ABSTRACT

The Irupattunålåyirappa†i and the I†u commentaries were both produced around the same time in the thirteenth century, the Irupattunålåyirappa†i by Periyavåccå-n Pi¬¬ai and the I†u Muppattår-åyirappa†i by Va†akkut Tiruv⁄ti Pi¬¬ai. These two åcåryas were contemporaries and disciples of Nampi¬¬ai, the direct disciple of Nañc⁄yar in the lineage of the Teπkalai teachers. The few historical facts which we have available to us from the hagiographies (particularly the Teπkalai År-åyirappa†i Kuruparamparåpirapåvam) indicate that Nampi¬¬ai’s theological views underpin both these commentaries. In fact, the Û†u is considered a literal recording of Nampi¬¬ai’s oral discourses by his disciple and is often called Nampi¬¬ai’s commentary within the Çr⁄vai‚~ava tradition. Naµpi¬¬ai had three disciples who wrote commentaries on the TVM, and it is instructive to see what happened to each of the commentaries in view of the fact that only two survived. In its section on the life of Naµpi¬¬ai, the År-åyirappa†i Kuruparamparåpirapåvam tells us that the first disciple to write a commentary was the grandson of K¨rattå vå-n, Na†uvil Tiruv⁄tippi¬¬ai Bha††ar. Bha††ar took down every word of Naµpi¬¬ai’s oral discourses at night, after he had heard them during the day. He then produced a commentary as long as the Mahåbhårata and presented it to Naµpi¬¬ai, on completion. The latter, mortified that his disciple had written down his words without explicitly seeking his prior permission, destroyed the commentary.1 Soon after this incident, says the hagiography, Naµpi¬¬ai asked his favorite disciple Periyavåccå-n Pi¬¬ai to write a commentary on the TVM. The latter fulfilled his teacher’s wishes and wrote one the length of the Råmåya~a.2 Another beloved disciple of Naµpi¬¬ai, Va†akku Tiruv⁄ti Pi¬¬ai, also took down the words of his teacher faithfully without seeking his permission and presented it to him. Naµpi¬¬ai’s reaction this time was different. He found the commentary beautifully written, neither too long nor too short and praised his disciple’s work. Yet, because it had been written without his permission he confiscated it.3 The hagiography privileges this last commentary: it concludes with the re-discovery of the Û†u by other disciples of Naµpi¬¬ai and the securing of its reputation as the greatest of the commentaries on the Bhagavadvi‚ayam.4