Tamil Liturgy
There is no such thing as liturgy in Tamil, is there?
We have devotional Bhakthi literature in spades. That is completely different and quite complementary.But what is exclusively Tamil archanai!?
Even now, a bhattar does a nAmAvaLi based archanai in Sanskrit and then recites a pAsuram to round things off. What is being asked now is to give the devotee an option to completely excise the Sanskrit archanai and have something exclusively in Tamil.
All this comes from an animus cultivated by - to put it charitably - strained arguments that, there existed a time when Agamic temples did not have Sanskrit incantations. Or worse, even if nothing of that sort ever existed, the time has come to expunge them.
This demand proceeds from the weak assumption that the devotee is the customer and he would wish to ‘understand’ the incantations made on his behalf. And this wish needs to be catered to. This line of argument was popularized in TN politico-cultural sphere and achieved much traction.
Be that as it may, one wonders what the mechanics of the procedure are to be though. What exactly would be said in their place of the sanskrit archanai?
How is a manthram rendered in Tamil!? I am not even asking this as in a condescending rhetorical manner. Genuinely curious how it is done. Has there already been a body of work creating Tamil liturgical equivalents. The pOtri equivalent of nAmAvaLis are recent translations, aren't they? How comprehensive are they? To repeat: devotional literature, unparalleled and rich as it is, is very different from what is needed to serve liturgy.
Even a cursory knowledge of the concept of a manthram will lead you to know it is linked to an āvāhanam invoking the deity being worshipped, the rishi who gave the mantram, the devas who imbue it with power, the bhīja-aksharās of the manthram - all of these are inextricably Sanskritic and resist 'mere' translation.
Not to mention the elephant in the room: the belief that the sounds themselves matter.
It is one thing for people to not believe this – and say all that is bogus. But that’s exactly who ought not to drive this issue. Just who are we kidding when we pretend the ‘pOtris’ are wholesome equivalents. The pretension smacks of so much bad-faith that it is risible
As தொண்டரடிப்பொடியாழ்வார் would say
உள்ளுவார் உள்ளிற்று எல்லாம் உடன் இருந்து அறிதி என்று
வெள்கிப் போய் என்னுள் நானே விலவு அற சிரித்திட்டேனே
By the same ‘customer satisfaction’ logic, next, we can expect archanai renderings in all 8th schedule languages including English. Why not? It is also a disruption of tradition. An even more democratic disruption, possibly.
“Ye Lord wielding the radiant discus, please deign to bless this gent who was born on the star-constellation of of Castor-Pollux ….."
The above archanai, dear reader, ought not to strike you as ridiculous at all.
Perhaps it does not. Then thou art bless't.
I am not one for conspiracy theories – not in the least because that is the Dravideologist’s stock in trade. But it is instructive to see this in conjunction with other recommendations in Justice A.K.Rajan’s report which is poised to drive more 'reform', all with the ostensible concern for democratising existing temple practices.
It is spectacularly superficial and egregiously biased, for what is supposed to be an expert-committee report.
It amplifies the bad-faith of Dravideological pamphleteers in politer language.
Some gems (sic)
- Āgamās were first in Tamil and translated into Sanskrit. The originals were lost in kadaRkōL (of course!)
- Smārthās are not idolators (as reference, the report quotes some defunct tripod pages type website). Therefore Smārthās ought not to be archakars.
- Random assertions based on a specious publication by the hallowed... Nakkeeran!
- Puerile assertions on Saivism, Vaishnavism without even the above bases.
This is the standard of the ‘official report’ the govt is leaning on!
But above all that, what I found to be the kicker was this:
(sic) ground survey shows the liturgical practices are lax in many places. Priests are incompetent and have secured positions through mere familial connections. However, instead of suggesting a rigorous standards to rectify that and pull-up socks what we suggest is: lower the bar!
Given we functionally populace seems to make do with incompetent priests now anyway, let us officially institutionalise a low bar!
A short crash-course type training should suffice for entry level priests i.e. this is not just about widening entry but also prescribing a dilution of standards: There should be no training from early youth in the scriptures. Only after 10th standard should students join priest training!
...and so on.
It is to be read to be believed!
Given this background context, one can see the direction of the thrust of what the Tamil archanai means: a recommendation for dilution of liturgy-learning by a conscious effort to disincentivize rigour.
And given how things are, very few will find it concerning. And insofar as it is couched in the language of inclusiveness and reform it will find significant purchase even among the well-intentioned but ill-informed.
And as we veer towards the general consensus of considering the temple, not as an experience to partake in, but as an institution which ought to cater to the customer, we can rest assured that no tradition will remain immutable, if it comes in the way of pleasing the irate customer. None.
Fun times ahead!
Good nindastuthi, Amen.
ReplyDeleteBut.
1. How do you say that there is no liturgy in tamil? We dravidians have tonne-loads of it. Have you ever seen how we lay wreaths on decaying human flesh, garland statues with reverence, rattle out and thank all the folks on the dias in our meetings? Each and every one of them activities and more - do more than enough justice to our dravidian religious phenomenon and liturgy thereof.
2. Our dravidian liturgy represents our communal response to and participation in the sacred activities of rent seeking, idle idol worship, through activities involving skyhigh praise, thanksgiving, remembrance, supplication or repentance... all in appropriate doses wherever required and are applicable. (GST extra)
3. If ours is NOT liturgy, what else is, dammit?
4. As for the rest of your rant on the essential mindlessness of AKR committee, all I can say is that, all problems of the world regarding Services (divine or otherwise) can be solved by designing & enforcing suitable SLAs.
5. At least in future, try to be constructive in your critiques.
-sgd-
Orgynizing Secretary
Anti-bigotry Liberation Front
Lemuria
:-)
DeleteThere was some vox-pop nonsense on youtube where they were randomly asking people about the அன்னைத்தமிழில் அர்ச்சனை change. Everyone was saying a variant of 'புரியுது, நல்லாருக்கு'
One நமக்கெதுக்கு வம்பு, மாமா was quaintly quoting: அன்றிவ் வுலகம் அளந்தாய் அடிபோற்றி....அப்படின்னு ஆண்டாளே பாடியிருக்காளே.
Adadada!
A forsaking of traditions is one thing, speciously defending it as something having sanction is quite another. What a deft transition to a new regime.
'புல்லாங்குழல் கொடுத்த மூங்கில்களே' என்று மக்கள் மொழியில் நெக்குருகிய கண்ணதாசன் வரிகளைப் பாடி அர்ச்சனை செய்யலாம்.
அர்ச்சகரை பாவிக்காமல், பக்தகோடிகளே அபிஷேகம் செய்ய்யலாம் (வட ஆலயங்களில் கூட திராவிட சமத்துவம் திகழும்போது, இங்கு மட்டும் இடைத்தரகர் எதற்கு?).
நாமே பூ தூவி வழிபடுவது தான் தமிழர் பண்பாடு .
பூ + செய் --> பூசெய் --> த்ராவிட பாஷாபாஸ்கரர் பாவாணர் சொல்லியிருக்கிறார் (I kid you not).
அதுவும் இன்ன பூ என்ற ஆரியக் கெடுபிடி எல்லாம் இல்லை. அவரவர் திணையில் விளையும் பூவை வைத்து வழிபடலாம். திணைமயக்கம் வரின் வாழைப்பூவும் ஓக்கே தான்.
பக்தர்கள் விருப்பமே முக்கியம். மக்களுக்காக தான் கோவிலாக்கும்.
'கோயில் ஒழுகு' என்பது ஏதொ plumbing manual தானாக்கும்.
Sorry baas. That is not the elephant in the room. You are caught up in religiosity. There is a good deal of politics within religion. If you see that, you will be better even with the remaining actual religion part within religion. If you see the political part within religion, or, worse, the political part of politics itself as religion, you will grapple with that very religion part of religion (the small personal, ethics, value, etc part) which you are tying to uphold.
ReplyDeleteI have tried to bring out the elephant in the room in a comment in this vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQaVMeYZjvM
You know why Im very hyper about this? This is a one small teeny weeny chapter in nagarathar-vellalars' century old brahmin hate.
But, pazha karuppiah has said... பெரியார் ஒன்னு சொல்லுவாராம். அந்த மாதிரியெல்லாம் அவரால மட்டும் தான் யோசிக்க முடியுமாம். "நாமெல்லாம் பூசாரி ஆகிட்டா பப்பானெல்லாம் நாத்திகவாதி ஆகி விடுவான்"ஆம்.
See at 13th min here -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_oM-eKDoTg
so basically, nagarathar-vellalar (dravidian) movement has created a pretext yesterday, to laugh and make people laugh at brahmins tomorrow.
"நீங்கள் பூசாரி ஆவதுக்கு பிறகு இல்ல டா.. நீங்க செய்து வருவதற்க்கு...அதை செய்வதும் முன்பே நாத்திகவாதி ஆகிவிட்டோம்"னு சொல்ல பாப்பானை தயார் பண்ணலாம் னு நானும் பாத்துட்டு இருக்கேன். சும்மா சொல்ல கூடாது..தமிழ் பாப்பான் மாதிரி ஒரு ஜடம் பார்க்க முடியாது.
They are *SO* blind to lemurian games.
The elephants in the room are
1. Those 'brahmins' are vellalas with poonool, to begin with. Right from 1939.
2. Trustees are the final authority to change internal matters, whether it be appointment of priests and other ulthurai servants, or lang or whatver. Podhu Dikshitars of thillai are nominal trustees. Check out the first vid from 28-30. The usual "money got from thillai temple after hrce intervened" myth. 'Brahmins' access the temple money in none of the hrce temples, not even in thillai. But then, these myths are spread by people who know, and who put those 'brahmins' there. Chettiar + Mudaliar + Pillai
The final authority is the trustee. So if they wanted to change something, they needn't have brought a law. They only needed to tell the trustees to change. But then, the trustee and the creators of this dravidian worldview, and brahmin hate, are the same guys - chettiar + mudaliar +pillai. they are deliberately making this elaborate and sticky in order to milk its political potential, and to set up brahmin hate.
3. Mudaliar Kazhagam only abolished hereditariness in 1970. In 2006, they brought an act which read "any hindu can be a priest". You saw the verdict of seshammal. If you wanted to do it, how would you word it? wouldn't you attack the exact sections of the exact agamas? In truth,the vellalas who infused brahmin hate into dravidian movements never wanted to do this. They only needed a pretext and excuse to vechu senjufy brahmins. they have done that to their hearts content, and are creating a puratchi. Just like how chettiar + mudaliar did in 1919 by translating manusmriti...they are creating a puratchi purely with their narrative. they didn't change reality. They create an illusion of something, and contrast it with reality. its sad that even you, who seem to be smart and knowledgeable, miss these elephants.
Vignesh,
DeleteI am going to come across as 'holier than thou' and you are likely going to be annoyed. While I have no fief to tone-police you in your blog I think I can point out what I am uncomfortable about when you post here.
Suggesting that 'people belonging to Group X are congenitally/environmentally predisposed to evil' is bigotry and that is beyond me.
I am all for critiquing the viciously evil Dravideology. Exposing it for it being built on blatant falsehoods. Showing how it rides on the bigotry barely latent even in so many seemingly decent non-Brahmin Tamils in SocMed. I am all for calling out every single leader of the movement - from 'Grand Elder' to 'Big Scholar' as revolting bigots.
All that is criticizing the ideology(!) and urging people who make the conscious choice of supporting it - whatever be their stated reasons - to give pause and reflect.
But what I stop short of doing is, suggesting that someone born into a group is predisposed to bigotry and hate. Even if you are not suggesting a congenital disposition and just saying that they are incentivized to subscribe and propagate hatred, you can see how similar it sounds to the Dravida bigotry itself.
If you are a Dravideologist you are a bigot no two ways about it.But being a Dravideologist is a choice, it is not an accident of birth. To me it is vitally important to maintain this difference.
For instance when you talk about the same group actually populating both sides of the archakar debate, you come across making it look like there was active ரூம் போட்டு யோசித்தல் சதித்திட்டம் to populate both sides. You are unwilling to consider that the elites could have populated both sides through their own sincere ideological beliefs. I am not being stubbornly naive. But to think of any Group X as perforce flawed and evil - is a level of bad-faith that I simply cannot summon.
Again, I repeat: the understanding of these background incentives is hugely instructive in understanding the nature of the beast, as opposed to superficial takes (like, DMK is anti Hindu).
I am not even saying it is strategically unproductive. It would be presumptive to consider one's stances to have any productive outcomes. I am much too pessimistic. I merely restrict to what would be 'proper' even to oneself. Hence I detest bigotry as a response to bigotry. Hence I am interested in questions like 'agamam say' when I also do see your argument that, that is a mere academic curiosity and doesn't engage with the political realities.
I confine myself to my curiosities for a bunch of reasons.
When I have some more time, I will try to respond to a couple of specific points either here or on your blog.