Internal evidence account

The internal evidence account is the story of the Life of Saint Arunagirinathar told from Arunagirinathar, himself. The details of his life have been drawn from an in-depth study and analysis of Arunagirinathar’s various works (Thiruppugal, Kanthar Anubhuthi, Kanthar Alangaaram, Kandar Anthaathi, Thiru Vaguppu, Vel Virutham, Mayil Virutham, Sevval Virutham, and Thiru-vElu-kootru-irukai) wherein his personal experiences, confessions, and truths were revealed. The internal evidence account is likely the most accurate version of the story of Arunagirinathar’s life because it is told from the perspective of Arunagirinathar himself. One must keep in mind that the other two versions of Arunagirinathar’s life, namely the traditional account and historical account, are more susceptible to the personal biases of the story-teller and historian, respectively.

[NOTE: The in-dented information that follows hereon after is a collection of references used by the author to give the internal evidence account of Arunagirinathar’s life — either supporting or disproving facts about the Saint’s life.]

The internal evidence account of Saint Arunagirinathar’s life is based on Rao Bahadur V.S. Chengalvaraya Pillai’s Tamil work, “Arunagirinathar: Varalaarum Noolaaraychiyum (Arunagirinathar: Life and research on his works),” published in the year 1947. Our revered and scholarly Pillai Avl, has done a tremendous work, a novel and original thought of his, in codifying the “Murugavel Panniru Thirumurai” corresponding to the “Saiva Panniru Thirumurai,” for which we are indebted to him. According to his research based on internal evidences of the Thiruppugal and other works of Arunagirinathar, the life of the saint, in his above work, is thus:

Apart from the fact that Arunagiri lived in Thiruvannamalai during the time of Pravuda Deva Maharaja, who ruled that territory in 1450 A.D., (already mentioned in “historical account”), no internal evidences are available as to say anything definite about Arunagiri’s caste, his parents, and his early life.

Arunagiri was acquainted, even from his boyhood, with the earlier Tamil works, such as the Thevaara, Thirumanthiram, Thirumurugaatruppadai, Thirukkural, etc. He had the skill and capacity to compose poems and he was a devotee of Lord Murugan.

As fate would have it, Arunagiri fell a victim to the evil traits of courtesans and lost all his property in debauchery. Utilizing his talents of composing extempore songs, he earned wealth only to please his paramours. He was finally over-powered by poverty and many diseases took heavy toll of him, and he felt ashamed over his own plight.

Realizing his condition and also the meritorious deeds of his earlier lives, an elderly pious person appeared before Arunagiri and advised him to do penance and contemplate on the six-faced Lord Shanmukha. But, Arunagiri paid no heed to this saintly instruction and wasted his life for some more time, only to be ridiculed by his kinsmen and townsmen.

But, time is a great healer. The time for fruition of his past meritorious deeds approached and his mental attitude, too, underwent a change. He repented for his ill-spent life and for not having acted up to the advice of the pious person. He, therefore, offered up a prayer to Lord Murugan, sat near the big tower (Gopuram) of the Arunachaleshwarar temple at Thiruvannamalai and commenced sadhana in right earnest, but to no effect. He then decided upon a plan, that putting an end to his life, and to this end he climbed the temple-tower and dropped himself down.

Lord Murugan, whose eternal slave he was, held Arunagiri in His arms and saved him from death. The Lord then gave Arunagiri His Darshana – being surrounded by His devotees, veda-chants resounding, and dancing of His peacock. The Lord addressed him as “Arunagiri-Naathar,” showered His side-glance grace, granted feet-touch, wrote His six-lettered Mantra on Arunagiri’s tongue, and imparted knowledge of the Tamil language in its three aspects of prose, poetry, and drama. He also gave Arunagirinathar a japa-mala (rosary), removed his Mala (karmic dirt) and Maya (ignorance), gave Mowna-Upadesa, taught him the different Yoga-paths (techniques), imparted upadesa on jnana-marga, and revealed the highest secret of Pranava or Omkara. The Lord then commanded Arunagiri to sing His praises and, when the latter pleaded his ignorance, the Lord Himself gave the first line as “muthai-tharu…” and ordained Arunagirinathar to sing, thus, which, with the grace of the Lord, Arunagiri completed in no time.

Finally, Arunagirinathar attained the highest state of Sayujya — the Advaitic realization of being one with the Almighty Lord Skanda (Parabrahman). Thus, did Arunagirinathar live a glorious life of God-consciousness, exhibiting many a super-human deed, lifting people from the quagmire of samsara (cycle of birth-death-rebirth) and planting them firmly in the awareness of God; and the Saint continues to guide seeking souls to perfection, lending them the needed support, even today. May the grace of Saint Arunagirinathar be upon us all, always!
It is worthwhile to record that our revered and late Sri V.S. Chengalvaraya Pillai has quoted authorities for each and every one of the facts mentioned above from the nook and corner of Arunagirinathar’s works and also from other sources, which all reveal Arunagirinathar’s high scholarship, deep knowledge and devotion to God. However, it is astonishing to note that Pillai has knowingly omitted certain facts, which of course, he has admitted in the very preface itself. He says:

As we cannot with any certainty say that the printed Thiruppugal songs are Arunagirinathar’s own words; and as it was the wont with the Tamil saints to depict themselves as being caught up in Maya, though really unaffected by it, for the sake of teaching to the world, I have consciously omitted even certain internal evidences afraid of quoting them as referring to Arunagirinathar’s life, as for instance:

1. In Thiruppugal verses***** 392, 752, 1301, though Arunagirinathar’s words are clear to prove that he led a life (of Grihasta) with wife, children, sister-in-law and other relatives, yet hesitating to boldly state as such I have omitted the same.

2. (a) As regards Arunagirinathar’s caste, he condemns himself in T. No. 26***** as a “low one who avowedly consumes meat.” From this, can one say he belongs to a meat-eating caste? And again, in verse 31 of the Kanthar Anthaathi, Arunagirinathar himself says, “O Brahmins, who mercilessly kill goats and do Yagas or sacrifices!” Is he, who thus condemns Brahmins (of their acts of killing of animals), one belonging to the meat-eating caste?

(b) Further, in his work, “Sasanat Tamizhkavi Charitam,” Rao Saheb M. Raghava Iyengar refers to Arunagirinathar as “Sarva-Bhauma Dindima Kavi,” “Ashta-Bhasha Paramesvara,” etc. Now, if we propose to claim Arunagirinathar to be a Brahmin because there is a lot of the usage of Sanskrit language in his Tamil works, (it cannot be; since) we are led to think that one who had obtained “countless powers” due to the special grace of Lord Murugan, should the use of Sanskrit language present any difficulty?
*****T. No. refer to the Thiruppugal numbers in the author’s work, “Murugavel Panniru Thirumurai.”

To avoid these confusions, I have stated that Arunagirinathar’s caste is unknown, being satisfied that he is a great Tapasvin and a Knower of Truth, concludes Sri V.S.C. Pillai.***
***As I had no occasion to study the Thiruppugal songs earlier, when I read this preface of his, I was eager to have a first-hand knowledge of what Arunagirinathar says in the songs referred to in the preface as well as in all the other Thiruppugal songs. I, therefore, felt it was necessary to glance through them, at least, and in doing so many facts were revealed.

Now, let us consider the above points.

1. A free rendering of T. No. 392 would be:

Wife ridiculing, all townsmen ridiculing, all women-fold ridiculing; father and relatives;

Dejected in mind, I also dejected in heart, all people thoughtlessly using condemning words and speaking low of me;

Darkness enveloping my pondering mind, I thought “Is this the happiness of my having taken birth?”;

And reflecting thus daily, when I decided to cast the soul off from this body – those feet that you granted then, O Lord grant me again;

The song begins with the words, “wife-ridiculing.” While the ridicule of his wife, father, relatives, etc. is the cause of Arunagirinathar’s taking a decision to put an end to his life, Sri Pillai has taken the effect as an authentic information but ignored the very cause itself. In a song of this type, to take some facts as relevant and cast away some others as irrelevant, and that too, to ignore the cause-factor and accept the effect, neither seems to be rational nor brings soundness to one’s research.

Moreover, the facts that Arunagirinathar decided to end his life, that he knew the different earlier Tamil works, etc. are supported by a few authorities only. While these facts can be taken as relevant to Arunagirinathar’s life, why not also take that Arunagirinathar was married, had a wife, children, mother, father, and relatives – a fact that Arunagirinathar says in unambiguous terms in not less than 30 places, i.e., in his Thiruppugal poems as well as in his other works.

Further, it is said that it was the wont of great Tamil saints and poets to take upon themselves the shortcomings of the masses, repent for such low acts and invoke the grace of God to condone their evils and shower His blessings; and this method they adopted as an effective means of transforming people, as the poems are given in first person, capable of touching the hearts of people when they recite them. It is, therefore, held by many that the shortcomings depicted by Arunagirinathar in Thirupugal songs need not necessarily refer to him and should not be taken literally. Sri V.S.C. Pillai also contributes to this view, and there is some truth in it. But he seems to have forgotten the important point that this view is advanced primarily to relieve Arunagirinathar of such evils as debauchery, etc., and not so much to deny that he was a householder; because while prostitution is an evil and sin, Grihasthasrama (state of householder) is not an evil, crime, or shortcoming. On the other hand, Grihasthasrama is a praise-worthy stage of life, more so according to the Tamil scriptures. It is, therefore, really ununderstandable that, while contributing to the above view, Sri Pillai should accept that Arunagirinathar indulged in prostitution but not be prepared to accede that he led a householder’s life. When remote and vague internal evidences are given due authenticity to support even minor facts, what is the harm in accepting that Arunagirinathar led a family life when there are umpteen evidences for the same? Will it diminish Arunagirinathar’s greatness? Or can we add an inch to his greatness in ignoring this fact? Perhaps to accept that he had wife and children might lend support to the acceptance of that fact that Arunagirinathar’s son has referred about Arunagirinathar in one of his Sanskrit works and that a descendant of Arunagirinathar has donated for the construction of an altar for him at his native village Mullandiram, – facts which are proved by historians based on inscriptions, etc. (as seen earlier)! Is it not strange that he who, setting aside the traditional and historical accounts, has set forth to write the life of Arunagirinathar based mainly on internal evidences should ignore certain vital facts of life so conspicuously disclosed in his works!

Here we can have a useful and pertinent diversion to see how far this view is right – the view that what Arunagirinathar has portrayed of himself in the Thiruppugal songs do not refer to him, that he never led an evil or sensuous life (including a family life), and that his early life was pure and unblemished.

It is true that great men take upon themselves the evils of the general masses, and Arunagirinathar, too, has done so in some Thiruppugal songs with the intention of educating and reforming the evil-doers. This can be evident from such songs as T. No. 121: “Seeralasadan”; T. No. 180: “Thitamili”; T. No. 183 “Pancha Paadagan”; T. No. 576: “Pulaiyanaana”; T. No. 611: “Avaguna Viraganai”; T. No. 291: “Thaakkamarukkoru”; T. No. 363: “Maalaasai Kopa”; etc., wherein he condemns himself in general terms – as a sinner, an egotistic person, a fool, a good-for-nothing person, an uncultured, an unlettered, etc. , etc., – and prays to the Lord for His grace. Such poems are depictions, no doubt, because the evils mentioned in these are of a general nature. Also, there are poems which can prove that he was well-versed in the earlier works of the Tamil and Sanskrit languages, that he was cultured, that he had practised Tapas in his earlier births, etc., all which will be contradicted if the above verses are to be taken literally. Since the condemnation in these Thiruppugal songs is of a general nature, we can easily take these poems as depictions and not literally as referring to himself.