Kamalhassan's Ideology in his films

[irir123]

digression:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?266163

no wonder Kamal does NOT venture into antagonising one particularl community in his films - the reason: FEAR !!

end digression

[kalyan]

digression:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?266163

no wonder Kamal does NOT venture into antagonising one particularl community in his films - the reason: FEAR !!

end digression

so doesnt that set the wrong example that you wont be antagonised if you resort to violence? isnt this the very thing to be antagonised by anyone who believes in democracy? :roll:

[app_engine]

irir123,
அதைத்தான் அவர் ஓப்பனாவே "எங்க வீட்டுப்பொண்ணு தானே கஷ்டப்படும்"னு சொல்லீட்டாரே? (மணிரத்னம்-பம்பாய்-வன்முறை-மணிக்கு சொல்லப்பட்ட புத்திமதி இத்யாதி)

[venkkiram]

"chi dam bram!" என சிறு வட்டத்துக்குள்ளேயே வெளிப்படும் அவரது வீரம் நகைப்புக்குறியது.

[irir123]

"chi dam bram!" என சிறு வட்டத்துக்குள்ளேயே வெளிப்படும் அவரது வீரம் நகைப்புக்குறியது.

:lol: :clap:

in the overall analysis, his courageous themes are courageous only coz he knows quite well that the communities he is trying to 'expose' wud never do to him, what a certain other community is likely to do if he were to rub them on the wrong side !

[irir123]

digression:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?266163

no wonder Kamal does NOT venture into antagonising one particularl community in his films - the reason: FEAR !!

end digression

so doesnt that set the wrong example that you wont be antagonised if you resort to violence? isnt this the very thing to be antagonised by anyone who believes in democracy? :roll:

wrong example, right example dichotomy does not matter here! as far as one can antagonise some communities since a convenient combination of a safety net as well as 'artistic' accolades and 'arivu jeevi' pattams are assured for doing so (!), who cares ?!

[Anban]

all these community bias complaints are rubbish IMHO.. didnt we see a movie called heyram..

say, even in Anbe Sivam.. there are many "good" hindu characters.. but nasser being a hindu irks many for no good reason..

btw.. we are a big hindu majority country... so the bias is in the eyes of the viewer...

[Vivasaayi]

irir,

Unnai pol oruvan is termed as anti - muslim...some people think its anti hindu

the movie has a Indian muslim, who speaks and acts against the nation accusing that the nation is not taking care of the minorities.

what you expect from him?

[kalyan]

say, even in Anbe Sivam.. there are many "good" hindu characters.. but nasser being a hindu irks many for no good reason..



wrt anbe sivam,

there may be any hindu characters, but only nasser is shown to chant hindu hymns while shown to perform villainous acts.

and there is one sister Vanessa and her group who are shown as the epitome of piety and caring, and they are also shown to pray for the protagonist, invoking the god they believe in.

now you are free to decide which religion is portrayed in bad light. :)

y havent we seen in any KH movie in the last two decades where a hindu priest is shown to be pious, caring and compassionate to his fellow human beings? leave along brahmin priests, even the village priest in Virumaandi is shown as committing perjury in the court of law :huh:

[Anban]

what abt that lady in the hill ??

Nasser is not a brahmin in this movie.. if he is a gounder, does it mean that Kamal exposed or vilified gounders??

in dasa, the name of the villain is Christian FLetcher and he does pray to god in the movie.. even shows his middle finger in his marriage scene.. so whats thaT??

in Mahanadi, the most notorious character is Thulukkaanam ..

and there are many more examples..

ofcourse brahmins have been "exposed" in some movies.. may be bcos he is also from one such family..

[kalyan]

what abt that lady in the hill ??

Nasser is not a brahmin in this movie.. if he is a gounder, does it mean that Kamal exposed or vilified gounders??

in dasa, the name of the villain is Christian FLetcher and he does pray to god in the movie.. even shows his middle finger in his marriage scene.. so whats thaT??

in Mahanadi, the most notorious character is Thulukkaanam ..

and there are many more examples..

ofcourse brahmins have been "exposed" in some movies.. may be bcos he is also from one such family..

the lady on the hill is not shown to invoke some god and pray for the protagonist. but nasser is shown to invoke a hindu God and prays against the protagonist. and vanessa prays for the protagonist to the god she believes in.

gounders too are hindus right? nasser was shown as a particularly pious person.

wrt, Christin Fletcher, there is another character in the movie (vincent poovaragan) who is shown as the epitome of goodness.

Thulukkanam is a Hindu name, FYI :)

and what are the other examples? :)

if he can 'expose' brahmins (to use your own words), what stops him from exposing more sinister individuals from other communities? especially when he doesnt even consider himself as a brahmin or a hindu?

dig

///being a brahmin is not by birth, but by virtues. KH was never one, IMHO///

end dig.

[Anban]

kalyan,

the diehard KH fan should have been dead long before UPO ... too late :P

[kalyan]

kalyan,

the diehard KH fan should have been dead long before UPO ... too late :P

better late than never :wink: :lol:

[Bala (Karthik)]

all these community bias complaints are rubbish IMHO.. didnt we see a movie called heyram..

Enough said

[Bala (Karthik)]

Courage or not, the question to be asked is, why don't some of us ask questions about our kamminaattis (being theist or atheist is immaterial). Fear > Hypocrisy/connivance

[Vivasaayi]

exactly anban

The initial riot scenes in hey raam is enough !

[kalyan]

all these community bias complaints are rubbish IMHO.. didnt we see a movie called heyram..

Enough said

hey ram was a balanced film. but that hardly justifies the potshots in his other movies.

[MADDY]

all these community bias complaints are rubbish IMHO.. didnt we see a movie called heyram..

Enough said

hey ram was a balanced film. but that hardly justifies the potshots in his other movies.

:exactly: kamal clearly has anti-brahmin, anti-hindu agenda in most of his movies but its ok as long as it gels with the narration but is very poor narration when it sticks out for the sake of it - ex: nasser in anbe sivam(in hospital scene): naa aandavana vendikkuren, nee sethhu po (not verbatim) :lol:

where is mrs.mani-a ketta vaarthaila thittina P_R :P

[kid-glove]

Richard Dawkins targets the catholics too.

Historically, every atheist writer/filmmaker primarily critique their own background and where they come from..

[kalyan]

Richard Dawkins targets the catholics too.

Historically, every atheist writer/filmmaker primarily critique their own background and where they come from..

and historically they get shunned by their communities, nothing wrong in the reaction anyway :wink:

IMHO, an atheist who keeps speaking about atheism through whatever the media resources available to him is only as bad as a tele evangelist, the only thing is that he is advertising / promoting a different brand of product. :)

[kid-glove]

Richard Dawkins targets the catholics too.

Historically, every atheist writer/filmmaker primarily critique their own background and where they come from..

and historically they get shunned by their communities, nothing wrong in the reaction anyway :wink:

IMHO, an atheist who keeps speaking about atheism through whatever the media resources available to him is only as bad as a tele evangelist, the only thing is that he is advertising for a different product. :)

There's some truth in this (although I have expressed reservations on the specificities in regards to Dawkins' work - it's his line of study for decades now), except I don't see how it applies to filmmakers who cater to a largely theistic society. I know 'advertising for a different product' here especially throws a political connotation in regards to TN politics. Let's leave it at that..

[anbu_kathir]

While I admire Kamal for his passion towards cinema and the way he showcased his coming-to-his-own-truths through his films, I would immensely enjoy if someone with decent knowledge of religion snub and question his attitude towards them :D, just like he does to his characters in the movies. As far as I can infer, neither he nor the 'religious' characters that he snubs in his movies have any religious knowledge except the regular religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) of normal people.

A set of interviews with someone on the lines of Cho (just an example) would be nice. The other side has perpetually been shown weak (or weakened by his writing.)

Anyway, I dream on.

[kid-glove]

Are we forgetting Hey! Ram, which to my mind isn't about 'normal people', 'regular belief' or 'weak' in any sense of the word..

[Vivasaayi]

Leaving out , kamals criticism on hinduism, I dont like his intellectual dialogues in his movies.

This was not the case in his late 80's and 90's movies...infact till avvai shanmugi..

[raghavendran]

Are we forgetting Hey! Ram, which to my mind isn't about 'normal people', 'regular belief' or 'weak' in any sense of the word.. :exactly: ....it spks for itself

[kalyan]

அப்பாடா, after a long time, இப்போ தான் thread களை கட்டி இருக்கு :)

Fee_aar, compli, plum, equa, TM, sriman, Roshan, Thamiz.... everybody is invited to join the party :yes:

Bala, அடுத்த partக்கு title யோசிக்க ஆரம்பிங்க :)

[raghavendran]

Leaving out , kamals criticism on hinduism, I dont like his intellectual dialogues in his movies.

This was not the case in his late 80's and 90's movies...infact till avvai shanmugi.."god is thr or not"..this vaadham was ameturish in dasa...didnt gel...but his take on hindu people n some of the films has to b accepted...namme veetliye azhukku irukkumbodhu edhukku matha veete pathi pesanum...

[anbu_kathir]

Are we forgetting Hey! Ram, which to my mind isn't about 'normal people', 'regular belief' or 'weak' in any sense of the word..

It never occurred to me that Hey Ram was really asking deep religious (not humanitarian) questions. We do have Amjad and Gandhi shown as men of fortitude, although I didn't see it as being derived from one's own religion, only inspite of it. Also, there is the scene with the astrologer played by VS Raghavan, again mocked by Saketh's response, which I think were quite valid, but didn't get a equally valid response from the other side (which I think exists).

I doubt if there has ever been an religious person in any movie, who bases his intelligence, inner strength, and common sense on religion itself. Gandhi, I believe, was one such man, although I don't know if he has ever been portrayed so.

[P_R]

மத்தளம்னா ரெண்டு பக்கத்துலேர்ந்தும் இடி விழுகத்தான் செய்யின்.

Let me attempt something...



Thulukkanam is a Hindu name, FYI :)



சென்னைப்பகுதியிலுள்ள தாழ்த்தப்பட்ட மக்களே பொதுவாக வைக்கும் துலுக்காணம் எனும் பெயர் கொண்ட வார்டனிடம் வைதீக பார்ப்பனன் பஞ்சாபகேசனும், ஆதிக்கசாதியைச் சேர்ந்த கிருஷ்ணசாமியும் வதை படுவதாகக் காட்டும் குயுக்தி அவதானிக்கத்தக்கது.

துலுக்காணம் அறுவெறுக்கத்தப்படி கடிதத்தில் சிறுநீர் கழிப்பதாகக்காட்டுவது திண்ணியத்தை தந்திரமாகத் திருப்பிப் போடுவதைத் தவிற வேறென்ன?

estra estra estra

ஒரு கொடும்பாவி பார்சல்..

[kalyan]

namme veetliye azhukku irukkumbodhu edhukku matha veete pathi pesanum...

very true, the world will be a much better place if every community practices this, rather than pointing fingers at others :thumbsup:

[kalyan]

துலுக்காணம் அறுவெறுக்கத்தப்படி கடிதத்தில் சிறுநீர் கழிப்பதாகக்காட்டுவது திண்ணியத்தை தந்திரமாகத் திருப்பிப் போடுவதைத் தவிற வேறென்ன?



but the chronology of the events prove otherwise.

this is nothing but a hidden agenda of targetting KH for all and sundry, since the ThiNNiyam incident didnt happen till the late 90s whereas the movie got reeased in Jan 1994.

now dont bring something ridiculous like the ThiNNiyam incident was orchestrated by the upper caste people as a retaliation to the movie 'Mahanadhi' :)

[P_R]

:lol:

kalyan, that was a mock para for what passes of a sociological critique nowadays. Kamal gets it from both sides.

[kid-glove]

"ஒரு கொடும்பாவி பார்சல்.."
:rotfl2:

[Cinefan]

My 2 cents:Will not accuse KH of an hidden agenda but it is also true that his critiques are more against hindu beliefs/texts and AFAIR he does not take on other religions with the same gusto.

k-g has a point that rebellion is most likely to take place against things you are familiar with/forced to practise/more frequently debated but at the same time as an intelligent person( in the real sense),a time has to come when you have to take an overall view of things instead of getting restricted.

A bias is more likely to seep in and KH these days, on religion,speaks more like an hypocritical politician than a thinker.

Girish Karnad,U R Ananthmurthy and the likes are also same case.

As somebody pointed out KH needs to have a debate with somebody like Cho or anybody with a good knowledge who can answer questions instead of going on and on with his prejudices.

BTW,am shocked that incl myself there are quite a few who can be so harsh on his beliefs but at the same time are 'theevira'fans.

Idhu engalukku credit-a ille KH-ukka :roll:

[Bala (Karthik)]

BTW,am shocked that incl myself there are quite a few who can be so harsh on his beliefs but at the same time are 'theevira'fans.

Idhu engalukku credit-a ille KH-ukka :roll:
:lol: Good kostin!

[equanimus]

மத்தளம்னா ரெண்டு பக்கத்துலேர்ந்தும் இடி விழுகத்தான் செய்யின்.Ha ha, well said!

[kalyan]

:lol:

kalyan, that was a mock para for what passes of a sociological critique nowadays. Kamal gets it from both sides.

P_R,

:oops: got confused :ashamed:

[equanimus]

Seriously though, I think Kamal's case, like most people's, is much more complicated than a simple label that says Hindu or anti-Hindu.

[kalyan]

Seriously though, I think Kamal's case, like most people's, is much more complicated than a simple label that says Hindu or anti-Hindu.

hmm... interesting, can you pls elaborate on this? :) :wink:

[equanimus]

As far as I can infer, neither he nor the 'religious' characters that he snubs in his movies have any religious knowledge except the regular religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) of normal people.

A set of interviews with someone on the lines of Cho (just an example) would be nice. The other side has perpetually been shown weak (or weakened by his writing.)
On the contrary, I seriously doubt that Cho is a match for Kamal in this regard. I've made this point before too, I think Kamal's films (which is precisely the prism through which we're reading him) are spiritual in the true sense of the word. At the end of the day, what matters is one's engagement with the idea of a god, not the conclusion one reaches.

[equanimus]

A related note from elsewhere (http://www.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=1671757#1671757):

[tscii:9fabd2709b]
6) Kamal... Anbe Sivam-nu sonnaru (means LOVE is GOD).... Kadavul illaina.. anbu-ngara oru unarvai eduthu edhukku illadha onrukku equate pannanum?
ada, ada... ennamA checku vekkuRInga! AnAl idhu avar kittaiyO thirumUlar kittaiyO kEtka vENdiya kELvi. Anyway, on Kamal (mind you, I'm just rambling), contrary to what most people say, I think he is a remarkably spiritual filmmaker. His films are pregnant with overt concerns about faith, God, spiritual reforms and so on. It makes more sense to call someone like Mani Ratnam a truly “atheist” filmmaker. The latter's films are free of concerns about God and faith in an organic sense, never mind the cuteness.[/tscii:9fabd2709b]

[kid-glove]

Equa, the word you're looking for is indifferent/agnostic (at worst) in terms of Mani, so to speak. Not 'Atheist'. This is because of the overt academic interest that has hit evangelical proportions, and in turn let's the other side to deem it as another 'ideology' so to speak..

So it makes perfect sense to call Bergman or Kieslowski or Tarkovsky spiritual (need pointers on why you phrase Kamal one, when he very deliberately goes against fetishism of 'spiritual'), while Kamal, Woody Allen, etc are staunch atheists.

[equanimus]

It is no coincidence that Kamal fans are the ones who invoke god the most often when discussing him or his films. Of course, there's a tongue-in-cheek angle to it, but the influence of Kamal's dialogue (with them) regarding the nature of god is not to be underestimated.

[groucho070]

Equa, the word you're looking for is indifferent/agnostic (at worst) in terms of Mani, so to speak. Not 'Atheist'. .Yes. Many have mistaken one for another. :evil:

Let's look at the most personal films these two have made:

Baba: Religious advertisement (hey, I'm one in 27 fellers who like this film).
Anbe Sivam: Spiritual journey.

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

Idhu engalukku credit-a ille KH-ukka :roll: ippadi pesuvatharkaana thairiyame avar kitta irunthu thaan vanthathu nnu ore podaa potrunga :lol:

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

Seriously though, I think Kamal's case, like most people's, is much more complicated than a simple label that says Hindu or anti-Hindu. the same complication applies even for a muslim.

2 scenes -

dasa - the scene where balram naidu questions nagesh about his sons/daughters,
naidu; antha chinna piLLai, athi unkalthaa?!?
nagesh: aamaam, athula enna ungalukku doubtu

UPO - the scene where the muslim terrorist speaks about his wives and specifically his last wife of age 16,

i think in both cases he is trying to hit the population raise which ( may be ) caused by the more no of wives, and importantly a kid or two for each wife

on an interesting note, a recent report says Hindus slightly outnumber muslims when it comes to no of wives but most of the hindus are not towards having 3 kids. 2 itself is a big number

at the same time, in dasa, he ALSO portray the "all muslim could be terrorist" blame which is forced on muslim community

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

மத்தளம்னா ரெண்டு பக்கத்துலேர்ந்தும் இடி விழுகத்தான் செய்யின்.


உ.போ.ஒ வெளியான பிறகு ஜிமெயில், என் சொந்த இணையத் தள் அஞ்சல் ரெண்டையும் திறந்தால் கொட்டுகிற் கடிதங்களில் பாராட்டு தவிர கண்ணை ஈர்ப்பது - 'டே பா.பன்னாடை' ரக அன்பான அழைப்புகள். கருவறுக்கப் போவதாக மிரட்டல்கள். சகல பக்கங்களில் இருந்தும் மத வேறுபாடு இல்லாமல் வசவு மழை பொழிகிறவர்கள் கமல்ஹாசனையும் விட்டு வைக்கவில்லை.

[anbu_kathir]

On the contrary, I seriously doubt that Cho is a match for Kamal in this regard. I've made this point before too, I think Kamal's films (which is precisely the prism through which we're reading him) are spiritual in the true sense of the word. At the end of the day, what matters is one's engagement with the idea of a god, not the conclusion one reaches.

Cho is one personality who quickly came to my mind, since he has gotten quite famous in this regard recently, and moreover I find him reasonably satisfactory in debunking many lies about the structure of Hinduism (or perhaps Brahminism) which both theists and atheists have believe(d) in.

The present Dalai Lama was my second option, but honestly speaking, I look upon him as more than just another human being (probably he considers himself so, and would be indeed willing to clarify such 'doubts'), so I didn't bother to mention him here.

If I remember right, Kamal did mention on some stage that the religious conversations in his movies to be a reflection for the religious dialogue within himself. I guess his convictions are also reflected in his personal interviews or stage talks. Hence I base my ideas on his convictions on those.

As for Kamal's movies being 'spiritual', well, I disagree. They are humanitarian, sure. To me, God is beyond-thoughts-and-concepts. This is infact the view held in Hinduism and Buddhism (if one has looked reasonably deeply in either of them). This is also the view held by many Christian mystics, Sufis, even in old-time religion.

Now, was Kamal's 'anbu' in Anbe Sivam such an idea? No, it was only compassion. It is surely essential. It might lead to an experience of God (as that conceptless-entity). However, Kamal (or his characters) never claimed it does. IMHO It is fair to say that what he meant by his "Anbe Sivam" is that, it is enough if you have "anbu" and not bother about "sivam", which is not a spiritual viewpoint but only a humanitarian one. OTOH, Thirumoolar's "Anbe Sivam" is far more deep, it talks of unconditional Love, a la the Bhakthi of Andal or the Gopis, and actually equates it to that Conceptless entity called God. Human-affection and compassion is but a byproduct of this.

Love and Light.

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

Though already posted by Joe, this link gives relevant idea about his 'confusion' about god. This essay is surely an eye opener, inspite of its own bugs

http://www.virutcham.com/2010/02/%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%A E%A4%E0%AE%B1%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%81-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%B2%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%A9%E0%A F%8D-%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%99%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%95%E0%A E%B3/

There was a function at some Kovai College after VasoolRaja release(2005). Kamal was felicitated with some Man of Century title and students had chance to ask questions to him.

One question:- Kadavul irukkiraara
His Answer: Innum kandubidikkavillai, its in progress

At the same time, his recent quote"If all orphans are children of God, then God needs to undergo Family Planning " has no mistake or nakkal. Its his aathangam

[Sarna]

Cho is one personality who quickly came to my mind, since he has gotten quite famous in this regard recently, and moreover I find him reasonably satisfactory in debunking many lies about the structure of Hinduism (or perhaps Brahminism) which both theists and atheists have believe(d) in.

The present Dalai Lama was my second option, but honestly speaking, I look upon him as more than just another human being (probably he considers himself so, and would be indeed willing to clarify such 'doubts'), so I didn't bother to mention him here.

If I remember right, Kamal did mention on some stage that the religious conversations in his movies to be a reflection for the religious dialogue within himself. I guess his convictions are also reflected in his personal interviews or stage talks. Hence I base my ideas on his convictions on those.

As for Kamal's movies being 'spiritual', well, I disagree. They are humanitarian, sure. To me, God is beyond-thoughts-and-concepts. This is infact the view held in Hinduism and Buddhism (if one has looked reasonably deeply in either of them). This is also the view held by many Christian mystics, Sufis, even in old-time religion.

Now, was Kamal's 'anbu' in Anbe Sivam such an idea? No, it was only compassion. It is surely essential. It might lead to an experience of God (as that conceptless-entity). However, Kamal (or his characters) never claimed it does. IMHO It is fair to say that what he meant by his "Anbe Sivam" is that, it is enough if you have "anbu" and not bother about "sivam", which is not a spiritual viewpoint but only a humanitarian one. OTOH, Thirumoolar's "Anbe Sivam" is far more deep, it talks of unconditional Love, a la the Bhakthi of Andal or the Gopis, and actually equates it to that Conceptless entity called God. Human-affection and compassion is but a byproduct of this.

Love and Light.

anbu_kadhir :bow: :bow:

[equanimus]

[tscii:c13ad69c16]
Equa, the word you're looking for is indifferent/agnostic (at worst) in terms of Mani, so to speak. Not 'Atheist'. This is because of the overt academic interest that has hit evangelical proportions, and in turn let's the other side to deem it as another 'ideology' so to speak..No, k-g, I don't think so. Firstly, when I say "a truly “atheist” filmmaker," (1) I'm talking about the films in question, and more importantly, (2) I'm using the word 'atheist' in a very specific sense (hence in quotes), to indicate an universe in which god is just absent. In terms of the general connotation of the word, Kamal's films can of course be called atheist. On the other hand, Mani Ratnam's films can safely be called atheist in any case. There's a distinct absence of spiritual dimension in his films. I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

So it makes perfect sense to call Bergman or Kieslowski or Tarkovsky spiritual (need pointers on why you phrase Kamal one, when he very deliberately goes against fetishism of 'spiritual'), while Kamal, Woody Allen, etc are staunch atheists. But then Bergman also didn't believe in god. How are his films spiritual but Kamal's are not? Agonizing over a godless world is not the only kind of spirituality. And surely, Kamal's reflections on god isn't in line with that of Woody Allen?[/tscii:c13ad69c16]

[MADDY]

[tscii:a1683c45a3]
It makes more sense to call someone like Mani Ratnam a truly “atheist” filmmaker. The latter's films are free of concerns about God and faith in an organic sense, never mind the cuteness

:exactly: Maniratnam's movies bypassess all these "kadavul irukka illaya" , "jaadhi, madha" ideas[/tscii:a1683c45a3]

[equanimus]

So it makes perfect sense to call Bergman or Kieslowski or Tarkovsky spiritual (need pointers on why you phrase Kamal one, when he very deliberately goes against fetishism of 'spiritual'), while Kamal, Woody Allen, etc are staunch atheists.By the way, this also seems to assume that being spiritual precludes being an atheist. I don't quite see it that way. At least, that's not the sense in which I'm using the word 'spiritual' here. Obviously, I'm not trying to suggest that Kamal is not an atheist!

[anbu_kathir]

One question:- Kadavul irukkiraara
His Answer: Innum kandubidikkavillai, its in progress



I guess this is perfectly fine as a personal answer. If he is answering for all, then LOL..

Appa Thirumoolar, Ramanar, Ramakrishnar, Adi Shankarar, Vallalaar, ivanga ellaam kandupidichadhu??

"This is also a way, a common sense based, compassionate way that will ultimately end in the 'finding' of God" .. is what many of such people have said. One could at least attempt those for a few years.. oru Bachelorskku 17-18 years years padikanum... hmmm.

Faith is less important than practice.

Love and Light.

[P_R]

Mani Ratnam's films can safely be called atheist in any case. There's a distinct absence of spiritual dimension in his films. I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

Hmm...isn't the apathy about the question of the existence of a GReater Force supposed to be a characteristic of agnostics rather than atheists (who are certain that there is no God).

[kid-glove]

This also seems to assume that being spiritual precludes being an atheist.
Absolutely not, hence why I bring in Bergman and rest. In fact, no one could claim to have known where they fall in, but they certainly seemed to fetishize 'spiritual' in utilitarian sort of way to exist. Of course, at times, they seem to delineate the absurdity in such conceit.

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort. On the other hand, that's precisely what both Kamal and Woody Allen indulge in. Of course, the tone and mode varies. But we digress. I think we need to qualify the word 'atheist' as it has various socio-political connotations inbred into it.

I said agnostic world-view, because Mani's "films" don't really commit much in this regard. Again, we need a proper qualification. I'm not pretending there's enough demarcation in practical terms.

[kid-glove]

Mani Ratnam's films can safely be called atheist in any case. There's a distinct absence of spiritual dimension in his films. I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

Hmm...isn't the apathy about the question of the existence of a GReater Force supposed to be a characteristic of agnostics rather than atheists (who are certain that there is no God).

:exactly:

[Anban]

Kalyan and Anbu_Kathir are here .. Its time for me to shut up :)

but may be i shud say something.. in Dasa, Balram does mock at Nagesh for having sooo many children.. and he mocks at alagiya singar also.. Kamal is almost unbiased IMHO.. since he has seen hindu-brahminism in his very close circles, he must hate it the most.. and that does reflect in his movies... nothing bad really...

[equanimus]

[tscii:6e53015d78]

Mani Ratnam's films can safely be called atheist in any case. There's a distinct absence of spiritual dimension in his films. I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

Hmm...isn't the apathy about the question of the existence of a GReater Force supposed to be a characteristic of agnostics rather than atheists (who are certain that there is no God).
Oh, no, agnosticism is much more specific, isn't it? (If this were the basic characteristic of agnosticism, the majority of this world would be agnostics!) As I see it, agnosticism can occur only in the aftermath of engaging with the idea of a god. (It's clearly the last among the three, yes?) The claim that the answer is unknowable can occur only after the question is raised. There is indeed a sense of indifference and apathy in agnosticism (I agree with you here and I've always thought of this as an often unexplored dimension of it, one which I really like!), but the indifference is towards “knowing” (because one figures one couldn't) and not a general indifference towards god or spirituality, which I'd rather characterize as a pure form of atheism, one which precedes theism itself.

Anyway, this is more of an academic exercise. I'd be glad to switch to a different word if it would convey exactly the meaning I've in my mind.[/tscii:6e53015d78]

[P_R]

Equa, the apathy can stem from

a) unknowability - technically this is the definition
b) His existence or lack therof has no bearing in my life whatsoever - this is the general meaning in circulation.

To reduce rather abruptly the 'message' Kamal keeps ramming in repearedly is: 'There is no simple divine intervention'

That said, the horror of being in a Godless Universe (a la Woody) is something very different. But metaphysical ruminations are generally/usually the preserve of those who are willing to consider it to be a greater problem than social issues in human coexistence. Kamal (or for that matter most folks) is interested in the metaphysical problem only to extent that it has implications on society.

I don't think Kamal will make a purely personal film like Woody.

[raghavendran]

This also seems to assume that being spiritual precludes being an atheist.
Absolutely not, hence why I bring in Bergman and rest. In fact, no one could claim to have known where they fall in, but they certainly seemed to fetishize 'spiritual' in utilitarian sort of way to exist. Of course, at times, they seem to delineate the absurdity in such conceit.

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort. On the other hand, that's precisely what both Kamal and Woody Allen indulge in. Of course, the tone and mode varies. But we digress. I think we need to qualify the word 'atheist' as it has various socio-political connotations inbred into it.

I said agnostic world-view, because Mani's "films" don't really commit much in this regard. Again, we need a proper qualification. I'm not pretending there's enough demarcation in practical terms. :thumbsup:

[Bala (Karthik)]

To reduce rather abruptly the 'message' Kamal keeps ramming in repearedly is: 'There is no simple divine intervention'

That said, the horror of being in a Godless Universe (a la Woody) is something very different. But metaphysical ruminations are generally/usually the preserve of those who are willing to consider it to be a greater problem than social issues in human coexistence. Kamal (or for that matter most folks) is interested in the metaphysical problem only to extent that it has implications on society.

I don't think Kamal will make a purely personal film like Woody.
Nalla point :) Neenga quote panna Woody interview-um idha reinforce pannudhu

[Anban]

who is this woody allen.. does he make good movies??

[equanimus]

[tscii:26dd6b18dc]

This also seems to assume that being spiritual precludes being an atheist.
Absolutely not, hence why I bring in Bergman and rest. In fact, no one could claim to have known where they fall in, but they certainly seemed to fetishize 'spiritual' in utilitarian sort of way to exist. Of course, at times, they seem to delineate the absurdity in such conceit.Oh okay. I asked because you seemed to be arguing that Kamal is not spiritual but rather a staunch atheist, as if the two are mutually exclusive. Hence the confusion. But I don't get the point about fetishizing the spiritual in a utilitarian sort of way. Can you elaborate? Who does that? Bergman and Tarkovsky?

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.Oh, I do (not sure if it is there surreptitiously!). It's not about the characters being atheists. They need not be. It's about how secularized his camera is; how materialistically gods (or more specifically, the sites of gods) figures in his films.

Anyway, my basic point regarding Mani was that his films are not spiritual in the way Kamal's films are. This absence of the spiritual dimension is what I characterized as truly “atheist[ic]” (or "a pure form of atheism" as I've said in the previous post.) And I don't think it means being agnostic.[/tscii:26dd6b18dc]

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

[tscii:46b1f6b898]
It makes more sense to call someone like Mani Ratnam a truly “atheist” filmmaker. The latter's films are free of concerns about God and faith in an organic sense, never mind the cuteness

:exactly: Maniratnam's movies bypassess all these "kadavul irukka illaya" , "jaadhi, madha" ideas[/tscii:46b1f6b898] Not bypass but maybe u can say skip or avoid such discussion

btw, there is a scene in raavan, where rai spells some dialogs b4 that broken statue.

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

Kamal has directly accepted that there is something called Iyarkai but he is still doubtful about Iraivan. Who else is not?

[kid-glove]

Agree P_R. Woody keeps it to 'personal' mode even when he's very open about the absence of moral compass & bleakness of existence. Not obsessing too much about the social ramifications. Apart from say increasing crime rate of Manhattan and West London..

Equa,
I'm still suspect of this, "a general indifference towards god or spirituality, which I'd rather characterize as a pure form of atheism".

Regardless, as you say,
"I'd be glad to switch to a different word if it would convey exactly the meaning I've in my mind."
There's a need for clarity. Coz these terms (like word 'Secular' in Indian context) go beyond literal meaning.

[Bala (Karthik)]

//Dig: Title evvalavu apt-a vechirukken paarunga :razz:

[raghavendran]

[tscii:2bc96aa0c3]
It makes more sense to call someone like Mani Ratnam a truly “atheist” filmmaker. The latter's films are free of concerns about God and faith in an organic sense, never mind the cuteness

:exactly: Maniratnam's movies bypassess all these "kadavul irukka illaya" , "jaadhi, madha" ideas[/tscii:2bc96aa0c3] Not bypass but maybe u can say skip or avoid such discussion

btw, there is a scene in raavan, where rai spells some dialogs b4 that broken statue.vikram's reply to her in that scene..azhaga ,chekka chevelnnu iruppara?..kadavulna vere epdi irupaaru...

[equanimus]

Equa, the apathy can stem from

a) unknowability - technically this is the definition
b) His existence or lack therof has no bearing in my life whatsoever - this is the general meaning in circulation.Nothing that I disagree with here, PR. And as I said, I particularly like (b).

But this doesn't mean atheists have to ram in a message repeatedly to call themselves that. There are a lot of people out there who are not at all interested in doing that and still call themselves atheists. The atheists vs. agnostics debate (whether agnostic is a separate class or is it a orthogonal characteristic that is applicable to both non-believers and believers, though usually the former) has been going on forever. And personally, I don't particularly subscribe to any one particular classification.

The point being discussed here is if the indifference towards a spiritual dimension means necessarily agnosticism. Do you think it does? I don't.

To reduce rather abruptly the 'message' Kamal keeps ramming in repearedly is: 'There is no simple divine intervention'If giving out this message makes one non-spiritual (not sure if you're saying so, this is just to be clear on where we stand), consider the number of people we'd have to throw out of the window.

[kid-glove]

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.Oh, I do (not sure if it is there surreptitiously!). It's not about the characters being atheists. They need not be. It's about how secularized his camera is; how materialistically gods (or more specifically, the sites of gods) figures in his films.
Oh you've made it clearer and opened up an interesting point. 'Secularized' or 'Atheistic' in Mani's visual trope in materializing 'sculptures of God' does of course connote a 'Silence of God' or 'Death of God' aftereffect. But in saying that, one does feel a tinge of surreptitiousness and remain unconvinced.

I'm guessing you're using it in the exact context Philip Lutgendorf referred to world of Benegal's Mahabharath adaptation Kalyug, where God is visually drowned and then kathakali dance-drama of Bheema vs Dushasana (from Mahabharath) is played. Just at the last act when Bheem disembowels the latter & drinks his blood (Fulfilling Draupadi's vow). The Modern-day Arjun is indifferent to this 'mirror' moment, and his (soon-to-be) Draupadi is somewhat disinterested and put-off at this conjecture. Now that's the sort of 'Death of God' and 'secularized view' that I find inviting. Mani is a lot more non-committal and obtuse from Nayakan to Kannathil Muthamitaal to Dil Se to Raavan.

[Sarna]

who is this woody allen.. does he make good movies??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_filmography

World movies and Lumier are playing his movies regularly.... I have seen some of them..... really good and funny movies

BTW, kid and equa... r u talking abt this guy ?
//dig ends

[equanimus]

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.Oh, I do (not sure if it is there surreptitiously!). It's not about the characters being atheists. They need not be. It's about how secularized his camera is; how materialistically gods (or more specifically, the sites of gods) figures in his films.
Oh you've made it clearer and opened up an interesting point. 'Secularized' or 'Atheistic' in Mani's visual trope in materializing 'sculptures of God' does of course connote a 'Silence of God' or 'Death of God' aftereffect. But in saying that, one does feel a tinge of surreptitiousness and remain unconvinced.Um, no. I meant to say his camera captures temples, sculptures, etc. as material and nothing more. alai pAyuthE, rOjA, nAyagan, Bombay, Dil Se, chathriyan, the camera stops at the level of "observing." And I don't think it connotes the silence of god or the death of god or some such thing at all. In fact, I think this is precisely the zone in which Kamal operates. Contrast the above moments from Mani's films with the way gods, temples appear in Kamal's films (guNA, thEvar magan, mahAnadhi, Hey! Ram, virumANdi, dasAvathAram). This is the distinction I was making between the two originally, before we digressed towards the agnostics vs. atheists debate. :)

Whether this sort of absence means a purer form of atheism or not is an academic debate. I'm not saying it is necessarily atheistic, but that's what I've sensed from Mani Ratnam's films. It may be because I viewed his films with the knowledge that he calls himself an atheist.

[kid-glove]

And I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.Oh, I do (not sure if it is there surreptitiously!). It's not about the characters being atheists. They need not be. It's about how secularized his camera is; how materialistically gods (or more specifically, the sites of gods) figures in his films.
Oh you've made it clearer and opened up an interesting point. 'Secularized' or 'Atheistic' in Mani's visual trope in materializing 'sculptures of God' does of course connote a 'Silence of God' or 'Death of God' aftereffect. But in saying that, one does feel a tinge of surreptitiousness and remain unconvinced.Um, no. I meant to say his camera captures temples, sculptures, etc. as material and nothing more. alai pAyuthE, rOjA, nAyagan, Bombay, Dil Se, chathriyan, the camera stops at the level of "observing." And I don't think it connotes the silence of god or the death of god or some such thing at all. In fact, I think this is precisely the zone in which Kamal operates. Contrast the above moments from Mani's films with the way gods, temples appear in Kamal's films (guNA, thEvar magan, mahAnadhi, Hey! Ram, virumANdi, dasAvathAram). This is the distinction I was making between the two originally, before we digressed towards the agnostics vs. atheists debate. :)

Whether this sort of absence means a purer form of atheism or not is an academic debate. I'm not saying it is necessarily atheistic, but that's what I've sensed from Mani Ratnam's films. It may be because I viewed his films with the knowledge that he calls himself an atheist.
uh, okay. I actually think the aforementioned mode that Benegal operates is precisely 'secularized' and less obscure, more revealing of the film's intention. And in comparison, Mani is obtuse and stops short of making his intentions clear. Then we have little to disagree..

But you said this,

I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.

Oh, I do
This doesn't sit well when "the camera stops at the level of "observing.""

That called for the Benegal/Kalyug example.

With this sort of discussion, I'm left perplexed. Absence of god, Secularized(his camera is), Silence of God-lam oNNu thAnE da kozappureengaLE dA! to me :lol:

[P_R]

But this doesn't mean atheists have to ram in a message repeatedly to call themselves that. True. I was just trying to be subtly nasty. Cull out paNNitteenga :-)



whether agnostic is a separate class or is it a orthogonal characteristic that is applicable to both non-believers and believers, though usually the former A theist agnostic (type b) would be really interesting. Reminds me of Boris Grushenko in Love and Death saying that the worst you can say about God is that he is an underachiever :lol:



The point being discussed here is if the indifference towards a spiritual dimension means necessarily agnosticism. Do you think it does? I don't. One is usually not indifferent about something that has a big impact on one's life (if I had a career counseler, he'd disagree!).

Indifference in spirituality usually proceeds from a conviction that God is largely impotent when it comes to one's day to day existence. Which, for lack of another word, is what is termed as agnosticism by general population. Possible abuse of terminology.


If giving out this message makes one non-spiritual (not sure if you're saying so, I wasn't. Was only saying you oughtn't to be puzzled by Thilaquer's statement, because the label agnostic is used quite differently from its etymological origins.

[equanimus]

If I remember right, Kamal did mention on some stage that the religious conversations in his movies to be a reflection for the religious dialogue within himself. I guess his convictions are also reflected in his personal interviews or stage talks. Hence I base my ideas on his convictions on those.anbu_kathir,
Just to clarify, by 'spiritual,' I mean metaphysical ruminations, as PR put it. I'm not sure which interviews you're talking about. I've seen interviews where he quotes Adi Sankaras and Jesuses of the world, calling them atheists of their times, interviews where he traces Periyar to the heritage of Siththars. The metaphysical terrain of myths like Ramayana and Mahabharatha are touched upon at the drop of a hat in his films.

Now, was Kamal's 'anbu' in Anbe Sivam such an idea? No, it was only compassion. It is surely essential. It might lead to an experience of God (as that conceptless-entity). However, Kamal (or his characters) never claimed it does.Actually, I'm not clear if Thirumoolar claimed that (I mean, I've no idea and would appreciate a clarification), but isn't it striking that Kamal invokes someone like Thirumoolar in the first place? I certainly do agree that Kamal has no time for religious hokum. So yes, he's demystifying Thirumoolar, but the question is if he de-spiritualizes.

[P_R]

Absence of god, Secularized(his camera is), Silence of God-lam IIUC...

Ayyanaar presiding over the thEvar Magan last fight

இந்த பொல்லா ஜனங்கள் பாவக்கரையை நீரில் கழுவுது
இந்த முட்டாள்தனத்தை எங்கே சொல்லி நானும் அழுவது

this kind of impotency of the alleged omnipotent is not something MR tries to show.

[kid-glove]

I'm puzzled by your characterization (of his films as agnostic) here.

Equa, in light of your latest comment that the prior knowledge of Mani as an atheist influences this thought, let me be clear.

Yes I understand the demarcation within agnosticism. That's precisely why I categorize Mani's "films" (and not him) as such. When he stops at just 'observing', it doesn't even open up 'atheistic' world view, as I see it. On the other hand, it exudes more of a 'harmony' between Agnostic Atheism vs Agnostic Theism, as there are no open counterpoints and no debate in this regard - this could be achieved even without ramming it down the throat - as against say Anbe Sivam. If there were more visual or verbal cues of Bala or Kamal or Benegal, we wouldn't be discussing this. Thats all I'm talking about.

[equanimus]

And in comparison, Mani is obtuse and stops short of making his intentions clear. Then we have little to disagree..But my point is, it's not even Mani's intention to reveal something about god's failing.

But you said this,

I don't see Mani surreptitiously pitching in 'absence of God' or making moves of such sort.

Oh, I do
This doesn't sit well when "the camera stops at the level of "observing.""

That called for the Benegal/Kalyug example.

With this sort of discussion, I'm left perplexed. Absence of god, Secularized(his camera is), Silence of God-lam oNNu thAnE da kozappureengaLE dA! to me :lol:Ha ha, I didn't mean to say he makes the god absent purposefully to drive a point home. "Pitch in" is probably not the correct phrase, let's say it slips in to his films. And there's a distinction between merely observing and alluding to the silence/death of god.

I think PR has already illustrated the difference with a couple of examples (albeit from Kamal's films; but then how else can you illustrate what's not there in a film!).

[kid-glove]

P_R,
I certainly find such questions to be least of MR's concerns and his idea of filmmaking. That's why I don't sense semblance of 'atheism'. If I'm understanding all this, Indifference alone doesn't allude to Atheism. There are theistic filmmakers who are indifferent too.

[equanimus]

whether agnostic is a separate class or is it a orthogonal characteristic that is applicable to both non-believers and believers, though usually the former A theist agnostic (type b) would be really interesting. Reminds me of Boris Grushenko in Love and Death saying that the worst you can say about God is that he is an underachiever :lol::lol: Yeah, I've also found the agnostic theist (apparently, that's how you say it) rather amusing (not that others aren't!).

[equanimus]

>> Total Digression.



The point being discussed here is if the indifference towards a spiritual dimension means necessarily agnosticism. Do you think it does? I don't. One is usually not indifferent about something that has a big impact on one's life (if I had a career counseler, he'd disagree!).I'm not sure I get this. Do you mean to say god has a big impact on the lives of all atheists? I doubt that. (Though I've not particularly called myself an atheist any time, I know a lot of people who couldn't care less about god.)

Indifference in spirituality usually proceeds from a conviction that God is largely impotent when it comes to one's day to day existence. Which, for lack of another word, is what is termed as agnosticism by general population. Possible abuse of terminology.I'm just trying to understand this (and correct me if I'm wrong). Doesn't this mean a lot more people would fall under the umbrella of agnostics? At this level, I think the whole discussion boils down to what a human being "initially is," i.e. by default. This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? I see it more as a conscious update after one figures out one is neither a theist nor an atheist in the proper sense. And of course, I think of 'atheist' as the default, which is where my notion of a purer form of atheism comes from. avLO dhAn matter. :)

>> End Total Digression.

[P_R]

OK I was till now 'picthing in' with some translation, that's all :-)
IMO, all we can say is MR is indifferent, Kamal is not. Kamal is deeply concerned with the 'God' question. And as you rightly say, this question is unlikely to fall in MR's radar, for which I would thank God, if only I were not an agnostic probablist.

[kid-glove]

OK I was till now 'picthing in' with some translation, that's all :-)
IMO, all we can say is MR is indifferent, Kamal is not. Kamal is deeply concerned with the 'God' question. And as you rightly say, this question is unlikely to fall in MR's radar, for which I would thank God, if only I were not a agnostic probablist.
:rotfl: :rotfl2:

[P_R]

>> Total Digression.



The point being discussed here is if the indifference towards a spiritual dimension means necessarily agnosticism. Do you think it does? I don't. One is usually not indifferent about something that has a big impact on one's life (if I had a career counseler, he'd disagree!).I'm not sure I get this. Do you mean to say god has a big impact on the lives of all atheists? I doubt that. (Though I've not particularly called myself an atheist any time, I know a lot of people who couldn't care less about god.)


I am not concerned about the laws of Republic of Botswana. They do not affect me. I am concerned about the laws of gravity because if I don't pay heed to it, I am likely to break my neck.

I can be indifferent only if I believe that, regardless of whether a God exists or not he is not going to have any impact on my life.



Indifference in spirituality usually proceeds from a conviction that God is largely impotent when it comes to one's day to day existence. Which, for lack of another word, is what is termed as agnosticism by general population. Possible abuse of terminology.I'm just trying to understand this (and correct me if I'm wrong). Doesn't this mean a lot more people would fall under the umbrella of agnostics? At this level, I think the whole discussion boils down to what a human being "initially is," i.e. by default. This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? I see it more as a conscious update after one figures out one is neither a theist nor an atheist in the proper sense. And of course, I think of 'atheist' as the default, which is where my notion of a purer form of atheism comes from. avLO dhAn matter. :)

>> End Total Digression.
I think the default is always 'I have no idea' which is (by commonly agreed abuse of expression): agnostic.
Upon knowing vevaram, one takes a side, or says: 'I still have no idea' and retains default status.

btw these labels are what we give ourselves. So they cannot preceed consciousness. So by default setting you mean a label that preceeds consciousness itself, then you are probably right but that is not as interesting, is it?

PS: ippidiyellAm yEdhAchum pEsuvOmnu therinju dhaan MADDY kalyANathaiyE poondhamallee-la koNdu vachchuttAr. :lol2:

[equanimus]

P_R,
I certainly find such questions to be least of MR's concerns and his idea of filmmaking. That's why I don't sense semblance of 'atheism'. If I'm understanding all this, Indifference alone doesn't allude to Atheism. There are theistic filmmakers who are indifferent too.Completely agreed. Simple indifference towards god in one's films doesn't mean atheism at all. (There are filmmakers who are devout theists but their films have nothing to do with god. And on the other hand, we've Ram Gopal Varma.) Like I said, my perception may be because I view his films with the knowledge that he is an atheist. And little moments such as those in alai pAyuthE or kannaththil muthamittAl start appearing in a new light.

[kid-glove]

[Continued digression]
>>This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? <<
Huxley would disagree. It's meant to be antithetical of 'esoteric' or in particular, esoteric spirituality of the times, the 'gnostic' of the church to be more precise. Hence the term a'gnostic'.
[End digression]

[kid-glove]

P_R,
I certainly find such questions to be least of MR's concerns and his idea of filmmaking. That's why I don't sense semblance of 'atheism'. If I'm understanding all this, Indifference alone doesn't allude to Atheism. There are theistic filmmakers who are indifferent too.Completely agreed. Simple indifference towards god in one's films doesn't mean atheism at all. (There are filmmakers who are devout theists but their films have nothing to do with god. And on the other hand, we've Ram Gopal Varma.)
:lol: Get the point, but it's funny...


Like I said, my perception may be because I view his films with the knowledge that he is an atheist. And little moments such as those in alai pAyuthE or kannaththil muthamittAl start appearing in a new light.
Do write on this in MR thread. Would be interesting..

[equanimus]

>> Total Digression continues.


btw these labels are what we give ourselves. So they cannot preceed consciousness. So by default setting you mean a label that preceeds consciousness itself, then you are probably right but that is not as interesting, is it?Exactly my point. When one has not gone through the motions of experiencing the idea of god and such, one is technically an atheist. (The atheists who don't like to be called militant atheists would also like this idea, I suppose.)

I am not concerned about the laws of Republic of Botswana. They do not affect me. I am concerned about the laws of gravity because if I don't pay heed to it, I am likely to break my neck.

I can be indifferent only if I believe that, regardless of whether a God exists or not he is not going to have any impact on my life.Oh but you can also be indifferent by believing that there's no such law i.e. there's no god! As far as you're quite sure you're not missing out on anything. But hey, enough defence for those atheists, I say. I think a happy atheist like Thilak should take over from here. :)

<< Total Digression may continue.

[equanimus]

>>This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? <<
Huxley would disagree. It's meant to be antithetical of 'esoteric' or in particular, esoteric spirituality of the times, the 'gnostic' of the church to be more precise. Hence the term a'gnostic'.I was not talking about the meaning of the word, but about its usage in day-to-day life; i.e. how many people in this world even know what agnosticism means, let alone calling themselves that?

[P_R]

>> Total Digression continues.


btw these labels are what we give ourselves. So they cannot preceed consciousness. So by default setting you mean a label that preceeds consciousness itself, then you are probably right but that is not as interesting, is it?Exactly my point. When one has not gone through the motions of experiencing the idea of god and such, one is technically an atheist.

I am not sure that technicality is interesting equa.
Without the question of belief about something coming up how can you be assumed to be a disbeliever (which btw is what atheist would translate to in makkaL mozhi)





I am not concerned about the laws of Republic of Botswana. They do not affect me. I am concerned about the laws of gravity because if I don't pay heed to it, I am likely to break my neck.

I can be indifferent only if I believe that, regardless of whether a God exists or not he is not going to have any impact on my life.Oh but you can also be indifferent by believing that there's no such law i.e. there's no god! As far as you're quite sure you're not missing out on anything. Of course.

Atheists who 'believe there is no God' are by definition indifferent.

The interesting people (here I obviously include me) are those who say: 'probably there is a God. But 'for all practicial purposes He is a moot point.

This relieves them from having to answer every possible question. Biggies like origin of the Universe etc. They can happily subscribe to some colorful myth or the other and not lose sleep over it.

Quite frankly most people would be sorely disappointed if they are told something like: 'God doesn't break the laws of physics he IS the laws of physics'. What 'use' would most people (here obviously I mean others) have for such a God.

[equanimus]

I do get the point about the technical default (!) not being interesting, but clearly it's impossible to hold that the existence of something is unknowable (say, "I have no idea about it") without knowing what it is.

This relieves them from having to answer every possible question. Biggies like origin of the Universe etc. They can happily subscribe to some colorful myth or the other and not lose sleep over it.Yes, and this is why I like to call myself an agnostic. Whatever it means!

Quite frankly most people would be sorely disappointed if they are told something like: 'God doesn't break the laws of physics he IS the laws of physics'.True. Jeyamohan incidentally made a similar point about aRpudhangaL recently (in the wake of the Nithyananda scandal).

[sathya_1979]

:headspinning:

[kid-glove]

[Continued digression]
>>This is like saying 'agnostic' is the default setting and it gets updated to either 'theist' or 'atheist.' But considering that it's a fairly esoteric term, is it meant to be the default? <<
Huxley would disagree. It's meant to be antithetical of 'esoteric' or in particular, esoteric spirituality of the times, the 'gnostic' of the church to be more precise. Hence the term a'gnostic'.
[End digression]
I was not talking about the meaning of the word, but about its usage in day-to-day life; i.e. how many people call themselves (a) theists? (b) atheists? (c) agnostics?

All this is fine. But in tracing back its origin, one could understand there are different strokes of abusing the word. There are handful in this very thread. Practically speaking, it fails to register in a singular sense. But one could safely conclude Huxley coined it to clearly demarcate from 'gnostic' of theists AND also the 'gnostic' of Atheists, and 'gnostic' of other ugly -ists. And that it's useful to associate 'indifference' (both conscious and unconscious?!) of such 'gnostic' as Agnostic. Atheist aren't indifferent, but 'differ' (that such a state could only be 'conscious' - they may not show or care about it deeply, but that's not the point here) from theists, that this difference is pigeon-holed to be a 'systematic ideology' and a form of 'evangelism' in itself.

There's complete 'ignorance' of 'God' by birth, the pristine state. Without the equation of "God", all three terms cease to exist. So we got to define 'unconsciousness' by state of mind and acquired knowledge. Atheists could be tired of the predictable pattern such debates take and refrain from expressing their difference, still there's no question of 'indifference' as such..

[equanimus]

[tscii:e266820488]
But one could safely conclude Huxley coined it to clearly demarcate from 'gnostic' of theists AND also the 'gnostic' of Atheists, and 'gnostic' of other ugly -ists. And that it's useful to associate 'indifference' (both conscious and unconscious?!) of such 'gnostic' as Agnostic.I think I made this point before. The association of a sense of indifference is indeed useful, but this indifference is towards “knowing,” different from the indifference we're talking about with respect to god. From your last post, it seems you actually subscribe to the dual classification (i.e. agnostics are also either atheists or theists), in which case we don't even have to talk about agnostics as a third group. So, Mani's films are either theistic or atheistic. (Along the same lines, PR said "IMO, all we can say is MR is indifferent.") Let's leave it at that. :)[/tscii:e266820488]

[jaiganes]

I do get the point about the technical default (!) not being interesting, but clearly it's impossible to hold that the existence of something is unknowable (say, "I have no idea about it") without knowing what it is.

This relieves them from having to answer every possible question. Biggies like origin of the Universe etc. They can happily subscribe to some colorful myth or the other and not lose sleep over it.Yes, and this is why I like to call myself an agnostic. Whatever it means!

Quite frankly most people would be sorely disappointed if they are told something like: 'God doesn't break the laws of physics he IS the laws of physics'.True. Jeyamohan incidentally made a similar point about aRpudhangaL recently (in the wake of the Nithyananda scandal).

It is quite logical aint it?
I make the law and who will respect it if I myself break it?
I wrote the above line seriously and for some reason I started to laugh at the corny silliness in it.

First we need to understand completely the laws of universe to even argue on that plane (It was highly silly of Jeyamohan to have made that point - about laws of physics being empirical and static). Since we dont have data yet...
I can only take the approach of Isaac Asimov as alluded to in this story -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Question
....

purinjukkonga naanun phlaasaphy dhaan.

[Bala (Karthik)]

Equa and co,
Oru request. Idhellam total digression nu neengale stop pannapdaadhu. "Pesanum, neraya pesanum", naanga enga paatula vandhu sendhu poduvom

[Bala (Karthik)]

The metaphysical terrain of myths like Ramayana and Mahabharatha are touched upon at the drop of a hat in his films.

More on this and the RGV reference please...

[kalyan]

Kalyan and Anbu_Kathir are here .. Its time for me to shut up :)

but may be i shud say something.. in Dasa, Balram does mock at Nagesh for having sooo many children.. and he mocks at alagiya singar also.. Kamal is almost unbiased IMHO.. since he has seen hindu-brahminism in his very close circles, he must hate it the most.. and that does reflect in his movies... nothing bad really...

Anban, on the contrary, it was me who was trying to shut my mouth, but couldnt resist replying :D

you remember KH telling about 'SamaNargaLai Sivan pErAl kazhuvetriyathu' in the Virumaandi video, right? (link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5uHxcSga5U) that incident actually followed the nayanmArs and Samanars having a religious debate under the condition that whoever loses the debate should commit suicide by kazhuvEtruthal. in short, the nayanmars would have committed suicide if they had lost the debate. But KH is making it look like hindu fanatics killed jains out of pure hatred, in the name of shiva, which is anything but the documented truth.

but there has been a systemtic hindu genocide in the last 1000 years in india, and the historians estimate that roughly 60 crores (yes, hundred times the no. of jews kiled in holocaust) of hindus were killed over the last millennium for resisting conversion. why doesnt KH open his mouth over these atrocities?

[equanimus]

Bala,
The digression alert was for the rather unrelated discussion about agnosticism. :) I think there's more to be discussed about the original point about the spiritual character of Kamal's films. Enough hasn't been written on this subject. Most fans are often too enthused to align his films with the most acceptable, liberal viewpoints. For instance, consider how his films are sometimes described as Gandhian as well as Periyarist! In general, I think people greatly overstate/exaggerate some points about Kamal's ideological inclinations.

[venkkiram]

Thulukkanam is a Hindu name, FYI :)
ஓ அப்படியா? அப்போ ஏன் "துலுக்கன்" என்ற வட்டார சொல்லில் இஸ்லாம் மத மக்களை குறிப்பிட பயன்படுத்துகிறார்கள்?

[Sarna]

[tscii:2216503a5c]Kamal Hassan : 7 November 1954
Shivaji Rao Gaekwad : 12 December 1950
Muhammed Kutty : 17 September 1953
Vishwanath Patekar : 1 January 1951
Mel Gibson : 3 January 1956
Thomas Jeffrey Hanks : 9 July 1956
Denzel Hayes Washington, Jr. : 28 December 1954
Walter Bruce Willis : 19 March 1955
Jackie Chan : 7 April 1954
Mani Rathnam : 2 June 1956
Shabana Azmi : 18 September 1950
Ed Harris : 28 November 1950
Robin McLaurim Williams : 21 July 1951
Kevin Michael Costner : 18 January 1955
Pierce Brendan Brosnan : 16 May 1953
Kevin Norwood Bacon : 8 July 1958
Michael Joseph Jackson : 29 August 1958
Kevin Spacey Fowler : 26 July 1959
José Antonio Domínguez Banderas : 10 August 1960
Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair : 21 May 1960

நான் ரசித்த, வியந்த இந்தக் கலைஞர்கள் எல்லாம் ஒரு சேர 1950 - 1960 களில் பிறந்தவர்கள் எனத் தெரியவரும் போது, ஆச்சர்யம் எல்லை தாண்டுகிறது. இவர்கள் எல்லாம் இயற்கையால் இயல், இசை, நாடகக் கலைகளுக்கென்றே பூமிக்கு அனுப்பப்பட்டவர்கள் என நினைக்கத் தோன்றுகிறது. [/tscii:2216503a5c]

:)

[P_R]

Kalyan, the jury is out on that one isn't it ?

One side argues along the lines of what you said: that the losers of debates impaling themselves was the practice of the times and it was not a genocide as some ppl. are making it out to be today.

However, it is also counterargued, that, be that as it may, the impalement that followed GnAnasambandar's victory in Madurai, was huge and horrendous even by the sense of proportion of the age. And the extent of hatred against samaNargaL (whether warranted or unwarranted is another issue) in the texts would strike any spiritual seeker today to be odd.

By today's standards such an act in the name of religion strikes one as horrific doesn't it? That is the point being underlined there - that culture is NOT static. It keeps changing.

The 'Hindus' who get offended perhaps likes to think of sambandar as 'us' and samaNargaL as the 'other', so much so that it seems like Kamal is vilifying 'us'.

It is precisely here that the understanding is wrong. The religion of today, as you well know, is something that takes from all the past making the 'us' and 'them' totally irrelevant. Probably the asceticism from the jains has been internalized a lot. Heck, worship, rituals, way of life and pretty much every thing 'sambandar' was probably defending in his 'debate' is something we have little understanding about today.

I am not being holier than thou either. We will surely have our own 'us' and 'them' which is relevant to our times :-) But to think of the 'us' today as an exact continuation of the 'us' of the past is inappropriate. If this is understand, all debate about the past will be largely moved by academic curiosity only.

[equanimus]

Bala,
AhA, the reference to RGV was a joke! There are filmmakers who are devout theists but their films have nothing to do with god. And on the other hand, Ram Gopal Varma is an atheist who keeps making supernatural thrillers/horror films.

[venkkiram]

:)why?

[kalyan]

Kalyan, the jury is out on that one isn't it ?

One side argues along the lines of what you said: that the losers of debates impaling themselves was the practice of the times and it was not a genocide as some ppl. are making it out to be today.

However, it is also counterargued, that, be that as it may, the impalement that followed GnAnasambandar's victory in Madurai, was huge and horrendous even by the sense of proportion of the age. And the extent of hatred against samaNargaL (whether warranted or unwarranted is another issue) in the texts would strike any spiritual seeker today to be odd.

By today's standards such an act in the name of religion strikes one as horrific doesn't it? That is the point being underlined there - that culture is NOT static. It keeps changing.

The 'Hindus' who get offended perhaps likes to think of sambandar as 'us' and samaNargaL as the 'other', so much so that it seems like Kamal is vilifying 'us'.

It is precisely here that the understanding is wrong. The religion of today, as you well know, is something that takes from all the past making the 'us' and 'them' totally irrelevant. Probably the asceticism from the jains has been internalized a lot. Heck, worship, rituals, way of life and pretty much every thing 'sambandar' was probably defending in his 'debate' is something we have little understanding about today.

I am not being holier than thou either. We will surely have our own 'us' and 'them' which is relevant to our times :-) But to think of the 'us' today as an exact continuation of the 'us' of the past is inappropriate. If this is understand, all debate about the past will be largely moved by academic curiosity only.

P_R,

the descrepencies arise from the way of interpretation of the word "eNNAyiram"

one school assumes that 8000 jains (samanargal) were killed.

the other school interprets that 'eNNAyiram' is the town where the jains lived. hence, "eNNAyiram samaNargaL kazhuvEtrappattanar" actually implies that the jains of a particular locality committed suicide, their numbers may be much much lesser than 8000.

there is another school of thought that among the samanars of the town Ennayiram, only those priests who were involved in the debate committed suicide and the remaning Jains converted to Himduism and were absorbed s a distinct sect of Brahmins. even today, tamil iyers have three main divisions: VadamAL, BrahacharaNam and Ashtasahasram. the word "Ashta" (meaning 'eight') and 'sahasram' (meaning 'thousand') is a literal translation of eNNayiram. there is a school of thought that the ashtasahasram brahmins are the descendents of the jains from eNNayiram.

anyway, we dont have to go to historical details as we are only discussing Kamal's statement regarding the issue, where he says "sivan pErAl samaNargaL kazhuvEtrappattanar" and tries to portray Shaivies / hindus in a bad light. hence i asked, if he is neutral enough, why doesnt he raise his voice for those crores of hindus killed at the hands of invaders resisting conversion, and those hapless hindu women who underwent sexual slavery in the hands of invaders.

[venkkiram]

anyway, we dont have to go to historical details as we are only discussing Kamal's statement regarding the issue, where he says "sivan pErAl samaNargaL kazhuvEtrappattanar" and tries to portray Shaivies / hindus in a bad light. hence i asked, if he is neutral enough, why doesnt he raise his voice for those crores of hindus killed at the hands of invaders resisting conversion, and those hapless hindu women who underwent sexual slavery in the hands of invaders.ஆனால் ஜெயமோகன், "சமணர்கள் கழுவேற்றம்" என்பதே நடந்திருக்க வாய்ப்பில்லை எனக் கூறுகிறார்.

உண்மை யாரிடம் சிக்கிக் கொண்டு தவிக்கிறது என்பதே தெரியவில்லை.

[Anban]

Jeyamohan RSS endru charu koorugiraar..

[kalyan]

[tscii:2f44158c12]Kamal Hassan : 7 November 1954
Shivaji Rao Gaekwad : 12 December 1950
Muhammed Kutty : 17 September 1953
Vishwanath Patekar : 1 January 1951
Mel Gibson : 3 January 1956
Thomas Jeffrey Hanks : 9 July 1956
Denzel Hayes Washington, Jr. : 28 December 1954
Walter Bruce Willis : 19 March 1955
Jackie Chan : 7 April 1954
Mani Rathnam : 2 June 1956
Shabana Azmi : 18 September 1950
Ed Harris : 28 November 1950
Robin McLaurim Williams : 21 July 1951
Kevin Michael Costner : 18 January 1955
Pierce Brendan Brosnan : 16 May 1953
Kevin Norwood Bacon : 8 July 1958
Michael Joseph Jackson : 29 August 1958
Kevin Spacey Fowler : 26 July 1959
José Antonio Domínguez Banderas : 10 August 1960
Mohanlal Viswanathan Nair : 21 May 1960

நான் ரசித்த, வியந்த இந்தக் கலைஞர்கள் எல்லாம் ஒரு சேர 1950 - 1960 களில் பிறந்தவர்கள் எனத் தெரியவரும் போது, ஆச்சர்யம் எல்லை தாண்டுகிறது. இவர்கள் எல்லாம் இயற்கையால் இயல், இசை, நாடகக் கலைகளுக்கென்றே பூமிக்கு அனுப்பப்பட்டவர்கள் என நினைக்கத் தோன்றுகிறது. [/tscii:2f44158c12]

:)

Rajni was born in 1949. 100% sure. even wikipedia had the year of birth as 1949 until 2 years back. in the meantime somebody has edited wikipedia and everybody has now started believing that rajini was born in 1950.

[kalyan]

Jeyamohan RSS endru charu koorugiraar..

then by default jayamohan isnt one :wink: :lol:

[kalyan]

Jeyamohan RSS endru charu koorugiraar..

Chaaru tamil ilakkiya ulagaththin Subramanian Swamy. If he is jobless, Subbu swamy will start accusing others as "CIA agent". Chaaru is just following his role model. 8-) :D

[kalyan]

Thulukkanam is a Hindu name, FYI :)
ஓ அப்படியா? அப்போ ஏன் "துலுக்கன்" என்ற வட்டார சொல்லில் இஸ்லாம் மத மக்களை குறிப்பிட பயன்படுத்துகிறார்கள்?

both are from two different root words if I am right.

Muslims are generally referred as "Turk"s or "turukkan" in tamil owing to their reverence to the Caliphate which was located in Turkey from the early 16th century. this got corrupted in Tamil as "tulukkan". Tulukkan is generally used by non muslims, but NEVER among muslims. they might even consider the word highly derogatory. hence no muslim is going to keep a name 'tulukkAnam'.

on the other hand, the name tulukkANam seems to have originated from the word "thuLuvan" which may have referred a person having his roots in the 'tulu nadu' part of karnataka. (aishwarya rai, shilpa shetty, sunil shetty, prakash raj, robin Uththappa etc are 'tuluva's; their mother tongue is tulu). contrary to P_R's mock post, tulukkanam is not a dalit name (or at least, not an exclusively dalit name). a google search proves otherwise :)

[jaiganes]

i recollect reading in sramakrishnan's blog a post about 'Kazhu'. He feels that historical evidence is not strong about forceful 'kazhuetrams'. Much of it is enhanced false bravado by the saivists of the time who wouldnt have dreamt that in future such secularist " arivu jeevis" will be court martialling them for it.
JeMo has a valid point when he says that Jain inscriptions of the time did not speak much about these atrocities. Point to be noted is that when these things were happening the neighbouring kingdoms were aflush with jains who would have noted it down in their legends and stories - after all it is this "intolerant" saivist tamil nadu that preserved epics like Perungadhai, seevagasindhamani and manimegalai which are all jainist in their themes and so many poems like naanmanikkadigai and naaladiyaar written by jainist saints..
IT is so easy to see the whole world as RED when you wear a red tinted glass.

[Srimannarayanan]

Thulukkanam is a Hindu name, FYI :)
ஓ அப்படியா? அப்போ ஏன் "துலுக்கன்" என்ற வட்டார சொல்லில் இஸ்லாம் மத மக்களை குறிப்பிட பயன்படுத்துகிறார்கள்?

both are from two different root words if I am right.

Muslims are generally referred as "Turk"s or "turukkan" in tamil owing to their reverence to the Caliphate which was located in Turkey from the early 16th century. this got corrupted in Tamil as "tulukkan". Tulukkan is generally used by non muslims, but NEVER among muslims. they might even consider the word highly derogatory. hence no muslim is going to keep a name 'tulukkAnam'.

on the other hand, the name tulukkANam seems to have originated from the word "thuLuvan" which may have referred a person having his roots in the 'tulu nadu' part of karnataka. (aishwarya rai, shilpa shetty, sunil shetty, prakash raj, robin Uththappa etc are 'tuluva's; their mother tongue is tulu). contrary to P_R's mock post, tulukkanam is not a dalit name (or at least, not an exclusively dalit name). a google search proves otherwise :)

Near Kanchipuram , we have a temple for "Thulukanthaman"

[Srimannarayanan]

Thulukkanam is a Hindu name, FYI :)
ஓ அப்படியா? அப்போ ஏன் "துலுக்கன்" என்ற வட்டார சொல்லில் இஸ்லாம் மத மக்களை குறிப்பிட பயன்படுத்துகிறார்கள்?

both are from two different root words if I am right.

Muslims are generally referred as "Turk"s or "turukkan" in tamil owing to their reverence to the Caliphate which was located in Turkey from the early 16th century. this got corrupted in Tamil as "tulukkan". Tulukkan is generally used by non muslims, but NEVER among muslims. they might even consider the word highly derogatory. hence no muslim is going to keep a name 'tulukkAnam'.

on the other hand, the name tulukkANam seems to have originated from the word "thuLuvan" which may have referred a person having his roots in the 'tulu nadu' part of karnataka. (aishwarya rai, shilpa shetty, sunil shetty, prakash raj, robin Uththappa etc are 'tuluva's; their mother tongue is tulu). contrary to P_R's mock post, tulukkanam is not a dalit name (or at least, not an exclusively dalit name). a google search proves otherwise :)

Near Kanchipuram , we have a temple for "Thulukanthaman"

[kalyan]

i recollect reading in sramakrishnan's blog a post about 'Kazhu'. He feels that historical evidence is not strong about forceful 'kazhuetrams'. Much of it is enhanced false bravado by the saivists of the time who wouldnt have dreamt that in future such secularist " arivu jeevis" will be court martialling them for it.
JeMo has a valid point when he says that Jain inscriptions of the time did not speak much about these atrocities. Point to be noted is that when these things were happening the neighbouring kingdoms were aflush with jains who would have noted it down in their legends and stories - after all it is this "intolerant" saivist tamil nadu that preserved epics like Perungadhai, seevagasindhamani and manimegalai which are all jainist in their themes and so many poems like naanmanikkadigai and naaladiyaar written by jainist saints..
IT is so easy to see the whole world as RED when you wear a red tinted glass.

not to mention 'thirukkuRaL' (written by valluvar, who is portrayed to be a Jain, despite the fact that he recited ThirukkuRaL sitting at the PotRamarai KuLam in Meenakshi temple, Madurai) which was preserved for 1400 years by the 'intolerant' saivaites, only to be blamed by our current political leaders :D

dig

/// in todays TN, if you praise Kambar, you are communal. If you praise valluvar, you are secular.

vaazhga jananayagam :lol:
///

end dig

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

//Dig: Title evvalavu apt-a vechirukken paarunga :razz: dappul meaning varuthu :lol: athuvum ippo discuss pannura topic oda othu poguthu!!

[venkkiram]

i recollect reading in sramakrishnan's blog a post about 'Kazhu'. He feels that historical evidence is not strong about forceful 'kazhuetrams'. Much of it is enhanced false bravado by the saivists of the time who wouldnt have dreamt that in future such secularist " arivu jeevis" will be court martialling them for it.
JeMo has a valid point when he says that Jain inscriptions of the time did not speak much about these atrocities. Point to be noted is that when these things were happening the neighbouring kingdoms were aflush with jains who would have noted it down in their legends and stories - after all it is this "intolerant" saivist tamil nadu that preserved epics like Perungadhai, seevagasindhamani and manimegalai which are all jainist in their themes and so many poems like naanmanikkadigai and naaladiyaar written by jainist saints..
IT is so easy to see the whole world as RED when you wear a red tinted glass.உடன்படுகிறேன்.

[Amarshiva]

kalyan,

can you change your signature pls.

A humble request from a diehard fan of kamal even after 25 years. I Know you were a diehard fan of KH during DASA- Hence the request.


Amar

[kalyan]

kalyan,

can you change your signature pls.
Amar

done :)

[P_R]

here is another school of thought that among the samanars of the town Ennayiram, only those priests who were involved in the debate committed suicide and the remaning Jains converted to Himduism and were absorbed s a distinct sect of Brahmins. even today, tamil iyers have three main divisions: VadamAL, BrahacharaNam and Ashtasahasram. the word "Ashta" (meaning 'eight') and 'sahasram' (meaning 'thousand') is a literal translation of eNNayiram. there is a school of thought that the ashtasahasram brahmins are the descendents of the jains from eNNayiram. Oh ok ! That's interesting.



where he says "sivan pErAl samaNargaL kazhuvEtrappattanar" and tries to portray Shaivies / hindus in a bad light. Kalyan, the point is, 'why should Hindus today be offended by this' ? Taking offence comes from the assumption of a strong continuity. Today's catholic is horrified by the inquisition. He isn't offended by the mention of it.

The point of Kamal not sufficiently criticizing the failings of other persuasions, this has been widely discussed here. Particularly around the time of UPO.

I for one felt he was humouring extreme Muslim critics , who weren't really 'deep' enough for someone like Kamal to engage in conversation with. And worse still, he was half-apologetically defending his film and establishing his credentials. Something he would just not bother doing with the extreme right from the other end of the religious spectrum :-)

OTOH some (like B(K) ) thought it quite necessary that he establish his record and defend himself.

AppuRam andha thread-ai thaNNi oothi aNaichu, pootti vachchu, kaayappOttOm-nu ninaikkuREn. :lol2:

[P_R]

Near Kanchipuram , we have a temple for "Thulukanthaman"

There is a temple in Nungambakkam for துளிக்கானத்தம்மன். I don't know the associated myth though.

[kalyan]

Today's catholic is horrified by the inquisition. He isn't offended by the mention of it.



I carefully avoided touching that :D னெறைய matter இருக்கு, especially regardig the Goan one. அப்புறம் பெசுவோம் :)

[kalyan]

Near Kanchipuram , we have a temple for "Thulukanthaman"

There is a temple in Nungambakkam for துளிக்கானத்தம்மன். I don't know the associated myth though.

very much expected and understandable :)

[P_R]

Near Kanchipuram , we have a temple for "Thulukanthaman"

There is a temple in Nungambakkam for துளிக்கானத்தம்மன். I don't know the associated myth though.

very much expected and understandable :)
adhu enna espettEsan?

[kalyan]

Near Kanchipuram , we have a temple for "Thulukanthaman"

There is a temple in Nungambakkam for துளிக்கானத்தம்மன். I don't know the associated myth though.

very much expected and understandable :)
adhu enna espettEsan?

most local hindu names are based on a local deity. hence i expected a deity with a similar name in those areas :)

[anbu_kathir]

As usual, oru loooong post.



Just to clarify, by 'spiritual,' I mean metaphysical ruminations..



...isn't it striking that Kamal invokes someone like Thirumoolar in the first place? I certainly do agree that Kamal has no time for religious hokum. So yes, he's demystifying Thirumoolar, but the question is if he de-spiritualizes.


To me, demystifying and despiritualizing are the same. I think the most important function of spirituality or religion is to keep the mystery aspect alive. This is what gives meaning to religion (mythology), personal or private. If the mystery aspect is lost, if all can be explained in physical-mental-emotional terms, then one is cutting out a whole dimension of the human experience and therefore has to loop back to this world with its dual principles. I had already raised this point in the Richard Dawkins debate.

Keeping this post to Anbe Sivam alone, I didn't catch this mystery aspect anywhere in the film, as we agree. Sure, some metaphysical questions are raised (by Anbarasu for instance, who raises the question of "why such a system?" when the kid dies, as a theist would do; but somehow doesn't recall the 'vidhi' term, contrary to a Hindu's regular fall-back to the why question). But Nallasivam doesn't offer a metaphysical answer, so I am forced to consider the movie to be only humanitarian, not spiritual.

Also, every character in the movie who plays a role in raising or answering those questions assumes that God is "good" somehow, which is again a juvenile viewpoint of religion/spirituality and fails after a certain amount of thought about the matter. For example, Lord Shiva is also the great destroyer.. mercilessly ripping through the world at each final phase, irrespective of the good-bad nature of the people in it. The Buddha, considered to be the most compassionate being, also appears in horrendous forms in Buddhist mythology. God is therefore not just 'goodness' or 'good', but is infact transcendent to the definitions of goodness-badness that arise from the mind and which change with time.

Thirumoolar does in-fact take this view of God, verse no 21 here

http://ia331331.us.archive.org/0/items/moolamandhiramth015044mbp/moolamandhiramth015044mbp.pdf

starts like this

"Eesan irukkum iruvinaikku appuram"


and thereby closes the argument "To be good is to be God-like". Assuming that Thirumoolar was consistent in his view of spirituality, he could not have meant the being-compassionate attitude of Nalla when he mentions "Anbe Sivam", for its just one side of the coin. Of course, in human terms - God's grace, aruL, paasam, etc... nnu solraaru, but none of this has anything to do with the human definitions of good-bad. Even being the monstrous Kalabhairavar, Thirumoolar would agree that Shiva is utmost merciful, while KH's Nalla would disagree (like Govind questions after the Tsunami in Dasavatharam).



I'm not sure which interviews you're talking about. I've seen interviews where he quotes Adi Sankaras and Jesuses of the world, calling them atheists of their times, interviews where he traces Periyar to the heritage of Siththars. The metaphysical terrain of myths like Ramayana and Mahabharatha are touched upon at the drop of a hat in his films.


Adishankara(s?) and Jesus(es?) sure went against the grain during their times, but to claim either were atheists is strange and seems illogical to me. Periyar matter pathi theriyaadhu...

Love and Light.

[Cinefan]

Bypassed most of k-g's,equa's and P_R's posts :oops: (no time now to read/absorb/think)

Small question regarding the dialogue in the climax of Thevar Magan and one dialogue in 10A i.e in P_R's words the alleged impotency of the alleged omnipotent-Why makes KH think that if a GOD exists his job is to prevent famine,orphans,tsunami,poverty etc etc etc.

Am surprised that for a man of his intelligence,his thoughts on this subject in his films should come across as so childish.

Taking this line of argument,if Rama,Krishna,Ganesha are failing in their so called duties which KH and his like expect them to do,then is not Allah,Jesus also failing????????Then why relate only Hindu motifs to bad in the world and berate them/say they do not exist?

Have read a couple of his interviews where he speaks with more authority and knowledge.This makes me think if he is sending out a politically convinient image of a secular,leftist intellectual.I hope not!

Without really getting into the atheist/agnostic/theist debate,Mani has kept his films(the ones I have seen which is everything expect Unnaru,the Mohan-Ambika-Radha one and Raavanan)free of these debates.He really has not given an in-your-face insight into his personal beliefs.Even the limited number of interviews he has done are free of such discussions.Wondering how Mani came in when KH is being discussed.They hardly have anything in common.

[P_R]

Am surprised that for a man of his intelligence,his thoughts on this subject in his films should come across as so childish. His is a response to the general public expectation about God.

That is what I meant when I say Kamal's ruminations about the subject will always be 'social' and not 'personal' a la Woody. The concept of 'God' as a Supreme, harmony of the existence etc. is less interesting to him, than the 'wide' belief that he is an intervener who will bring justice.

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

For those who are claiming kamal as anti-brahmin and pro-(non-Hindu) religion, i thought to point krishnaveni paatti who considered the dead poovaraaghan and uttered the words"poda poda jaathi pisaasu" but alas, following the next scene, where govind aka kamal-the-writer says " unga paattikkum unga bagavaanukkum (mind) just not there" he shatters the beleif. why such useless dialogs?

There is another live comedy where ulaganaayagan portrayed 'certain' 'specific' paarpana magalir as spoiling tamil spell and diction when they spell "saapteLaa" as "shaapteLaa" if this is a stupid thing which spoils the language then what about the whole nadraas bashai, and counless accent which he fondly takes on screen???? avingellaam thamizhai naasthi pannalayo? what a discrimination, sir? THis live comedy happened in a Vijay TV Promo for UPO

[P_R]

And on the other hand, Ram Gopal Varma is an atheist who keeps making supernatural thrillers/horror films.

The most hilarious piece of irreverence I have seen is in the scene in Satya where Chandu takes Satya to the apartment given to him.
There is a piLLaiyAr (Ganpat!) picture on the wall.

ek bistar hai...light hai...ek bagwaan bhi hai :lol:

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

Taking this line of argument,if Rama,Krishna,Ganesha are failing in their so called duties which KH and his like expect them to do,then is not Allah,Jesus also failing????????Then why relate only Hindu motifs to bad in the world and berate them/say they do not exist?

spot on! Ithai avar thairiyamaaga sollattum, appuram paarpom

In the same dasa climax, if there were a scene where govind hears nagesh saying" dei kalif ullaah, paarthiya namma ellorayum kaapaathinathu antha allaa thaan, masoothikku veliya irunthiruntha naama ellorum sethiruppom" and responds "En sir, unga allaah, avlo periya kadavulaa irunthaa en masoothikku veliya iruntha makalai ellaam saaga vittuttaar? avanga elaam muslim illenna? masoothkkulla illenna?" then we can say he is balanced.

Kekkura vithandavaatha kelvigalellaam correctaa iayengaars kitta thaan keppaaru

suppose if kamal thinks, as he came from vaishnavam camp, he has more authority(?) to question only that community than any other, then its sheer foolish as neither he is not supporting those beilifs nor they are agreeing him as one among them. he is basically an outsider when it comes to any religion

If he tries to portray that he is not afraid of pointing the blunders of his (once)own, now divorced religion, sorry sir, neenga ippo ange illai. why always blaming ur ex-wife? instead blame other's wife, u have to be balanced and not partial on this

[sathya_1979]

[dig:
Secularism / atheism / paguththarivu in india is hindu bashing. Nobody is an exception to this template.
:End dig]

[venkkiram]

விவாதங்கள் நல்லதொரு வாசிப்பு அனுபவத்தை ஏற்படுத்தியிருக்கிறது. நன்றி அனைவருக்கும்.

[kalyan]

suppose if kamal thinks, as he came from vaishnavam camp, he has more authority(?) to question only that community than any other, then its sheer foolish as neither he is not supporting those beilifs nor they are agreeing him as one among them. he is basically an outsider when it comes to any religion

If he tries to portray that he is not afraid of pointing the blunders of his (once)own, now divorced religion, sorry sir, neenga ippo ange illai. why always blaming ur ex-wife? instead blame other's wife, u have to be balanced and not partial on this

spot on! :clap: :clap: :clap:

[raghavendran]

suppose if kamal thinks, as he came from vaishnavam camp, he has more authority(?) to question only that community than any other, then its sheer foolish as neither he is not supporting those beilifs nor they are agreeing him as one among them. he is basically an outsider when it comes to any religion

If he tries to portray that he is not afraid of pointing the blunders of his (once)own, now divorced religion, sorry sir, neenga ippo ange illai. why always blaming ur ex-wife? instead blame other's wife, u have to be balanced and not partial on this

spot on! :clap: :clap: :clap: :yes: :thumbsup:

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

In the same dasa climax, if there were a scene where govind hears nagesh saying" dei kalif ullaah, paarthiya namma ellorayum kaapaathinathu antha allaa thaan, masoothikku veliya irunthiruntha naama ellorum sethiruppom" and responds "En sir, unga allaah, avlo periya kadavulaa irunthaa en masoothikku veliya iruntha makalai ellaam saaga vittuttaar? avanga elaam muslim illenna? masoothkkulla illenna?" then we can say he is balanced. intha oru point mattum vaapas vaangikkuren, becos, just after nagesh utters the dialog - allaah thaan ellaraym kaapaathinaar - we are shown balram naidu flying atop on the helicopter. symbolics!

all my other points stand the same

[kalyan]

In the same dasa climax, if there were a scene where govind hears nagesh saying" dei kalif ullaah, paarthiya namma ellorayum kaapaathinathu antha allaa thaan, masoothikku veliya irunthiruntha naama ellorum sethiruppom" and responds "En sir, unga allaah, avlo periya kadavulaa irunthaa en masoothikku veliya iruntha makalai ellaam saaga vittuttaar? avanga elaam muslim illenna? masoothkkulla illenna?" then we can say he is balanced. intha oru point mattum vaapas vaangikkuren, becos, just after nagesh utters the dialog - allaah thaan ellaraym kaapaathinaar - we are shown balram naidu flying atop on the helicopter. symbolics!

all my other points stand the same

hardly convincing :?

even if you assumed that allah had acted via Balram naidu shifting the muslims of the locality into the mosque, allah/god still becomes accountable for the loss of lives outside the mosque, from KH's point of view. :huh:

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

kalyan, what i thought was, the writer tried to say that, in reality its balram naidu's foolish act of forcing everybody to assemble in the mosque, but nagesh misunderstand that as an act of allaah

i strongly feel kamal an aethist won't reinforce an idea(even indirectly) that god acted via a person to save a specific group, becos basically he doesn't belive there is anything called god

[Plum]

Ok I wasn't at all interested in the atheism-agnosticism academic debate (what does that make me, kid and equa? Atheist?agnoticist?agnoticist atheist) but the direction of the discussion being takne now raises a point from me. Let's leave kamal aside for a moment.
Now guys what is the problem? If you believe in God, do you believe that there is a separate God for muslims, a separate one for hindus and a third one for christians? If so does the hindu god only protect hindus? And so on? Doesn't that by itself shake your foundation of belief in God? Hindu Godsai sonnA ellA Godsaiyum sonnA mAdhiri dhAnE? :huh:
There were definitely some problems with the post dasa mollifcation of some muslim activists by kamal - as though he was trying to maintain a constituency but that is a different discussion(outside his movies )
You've to reread feeyaar's point about his views on God as expressed through his movies is not really personal but as an intervener. He might be a little deluded there but I tend to agree with feeyaar.

[sathya_1979]

Plum, I presume that the point driven by Sakala and Kalyan is not abt powers of god or individual beliefs. Its more abt vilification of a subset of people alone and turning blind eye to the other groups in the name of atheism / paguththarivu / secularism etc

[Plum]

And as regards "will you make fun of X the same way you do to Y", I think someone recently asked me the same "will you make fun of kamal and IR the same way as you do of abhishek".
The answer,dudes and dudettes, is why should I? If you want kamal to be made fun of do it yourself. I will only do that if I find his actions funny. I don't have to maintain a balance :huh:

For kamal, hindu way of life is first hand experience.others are academic knowledge so hindu examples(especially jaadhi veRi - the ones referred to in dasa by paatti - sheer contempt for "low" castes, which I can vouch for lies upto previous generation of mine and my gen too) might come - as Raju would put it - "apdiyE varradhu dhaan illai".
Menakettu pOi muslim atrocity pathi edukkaNumnA, google search paNNi quiz answer pandrA maadhri dhaan.

[sathya_1979]

then this is not atheism / paguththarivu / neutralism. Just age old hindu bashing. Illayaa?

[Plum]

Sathya, my prev post was before seeing yours. So it wasn't addressed at you

So this is not about God right? It is about communities - which again boils down to human tenendcy to group and divide.

Now, telugu mainstream movies are unabashedly anti-muslim unsubtly. I sometimes wonder why there is no protests even in hyderabad. Muslim villification virumbaravanga adhai paarthukkunga. Ange hindu villification virumbaravanga inge vandhu kamal padam paarthukattum :)

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

Plum, its also about nakkals and kindals on a specific comm, even without the god reference. one example is what i posted last page, the paarpana magalir issue. (overall this is a small issue but..)

[Plum]

then this is not atheism / paguththarivu / neutralism. Just age old hindu bashing. Illayaa?
Labels don't matter. If he was born in Europe, he would have done the same with cath/chris. Ofcourse, it is tough to do that in the other major religion's countries adhu vEra vishayam :)

I'd still retain pagutharivu - infact the word has been abused by our 20th century tn movements but kamal is perhaps slyly taking a dig at them as well

[Plum]

Sakalakv, people have pet hates. Big deal. Even here, when I make fun of x whom hubber y doesn't like, he responds with an :exactly: or :lol: but same hubber reacts with :angry: if I make fun of his favourite. Basically, there are certain groups and individuals who tickle your sense of satire more than others.

[tamizharasan]

Even though Kamal claims himself as athiest, several times, his subtle messages in the movies derived from Hindu Philosophy. He does not believe in customs and myths of hinduism but still I think he believes in underlying principles of hinduism and god.

[sathya_1979]

Plum, my posts were also generic ones trying to find out intentions behind preachings, POV etc. Coming to ur posts, the question arises only when someone proclaims as atheist, paguththarivaaLan etc and condemn, vilify, mock at a particular section. If somebody claims to be a member of a particular religion and mock at others, thats understandable (though its wrong). But, y a neutral / atheist condemn only one section? Either he / she condemns all religions or ideologies that preach god. Or don't condemn anyone. what is the point this neutral is trying to prove by vilifying one particular group?

[kid-glove]

Ok I wasn't at all interested in the atheism-agnosticism academic debate (what does that make me, kid and equa? Atheist?agnoticist?agnoticist atheist)
You're passive and Inert - slant towards neither - Atheistic nor Theistic - like Mani's films.. :P

If both atheists and theists maintain such passivism or rather pacificism & keep their views to themselves, there will be more of a harmony.

[kalyan]

kalyan, what i thought was, the writer tried to say that, in reality its balram naidu's foolish act of forcing everybody to assemble in the mosque, but nagesh misunderstand that as an act of allaah

i strongly feel kamal an aethist won't reinforce an idea(even indirectly) that god acted via a person to save a specific group, becos basically he doesn't belive there is anything called god

but a normal person with religious inclination towards a particular god will think it was a divine intervention enacted via Balram Naidu, and KH the writer doesnt refute that openly as what he does with Hindu beliefs. In fact, the writer KH overtly supports that by making nagesh mouth that particular dialogue to kalifullah.

earlier on the same night (Christmas!) Poovaragan hands over his gold chain with a cross to P Vasu's son, who is shown to be celebrating his birthday. the next morning, during tsunami, the boy is saved (since he is wearing the cross) but Poovaragan dies in the process of saving the child (since he is NOT wearing the cross)[ analogous to Karnan's kavacha-kundalam and Samson's uncut hair]. so the message conveyed is that the person wearing the cross is saved.

so KH is offering fringe benefits to non hindus by extending his covert (often overt) support, in the name of atheism :lol:

[kalyan]

Ok I wasn't at all interested in the atheism-agnosticism academic debate (what does that make me, kid and equa? Atheist?agnoticist?agnoticist atheist)
You're passive and Inert - slant towards neither - Atheistic nor Theistic - like Mani's films.. :P

If both atheists and theists maintain such passivism or rather pacificism & keep their views to themselves, there will be more of a harmony.

true, it will be great if KH reads your post :)

[app_engine]

Isn't dasAvathAram a commercial movie? (or anbE sivam or another xyz movie)

From the discussions going on here, one would think that it was a documentary featuring the beliefs of Kamalahasan :-)

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

kalyan, agee with u :) avar theliva sollaatha varai avar meethu naam varnam poosikkondu thaan iruppom :yes:

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

Isn't dasAvathAram a commercial movie? (or anbE sivam or another xyz movie)

From the discussions going on here, one would think that it was a documentary featuring the beliefs of Kamalahasan :-) apart frpm what type of movie it is, one shud agree that there is no such movie in indian film history which is so dense and keep on pouring direct or symbolic nuggets so that there is always more and more to discuss about.

of course, all these things are the skin of the movie whereas the entertaiment and excitement quotient it provided is uncomparable

here, now, we are mostly discussing about the skin of the movie

[kalyan]

kalyan, agee with u :) avar theliva sollaatha varai avar meethu naam varnam poosikkondu thaan iruppom :yes:

like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iTs70ds3RA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQC4N9G_Mc0 :lol:

[kid-glove]

Ok I wasn't at all interested in the atheism-agnosticism academic debate (what does that make me, kid and equa? Atheist?agnoticist?agnoticist atheist)
You're passive and Inert - slant towards neither - Atheistic nor Theistic - like Mani's films.. :P

If both atheists and theists maintain such passivism or rather pacificism & keep their views to themselves, there will be more of a harmony.

true, it will be great if KH reads your post :)

Do stress on "Pacificism", I'm sure we're at a point of history where the dangers posed by Religious fundamentalism far exceeds the presupposed 'secularists'. Sure we could do a body count, but not the forged inaccurate figures spread by theologians and apologists to cover their bases. But what remains eminent is misappropriation of communists as 'atheists'. Atheists have only one commonality and that is the conviction in absence of God (and not belonging to a singular ideology), but no 'hatred' is brought about by *that* (but by 'religion' and its institution(s), like church which indulge in blatant antisemitism).

Likes of KH exist because of the historical imbalance. Whatever your views on "Hindu bashing" might be. What's undeniable is folks like Poovaragan are 'Vincent' because of history of oppression and Human violation within different sects of religion. If he was born elsewhere, as P_R very aptly brought up, he'd be alluding to "inquisition" and antisemitism. And not 'Gang rape' by Muslims in Hey! Ram or violation of pregnant woman's womb by whoever(left ambivalent - so fill as you please) in UPO.

[kalyan]

If he was born elsewhere, as P_R very aptly brought up, he'd be alluding to "inquisition" and antisemitism. And not 'Gang rape' by Muslims in Hey! Ram or violation of pregnant woman's womb by whoever(left ambivalent - so fill as you please) in UPO.

arent we discussing reality rather than possibilities? :)

BTW, Inquisition wasnt confined to Europe. In fact, the most horrible and the bloodiest of the inquisitions was conducted in Goa, and was performed by the portuguese against the native Goanese hindus.

[kid-glove]

If I was an adviser, I'd suggest Kamal to do research on Asian inquisition & also do a Goa(n) get-up while he's at it. Political correctness remba mukkyam illaiya? :)

I'm not talking about possibilities. Kamal's character in UPO is deliberately ambivalent in this anecdote and secularizes (not the Indian context) from "Hindu vs Muslim" equation. Both the identity of the woman and identity of the violators aren't spell out. But alludes to violation of 'common man' in such a 'conflict' as a whole. Sure, one could read between the lines and be convinced it's got to be Hindus he's talking about. Let's also speculate Hey! Ram while we're at it. :)

[kid-glove]

For kamal, hindu way of life is first hand experience.others are academic knowledge so hindu examples(especially jaadhi veRi - the ones referred to in dasa by paatti - sheer contempt for "low" castes, which I can vouch for lies upto previous generation of mine and my gen too) might come - as Raju would put it - "apdiyE varradhu dhaan illai".
Menakettu pOi muslim atrocity pathi edukkaNumnA, google search paNNi quiz answer pandrA maadhri dhaan.
:lol: at Last line

[Plum]

The piece that gets the cake is the allegation that kamal was implying that cross saving vasu's kid. Shall we say asin was saved because she was chanting perumAL during tsunami?(And before that as well). Not to mention tightly hugging a perumal statue all through. Beat that for protection!

[kid-glove]

The piece that gets the cake is the allegation that kamal was implying that cross saving vasu's kid. Shall we say asin was saved because she was chanting perumAL during tsunami?(And before that as well). Not to mention tightly hugging a perumal statue all through. Beat that for protection!
Seems plausible. :)

[kalyan]

The piece that gets the cake is the allegation that kamal was implying that cross saving vasu's kid. Shall we say asin was saved because she was chanting perumAL during tsunami?(And before that as well). Not to mention tightly hugging a perumal statue all through. Beat that for protection!

simple logic, Asin was the heroine, she had to stay alive for commercial reasons :)

[Plum]

Wah wah! Just shows we decide on something and look only for clues corroborating it while ignoring clues that negate it.

[Plum]

Ok let me open another front against kamal. Being a vaishnavite, he deliberately showed shaivites in bad light and reinforced the mahimai of vishnu with the statue saving the world(and asin and govind). The dalit christian dies for upper caste children which shows what kamal expects of dalits. The vishnu statue swallowed the visham(vial with virus) thereby even appropriating a shivan myth into vishnu. Kamal is actually a iyengar fascist :huh:

[kalyan]

Wah wah! Just shows we decide on something and look only for clues corroborating it while ignoring clues that negate it.

yeah, that suits both of us. Y couldnt poovaragan gifted the child something like chocolate or a teddy bear or simple 100 Rs note from his walllet? why KH the writer specifically wants poovaragan to gift his cross to the kid? why should KSR the director keep a tight close up for that so taht the audience shouldnt miss the connection? the truth is out for everybody to see, too.

[kalyan]

Ok let me open another front against kamal. Being a vaishnavite, he deliberately showed shaivites in bad light and reinforced the mahimai of vishnu with the statue saving the world(and asin and govind). The dalit christian dies for upper caste children which shows what kamal expects of dalits. The vishnu statue swallowed the visham(vial with virus) thereby even appropriating a shivan myth into vishnu. Kamal is actually a iyengar fascist :huh:

thats what people like charu claim him to be. wanna join hands with Chaaru? :wink:

[Plum]

Mosque saved muslims
Perumal statue saved asin
Cross saved child

All religions covered-nga. ninga 1 and 3 mattum paarkaringa. 2 En unga kaNNukku padalai. It doesn't suit your narrative right?

The other question is why kamal would highlight divine protection. I remember posting in dasa thread about red herrings. Will try to find it

[kalyan]

Mosque saved muslims
Perumal statue saved asin
Cross saved child



:notworthy:

Mosque saved muslims: overtly acknowledged
Cross saved child: covertly acknowledged
Perumal statue saved asin: refuted

isnt this right?

[jaiganes]

And as regards "will you make fun of X the same way you do to Y", I think someone recently asked me the same "will you make fun of kamal and IR the same way as you do of abhishek".
The answer,dudes and dudettes, is why should I? If you want kamal to be made fun of do it yourself. I will only do that if I find his actions funny. I don't have to maintain a balance :huh:

For kamal, hindu way of life is first hand experience.others are academic knowledge so hindu examples(especially jaadhi veRi - the ones referred to in dasa by paatti - sheer contempt for "low" castes, which I can vouch for lies upto previous generation of mine and my gen too) might come - as Raju would put it - "apdiyE varradhu dhaan illai".
Menakettu pOi muslim atrocity pathi edukkaNumnA, google search paNNi quiz answer pandrA maadhri dhaan.
Appo idhu varaikkum kamal padamaa edutha vishayangal ellaame personal and direct experience thaana? Plus from whatever he has shared abt his personal life he has lived a very aloof life compared to siblings with respect to traditional hindu upbringing.
negatives mattum illai positivesum sonna thaan oru community paththi balanced perspective irukkunnu solla mudiyin(ippadi ezhudhinaa dhaan hubla neraya perukku puriyudhu - kaala kodumai). Kamalukku hinduism paththi irukkaradhellaam kaamalai kan.
All this is because of an inferiority complex which he alludes to in Nammavar (with reference to a stammering boy) - mathavan kindaladikarathukku munnaadi naamale kindal pannittaa naan thaan nadu nelamai - eppadi en bourgeois secularism?

[Plum]

Kalyan, so your problem is that Kamal seems to imply that the "hindu" God is weaker than the "muslim" and "christian" Gods? Idhukku theLivA badhil sollunga. NAn ipdi kEtka oru kAraNam irukku

[Plum]

Jai, ningalum unga kuyhambina kuttaila meen pudikkara techniquem :)

[Bala (Karthik)]

And as regards "will you make fun of X the same way you do to Y", I think someone recently asked me the same "will you make fun of kamal and IR the same way as you do of abhishek".
The answer,dudes and dudettes, is why should I? If you want kamal to be made fun of do it yourself. I will only do that if I find his actions funny. I don't have to maintain a balance :huh:

For kamal, hindu way of life is first hand experience.others are academic knowledge so hindu examples(especially jaadhi veRi - the ones referred to in dasa by paatti - sheer contempt for "low" castes, which I can vouch for lies upto previous generation of mine and my gen too) might come - as Raju would put it - "apdiyE varradhu dhaan illai".
Menakettu pOi muslim atrocity pathi edukkaNumnA, google search paNNi quiz answer pandrA maadhri dhaan.
:exactly: :clap:

[jaiganes]

Jai, ningalum unga kuyhambina kuttaila meen pudikkara techniquem :)
yaenga - neenga thaan inga phlasapy wholesale rights vechirukeengala?
Hub writing is like a choir - only difference is that not all are required to sing the same song.... ;-)

[Plum]

Jai, ningalum unga kuyhambina kuttaila meen pudikkara techniquem :)
yaenga - neenga thaan inga phlasapy wholesale rights vechirukeengala?
Hub writing is like a choir - only difference is that not all are required to sing the same song.... ;-)
Jai, I was just kidding. Adhaan :) ellAm pOttOmla!

[Plum]

Ok let me open another front against kamal. Being a vaishnavite, he deliberately showed shaivites in bad light and reinforced the mahimai of vishnu with the statue saving the world(and asin and govind). The dalit christian dies for upper caste children which shows what kamal expects of dalits. The vishnu statue swallowed the visham(vial with virus) thereby even appropriating a shivan myth into vishnu. Kamal is actually a iyengar fascist :huh:

thats what people like charu claim him to be. wanna join hands with Chaaru? :wink:

Kalyan, that's monumental miscomprehension. I was deliberately being obnoxious to show that it is possible to paint any colours we want to Kamal via his movies. As it has been repeatedly pointed out, Kamal's spiritual views are quite complicated and cannot be easily bucketed. Joe had linked an excellent article analysing this. Adhai vida theLivA sollamudiyAdhu.

What I am saying is that you are the other side of charu coin, trying to paint kamal leftist based on some vague clues while Charu tries to portray him as a rightist with a similar approach.

Ninga en kELvikku badhil sollunga appurm innoru charu bomb pOdarEn :)

[Bala (Karthik)]

Kalyan :shock:
Rape scene la "Narayana", naamam in another scene, idhellam endha kanakku?

[P_R]

Mosque saved muslims: overtly acknowledged
Cross saved child: covertly acknowledged
Perumal statue saved asin: refuted

isnt this right?

:confused2:

If God is an intelligent protector then why unleash this havoc or rather 'why enable man to think of nefarious schemes' that will unleash havoc ? This is the question he asks. This was pretty much a non-denominational question.

"enna maadhiri design idhu?" appidinnu A.Ars kEtta adhE kostin dhaanE idhu.

With that question, Govind kinda refutes every 'saviour theory'. And Asin's response is there is probably some reason/design which is impossible for us to understand. Such an explanation is unacceptable to the rationalist Govind.

The film grants no acknowledgement of 'saviors' whatsoever.

And, I keep mentioning every time, he has made frontal attacks on Abrahamic faiths too, which are centered around the return of the savior:

maRumuRai varuvadhaai solli
mAinthavar vandhadhE illai
thodarvadhu naamE - naaLai
varuvadhu vERoru aaLE

Lines from the title song in Hey ! Ram which he himself wrote.

Here he refutes the supposed divinity of anyone who says I will be back to save you, resurrect you etc: be it Krishna, Jesus or Mohammed.

I guess, what you are perhaps looking for is, nakkal/kindaL of Christian/Muslim faiths on the scale of Hindus. True he doesn't do that. And you are probably also right that that reason for that is the huge variance in the degree of tolerance.

But are you suggesting that that 'lack of tolerance' is a good thing?
Correct me if I am wrong, I sense something like 'if only we Hindus were as touchy' then no-one would dare etc etc. Did I get you wrong?

I, for one, feel it is quite important to have sivaperumAn blow bubbles and say "trolley forward" (Plum note this for mock essay: yet another instance of vaishnavite fanaticism!)

[Plum]

And as regards "will you make fun of X the same way you do to Y", I think someone recently asked me the same "will you make fun of kamal and IR the same way as you do of abhishek".
The answer,dudes and dudettes, is why should I? If you want kamal to be made fun of do it yourself. I will only do that if I find his actions funny. I don't have to maintain a balance :huh:

For kamal, hindu way of life is first hand experience.others are academic knowledge so hindu examples(especially jaadhi veRi - the ones referred to in dasa by paatti - sheer contempt for "low" castes, which I can vouch for lies upto previous generation of mine and my gen too) might come - as Raju would put it - "apdiyE varradhu dhaan illai".
Menakettu pOi muslim atrocity pathi edukkaNumnA, google search paNNi quiz answer pandrA maadhri dhaan.
Appo idhu varaikkum kamal padamaa edutha vishayangal ellaame personal and direct experience thaana? Plus from whatever he has shared abt his personal life he has lived a very aloof life compared to siblings with respect to traditional hindu upbringing.
negatives mattum illai positivesum sonna thaan oru community paththi balanced perspective irukkunnu solla mudiyin(ippadi ezhudhinaa dhaan hubla neraya perukku puriyudhu - kaala kodumai). Kamalukku hinduism paththi irukkaradhellaam kaamalai kan.
All this is because of an inferiority complex which he alludes to in Nammavar (with reference to a stammering boy) - mathavan kindaladikarathukku munnaadi naamale kindal pannittaa naan thaan nadu nelamai - eppadi en bourgeois secularism?

Let's see
Mahanadhi - yes, it was the experience of an innocent producer friend. Ofcourse, the friend didn't cut off his hands to kill a criminal. Friend daughter jailor son-ai kalyANamum kattikalainu nenaikkrEn
Chachi 420 - don't know what to say. I hope youu didn't include this in your question
Virumandi - ofcourse his personal experience of the milieu, culture and people is what makes the movie.
Anbe sivam - I find it hard to defend nasser's character in this movie. Not a favourite in particular for me. Fell free to open a discussiom and deconstruczion of kamal's motives based on this movie. I hope someone like feeyaar or kid glove will pitch in for this one.

Gunnaa - I"ll be frank. I haven't fully absorbes this movie. Till now. Which is why I hesitate to call myself a kamal fan. But again one can see his personal vision seeping through - again this is not google search but he has absorbed abirami andhaadhi at an early age. Don't forget that his influences, apart from his absolute brahmin of a mother include a drama troupe who would frequently have to refer to hindu tropes for their performances. Can he study quran and do similar stuff out of it, possibly blaspheming it to the delight of some here? Possibly but how can you replicate that absorption from young age - the engagement with that text at different points of his life, his perspective changing as he grows and all that culminating into this movie? Catch my point?
Hey Ram - perhaps, this was actually a google search movie in that Kamal actually painstakingly took efforts to present his complex vision of complex issues including spirituality and hs social study of the same. Again, this self-contains refutals to allegations of his pro-muslimness so perhaps he already has done the google search movie I was alluding to!

[Plum]

Mosque saved muslims: overtly acknowledged
Cross saved child: covertly acknowledged
Perumal statue saved asin: refuted

isnt this right?

:confused2:

If God is an intelligent protector then why unleash this havoc or rather 'why enable man to think of nefarious schemes' that will unleash havoc ? This is the question he asks. This was pretty much a non-denominational question.

"enna maadhiri design idhu?" appidinnu A.Ars kEtta adhE kostin dhaanE idhu.

With that question, Govind kinda refutes every 'saviour theory'. And Asin's response is there is probably some reason/design which is impossible for us to understand. Such an explanation is unacceptable to the rationalist Govind.

The film grants no acknowledgement of 'saviors' whatsoever.

And, I keep mentioning every time, he has made frontal attacks on Abrahamic faiths too, which are centered around the return of the savior:

maRumuRai varuvadhaai solli
mAinthavar vandhadhE illai
thodarvadhu naamE - naaLai
varuvadhu vERoru aaLE

Lines from the title song in Hey ! Ram which he himself wrote.

Here he refutes the supposed divinity of anyone who says I will be back to save you, resurrect you etc: be it Krishna, Jesus or Mohammed.

I guess, what you are perhaps looking for is, nakkal/kindaL of Christian/Muslim faiths on the scale of Hindus. True he doesn't do that. And you are probably also right that that reason for that is the huge variance in the degree of tolerance.

But are you suggesting that that 'lack of tolerance' is a good thing?
Correct me if I am wrong, I sense something like 'if only we Hindus were as touchy' then no-one would dare etc etc. Did I get you wrong?

I, for one, feel it is quite important to have sivaperumAn blow bubbles and say "trolley forward" (Plum note this for mock essay: yet another instance of vaishnavite fanaticism!)

And I forgot a vehicle painted with either a variation of vishnu's name or nAmam appearing miraculously whwnever kamal/Asin jump from any height :lol:

Actually, feeyaar, nInga avasara pattuttInga. IdhayE nAn "charuu bomb" levelku pOdalAmnu irundhEn once Kalyan answers my question on hindu gods and muslim gods. Sari ippOvE pOttudarEn.

Now, the cross saved the boy. Sari. Why didn't jesus, then, save poovaraaghan who has actually been Chrisitian for longer time and a believer in Christianity? The boy is just a accidental holder of the cross. AppO Jesus enna dumb-nu solraarA kamal? He is anti-christian I say!
(Don't forget that 2 out of 3 christian kamals die in the movie. Bush real life characterA pOyittar illaina avariyum pOttu thaLLi iruppAr indha Kamalahasan. And why "Christian" Fletcher? Why not David or Keith or Duncan? ChristianinAlE ulagathai azhikka nenaikkaravangannu kAtta dhAne apdi pEru vechAr?)
Or is Kamal is implying that even Jesus will save a hindu boy over a lifelong christian so is he actually covertly preaching people to convert to Hinduism?
:)

[jaiganes]

FYI anbe sivam marxism and the paintings scene is direct takeoff from a true historical incident involving rockefeller center controversy. It was neatly shown in the english movie Cradle will Rock.

[Plum]

But is that central to that movie's vision and kamal's anti-hindu stance?
P.S:ofcourse I knew that thing

[Dinesh84]

Now, the cross saved the boy. Sari. Why didn't jesus, then, save poovaraaghan who has actually been Chrisitian for longer time and a believer in Christianity? The boy is just a accidental holder of the cross. AppO Jesus enna dumb-nu solraarA kamal? He is anti-christian I say!
(Don't forget that 2 out of 3 christian kamals die in the movie. Bush real life characterA pOyittar illaina avariyum pOttu thaLLi iruppAr indha Kamalahasan. And why "Christian" Fletcher? Why not David or Keith or Duncan? ChristianinAlE ulagathai azhikka nenaikkaravangannu kAtta dhAne apdi pEru vechAr?)
Or is Kamal is implying that even Jesus will save a hindu boy over a lifelong christian so is he actually covertly preaching people to convert to Hinduism?
:) ethu .. neenga mathakkalavaratha undu pannama pooga maatenga pola :roll:

[Plum]

Sila kalagangaL thEvaiyAnavai. Ofcourse, I am being obnoxious there - consciously. If I can recognise when I am obnoxious without being cognizant of it, I probably need an equal and opposite obnoxious person to get me to understand my own obnoxiousness.

Again, if we tend to see such attempts to see both sides of the coin as kalagam inducing and sweep under carpet, that is when we'll forever be condemned to platitudes on bhai-bhai and manufacturing consensus, which will not last

[m_karthik]

Now, the cross saved the boy. Sari. Why didn't jesus, then, save poovaraaghan who has actually been Chrisitian for longer time and a believer in Christianity? The boy is just a accidental holder of the cross. AppO Jesus enna dumb-nu solraarA kamal? He is anti-christian I say!
(Don't forget that 2 out of 3 christian kamals die in the movie. Bush real life characterA pOyittar illaina avariyum pOttu thaLLi iruppAr indha Kamalahasan. And why "Christian" Fletcher? Why not David or Keith or Duncan? ChristianinAlE ulagathai azhikka nenaikkaravangannu kAtta dhAne apdi pEru vechAr?)
Or is Kamal is implying that even Jesus will save a hindu boy over a lifelong christian so is he actually covertly preaching people to convert to Hinduism?
:) ethu .. neenga mathakkalavaratha undu pannama pooga maatenga pola :roll:

Panchathathiram la solradhu madhiri.. Kelvi kaetkiradhu easy....Bathil solradhu kashtam.. :D

Kamal kitta direct ah indha questions ah kaetta kooda bathil kidaikiradhu kashtam..

[Dinesh84]

Sila kalagangaL thEvaiyAnavai. Ofcourse, I am being obnoxious there - consciously. If I can recognise when I am obnoxious without being cognizant of it, I probably need an equal and opposite obnoxious person to get me to understand my own obnoxiousness.

Again, if we tend to see such attempts to see both sides of the coin as kalagam inducing and sweep under carpet, that is when we'll forever be condemned to platitudes on bhai-bhai and manufacturing consensus, which will not last :yessir:

[Cinefan]

Plum and P_R-Some good points there.

But I will stick to my stand that he adopts a much more simplistic/childish approach to religion in his movies(P_R has already given an explantion for this which looks likely) though based on some very insightful interviews,he is much more aware/well read.Makkalukku puriyadhu enra bayama ille simplistic approach with a strong anti-hindu/brahmin bias is the flavour of the season enra nenaippa theriyadhu.

The grouse atleast for me is that when you can be so ruthless with a particular religion/sect/community what prevents you from doing the same to the others.

I am not convinced by the explanation that he has more authority cos of his upbringing,regarding other religions he has to do google search/answer quiz(Plum might have said it in good humour but if taken seriously is pretty lame).

If he goes slow due to tolerance issues,then something is seriously wrong.Where is the famed unmai/nermai etc that he talks about while going around pandering to only certain sentiments.He looks hypocritical right?

P_R,in today's circumstances,many hindus have a feeling that they are being taken for granted while others have a sometimes violent touch-me-not attitude and so everybody licks their a#*,lack the guts to point out their filth and allow them to get away with anything.

These sentiments should be nipped in the bud by bringing in a semblance of balance in behaviour/talk/action atleast by people who matter.

[Sarna]

Sila kalagangaL thEvaiyAnavai.

DMK, ADMK maadhiriyaa :lol:

[Plum]

Let me put it this way. IppO kamal oru padam muslimsai bayangaramA nakkal/kindal paNNi eduthA all crimes forgiven/forgottenA? :)

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

avasiyame illai. hindu / brahmin bashing stop panninaale pothum

[NOV]

avasiyame illai. hindu / brahmin bashing stop panninaale pothumwow!
excellent response sakala. :thumbsup:

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

And as regards "will you make fun of X the same way you do to Y", I think someone recently asked me the same "will you make fun of kamal and IR the same way as you do of abhishek".
The answer,dudes and dudettes, is why should I? If you want kamal to be made fun of do it yourself. I will only do that if I find his actions funny. I don't have to maintain a balance :huh:

For kamal, hindu way of life is first hand experience.others are academic knowledge so hindu examples(especially jaadhi veRi - the ones referred to in dasa by paatti - sheer contempt for "low" castes, which I can vouch for lies upto previous generation of mine and my gen too) might come - as Raju would put it - "apdiyE varradhu dhaan illai".
Menakettu pOi muslim atrocity pathi edukkaNumnA, google search paNNi quiz answer pandrA maadhri dhaan.
:exactly: :clap: entha paatti?!? the one which rationalist govind says "unga paattikkum sari, unga bagavaanukkum sari, (mind) just not there" nnu solluvare antha paattiyaa? ?

[Plum]

To borrow and modify from Jaiganes "Govind enna vaLLuvarA?" Avar solradhu dhAn kamalOda real karuthA? pAtti vEsham pOttadhum kamal dhAne? Really, when she said that enakku maarula adichA maadhiri irundhadhu because my near and dear ones are like that :( (and it is not as if they are exceptions). Some people might have felt that Kamal was making fun of iyengars by making those characters like that. But enakku apdi thONalai.
Asin's character otoh was a strawman for govind to make his points just like Maddy was in Anbe Sivam. That, I agree.

And ninga solradhu irukkattum. Cinefan thodangi palar inge why can't he spoof or insult muslim texts-nu dhAnE kEttAnga? IppO goal post shift pannaa epdi?

[P_R]

avasiyame illai. hindu / brahmin bashing stop panninaale pothum
Nevaire!

எல்லாரையும் திட்டணும்னு சொன்னா அதுல ஒரு நியாயம் இருக்கு. யாரையும் திட்டக்கூடாதுன்னா எப்பிடி.

[Plum]

Feeyaar, in englis plis!

[NOV]

Feeyaar, in englis plis!Plum, in English please! :evil:

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

there are 2 states. either blame everybody or remain silent. but do you expect in any time will he bash muslims, christians, or the aruvaal castes of hindus?? angellaam potrippaadadi penne paadittu kadaisila thaan ubathesam solluvaaru. whereas cross belt communitynnaa straight bashing thaan.

athaan avangalai neradiyaave nakkal naiyaandi ellaame panniyaache! innum enna baakki irukku?!? inimelaavathu mouth close panninaa athuve pothumdaa saami

but, with what we smell, with marmayogi, again, he goes back to bash saivaites whom kazhuvetrified samanars.

[P_R]

Feeyaar, in englis plis!
ellAraiyum thittaNumnu sonnA adhula oru nyAyam irukku. yAraiyum thittakkoodaadhunnA eppudi?

[P_R]

the aruvaal castes of hindus?? andgellaam potrippaadadi penne paadittu kadaisila thaan ubathesam solluvaaru.

kAttumirANdippaya koottam-nu thittiyum point-ai miss paNNi 'pOtri paadadi'yai anthem-A use paNNA ennA seyyuradhu

[Bala (Karthik)]

there are 2 states. either blame everybody or remain silent.
2 state ultimatum rejetted

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

the aruvaal castes of hindus?? andgellaam potrippaadadi penne paadittu kadaisila thaan ubathesam solluvaaru.

kAttumirANdippaya koottam-nu thittiyum point-ai miss paNNi 'pOtri paadadi'yai anthem-A use paNNA ennA seyyuradhuu opened my eye sir! but not fully :yessir:

[Plum]

Actually, bigger culprits when it comes to blind, nuance-less, "designed to please brahmin bashers for the sake of it", "cashing in on the saleability of brahmin bashing" - they escape without criticism. Vivek in saami for instance. That was a google search critique on brahmins. The director and the writer were simply regurgitating common cliches on the failings of Brahmins and were clueless about what thzey were trying to convey - like the principal in a troubled school meeting ordering a recital of national anthem knowing that it will evoke a conditioned response. Bhagyaraj in idhu namma aalu actually got accolades :banghead:

[NOV]

Feeyaar, in englis plis!
ellAraiyum thittaNumnu sonnA adhula oru nyAyam irukku. yAraiyum thittakkoodaadhunnA eppudi?English vaazhga! :rotfl:

[P_R]

Flau, idhu namma aaLu-la enna frablau? :oops:

[Plum]

Actually, bigger culprits when it comes to blind, nuance-less, "designed to please brahmin bashers for the sake of it", "cashing in on the saleability of brahmin bashing" - they escape without criticism. Vivek in saami for instance. That was a google search critique on brahmins. The director and the writer were simply regurgitating common cliches on the failings of Brahmins and were clueless about what thzey were trying to convey - like the principal in a troubled school meeting ordering a recital of national anthem knowing that it will evoke a conditioned response. Bhagyaraj in idhu namma aalu actually got accolades :banghead:

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

[tscii:fa4f7ff0d8]
As it has been repeatedly pointed out, Kamal's spiritual views are quite complicated and cannot be easily bucketed. Joe had linked an excellent article analysing this. Adhai vida theLivA sollamudiyAdhu.

yes they are complicated. with complication comes confusion and mistakes. lets look into the link which joe posted:-
http://tinyurl.com/2vjpvtp

Bug No 1:

தொடர் தோல்விகளில் திணறிய போது கம’ல’ஹாசன் என்பது கம’ல்’ஹாசன் என்று நாமஹரணம் சூடியது கூட இந்த குழப்பங்களின் நிதர்சனமே.

Bug No 2:

இதில் முரண்பாடு என்ன என்றால், மறு ஜென்மம் என்று ஒன்றை முன் வைக்கும் போது அங்கே பகுத்தறிவு பின்செல்லுகிறது.
becos, marujenmam is NOT about caste or relegion. Its about karma
more of this in budda's dammapatham and most of osho's books, much simplified explanations in Isha Yoga Sadhguru's book "Gnaanathin Brammaandam"

there was a hubber who mistaken that hariharan was 'purposefully' choosen to sing the song "kallai mattum kandaal"

point is, there are known bugs in the fans understandings of what kamal tries to say, on screen. Just becos his views, collectively, are complicated. In same way, why can't there be mistakes in his views too? This is like saying Kadavul padaippileye kutram ullathu, like singam "kills" maan for its lunch. But when i say mistakes, they are not a POV from any specific case or relegion. On humanitarian basis itself, there may be some mistakes

where it is complicated, there is confusions, mistakes.[/tscii:fa4f7ff0d8]

[Cinefan]

plum,
Twisting my words :evil:

Be balanced and show the filth everywhere is what I said,nowhere did I mention that he should spoof muslim texts.

I will def not rejoice if KH stops his hindu/brahmin bashing and starts doing the same to the others.

I believe that artists should keep their political and religious ideologies to themselves and not make it public.It might reflect in your works but should appear as that of the characters and not yourself.

Before anyone questions why it should be like that,idhu en karuthu

[equanimus]

avasiyame illai. hindu / brahmin bashing stop panninaale pothum"சரின்னு சொல்றதா இருந்தா வீதி நாடகமே போட்டிருக்க வேணாமே..."

[Plum]

Enga galileo vaaya pothikinu irundhidundhA? (Was it him who got executed for his revolutionary, anti-christian thought that the earth revolves around Sun? Eyavu istary eppavumE enakku weak-u?)

I'd rather question Ameer why he doesn't take on regressive religious views in his community
(Pretty wasted it'd be because the man has the choice of what he wants to question or not and it is not as if he has shown any intent or talent to do so thus far)
Infact, I am surprised why we all want the nice, cosy "let's not questionm hindus, let's not question muslims" "bhai bhai" status quo to remain. Ingeyum kekkanum angeyum kekkanum. Innum solla pOnA, 20-m nootrANdin miga perum samooga arasiyal vetRi adaindha paguthaRivu iyakkuthOda seerazhivu pathiyum kEkkaNum. As long as you don't bash brahmins, we dont mind these other institutions to be unquestioned is the easiest and most comfortable status quo for everyone.

Cinefan, apologies. Oru flowla vandhiruchu but andha tonela dhaan palarum inge sonnadhA enakku pattadhu. As I said above, it is not wrong to wish a structured questioning

[Sarna]

Bhagyaraj in idhu namma aalu actually got accolades :banghead:

why pulling Bhagyaraj :evil:

[Anban]

the aruvaal castes of hindus?? andgellaam potrippaadadi penne paadittu kadaisila thaan ubathesam solluvaaru.

kAttumirANdippaya koottam-nu thittiyum point-ai miss paNNi 'pOtri paadadi'yai anthem-A use paNNA ennA seyyuradhu exactly..

[Plum]

See, bhagyaraj is a holy cow who cannot be brought in this discussion :)
Were the strawmen brahmin men who existed in that movie did any better than reinforcing second hand cliches(presented in a crowd pleasing fashion) about brahmins? Not that he shouldn't create such characters but adhukku mattum cutout kamal(who presents much more nuanced critique - the kindal of brahmin mamis in functions is quite different from the movies made with vision on a well analysed pov)ku getoutA?

[NOV]

Plum, you forgot Bala, who makes it a point to ridicule Brahmins in every movie. :P

[P_R]

Flau, I thought INA was very measured. Mainstream melodrama-la sila pala cliche reinforcement irukkathan seyyin.

But overall it wasn't that offensive. In fact, romba bhavyamA sonnadhA dhaan thONichu with Somayajulu being 'respected' till the very end etc.

Recall the PanjAyathu scene where Bagyaraj talks about how ppl laud when untouchability is violated in divined stories but cling on to it fastidiously in real life: அது கூட இந்த மாதிரி பெரியவங்கலெள்ளாம் சொல்லி தான் எனக்குத் தெரியும்!

If even after all that, it is found offensive, nemba kastam.

[kid-glove]

Yes Plum, If Bhagyaraj in INA is offensive and scant in its representation, then what we make of effusively manipulative scenes of "Angadi Theru" and all?! :lol2:

[Irene Hastings]

Flau, I thought INA was very measured. Mainstream melodrama-la sila pala cliche reinforcement irukkathan seyyin.

But overall it wasn't that offensive. In fact, romba bhavyamA sonnadhA dhaan thONichu with Somayajulu being 'respected' till the very end etc.

Recall the PanjAyathu scene where Bagyaraj talks about how ppl laud when untouchability is violated in divined stories but cling on to it fastidiously in real life: அது கூட இந்த மாதிரி பெரியவங்கலெள்ளாம் சொல்லி தான் எனக்குத் தெரியும்!

If even after all that, it is found offensive, nemba kastam.

i think its written by Balakumaran . :roll:

[Irene Hastings]

IMO Vedham pudhidhu was well presented except the climax where Janaks tries to create chaos by spreading rumour.

[Anban]

sometimes cinema reflects real life incidents.. may be incidents from the distant past also.. athukkaaga namma complaint panna koodaathu..

[Sarna]

See, bhagyaraj is a holy cow who cannot be brought in this discussion :)

"Kamalhassan's Ideology in his films" is thread title.....then from where Bhagyaraj came ?

[Plum]

Yes Plum, If Bhagyaraj in INA is offensive and scant in its representation, then what we make of effusively manipulative scenes of "Angadi Theru" and all?! :lol2:
Ada adhillaipA. The extent of encouragement provided to such efforts as path-breaking critique on brahminism, and the general level of reception. What Kamal does(in his movies) is more important but receives brickbats, instead. As regards his speeches digging brahmin maamis etc, enna solradhu? ThavirthurukkalAm. But adhai nAn solla mAttEn. Sandiyar speechla left and right pala institutionsai attack paNNaliyA? More than hindu-muslim, I'd like Kamal to take on the pagutharivu iyakkam which has degenerated into another religion. Again, it is not something he is likely to feel for to the extent he felt against brahminism, which is nurtured from childhood.

Then again, given his birth, that will be the cue to complete destruction of him in TN. Paarpana dhrogi periyaar bhakthanA nadichikittirundurukkAnpA will be the refrain. It is a lot more difficult for guys like mani and kamal in this aspect. For Mani it doesn't matter because he skirts these issues and is interested in other things mainly. For Kamal to have this handicap is a loss not just to him.

[Plum]

SarNA , kalavaramnA naalu thalai uruLa thAn seyyin? enna seyya?

[kid-glove]

I got the intention in bringing-in Bhagyaraj, Plum. Needless to say, I agree with your post(s)..

[Sarna]

Virumandi - ofcourse his personal experience of the milieu, culture and people is what makes the movie.

are you sure that kamal spent his adolescent age near madurai surrounding ?

wiki says, kamal spent 9 years(after kalathur kannamma) to do his education.... parallely kamal learnt karate and bharatanatyam.... hardcore kamal fans can throw more light on this :)

[Sarna]

ப்ளம்.... அதாகப்பட்டது, கமலின் சிந்தனைகளுக்கு மகுடம் சூட்ட, பாக்யராஜை இகழ்கிறீர்கள்.... பலே :)

[Cinefan]

On Idhu Namma Aalu,agree with some of the others that it was balanced and sometimes even respectful towards the community, despite a few cliches.

Also agree with Plum that KH/Mani can never make a film on the degeneration of the Dravidian movement.This situation too is a kind of compromise due to intolerance but on this I will not call him a hypocrite but sympathise.

Now don't ask why am I being selective :D

[kalyan]

sometimes cinema reflects real life incidents.. may be incidents from the distant past also.. athukkaaga namma complaint panna koodaathu..

then why so many other incidents involving the other communities go under represented or unrepresented? is that because you dont expect an iyer to come to your doorstep to hack off your limb? :)

even if you take the untouchability aspect, we all know which communities practiced them the most. why particularly blame only brahmins? so that the other communities get a scapegoat and and get rid of the guilt from their collective conscience?

there were so many instances in the last 3 decades where dalit boys have married brahmin girls and still the dalit is alive to tell the tale. and there is one particular community which will hack off the dalit's neck if he manages to even firt around with a girl of their community. who are the real fanatics?

Brahmins were not traditionally landlords and most of the times Dalits were landless labourers. most of the times the maximum exploitation of Dalits were done by the communities who owned agricultural land and for their own benefits (cheap labour and so on) they never wanted dalits to progress. and when their collective conscience hurts, they conveniently point their fingers at brahmins. naansense. :evil:

[kalyan]

Plum,

just logged in and going through the posts. will post my reply soon. :)

[kalyan]

Plum,

My stand is same as that of Sakala's. do i need to explain more?


there are 2 states. either blame everybody or remain silent. but do you expect in any time will he bash muslims, christians, or the aruvaal castes of hindus?? angellaam potrippaadadi penne paadittu kadaisila thaan ubathesam solluvaaru. whereas cross belt communitynnaa straight bashing thaan.

athaan avangalai neradiyaave nakkal naiyaandi ellaame panniyaache! innum enna baakki irukku?!? inimelaavathu mouth close panninaa athuve pothumdaa saami

but, with what we smell, with marmayogi, again, he goes back to bash saivaites whom kazhuvetrified samanars.

spot on :clap:

that marmayogi thing is without any solid hostorical evidence.
but in marudhanayakam trailer, he refers to a community as 'religion of peace', but there is enough and more historical evidence that, that community orchestrated a Hindu genocide of not less than 600 million people over one millennium. hardly peaceful. :huh:

the only thing is that he heavily under represents the other side. and I have lost hopes that he will ever change.

[Plum]

Appo modhallerundhu padichadhula indha oru post dhaan ungaLukku vaagA irumdhirukku? NuancedA pEsikittirukkumbOdhu dhobukadeernu oru generic stance pOttuttu this explains allnA epdi vAdhyArE?
But marubadiyum modhallerundhA? Naan varalai.

[kalyan]

Appo modhallerundhu padichadhula indha oru post dhaan ungaLukku vaagA irumdhirukku? NuancedA pEsikittirukkumbOdhu dhobukadeernu oru generic stance pOttuttu this explains allnA epdi vAdhyArE?
But marubadiyum modhallerundhA? Naan varalai.

pardon me, :oops: , havent read all the posts in detail. just glanced through their contents :oops:

[kalyan]

What Kamal does(in his movies) is more important but receives brickbats, instead. As regards his speeches digging brahmin maamis etc, enna solradhu? ThavirthurukkalAm. But adhai nAn solla mAttEn. Sandiyar speechla left and right pala institutionsai attack paNNaliyA? More than hindu-muslim, I'd like Kamal to take on the pagutharivu iyakkam which has degenerated into another religion. Again, it is not something he is likely to feel for to the extent he felt against brahminism, which is nurtured from childhood.

Then again, given his birth, that will be the cue to complete destruction of him in TN. Paarpana dhrogi periyaar bhakthanA nadichikittirundurukkAnpA will be the refrain. It is a lot more difficult for guys like mani and kamal in this aspect. For Mani it doesn't matter because he skirts these issues and is interested in other things mainly. For Kamal to have this handicap is a loss not just to him.

I agree. :) (and i really read it this time :yes: )

[Anban]

sometimes cinema reflects real life incidents.. may be incidents from the distant past also.. athukkaaga namma complaint panna koodaathu..

then why so many other incidents involving the other communities go under represented or unrepresented? is that because you dont expect an iyer to come to your doorstep to hack off your limb? :)

even if you take the untouchability aspect, we all know which communities practiced them the most. why particularly blame only brahmins? so that the other communities get a scapegoat and and get rid of the guilt from their collective conscience?

there were so many instances in the last 3 decades where dalit boys have married brahmin girls and still the dalit is alive to tell the tale. and there is one particular community which will hack off the dalit's neck if he manages to even firt around with a girl of their community. who are the real fanatics?

Brahmins were not traditionally landlords and most of the times Dalits were landless labourers. most of the times the maximum exploitation of Dalits were done by the communities who owned agricultural land and for their own benefits (cheap labour and so on) they never wanted dalits to progress. and when their collective conscience hurts, they conveniently point their fingers at brahmins. naansense. :evil:
valid point.. Marudhanaayagam script involves such kodurams done by other upper castes against lower caste ppl and even the death of poolithevar etc... thats why Marudhanaayagam is in deep trouble for years.. trailer brahmins kodumai paduthura maathiri kaamikkalayea..

[kalyan]

valid point.. Marudhanaayagam script involves such kodurams done by other upper castes against lower caste ppl and even the death of poolithevar etc... thats why Marudhanaayagam is in deep trouble for years.. trailer brahmins kodumai paduthura maathiri kaamikkalayea..

maruthanayakam controversy is not because the upper castes were portayed in bad light. it was more because, Maruthanayakam was actively involved in the death of Poolithevar by treachery, and poolithevar's community cant come to terms with such a person being depicted as a 'freedom fighter'

Maruthanayakam was a costly lesson to KH, and he doesnt dare to offend the sentiments of the other dominant castes anymore. It just reinforces the fact that until the soft targets like brahmin use force, he is going to continue his potshots against them.

unfortunate, but true. :)

[venkkiram]

கமலிடம் உற்று கவனிக்க வேண்டிய இன்னொரு விஷயம் "Casting"

ஒரு பேட்டியில் வசுந்ராதாஸை HeyRam -ற்கு தேர்ந்தெடுத்ததை குறிப்பிடுகையில் (சரியா இதே வார்த்தைகளில் தான் சொன்னார் என இப்போது நினைவு படுத்த முடியவில்லை. ஆனால் அதன் சாராம்சம் இதுதான் ), "படத்தில் வரும் பிராமணப் பெண் வேடத்திற்கு ஒரு புதுமுகம் தேவைப்பட்டது.
பிராமணப் பெண்ணாக தேடிக்கொண்டிருந்தோம். கடைசியில அவுங்க அய்யங்கார் எனத் தெரிந்தபோது பாத்திரத்திற்கு முழுப் பொருத்தமாகப் பட்டது.."

இது ஒரு வகையில் "சாதிப் பாகுபாடுகள் தொடரட்டும்" என்ற நிலைப்பாடா? முரண்பாடா?

பேட்டியை படித்தவுடன் சட்டனெத் தோன்றியது.."அப்புறம் ஏன் தேவர் மகனில் ஒரு பிராமணப் பெண்ணை தலித்தாக நடிக்கணும்? தேடிப் பிடித்து ஒரு தலித் பெண்ணையே நடிக்க வைத்திருக்கலாமே?"

[kalyan]

பேட்டியை படித்தவுடன் சட்டனெத் தோன்றியது.."அப்புறம் ஏன் தேவர் மகனில் ஒரு பிராமணப் பெண்ணை தலித்தாக நடிக்கணும்? தேடிப் பிடித்து ஒரு தலித் பெண்ணையே நடிக்க வைத்திருக்கலாமே?"

:confused2: did i miss something? are you referring to Revathi? then i have two questions

1) Is revathi a brahmin? I thought she is a menon.
2) is Panchavarnam's character portrayed as a Dalit in the movie? (i knew Tabu's was portrayed as one in virasat) how did i miss that? :oops:

[Vivasaayi]

Revathi is "thevar" in that movie...i feel thats how its implied

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

but vadivelu and co shud be dalith

[kalyan]

but vadivelu and co shud be dalith

any direct/indiret references?

[Vivasaayi]

but vadivelu and co shud be dalith

any direct/indiret references?

vadivelu mentions the guy who cut his arm as "namma payathaayaa" to kamal

he could be thevar too...

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

may be, i am escape :yessir:

[Plum]

Knowing Priyadarshan, original-la illAdha edhaiyum avar sErka mAttAr. Avar oru photocopier. So indhila dalit-nu vandhirundhA darshan kaila kamal kodutha scriptlEyum dalit-nu dhAn irundhirukkum. I am also :yessir:

[sakaLAKALAKAlaa Vallavar]

devar magan was directed by barathan right? priya darshan enge vanthaar?

[great]

devar magan was directed by barathan right? priya darshan enge vanthaar?

virasat

[equanimus]

No, both Panchavarnam and Esakki belong to the Thevar caste. Just that it's not explicitly said in the film.

[venkkiram]

No, both Panchavarnam and Esakki belong to the Thevar caste. Just that it's not explicitly said in the film.இன்னொரு முறை தேவர் மகனை பார்த்துவிட்டு சொல்கிறேன். சக்தியின் குலத்தை ஒப்பிடும்போது பஞ்ச வர்ணம் பாத்திரம் ஒரு தாழ்த்தப் பட்ட வகுப்பாக படைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது என்ற கண்ணோட்டத்திலேயே இதுவரை பார்த்து வந்ததால் அப்படியொரு கருத்தோட்டம்.

[m_karthik]

I feel Kamal don't hurt the brahmin sentiments much when he works with those people..
Especially K.Balachander, Singeetham Srinivasa Rao, Crazy Mohan(he is brahmin rite? :oops: ),
Gautham Menon.

May be I am wrong, but i did not find much(may be nothing) of bashing in Crazy Mohan or SSR films.

Also he works with KSR more just becoz they might have same ideology :lol:

[Anban]

no KSR is a staunch hindu..

[m_karthik]

no KSR is a staunch hindu..

Hindus layae thannoda Jathiya thappa solladha varaikkum yaarukkum endha prachanayum irukkadhu...

For eg; Devar ah kutram sonna Nadarku kovam varuma enna??? :oops:

[Vivasaayi]

I feel Kamal don't hurt the brahmin sentiments much when he works with those people..
Especially K.Balachander, Singeetham Srinivasa Rao, Crazy Mohan(he is brahmin rite? :oops: ),
Gautham Menon.



balachander's moviesd has alots of anti-forward class touches...

unnal mudiyum thambi gemeni charecter, VNS poornam charecter...

[kalyan]

I feel Kamal don't hurt the brahmin sentiments much when he works with those people..
Especially K.Balachander, Singeetham Srinivasa Rao, Crazy Mohan(he is brahmin rite? :oops: ),
Gautham Menon.



balachander's moviesd has alots of anti-forward class touches...

unnal mudiyum thambi gemeni charecter, VNS poornam charecter...

But Balachander has never forsaken his religious identity.

when you still are a part of a religion/community and the negative feedback you give to them will often be taken as a constructive criticism which unfortunately is not the case with KH.