(Source: https://threader.app/thread/890124547244122112)
Felt like re-reading an old judgement: https://tinyurl.com/y9pzm28b This judgement is not without problems & more than anything bears out the inherent flaws of the constitution. Nonetheless, it was a significant victory that was won for ALL Agamika temples by the Adishaiva priestsA remarkable feature of tamil shaivam and of the broader tamil bhakti movement for which I am yet to observe a parallel elsewhere is the veneration of the shaiva priesthood and the fact that this high veneration was given a canonical status. There may be a parallel in tamil vaiSNava literature - but I’m uncertain. But as far as I know, such an admiration for the priesthood as a category of devotees is not to be found elsewhere.
There are two distinct classes of shaiva priests in drAviDam: 1. the dIkSita-s & 2. Adishaivas/shivavipras.
dIkSita
The dIkSita-s reside in cidambaram, also known as tillai and their sole purpose in life is to serve the famous sabhAnAyaka svAmi. The dIkSita-s do not follow Agamas. They have their own vidhi which they hold to be laid down by pata~njali himself. In the tamil shaiva compositions, they are known as tillai vAzh andanar - the andanar (brAhmaNas) who reside (vAzh) at cidambaram (tillai).
In the tiru-toNDar-togai, tiru=shRi, auspicious honorific, toNDar=servitors/dAsas togai=list written by shaiva saint-hymnist sundarar, it is the tillai vAzh andanar who are the very first to be named in this list of the servants of shiva. Sundarar hymns that he is the servant of the servants of tillai vAzh andanar!!
When nambiyANDar nambi (a brAhmaNa who discovered the precious songs of the three-the child-saint j~nAnasambandhar, sundarar & appar) in a secret room in the great temple of tillai after a vision of ganesha, set out to compose tiru-toNDar tiruv-andAdi (andAdi is Skt antAdi) on the 63 devotees of tamil shaivam, again the first ones to be mentioned are the dIkSita-s of tillai.
Finally, the famous periyapurANam (big purANa) chronicling the nAyanmArs’ lives (shivabhaktas) also begins likewise.
Adishaiva
Apart from the dIkSitas, the Adishaiva-s (known as shivavipras & shivAcAryas) are also honored as a class of shivabhaktas in their own right. sundarar as well as all those who followed him praise the AdishaivAcAryas as those who touch the divine body three times a day- muppozutum (mu-three, pozutu-times) tirumEni (tiru-divine mEni-body) tINDuvOr (tINDu-to touch, -vor: plural).
The tiruvandAdi speaks of how Adishaivas offer arcana in accordance with the Agamas by their intellect. A commentary on it for those interested: here. As well as sEkkizAr: here. sEkkizAr translates into tamil the terms specifically used to address them: mudaRsaivar (mudal-first, the first shaivas, Adishaivas)… and in the next verse, uses the term, “shivavEdiyar”, with the same meaning as shivavipras.
What remains interesting is that the author of the periyapurANam which superseded previous tamil shaiva hagiological works, sEkkizAr+as well as the oduvArs who continue to sing above hymns even today (you can catch an authentic oduvAr rendition in all the links above) are all non-brAhmaNas; a testimony to the positive relationship the different groups in these temples had with one another.
The reason I quote all this is because it is, by no means, common. The value attached to the priesthood & its rituals is something specialNot too far from the dramila land; a few centuries after the end of a glorious era where tamil bhakti & Agamika ritualism complemented not too long after the tragic fall of the cOzhas who patronized veda, Agama and tamil bhakti, not too long after a historical peak where a noble-minded kSatra, pious brAhmaNas & poets of other classes came together as a single community.
Rebel poison
Not too long after this sacred era came a group which despised rituals & looked down on Agamika temples whose carefully conducted rites were the subjects of pride of the shaivas. Like an upstart, like an uncultured brute, it spoke, giving shivabhakti a different meaning. It claimed that the vedas were the lies of brahma & that the sages of the Agamas were fools. There was no humility or discipline in it. It threatened to conceal the veda with a leather sheath and cut off the hands of Agamas! It claimed that mAtA sarasvatI wrote lies as shAstras! Even today and even here, we see the effects of that poison. A hatred for veda, a condescension of Agamika temples as sterile. How ironic that those who speak of universalism & broad-mindedness++are always the one to speak ill of the rites cherished by others?
The nAyanmArs, praised alike by the brAhmaNas sundarar & nambi or the non-brAhmaNa sEkkizAr, all of whom who upheld orthodoxy, included all kinds of devotees. Whether it be the great nandanAr who made temple drums out of leather for a living with a heart full of devotion or whether it be sAkya nAyanmAr (who converted from bauddham) who, not finding flowers, threw stones at shiva with devotion!! This brand of shaivam accommodated all jAtis & honored alike priests & exemplary lay devotees. This was NOT the case for the other brand. What an irony that the orthodox brand was ultimately the truly accommodating one while the “universal” one was angry & anti-ritualist.
This may touch a raw nerve for some of those who got it. But some truths can’t be left unsaid. Why important to think about such strands in our own religion?? The ancient pagan world had many such priesthoods. And like pot-making, soldiering or trading, “priestcraft” was seen as a craft, art & way of life; albeit a highly venerable one. The pagans’ memory of their priests, who were often the great, venerable storehouses of wisdom, drastically changed at the hands of abrahmas. Such viral strands need not originate from the same source but may develop in parallel, across space and timeIf Hindus begin to open their minds & take comparative notes from history, they may notice the common patterns in strategies. As in, how counter-religions (whether abrahma, “Made in India” or abrahma-local partnership) try to undermine organic religions.