I happened to read a mail on this subject in the forum and since i am a new member, would like to add a few points.
1. Till Sekkizhar's time of Periyapuranam, There is no mention of Manickavasagar. 2. He was a minister with Pandya Kings, which could mean the Later Pandyas 3. The three main temples associated with him, Thirupperundurai, Thiruvadavur and Uthitagoasmangai are not padal petra thalam of thevaram ( The first one is a vaipu thalam) which also means his time being of a later period. 4. The members reference about the debate with budhist scholars is actually releates to Manickavasagar making the dumb child of a singala king to speak at Chidambaram and winning the Budhhist monks. Here the Budhists are singala budhists who are strong till date.The Later pandyas had a close relationship with Singala kingdom, who had a common enemy in Cholas.
Hence it can be deducted Logically that Manickavasagar's period should be of end later pandya period and the muslim invasion immediately after that could have wiped out the evidences. The Vijayanagar rule that followed is not so keen on Tamil litrature.
Now another question? Then how thiruvasagam is 8th Thirumurai, instead of 13th as it belongs to a time later than periya puranam?
It is possible that after Nambiyandar nambi's compilation of 7 Thirumurais, may be around 13th Century, one more compilation would have happened and considering the greatness of manickavasagar's work, it might have been treated as 8th, Other saivaites work from nakkeerar to Sendanar as 9,10,11 and finally the periyapuranam as 12th.
This later addition of Thirumurais may be the work of Meykandar/Umapathi sivam are some body just before them.
Hence Logically it can be deduced that he must be at the time later Pandyas and before Meykandar.
Dear Shanker i first would like to compliment you on your logic
it brims with clarity. ellam korvaiyaai irukku.
1. Till Sekkizhar's time of Periyapuranam, There is no mention of Manickavasagar.
true.
can somebody tell us when thiruvilaiyadal puranam was assembled.
because a related story comes in it.
2. He was a minister with Pandya Kings, which could mean the Later Pandyas
later pandyas ruled for about a century and a half and except the last few years are quite well documented.there is no mention of him.
> 3. The three main temples associated with him, Thirupperundurai, Thiruvadavur and Uthitagoasmangai are not padal petra thalam of thevaram ( The first one is a vaipu thalam) which also means his time being of a later period.
chidambaram and thirukazhukundram are padal petra sthalams vaipu thalam could be one where a devaram has not been discovered.a vaipu thalam became a padal petra thalam in early 20th century too.
> 4. The members reference about the debate with budhist scholars is actually releates to Manickavasagar making the dumb child of a singala king to speak at Chidambaram and winning the Budhhist monks. Here the Budhists are singala budhists who are strong till date.The Later pandyas had a close relationship with Singala kingdom, who had a common enemy in Cholas.
i feel they are 2 seperate incidents. a debate and a miracle. anyway during later pandyas time the lankans and the pandyans were fighting tootha and nail literally. the pandyans even stole the buddha tooth from lanka during this time.
so a king visiting india during that time though possible seems remote.
> Now another question? Then how thiruvasagam is 8th Thirumurai, instead of 13th as it belongs to a time later than periya puranam?
thats a good introspection.
after the pandyas the madurai sultanate, the vijayanagar, the arcot nawabs. when could a re classification have happened?
The logical answer is that Man-ek-vasagar was an Aryan. He was not a Na-aryan to become a Na-aryan-mar. His contribution to the Tamil bhakti movement is, however. enormous. Man-ek-vasagar ia a title conferred on him at Kanakasabhai, the seat of Buddhists at Siddharthapuri (Chidambaram). R. Narasimhan
Someone once told me that, the nayanmars were the clan who didnt even wish for 'veedu peru' (moksham) where as Maickavasagar says 'meyye un ponnadigal kandindru veedutren'. not sure how far its true, but makes sense.
You have discussed Chidambaram..you did not know it was Siddharthapuri..Siddha+Arth exposition of the philosophy of Buddhism...Thiruchitrambalam.. And, Nataraja was another milestone in the Dravidian search for a new identity. Na-ettu-rajan (Natarajan) is Sun and that is why Chidambaram is described as Akash Linga..It was retrieved from Buddhism and converted into a place of worship of the sun by the pallavas..administered by dakshdhars. There is no linga there.. R Narasimhan
There are 2 Lingas in Chidambaram. Though the temple is called Nataraja temple, the main dity is sivalingam and the sannidhi is called Thirumoolattanam. The first puja is done to this shirine only. The godess is called Uma Parvathy. It is in the Prahara.
It is called Thiru Moolattanam because, all the Shiva temples power comes to this sannadhi after the artha jama puja of that that temple.
There is another spatika lingam in natraja sannidhi for which regular pujas are done. ( Even in thyagaraja sannidhi also there is a linga, maragada linga)
The worship of shiva is done in various forms in tamilnadu like Natraja, Somaskanda. Pallavas propoagated Somaskanda Form rather than Natraja form. ( Natraja form is by Cholas)
Thevaram calls it Perumpatra Puliyur, Thillai managar, Chitrambalam ( which is Chidambaram)