. Elsewhere in the world of Saiva practice. on vision and its obscuration. The Lord of K"latti thus forms the apophatic center of this entire mediation aÁ on sight and its absence. and the ´ Somasambhupaddhati itself speaks only of the dreams of the candidates (p 225: guruh::: s0isy"n svapnam yath"d rstam samprcchec chubhahetave. l Áa BRUNNER claims that BLa principale indication relative au succes du rituel est cependent ` ˆ tiree des reves que les disciples Y et le guru lui-meme Y font pendant la nuit[ (op. emphasis added). Tinnan returns with his daily portion Á Á À of cooked game.[ 22 ´ It is striking that the image of Siva atop K"latti is at no point explicitly described by aÁ _ Cekkilar. cit. BRUNNER)). Ble guru. Tinna À tries to Á Á n rely on the knowledge of his old life Y searching out and applying forest remedies to staunch the wound. It is only when this fails that Tinnan Á Á À u u recalls the hunters’ adage Y ur ran"y t"rpat’ " nukk’ " n. As Civakocariyar conceals ¯ ¯ himself in the presence of the god. He [then] considers the things seen in both his own and the initiand’s dreams relative to one another. Bso that the " nna n"r’s true nature to the sage[ (v. Master of holy K"Álatti might show Ti Á Á À a a a a a a 813 tirukk"Álatti aÁtikaÁl"r munivan"rkkut=tinnan"r parivu k"ÁtÁta). As he draws near.248 WHITNEY COX the presence of Civak" cariy" r at the summit of Mt.

the Vedas may resound ´ from heaven. the text’s message and its social location are unproblematic: it narrates a world of peculiarly Tamil ´ Saivism. After he has removed one of his eyes. The solution to the problem of karmasamya to which Cekkilar arrives is not a philosophical. and the closely related verb Fto see_. as Siva. but S a of Mt. abstract realm of systematic thought in Sanskrit within the local and the narrative. 23 . even within the circumscribed world of Cidambaram during Cekkilar’s day. The text grows dense with the word ´ aÁ Á for Feye_.23 The presence of such theological issues as the interpretation of karmasamya within the narrative would appear on this view to ¯ be equally unproblematic. Yet. but rather a magical resolution to the soteriological conundrum. a controversy ¯ that Cekkilar appears to be attempting to overcome through narrative ravar means. and ´ the other eye of Siva begins to bleed. all in the concealed presence of Civak"cariy"r. Á n’s kannutal. it was not just Tinnan. Cekkilar aÁ __ could recast the universalistic. the son of the wild Ma À Á Á À ´ aivasiddh"nta theology itself that was transfigured at the peak tribe. SOME CONCLUSIONS For other contemporary interpreters of the PP. BHe whose brow bears an eye[ puts Tinna À love to its aÁ Á Á Á ultimate test. in the service of proclaiming its superiority over any and all competitors. witnesses this that the sky may rain with flowers. k"nnutal. beatitude of S IV. institutional ´ Saivism was much more diverse than such a reading of the PP presumes. ¯ ¯ See PETERSON 1998 and now MONIUS 2004. merely marking the recording by the poet of one of the doctrinal truths of the religion. Through the trial that gave birth to Kannappar. kan. Tamil Saivism’s antipathy to which being generally thought to date back to the period of the Tevaram poets. and Siva may offer the newly-baptised Kannappar the __ ´ aiva liberation. And it is precisely that he has cast this resolution in the ´ Jainism being the most frequently noted opponent tradition. For it is o a l a only as the brahman. ¯ dialectical one.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 249 as it points forward to the now-inevitable conclusion. Put simply. K"latti. there is yet the final assay of his devotion. the initiating guru in this extraordinary d"kÁs". as can be seen in the first instance by the multiple contestants in the controversy surrounding the interpretation of karmasamya.

one may argue that this new Saiva order. REFERENCES Arun"cala GurukkaÁ . especially its relationship to the Siddh"nta. sr" ddha. so we are left with only speculation as to the poet’s awareness of the fragility of the order in which he lived. Interestingly. This seems to capture something truly distinctive about the Periyapur"nam as a whole. V. II: ´ a a ¸ d"kÁs". supposedly divinely a inspired. abhiÁseka. identifiable Saiva community within the bounds of the region. something that the conventional encomia contained within the PP of course say nothing about. he did this while the polity itself was beginning to wane. And. the localization and incorporation of the Sanskrit Siddhanta within the represented world of literary Tamil seems to me ¯ central to Cekkilar’s project in the KP.K. antyeÁsÁti. a e Cekkilar. a a The story of Kannappanayan"r is only one among the PP’s many Á Á episodes. ´ BrunnerYLachaux (H. It is then probably overly hasty to take its dynamics. Troiseme partie. may have in fact first taken root in the semantic space created by the PP. 1977: Somasambhupaddhati. I will nevertheless conclude with some suggestions to that end. while this is for the moment com´ pletely speculative. and that the new world of Tamil Saivism with its network of maÁtams linked to the many temples of the region arose in the wake of the PP and of the final collapse of C"la authority. o " ´ forging a new sense of a particular. Rituels occa´ ´ ¨ ´ sionals dans la tradition sivaı te de l’Inde du Sud selon Somasambhu. and become something new. I would argue. should not deter us from o " seeing this creation for what it was. That he ´ succeeded. (1960Y). the poem’s first. as representative of the poem as a a whole. vratoddh"ra. by virtue of its own complex negotiation between literature and theology. a work founded on a the seeming paradox of trying to hold _in a single simultaneous order both Bthe entire world[ (ulak’ el"m. in language able to compel and beguile its ´¯ audience. words) and the central Tamil heartland of the K"v"ri river delta. As just mentioned. Cennai: South Indian Archaka l a a Áa "" Association. Kriy" kramadyotik". that it is able to step beyond the ambit of sastra.250 WHITNEY COX form of a poetic text.). a contingent project by no means bound to success or failure. which turned increasingly to Tamil as its language of systematic thought. sought to wed the universalistic vision of ´ theological and liturgical Saivism with the lived world of the C"la polity. . Pondiche ry: Institut Franc ais l a ´ d’Indologie.

1988: AÁsÁtaprakaranam V"r"nas": Samp"rn"nandavivvavidy"laya. Violence. New Delhi: National Museum.). Á Delhi: OUP India. H. 2: pp.).] 19 vols. by J.S. 1993: The Hungry God. 1980: BThe Little Devotee. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.). Madras: Institute of Asian Studies ´ Monius (A. Niklas (U. Ramanujan (A. Ir"cam"nikkan"r (Ma. 2000: Ritual and mythological sources of early Tamil poetry. . a a a u ¯ "" Cat" civa Aiyar (Ti). Madras: University of Madras.[ Journal of Indian Philosophy 32.). Madras: New Century Book House. a a a a a a a ¯ " _ " Reprint. n a a a " _ Lehmann (T.[ Bulletin de l’Ecole francaise ¸ ˆ d’Extreme-Orient LXXVII.). and the Aesthetics of Disgust: Saivas and Jains in Medieval South India. 1966: PreYPallavan Tamil Index. Cennai. Hart (G.). 1967: The Interior Landscape: Love Poems From a Classical Tamil Anthology. Albany: SUNY Press. Mutaliy" r (Ci. Dviveda (V. (1927Y1959). 1987: The Tantraloka of Abhinavagupta with the ¯ Commentary of Jayaratha. 2004: BLove. Ratnatrayapar"kÁs" of Sr"kanÁthasuri Accompanied by the Commentary (ullekhin" ) of l a l 1 Á Aghorasiva. Ingalls. 1981: Drama in Ancient Tamil Society. et al. Critical a Á Á Edition and Annotated Translation.). Cuppiramaniya.[ Journal of the American Oriental Society 106.). Dordrecht.). a l a "" " " " _ _ _ " "" " Kuri~cipp"ÁtÁtu in C"min"taiyar (1993). In Dviveda (1988). 1986: BAnanku: A Notion Semantically Reduced to Signify Female Sacred Á _ Power.).V.[ in: Open Boundaries: Jain Á Communities and Culture in Indian History. Pune: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Rajam (V. 8 vols.). 257Y272. 1996: BIntroduction to Tamil Prosody.).). 113Y172. Sukthankar. 1998: BSramanas Against the Tamil Way.C. S. Hart (G. ed. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. Sivathamby (K. Berkeley: University of California Press. 1990: Periyapur"Ána "r"ycci. 1996: BhaÁtÁta R"makanÁtha’s commentary on the Kiranatantra.TRANSFIGURATION OF TI N NAN THE ARCHER _ _ _ 251 C"min"taiyar (U. Cort. Kalaviyal enru I raiyan"rakapporul Nakk"ran"r uraiyutan 1969: Cennai: Kalakam. V. Madras: Palaniyapp" Piratars.K" . 1976: The Poems of Ancient Tamil: their milieu and their Sanskrit counterparts. Mahabharata.).).). a aÁ l u Áa a _ Dwivedi (R.[ in: Sanskrit and Indian Studies: Essays in Honor of Daniel H. ed.Ve. Goodall (D. 1985: Poems of Love and War.) & Malten (T. ´ Shulman (D. ¸ ´ ´ Hardy (F.). Dubiansky (A. Hindu Tales of Filicide and Devotion. Coimbatore: Kovait Tamilc Cankam. Pondichery: Institut Francais de Pondichery. Forsten. ´ Peterson (I.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Groningen: E.).K. & Rastogi (N. 1983: Masterpieces of Early South Indian Bronzes. Nagatomi. 1964: C"kkil"rcuv"mikal ennum Arunmolit"var a e e a a e Á _ " " _ "" _ aruliya Periyapur"nam. Cennai: International a _ u u " " "" Institute for Tamil Studies. Reprint.). by M. For the first Time Critically edited ¯ ¯ [etc. Subrahmanian (N. New York: Columbia University Press. 1983: VirahaYbhakti: the early history of KÁrÁsna devotion in South India.). 1993: A wordYindex of Cankam literature. Ramanujan (A. pp.). 1993: Pattupp"ÁtÁtu m"lam. a ¯ _ _ Nagaswamy (R.K. 1999: Ainkurun"ru m"lamum uraiyum.

-L. eds. Pondichery: Ecole Francaise ¸ ¸ ´ d’ExtremeYOrient.upenn. PA 19104-6305.). Cennai: Kalakam Reprint. Madras. a a a " Tolk" ppiyam"Porulatik"ram I lampuranar uraiyutan (2000). _ " 7 vols. ed by J. 36th and Spruce Streets. Wilden. University of Pennsylvania.[ in: South Indian Horizons: Studies in Honor of a a Francois Gros. 2004: BOn the Consolidation and Extension of Knowledge: The S"tra Style u in the Tolk" ppiyam PoruÁlatik"ram.edu . ˆ Department of South Asian Studies. a a " "" " _ _ _ University of Madras.252 WHITNEY COX Tirumuruk"r rupaÁtai in C"min"taiyar (1993). Philadelphia. 804 Williams Hall. USA E-mail: wmcox@sas. 1924Y1936: Tamil Lexicon. Chevillard and E. Wilden (E.