Temple Travails – Part 1, Thirukkachur
Prompted by prabhukrishs' report on the Thirukkacchur temples, I decided to visit these temples this morning. For starters, I must say that the directions that were given by Prabhu were spot on, to the kilometer mark. Thirukkacchur is close to Maraimalai Nagar(Ford factory). For the exact directions, see here.
As advised by Prabhu we called the temple prient on our way there and were greeted by him as we enetered the temple. The temple bore the party flags of three political parties, PMK, DMDk, and I could not identify the third one. The first temple, which is the Tyagaraja Swami temple has a kolam(water pond) on the outside. The breeze that blows across, the peace in the air, the old fashioned houses on the outside(with the comfortable thinnais)-all made it a perfect setting.
We were the only visitors to the temple, which probably gives some idea of its popularity and flourish. Don't mistake me, it was a beautiful temple, and the one I liked the most amongst the three that we visited. The utsava murthy(roughly translatable as 'function deity') is Tyagaraja Swamy, while Kachapeswarar is the main deity. The name Kachapeswarar, for Lord Siva, is a result of the belief that Lord Vishnu worshipped Lord Siva at this very place in the form of a turtle, Kachapa=turtle(in Sanskrit). The temple had no electricity supply today and later did we learn that there is no power supply from 9-5 every Saturday.
After a brief, but comprehensive history of the temple, which dates back to 1000 years or so, the priest performed the archanai for the only 4 people in the temple. As the priest was telling us the story, we learnt many informative details. Sundarar(One of the Nayanmars) had sung about this Lord in Thirukachur, the temple was built by Kulothunga Cholan, the practice of building RajaGopurams for temples, did not exist in his time and was later introduced by Rajaraja Cholan(Prabhu had mentioned this), this place is also referred to as Adi Kanchi, meaning its another form of Kanchipuram and the Siva temple there. And many more intricate details.
There are 3 temples, along a small hill here. The first one is the Tyagaraja Swamy temple, the second one is the Irunditteswarar temple and the third – Marundeeswarar temple. The second one, is not a temple per se, but there is a just the Siva Lingam here. You are bound to miss it if you go, look for the water tank on the right hand side as you go from Tyagaraja Swamy temple to the Marundeeswarar temple. The Siva Lingam is just below the water tank.
The Lord at Marundeeswarar temple, which is the topmost of the three, is believed to treat and cure any kind of disease. Marundu, meaning Medicine(in Tamil). The priest, Mr. Natraja Iyer came up from the first temple to this place to do the archanai for us. The lack of funds and manpower meant that only one round of pujai was performed at this temple(Oru Kaala pujai here and Rendu Kaala pujai at Tyagaraja Swamy temple).
This place is a must visit for temple visitors, especially if you like the age-old temples, which aren't overcrowded by numbers and overflooded by donations, as many others are. A friend of mine, an Iyengar, I should mention, set us thinking by asking this question, " If you were to name one supreme Siva temple in India, which one would it be?", or to rephrase it "What is the equivalent of say, Tirupathi(for Iyengars), for Iyers and Siva temples?"
I could not find a direct answer to this, though Chidambaram and Tanjavur came to my mind, and my mom even said Kailasam(Mt Kailash in the Himalayas). I began wondering about the reason for the absence of such a supreme temple equivalent for Lord Siva. Any answers?
For more information go here, and there are some pictures available here too.
Hi,
Nice to know you enjoyed this place. Next time, try visiting a temple called Thirupulivanam near Uthiramerur. 5 kms from Uthiramerur on the Uthiramerur-Kancheepuram road. You will really like it
F e r r a r i
May 21, 2006 at 7:34 pm
I am not very sure about it but once I had asked the very same question to a friend of mine. She said that it was due to some curse that Siva had.
Don’t remember the details though.
Bindu
May 22, 2006 at 8:43 am
@Bindu: by the curse you may be referring to Brahma. He was the one cursed by Lord Shiva, that he shall not have a temple, and shall not be worshipped in the idol form. In fact , there is only one temple in the world for Brahma ( in India, but not sure where).
The curse carried by Lord Shiva, is that he will be worshipped in the form of the lingam ( the male reproductive organ). He was cursed by one Rishi(not sure which one),who when on arriving at Mt. Kailash was not recieved with the respects due to him by Lord Shiva, as he was engaged in the act of love making with Parvati.
Hence the origin of the Shiva Lingam.
And I am the iyengar Rethas was talking abt.
Vivek
May 22, 2006 at 11:39 am
yes, most of what vivek said is right. I am not sure of the rishi names either. but there’s also another explanation of the Siva lingam, saying that lingam also means a ‘lamp’ or light, and the lingam can be deciphered to be a lamp too with a glowing flame. dont know how far this is true though.
rethas
May 22, 2006 at 11:55 am
Superb one. Should visit this temple..
I guess it’s Bhrigu Maharshi, who was out to figure out who was the best of the trimurthis. When he goes to Vishnu, Vishnu does not respond to him too. Angered by that, Bhrigu Maharshi kicks Vishnu on the chest (the residence of Mahalakshmi!), on which Vishnu apologises for his negligence and asks if Bhrigu Maharshi’s foot hurt! But I guess Lakshmi curses Bhrigu or some such thing thereafter…
There are dozens of examples of Vishnu worshipping Shiva and Shiva worshipping Vishnu, and furthermore stories that both are one and the same. See http://moralstories.wordpress.com/2006/05/29/story-of-shiva-and-vishnu/ for example.
Can’t help recollecting Vivek (the comedian!) in Saamy, when he would quote “Hariyum Sivanum Onnu! Ariyadhavan Vaayila Mannu!” and taunt the people who were fighting over an elephant!
Karthik
June 4, 2006 at 1:50 pm
I am getting confused. How can a mere mortal curse an immortal? Are these parables or history?
Bindu
June 4, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Hi, can any one have list of ancient siva temples in and around chennai ? If so can you please pass on to my mail masi_bala@yahoo.com ? — Thanks … Balaji
Balaji
April 20, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Hi Vivek,
Greetings from another Vivek. I stumbled across your blog posting accidentally ( while searching for shiva temples in Tamilnadu ). Your take on the shiva legend is fundamentally correct. Lord Shiva takes the form of the towering pillar of light to show Brahma and Vishnu that he is Infinite. Vishnu understands this but Brahma lies and therefore is cursed that he ( Brahma ) shall have no temples to him ( although there are Brahma temples in N. India – Pushkar in Rajasthan for example ).
You should understand this legend as part of the intense wrangling between Shaivites, Vaishanavas and Smarthas. The legend is mentioned in Linga Puranam – a shaivite purana. The Shaiva puranas portray Lord Shiva as the Supreme God and others ( such as Vishnu, Brahma etc. ) as mere mortals. Similarly, the Vaishnava Puranas portray Vishnu as Supreme and Shiva, Brahma etc. as mere mortals. So, who is Supreme is largely dependent on whose scripture you read? Ain’t religion grand?
BTW, a couple of minor corrections.
1) Lingam is NOT a phallic symbol. Lingam represents the eternal light -
in the form of a traditional oil lamp.
2) Iyers are NOT shaivites. Iyers are Smartha Brahmins ( Smarthaism is a
distinct hindu traditions just like Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Shaktaism etc. )
. The Smartha tradition is an Orthodox Vedic tradition. However, unlike
other sectarian traditions which only consider a single Vedic deity ( like
Shiva or Vishnu ) to be “God” and will only worship a single “God”, Smarthas
consider all Vedic deities to be different manifestations of the eternal
Brahman mentioned in the Vedas. Therefore, Smarthas worship all Vedic
dieties. Tamil-speaking Smarthas are called “Iyers” ( a honorific title in
Tamil meaning “Sir” ) – a title largely earned due to their prolific learning in
the traditional texts, namely, the Vedas and other Shastras.
A smartha can be a devotee of any God. However, as Tamilnadu has a
strong Shaivite culture, most Tamil-speaking smarthas worship Shiva as
the Supreme God. I hope this is clear.
Please blog about your other temple visits.
Regards,
-Vivek.
Vivek Ganesan
July 24, 2007 at 4:06 am
Well, the equivalent of Thirupathi is the whole Himalayas for Shiva and Thiruvannamalai in Tamilnadu. Luckily, Thirupathi didn’t come with chennai state when there was a partition for Andhra. Otherwise, it would have met the same state like Thiruvannamalai, Palani etc., with completely unorthodox and unholy people doing the temple administration.
Raju
August 21, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Good one…
Saravanan
March 21, 2008 at 3:32 pm
the god at tirupathi lord venkateshwara is himself shiva not vishnu the alamelu manga is also with him only ,its not vishnu idol as its told all the stories are conconuated for past 600 yrs the fall of chola empire led to many stories written by vaishnavas iyengars the real lord is shiva i can proove
krishna
August 13, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Dear Swarna Rethas,
Hello! Your assumption that Snarthas are Shaivaites is wrong. Just because we adorn our body with bhasmam (sacred ash), that doesn’t mean Shiva is our tutelary diety. Bhasmam/Vibhuti has a vedic significance. In the days of yore, Shiva bhakthas, Vishnu bhaktas et al… adorned their bodies with vibhuti, as it was the left over ash of yagnas and homas. Even today, Madhvas and Sri Vaishnavas (Iyengars) use bhasmam on certain high days. Later on, to distinguish themselves Ramanuja introduces white clay and red srichoornam. Gopi chandanam is permitted in the Smartha sampradayam. In our Sandhyavandanam, our namavali is all Hari namas. The Preethyartham is “Shri Parameshwara” as Shiva is the witness to all that goes on this world. Shiva as Dakshinamurthy is a Rama bhaktha and hence to highlight the importance of Lord Rama we’ve adopted this preeethyartham. It is the Smarthas who have contribued greatly to the Vaishnava bhakthi sampradayam. Jayadeva, Narayana Teertha, Bhadrachala Ramadasa, Thyagaraja, Bodendhara Saraswathi were all Smarthas. In many kritis of his, Thyagaraja frequently refers to Shiva as a Rama bhaktha, as one who knows the sweetness of Rama nama. We don’t have many temples like the Iyengars, however Tirupathi is a Vaishnava Smartha shrine. Badrinath has a Vishnu temple which was established by Adi Shankara. Kanchi Ekambereswar is managed by the Kanchi mutt. To anser your question, Chidambaram and Madurai are perhaps the holiest pilgrimage spots for Shaivaites (not Smarthas). Smarthas by their very nature should worship at all the temples, but alas! there are a few who are fanatics.
Ragavendran R
January 20, 2009 at 6:11 am
Most of the Shiva temples follow Shaiva Siddhantham while in theory and practice, we belong to Advaitam.
Ragavendran R
January 20, 2009 at 6:13 am
There are a lot of misconceptions regarding the nature of the supreme deity. The VedAntA traditions hold VishnU alone as Parabrahman, and not Siva.
Sriman NArAyaNa is parabrahman. He is the supreme deity eulogised by the Upanishads, described and glorified in the IthihAsAs and PurAnAs, and He is the One whose superlative kalyAna gunAs are gloriously revealed by the azhwArs in the tamil veda.
In order to ascertain who Brahman is, Bhagavad RAmAnujA resorts to first, the Sath VidyA of the Chandogya Upanishad. ‘Sath’ is the deity that existed in the beginning. It is the innerself of everything, both in the sUkshma state (before Srushti) and SthUla state (after srushti). This ‘Sath’ is the same as ‘AthmA’, both terms in the Upanishads connoting Brahman.
Bhagavad RAmAnujA then avers that this Sath, AthmA, Brahman. etc…all these terms are common nouns denoting the Supreme Reality known appropriately as ‘NArAyaNa’. This is because ‘Brahman’ is a term that means ‘that which imparts greatness, and is great by itself’…a common noun. AthmA is also a common noun. However, ‘NArAyaNa’ is a proper noun denoting a specific entity and as such, can denote only the supreme reality.
The other terms like AtmA, Brahman, can apply to even JivAtma. The Taittiriya NArAyaNa terms Prakrti as ‘Brahman’. However, ‘NArAyaNa’ refers to only the supreme reality (NArAyaNa parabrahma tattvam NArAyaNa parah:…)
Now, we also have statements in the Veda, such as ‘Siva is Supreme’ or ‘We worship Indra of great fame’, or ‘We have Agni as the prime deity’.
These statements do not indicate that these dieties are supreme. The AntaryAmi BrAhmanA of the BrihadAranyakA Upanishad states that the Universe and individual selves are the body of Brahman. NammazhwAr’s pasuram ‘Adiyen UllAn, Udal UllAn’ also mentions the same thing.
If we say ‘Jack’, then two entities are denoted ‘Jack’ – Jack’s body, and the AtmA, which is called Jack. Similarly, if we say ‘Siva’ or ‘Agni’, it denotes the devata agni or siva as the BODY, and ultimately, NArAyaNa as the innermost self.
Hence, if Sruti says ‘SivA is Supreme’, it means, ‘NArAyaNa, who has Siva as His body, and who is the inner Self of SivA, is Supreme’.
This interpretation is necessary because in the Satapatha BrAhmanA, Siva says that he was born of karma and hence, is a JivA. The text calls Rudra as ‘anapahatapApmA’ meaning ‘one who is not cleansed of karma’, whereas SubalA states that NArAyaNa is ‘apahatapApmA’, ie, ‘one who is untouched by karma’.
Indra, AGni and VarunA are shown to possess ego in KenOpanishad, which means they cannot be Brahman. Agni is said to be the lowest deva as well in the Rg Veda.
In addition, the statement of the MahOpanishad ‘Eko ha vai NArAyaNa aseet, Na Brahma, Na Isana… state that Brahma and Siva (Isana) were not present before Srushti, indicating that they were in sUkshma form, as the body of NArAyaNa, who only was present (Eko ha vai NArAyaNa…).
Hence, if we have one statement saying ‘Rudra is born of Karma’ and another saying ‘Rudra is supreme’, obviously, it is a contradiction to assume that Rudra is supreme. The correct interpretation is that Rudra, a JivAtmA under karmA, is the body of NArAyaNa’. This is based on the BrihadAranyakA Up. ‘Yasya AtmA SarIram’ (AtmA is the body of Brahman).
One can interpret names like ‘Siva’ in the Veda to mean ‘Auspicious’. So, ‘Siva is Supreme’ means ‘The supreme being is auspicious’. Hence, it pertains to NArAyaNa who is auspicious and supreme.
Similarly, ‘Indra’ means ‘Radiant One’, ‘VarunA’ means ‘One who pours incessantly (ie, showers mercy on everyone unceasingly)’, etc.
However, in places where a LaxanA is mentioned such as ‘Siva who is blue necked is Supreme’, we know it is the deva Siva and hence cannot say Siva means auspiciousness here. Hence it will mean ‘NArAyaNA, who has the blue necked Rudra as His body, is Supreme’.
PUrUsha SUktam states ‘Hreescha te Lakshmisca Patnyou’, ie, Hree (Bhu Devi) and Lakshmi are the consorts of Brahman. ‘Ca’ indicates NIlA Devi. This conclusively proves that Brahman is Sriman NArAyaNa as well.
—–
A few points:
1) Ram Charit Manas is not an authentic work. VAlmikI RAmAyanA is the authentic one accepted by all. VAlmiki does not mention RAmA worshipping Shiva or making statements like that, so Tulsidas RAmAyana is wrong.
2) The Vishnu PurAnA statement in which Krishna tells Rudra ‘That which I am, that you are. Fools contemplate distinctions’ is interpreted as follows – ‘You (Rudra) are my body, and since I pervade everything, all names pertain to Me, who is the innermost Self of all’. In the sense that everything is the body of Brahman, there is really only one entity, namely, Brahman and its body, so there is only Krishna, the supreme being who is standing before Rudra and Krishna, the Brahman who has Rudra as His body.
To summarize, the statement means ‘Understand that your innermost Self, Rudra, is none other than Me. In that sense, there is no distinction between you (ie, the Brahmam within you) and Me. The Karya Brahmam and KArana Brahmam are the same. Do not think that your antaryAmi is different from Me’.
The term ‘You’ extends to Rudra’s body, the AtmA and then the AtmA of the AtmA, namely paramAtma, who is the one ultimately addressed. Santi ParvA of Mahabharata illustrates this point when Krishna says ‘When I worship RudrA, I worship only the NArAyaNA IN RudrA, and not RudrA himself’.
Arjuna says in Gita, ‘You pervade everything and therefore, you ARE everything (ie, everything is your body).
3)A knower of Veda should not worship Linga and other saivite temple forms. Those temples are consecrated under the wrong notion that Siva is supreme, and thus, are contrary to the eternal VedA and Divya PrabandhA. TamO GunA, the cause of ignorance, is therefore, prevalent.
4) Lingas are not ‘archa’ like Bhagavan VAsudevA’s thirumeni. This is because VishnU is all-pervading by svarUpam, and can turn His vigrahA into a non-material body once present in it. Hence, His murthys are aprAkrtam, ie, non-material.
SivA is a JivAtmA, and not yet liberated. Hence, he is anu or atomic, and only his jnana has expanded. Siva Lingas will be pervaded by his jnana, but his svarUpa is not all pervading and hence, the linga is prakrtic.
6) Bhagavatam verse ‘Vaishnavam Yatha Shambho’ refers to the fact that among the practitioners of Bhakti Yoga, an arduous penance to attain visualization of NArAyaNa, Siva is the strongest and most advanced. Garuda PurAnA attest to this. ‘Vaishnava’ here means ‘knower of vishnu’, which is Bhakti Yoga.
It does not mean he is the topmost devotee, only that he is a devotee with the greatest power and capability to perform bhakti yoga.
Adiyen Varavaramuni Dasan,
Narayanan.
Narayanan
March 24, 2010 at 12:37 pm