THIRUKKURALH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FloraiPuyal

Thirukkural doesnt reflect any religion in specific. It was meant to be free from religions and Thiruvalluvar achieved it.

Thiruvalluvar is clearly a saivaite. Most of the sangam poets were saivaites and Thiruvalluvar was no exception to this. Please read his other works and you will find he is a saivaite. :)

---

I thought that Kural was Valluvar's only work - am surprised to hear that there might be more. Could you please list out the others?

Friends,

Tiruvalluvar Believed in Superior God, from whom the world stated, is his Frist Kural.

Jainism was founded by Bagawan Mahavir a Prophet. and the Jainistic Mythology has him as 24th Prophet and Rishabadevar a, human born as first Prophet.

This would go against first Kural, unless we interpret othrway.

We need to understand Kural dating and analyse them.

As we analyse kural, we also know more of Valluvam.

Belief in God is a Taboo to Samanam.

Devapriya

Devapriya,

I totally screwed up my reply. Instead of replying within this thread, I posted my reply as a new topic!!! "Belief in God in Jainism!"

Sorry for the mistake. Don't know what to do! Should we continue here itself?

எண்ணித்துணிக கருமம் துணிந்தபின்
எண்ணுவம் என்பது இழுக்கு......!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVK Ashraf

Devapriya,

I totally screwed up my reply. Instead of replying within this thread, I posted my reply as a new topic!!! "Belief in God in Jainism!"

Sorry for the mistake. Don't know what to do! Should we continue here itself?

எண்ணித்துணிக கருமம் துணிந்தபின்
எண்ணுவம் என்பது இழுக்கு......!!!

---

Dear ashraf,

If you want to express on God-faith only.... pertaining to Jainism...

...Well please go ahead with different postings based on various Literatures, History, Archeology etc... as you may need to counter the other side..

... in that new Thread you have now initiated.

But since you have taken up ANOTHER POINT OF JAINIC SENSE. in Thirukkuralh...

Please continue your Thoughts and Conclusions here enabling us to discuss on the subject... exclusively on Thirukkuralh...

...within the same Thread where the topic was opened.

Dear Sudhaama,

Thanks for the suggestion. At the moment I am not interested in diverting my focus on Deitification in Jainism. Let that thread which I created accidentally remain as such.

I am copy pasting below the reply to Devapriya:

Hi Devapriya,

Two of your points need a response from my side:

You said: (i) Tiruvalluvar Believed in Superior God, from whom the world stated, is his Frist Kural.

The firs Kural says: "ஆதி பகவன் முதற்றே உலகு". Please notice there are two "firsts" in this. ஆதி and முதற்றே. ஆதி means not Superior or Great, but First, Initial or sometimes referred also as Primordial. The next word is also means First, Beginning, Start etc. Now the question is why should Valluvar mention "First" twice? First God and First in the world. Is there any first God in Vedic Hinduism?

Well, statements like "God is the Beginning and End" is found all religious texts, both Vedic and Semitic:

Gita, 10:20
अहमादिश्च मध्यं च भूतानामन्त एवच
I am the Beginning, the Middle and also the End of all beings
Qur'an, 57:3
هُوَ الْأَوَّلُ وَالْآخِرُ
He is the First and the Last
Revelation, 1:8
I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End
Isaiah, 48:12
אֲנִי רִאשׁוֹן וַאֲנִי אַחֲרוֹן
I am the First and I am also the Last
Tirumandiram, 1570
ஆதிக்கண் தெய்வமும் அந்தமுமாமே
God is the Beginning and End of all.

All these references are about a Creator God. We have to ask the question why Valluvar didn't speak about the End? The fact that the couplet talks about two "firsts or beginnings" and the fact that Valluvar didn't say anything about the "End or Last" shows he was not talking about a Creator God who is often projected as the "Beginning and the End" but a god or deity who is adored as the first. This suits perfectly to the Jain Adi Bagavan who was the first of the Tirthankaras. Many Tamil Jaina texts refer to Adi Bagavan. Venkataramaiyah (2001) writes how Mandala Purudar mentions Ādi Bagavan as "எண் எழுத்திரண்டும் பரப்பிய ஆதிமூர்த்தி" in section four of his Nigañdu work. He also quotes this from Kayādara Nigañdu:

கோதிலருகன் திகம்பரன் எண்குணன் முக்குடையோன்,
ஆதிபகவன் அசோகமர்ந்தோன் அறவாழி அண்ணல்

This verse has nearly half of the attributes mentioned in the first chapter of Tirukkural. Being a work that appeared after Tirukkural, the author has obviously styled his composition based on Tirukkural. He might have used these attributes in his work realizing that they all suit well to describe the Jaina deity.

You also said: (ii) "Belief in God is a Taboo to Samanam. "

Please stand corrected. Belief in a Creator god is a taboo in Sramanam.

Reference:
Venkataramaiah, K.M. 2001. திருக்குறளும் சமண சமயமும். In: வள்ளுவம்: Valluvam. Editors: Palladam Manickam and E. Sundaramurthy. திருக்குறள் பண்பாட்டு ஆய்வு மையம், விருத்தாச்சலம். Tiruvalluvar Year 2032. Issue No. 14. Pp 14-24.

Dear Friends,

I Sincerely want to Appreciate Shri.NVK.A’ Single Minded Pursuit in Spereading Tirukural especially the Translations to Other Language People. Real Hard Work.

NVKji, I am indeed really happy to see your wide range of quotations which shows the depth of your research. Thiruvalluvar letus say lived in Second Half of 3rd Cen. And wrote Kurals. Though ParimelAzagar is more Popular Commentator, the Oldest Manakkudavar which is Highly Partial towards Jainism has affected ParimelAzagar also.
Now to depend on any one Commentator, will be a Problem.

The most Important Question is Whether in His First Chapter all 10 Kurals refer The Ultimate God or a Prophet only. This question would Solve all the doubts, further Entire 1330 Kurals are equally important, to analyse Valluvar’s Religious beliefs.
"ஆதி பகவன் முதற்றே உலகு". Both the words are burrowed from Sanskrit. Aathi means First, No Doubt-But Chief Minister is Muthal Amaichar and Straight from Sanskrit- Prathan Manthri- or its English absorbed Prime Minister – ALL LEADS TO CHIEF OR SUPREME. Even on Your interpretion FROM IST GOD IS THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD.

Now the Mythologic – RishabaDevar of JAINISM is Son of Couples lived in Ayodya- Father Nabiraja and Mother Marudevi, Who after Meditation gave lot of Guidances for Good Civilisation then attained Moksha. World does not start from Rishaba Deva, He was only a Prophet.

As for as the Usage of word பகவன், the best way is to look Practically. We all know What the Words- VETHAM OF SANSKRIT and MARAI of TAMIL refers, from Tholkappiyam they refer to Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva. Even Sama Vetha is named in Paripadal. The word MARAI- a beautiful word, not even available in Sanskrit- Veda is from Sanskrit root Vidya- knowledge, even though at quiet few places in Vedas refer to putting it in Writing, after Panini making Grammer in 5th Cen.-BCE, as Vedas required different breaking and methods, then on it was given by word to mouth and called SRUTHI- means to be Heard, Marai- in tamil means not revealed (in writing) and also the Theological benefits of Chanting are not direct. The Word Veda and Marai specifically from Proper Words. But Both Islam and Christians in their Religious institutions and Speeches refer Quran and Bible by the Words- Veda and Marai. So quoting later day Jainistic books using the terms used by Valluvar is only Copying.

பகவனே ஈசன் மாயோன் பங்கயன் ஜினனே புத்தன் - Sudaamani Nikandu

Now just leaving out all Indian Commentators for a Minute, G.U.Poe- “The Eternal Adorable One” Now look AT F.W.ELLIS, G.U.POPE , AND ALSO C.J.BESCHI ALL OF THEM SAY THAT KURAL’S FIRST CHAPTER REFERS TO THE CREATOR GOD ONLY.

Take 20th Century- Thiru.Vi.Ka. or Appadurai- they go further to the Upanishadic Advaita- God Created the World and he is part of it, is put in for the Commentary of them.

Vedic Theology is Certainly is of One Supreme God and His equal Presence in other Farms. No Relgion in World says One Superior God alone. Maxmuller who was Commissioned to misinterpret Vedas as Polytheistic after Father Adams of Anglican Church Quit Christianity and joined Brahmo Samaj reasoned that Bible is Polytheistic and Vedas are Monotheistic; Maxmuller coined a New Word Henotheism, which means Accept One Superior God, at the same time Acknowledge presence of Other Gods.

I want to go into each and every Kural of this chapter and all Kurals totally to answer that Certainly Valluvar cannot be JAIN.

Devapriya.

Dear Devapriya,

Thanks for all your appreciation about my efforts to promote the Kural in different languages. As you said, it is not an easy task. First I thought the difficulty will be in getting the books but this seems to be relatively easier. The task is getting them typed in an unicode format.

I am brooding with translations in Telugu, Bengali, Oriya, Chinese, Japanese, Gujarati and Urdu, unable to find suitable volunteers to convert them to soft copies.

Any effort of this type needs some "madness" and I have plenty of them. And one has to be persistent with the task and as Valluvar said, not once but on two occasions!

Kural 540
உள்ளியது எய்தல் எளிதுமன் மற்றுந்தான்
உள்ளியது உள்ளப் பெறின்.
“What is aimed is easy to achieve, if only the mind is set on what is aimed” – NV

Kural 666
எண்ணிய எண்ணியாங்கு எய்துப எண்ணியார்
திண்ணியர் ஆகப் பெறின்.
“What is sought will be got as desired if only the seeker is determined” - NV

Now let me come to the subject we are discussing. Before I comment your observations on the first couplet, a quick response to the following statement you made. You said:

"Vedic Theology is Certainly is of One Supreme God and His equal Presence in other Farms. No Relgion in World says One Superior God alone. Maxmuller who was Commissioned to misinterpret Vedas as Polytheistic after Father Adams of Anglican Church Quit Christianity and joined Brahmo Samaj reasoned that Bible is Polytheistic and Vedas are Monotheistic; Maxmuller coined a New Word Henotheism, which means Accept One Superior God, at the same time Acknowledge presence of Other Gods."

The very fact that Vedic religion says there is a Superior God, goes on to show there are inferior gods as well! Forget about why MaxMuller was commissioned, but the word he coined "Henotheism" is correct. It is only because in Hinduism the presence of other gods is accepted that one particular god had to be considered the Supreme. Monotheism is a word coined by the West and let us not be mislead to believe that is the best and correct. Judaic monotheism is based on a belief in a God with the exclusion of all other gods (relevant text to read is Karen Amstrong's History of God) and Vedic 'monotheism' is the belief in a Superior god with the inclusion of all other gods.

Says the Gita:
9:23 Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kunti, but they do so in a wrong way.

7:22 Endowed with such a faith, he seeks favors of a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.

Unlike in Semitic faiths, workship of other gods or demigods is not strictly forbidden. Presence of other gods are recognized and that is why we have this concept of "Ishta Devatha" in Hinduism. But a Muslim, Christian or Jew cannot even think of the concept of Ishta Devata. However, many Muslims do seek help through "intermediaries" which is actually forbidden in Islam. And also Catholic Christians who venerate Saints and others.

Moreover, in Hindu texts, usually don't see statements like this "There is no god except Shiva" or for that matter "There is no god except Vishnu" and so forth. You will invariably come across verses like "There is no god like Shiva", "None comparable to Him" and so forth.


I will get back to you on the Kural soon.

Regards.

Why did God create this world or this universe? Only he can be called God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and who is devoid of desires, and passions. (GUIDLINES OF JAINISM - www.jainworld.com)
§Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡ý «Ê §º÷ó¾¡÷ìÌ
¡ñÎõ þÎõ¨À þÄ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Creation and destruction; production and disposal are always going on. Behind this eternal process there does not exist anyone's planning or organization. The whole universe is a self-regulated one. But in this organization, Karma plays an important role. In this process the effect of Karma is emphatically evident. (GUIDLINES OF JAINISM - www.jainworld.com)
°Æ¢ü ¦ÀÕÅÄ¢ ¡×Ç Áü¦È¡ýÚ
ÝÆ¢Ûõ ¾¡ý ÓóÐÕõ.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
When a person destroys all his karmas, he becomes a liberated soul. He resides in a perfect blissful state in Moksha. He possesses infinite knowledge, infinite vision, infinite power, and infinite bliss. This living being is a God of Jain religion.
Every living being has a potential to become God. Hence Jains do not have one God, but Jain Gods are innumerable and their number is continuously increasing as more living beings attain liberation.
Å¡ÄÈ¢Åý, ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ²¸¢É¡ý, ±ñ̽ò¾¡ý, §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡ý, þ¨ÈÅý, ±É ´Õ¨Á¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀðÎûÇ ¸¼×û¾¡ý §Á§Ä ÜÈôÀðÎûÇ innumerable and continuously increasing ¸¼×û¸Ç¡?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
¿ñÀ÷ «‰Ãô Å¢ÇìÌÅ¡÷ ±ýÈ ¿õÀ¢ì¨¸Ô¼ý,
†Ãý.
À¢.Ì: ÅûÙÅâý ÌÈû ÅÆ¢ Å¡ú¸¢§È¡Á¡ ±ýÈ ¬Ã¡ö¢Öõ, «ôÀÊ Å¡úž¢ÖûÇ, þý¨È ¿¨¼Ó¨È º¢ì¸ø¸¨Ç Ţš¾¢ôÀ¾¢Öõ ¿õ §¿Ãò¨¾ ¦ºÄŢξø, «ÅÕìÌ ¸¡Å¢, ¦Åû¨Ç, À ºð¨¼ «½¢Å¢òÐ ‘«ÆÌ’ À¡÷ôÀ¨¾ Å¢¼ Á¢Ìó¾ ÀÂÛûǾ¡¸ þÕìÌõ ±ýÚ §¾¡ýÚ¸¢ÈÐ.

Dear Devapriya,

You said:
Though ParimelAzagar is more Popular Commentator, the Oldest Manakkudavar which is Highly Partial towards Jainism has affected ParimelAzagar also. Now to depend on any one Commentator, will be a Problem.

It is news to me that Manakkudavar has been highly partial towards Jainism! For all I have heard is that Parimel, being a Vaishnavite, has given the Kural a “Theistic” cannotation. If you are under the impression that my observations are depended on Manakkudavar’s, then please stand corrected. Only recently I managed to procure a comparative commentary of the 5 well known commentators. Moreover, if you look at Manakkudavar’s commentary, it is brief and to the point unlike Parimel’s.

You wrote:
The most Important Question is Whether in His First Chapter all 10 Kurals refer The Ultimate God or a Prophet only. This question would Solve all the doubts, further Entire 1330 Kurals are equally important, to analyse Valluvar’s Religious beliefs.

I absolutely agree that an analysis of the entire Kural is essential to decide on the deity or deities Valluvar is praising in chapter 1.

You also wrote:
"ஆதி பகவன் முதற்றே உலகு". Both the words are burrowed from Sanskrit. Aathi means First, No Doubt-But Chief Minister is Muthal Amaichar and Straight from Sanskrit- Prathan Manthri- or its English absorbed Prime Minister – ALL LEADS TO CHIEF OR SUPREME. Even on Your interpretion FROM IST GOD IS THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD.

Standing on its own, the phrase 'Adi Bagavan' can be translated both as 'First Bagavan' the Jaina way or as Primordial God, the Hindu way. The question is whether the word "ஆதி பகவன்" refers to the first Jaina Tirthankarā Adi Bhagvan, or the Primal God as most translators interpret. Why did Valluvar use the words like "இறைவன், தெய்வம்" in other parts of the work, but opted for this twin words he never used any other place in his work? Is it because 'பகவன்' is an apt rhyming word for 'அகரம்'? We cannot take it this way because any writer mentions the “பொருள்” first and then looks for the “உவமை” later. The “பொருள்” here is “ஆதி பகவன்” and “உவமை” is “அகரம்”. So he selects the phrase Adi Bagavan first and then looks for simile. Therefore he has deliberately chosen this phrase in spite of many other options like இறைவன், தெய்வம் etc. And that too a word of Sanskrit origin (as you said) in the very couplet of a work that contains very few words of Sanskrit import?!!! There are many places in the Kural where Valluvar seem to have employed words of Sanskrit import for rhyming reasons. One good example is தாம்வீழ்வார் and தாமரைக்கண்ணான் in couplet 1103.

Your example of “Muthal amaichar” is all fine but then why did Valluvar use “ஆதி” here? He could have said “முதல் பகவன்”. Of particular interest to mention here are the terms "ஆதி முதல்வன்" in Mañimékalai and the word “ஆதி பிரான்” in Tirumandiram. How will you translate ஆதி முதல்வன்? First Chief or Primordial Chief ?

More ......
Now the Mythologic – RishabaDevar of JAINISM is Son of Couples lived in Ayodya- Father Nabiraja and Mother Marudevi, Who after Meditation gave lot of Guidances for Good Civilisation then attained Moksha. World does not start from Rishaba Deva, He was only a Prophet best . . . . . . . . . ALL LEADS TO CHIEF OR SUPREME. Even on Your interpretion FROM IST GOD IS THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD.

Yes, Rishaba is not a Creator God but a Fordmaker. And therefore the world does not start from him or proceed from him because he is not the cause. It seems you have taken the word “ulaku” here to mean the physical world. It can also be taken to mean the people who live in the word. You see the simile “எழுத்து எல்லாம்” is plural and “உலகு” is singular. It makes sense if we take the “world” in plurality, i.e. people of the world.
எழுத்துகளுக்கு முதல் அகரம்
உலகத்தாருக்கு முதல் பகவன்

And also ......
So quoting later day Jainistic books using the terms used by Valluvar is only Copying. பகவனே ஈசன் மாயோன் பங்கயன் ஜினனே புத்தன் - Sudaamani Nikandu

Of course I agree with your observation that we should not depend on works that came after Tirukkural as proofs because the later authors have only employed phrases from a work that must have been very popular during their times. Not only Jaina, but also non-Jaina works also contain plenty of verses modeled after Tirukkural. "ஆதி முதல்வன் அறஆழி ஆள்வோன்" in Mañimékalai (6.7) is very much like the Kurals in first chapter. Can we then conclude that Valluvar is praising a Lord Buddha? Not necessarily, because we cannot decide based on one particular couplet and few couplets. In fact Nammazhvar, Kambar and many others have also been influence by Valluvar!

There are many other reasons for me to say that the word ஆதி பகவன் denotes a Jaina Tirtankara more than anything else. Its all there in my article.

And the last.......
Now just leaving out all Indian Commentators for a Minute, G.U.Poe- “The Eternal Adorable One” Now look AT F.W.ELLIS, G.U. POPE , AND ALSO C.J.BESCHI ALL OF THEM SAY THAT KURAL’S FIRST CHAPTER REFERS TO THE CREATOR GOD ONLY.
Of course, they are all Christians and obviously they will all believe in a Creator God only. In fact most Indian authors also interpret the couplets to mean “Creator God”! Occasionally they give footnotes to say that some of couplets are applicable to Jaina godheads also. Let us not believe in what the majority say. What would have been interpretation had the majority in Tamil Nadu been Jains or Buddhists? With a work like Kural, you can play around the way you want!

எப்பொருள் யார் யார் வாய் கேட்பினும் அப்பொருள்
மெய்ப்பொருள் காண்பது அறிவு.

Dear Haran,

You asked:
Å¡ÄÈ¢Åý, ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ²¸¢É¡ý, ±ñ̽ò¾¡ý, §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡ý, þ¨ÈÅý, ±É ´Õ¨Á¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀðÎûÇ ¸¼×û¾¡ý §Á§Ä ÜÈôÀðÎûÇ innumerable and continuously increasing ¸¼×û¸Ç¡?

ஒருமையில் கூறப்பட்டிருந்தால் அவையெல்லாம் ஒரு கடவுளைத்தான் குறிக்கும் என்று எப்படிக்கூற முடியும்? In fact all the established Jaina works also mention these attributes in Singular. I had already quoted from Kayādara Nigañdu:

கோதிலருகன் திகம்பரன் எண்குணன் முக்குடையோன்,
ஆதிபகவன் அசோகமர்ந்தோன் அறவாழி அண்ணல்

You see, everything is in Singular. In fact I can reproduce, if you want, more quotes from Jaina works. Devapriya cited this from Sudāmani Nikañdu! பகவனே ஈசன் மாயோன் பங்கயன் ஜினனே புத்தன்! Once again singular!

You also said:
À¢.Ì: ÅûÙÅâý ÌÈû ÅÆ¢ Å¡ú¸¢§È¡Á¡ ±ýÈ Ã¡ö¢Öõ, «ôÀÊ Å¡úž¢ÖûÇ, þý¨È ¿¨¼Ó¨È º¢ì¸ø¸¨Ç Ţš¾¢ôÀ¾¢Öõ ¿õ §¿Ãò¨¾ ¦ºÄŢξø, «ÅÕìÌ ¸¡Å¢, ¦Åû¨Ç, À ºð¨¼ «½¢Å¢òÐ ‘«ÆÌ’ À¡÷ôÀ¨¾ Å¢¼ Á¢Ìó¾ ÀÂÛûǾ¡¸ þÕìÌõ ±ýÚ §¾¡ýÚ¸¢ÈÐ.

I have taken on a task to determine something and I don’t want anyone to press “Escape” button here! "Escape" button is inviariably pressed by those who claim Valluvar to be a non-Jaina, more precisely those who claim him to be a Hindu. I am NOT trying to paint Valluvar as a Jain or Buddhist or Christian. I am not even saying that he is a Jaina. I am only saying that the vast majority have taken Valluvar as a Hindu (just like how our government takes tribals also under the fold of Hinduism) though his work is principally based on Jaina ethics. In fact in my analysis Buddhism comes close second!