Thanks - but i am reposting one of your earlier mails. second para - you attribute to 3rd -4th C. any reason for moving this date to 6th C in your latest mail.
The veerapuram terracota image is indeed an interesting find.
Check Google books : Ganesh: studies of an Asian god, By Robert L. Brown
Pg 67, has a sketch of the idol pg 51,52 has the description of the same
Not in town for 2 days and missed lot of action on Ganapathi.
1. Ganapathi mention is Tamil Litrature: Kalladam a sangam litrature statrts with Ganapathi Prayer
2. Thevaram mentions Ganapathi in one song
a. The First song before recitation of thevaram itself a Ganapathi worship thevaram by Sambandar. It is Valivalam Thevaram . Pidiyadan uru umai kola .......Ganapathi vara Arulinan Valivalam Iraye
The other thevara sthalams thoruchengotankudi is called ganapatheeswaram as Ganapathi installed the Lingam. Kachi Anaekadavangadam another place where Ganapathi installed the lingam. Anegadam is elephant. The third Achiru Pakkam got its name where the axle of siva was broken by ganapathi. ( he went for thirupura samharam at Thiruvadigai w.o. worshipping Ganapathy) Will check these thevarams and come back if any mention is there 2 maroow.
3. The Deekshitar song on Vatapi Ganapathi is on the Vathapi Ganapathi in Thiruvarur. ( Not on Thiruchengotankudi)There is another Vatapi Ganapathi there. Kanchi Paramacharya's view is that these Ganapathi's are not from Vatapi but either the Ganapati who killed Vatapi or the Ganapati in vatapi style.
4. ancient Vishnu Temples like Srirangam, Thirukkoshtiyur, Koiladi, Thiruvidandai all have a separaet shirine for Ganesh, The primary reason is he is the one who destroys all obstacles and has the first right for puja.
5. Ganapti means head of Shivas Gana. Vaishnavam calls him as Vishwaksenar which give simillar meaning.
6. Pillayar means the respected son ( of siva)
7. Pillayarpatti is of 4th century - The style of letters in the sanctum and the unique signature of the shilpi corresponds to 4th century.
I am from Karaikudi. Till 88, there was not any crowd there and people were allowed to go inside ( removing shirts). There is another Garbagraha inside , next to Pillayarfor siva called thiruveesar. The Lingam is inbuilt in cave. Now people are not allowed inside. But you can see it is being written as Karpaga Vinayakar- Thiruveesar at the entrance.There is a separate shirine for his consort Sivagami.
The other shiva temple inside ( which is one of the family temple of Nagarathars) is of later Pandyas. Arjunavanesar and Ashoka kusumambal.
The Thriuveesar and Sivagami are of earlier Pandyas.
> - but i am reposting one of your earlier mails. second para - you > attribute to 3rd -4th C. any reason for moving this date to 6th C in
A study of kudaivarais all over southern tamilnadu and the architecture of pillailarpatti leads to the surmise that it cannot be that early. Earlier date was based on paleography but the new suggestion is based on temple architecture.
Pillaiyarpatti inscription provides the first evidence of pulli in tamil characters (ref Pulli thantha pillaiyar by Scholar Iravatham)
- Kalladam is now being assigned to a much later date. Not a sangam work historically. It is actually assigned to chola period (10 cen).
காரைக்குடிக்கும் திருப்பத்தூருக்கும் இடையிலுள்ள பிள்ளையார்பட்டி தலத்தையும் அங்கு எழுந்தருளியிருக்கும் கற்பகவிநாயகப் பெருமானையும் அறியாதவர் தமிழகத்தில் இருக்கமாட்டார்கள். அங்குள்ள் குடைவரைக் கோயிலில் பொறிக்கப்பட்டுள்ள ஒரு சிறிய கல்வெட்டு பல முக்கியமான கண்டுபிடிப்புகளுக்குச் சான்றாக இருப்பது பலருக்கு தெரியாமலிருக்கலாம்.
*பிள்ளையார்பட்டிக் குடைவரை*
பிள்ளையார்பட்டிக் குடைவரை மிகவும் தொன்மையானது. சுமார் 40 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்னர் வரை இக்குடைவரை கி.பி. 7-ம் நூற்றாண்டில் பல்லவ மன்னன் மகேந்திரவர்மன் காலத்தில் அமைக்கப்பட்டது என்றும் அதிலுள்ள இரு கருக்கு(புடைப்பு)ச் சிற்பங்கள் பல்லவ மன்னர்களின் உருவங்கள் என்றும் அறிஞர்கள் கருதி வந்தனர். இச்செய்திகளையே கம்பன் அடிப்பொடி சா.கணேசன் 1955-ல் எழுதிய 'பிள்ளையார்பட்டித் தல வரலாறு' என்ற நூலின் முதற் பதிப்பில் குறிப்பிட்டிருக்கிறார்.
அதன் பின்னர் தொல்லியல் அறிஞர் டாக்டர் இரா.நாகசாமி இக்குடைவரைச் சிற்பங்களை மீண்டும் நுணுக்கமாக ஆராய்ந்து பல்லவ மன்னர்களின் உருவங்கள் என்று தவறாகக் கருதப்பட்டவை ஹரிஹரர், இலிங்கோத்பவர் ஆகிய மூர்த்திகளின் சிற்பங்கள் என்றும், பாண்டிய நாட்டில் பல்லவர் ஆட்சி செய்ததாக வரலாறு இல்லாமையால், இக்குடைவரைக் கோயிலைப் பாண்டிய மன்னர்களே நிர்மாணித்திருக்க வேண்டும் என்றும், சிற்ப அமைதியின் அடிப்படையில் இக்குடைவரை பல்லவ மகேந்திரவர்மன் காலத்துக்கு முந்தையது என்றும் பல அரிய உண்மைகளை முதன்முதலாக வெளிப்படுத்தினார்.
*பண்டைய கல்வெட்டு*
1965-ல் நாகசாமி என்னிடம் ஒரு போட்டோவைத் தந்து "இது பிள்ளையார்பட்டிக் குடைவரையில் பொறிக்கப்பட்டுள்ள மிகப் பழமையான கல்வெட்டு; இதை இதுவரை யாரும் சரியாகப் படிக்கவில்லை; உங்களால் முடியுமா பாருங்கள்" என்று கூறினார். அக் கல்வெட்டு 1936-ல் மையத் தொல்லெழுத்தியல் துறையினரால் முதன்முதலாகப் படியெடுக்கப்பட்டு பின்வருமாறு வாசிக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது:
I am sorry, but where did anyone say that there was no reference in Thevaram. We started with Vathapi Ganapathy and the fact that there are no references to Ganesha during Mahendra pallava's excavations. You can see my post which i had placed earlier as to the absence of Ganesha icons in Mallai. the first entry is made during the works of Raja simha Pallava - in the shore temple and then onwards in the Kanchi Kailasantha temple.
We then discussed Pillayar patti as being dated defn prior to Mahendra Pallava. How far back is a point of contention with even learned scholars not coming to an aggrement.
You had placed the relevant thevaram verses, which are dated to including the authors to later than the period we are discussing.
Hinduism evolved as a religion imbibing lot of local flavor along the way, and for a mature discussion, we must be able to accept it with an open mind.
The indications are Ganapathi worship was there before the Vatapi conquest.
The Ganabatheeswarams namely
Thiruchengotankudi and Kanchi Anekadnkavadam were pre Thevaram period.
There are lot of mention on Vedas and Velvis in Sangam litrature ( I already read about the poor Father Visiting a Malaysian Police station daily in the archieve and dont mind to be called one) the worship of all vedic gods must be in practise in Tamilnadu.
The discussions started with thevaram no mentioning Ganapathi, for which the reply was " Ganapathyam" being a different sect.
That is where i started writing and included Pillayarpatti.
Some how there is a feeling in Tamilnadu for not accepting the mention of Veadas, Velvis and Vediyar in Sangam Litrature ( Refer the Poor Father visiting a Malaysian Police station daily story quoted in the archieves)
If Vedas are referred in Sangam, then all the Vedic Gods should also be worshipped.
If Murugan, Thirumal, Indiran, Kotravai, Mayavan are all worshipped, then Vinayaga also should be worshipped.
The issue of openness is also in accepting the mention of Vedas and Velvis of in Sangam works.
i stand corrected. i did go back on this thread and saw member Prasanna's query as below
" But if we notice there is no mention of Lord Ganesha in any of our early Tamil literature. Even I had heard that there is no mention of Ganesha in Thevaaram also. It would be great if anyone can share some related information on the missing Lord Ganesha in Tamil literature.
Please understand that we lost most of our litrature both Tamil and Vedic not only beacuse of invasions but also due to our negligence.
Whatever little Sangam Litratue is available is a very small of the original ( Thanks to Tamil Thatha)
Again Nambiyandar Nambi saved part of thevaram
Even a fraction of Vedas is available ( of 1000 Parts of Sama Veda only 4 is surviving) A small part of Adarva Veda is remaining due to the efforts of Kanchi Paramacharya.
We dont have a direct reference in Sangam Litrature.Need to take the circumferential prrofs. Vedam and Velvi's presence and reverence in Sangam Litrature and hence all the vedic gods should have been worshipped.
I just went through an article on ayaappan in Varalaru.com in which the author is giving out references to prove that Sastha is post 6th Century or Buddist God.
He cleverly hides the reference of the Sastha in Kanchi Kamakshi Temple in Silappadigaram and the various Sathan poets of Sangam Litrature ( Not seethalai sathanar)
I now seriously feel whether there is an effort to push all Hindu gods to a period of " AFTER SOMEBODY's DEATH"
I am not sure if you know us well enough to hint what you are hinting. Dont want to end a good discussion on such a note.
I am asking a straight question and request for a straight answer. You mentioned that there references to ganesha worship in sangam works - we would like to know if there are, please give us the references. If there are not, we will continue to search.
I am from Karaikudi and till 1988 there would be maximum of 10 people in any given day. The crowd started swelling after the dewasthanam started printing the photographs and the fame started spreading.
Till 88, they allowed people to go inside the cave ( sanctum) by removing the shirt and people can go very clsoe to swami.
I was much younger and whatever i remeber i reporoduce.
Currently we can see only the Pillayar. To His left, there is a corridor ( or say varandah)of equal size. 2 or 3 Pillars ( 2 if i am right) are there to support. In the wall next to Pillayar a statue of a king is carved in the cave. I remeber the figure of a small person also with the king.
There are epigraph on the wall, pillar and the sides. There is another sanctum facing east ( cave) with a big lingam called thiruveesar. On the side walls also ithink there areepigraphs.
The Ganesh in all probability is having a lingam on his right hand - In kavacham, they have made it a prominent Lingam- but without kavacham it looks like all modak, fruit and lingam.
installed is on the other cave is the one he is carrying.
( The shilpi had done in that way. It is man made temple only and the Lingm is not a swayambu or deva pradishta. the shilpi has made it look like Vinayaga carrying a lingam)
It a bigger cave than what is visible for public today. It has another shirine for shiva inside.
This is from dr rn paper on some contributions of the pandya to south indian art
The image that was considered to be a pallava king with his two assistants has been identified as harihara. The reasoning is due to the hair style. One side is jata makuta and other half is karanda makuta. So he postulates that its harihara. The two assistants could be garuda ( though depicted without the beak and wings)since he has both his hands across his chest in an anjali pose. The other could be nandhi or chandesa. Since nadhi is usually depicted with horns, and the image doesn't have it, it could be chandesa. Apart from the diff in headdress there is not other distinguishing feature between the two sides (only two arms. No attributes r held - image is in samabhanga, left hand on hip katyavalambita and the right is varada bboon giving gesture)
The other fig on the side wall of the sanctum is identified as lingothbhava ( no clear attributes but headdress is full jatamakuta) and below waist we can see faintly a square pillar.
This is from me !!
The paper also has the photographs of the sculptures and what ganesha seems to be holding a cylindrical object but in his left hand ! The paper however doesn't discuss this. Will check this and revert