THIRUKKURALH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVK Ashraf

Dear Puyal,

I understand about distinctive styles. But please don't say that others' cannot copy Valluvar's style. I have seen people these days producing "dummy" couplets in Valluvar's own style! History of literature (globally) says that those who wish their work to be recognized often attribute it to a well known person (so that it doesn't get rejected). To do so they have to ensure that the style and content of the verse or poem they produce are of the same style! Therefore to say that "they don't lie" is not correct. Also integrity is not something that can be mentioned as an evidence in a research report or article.

---

NVK Ashraf,

I have been silently following this thread for quite a while now and I must say you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I am not saying there's anything wrong in doing that but I notice that you contradict your own points at times.

For example, in the above statement you actually admit that you understand about poets having distinctive styles. However, you further state that it is easier for people to copy their style of writing. Surprisingly, you contradict yourself by saying that in the case of Thirukkural, you have seen people come up with "dummy" couplets. Obviously these people did not follow the distinctiveness of Thiruvalluvar for you to have noticed that they were just dummies.

Another example is the one you mentioned about the proverb "neruppu illaamal puhaiyaathu". That can basically be applied to every argument that you have outrightedly shrugged off with your comments. Without some sort of fire, there wouldn't have been a statement made that Thiruvalluvar indeed had other works (the smoke). Without fire, there wouldn't have been an implication that Thiruvalluvar was a Saivist (the smoke). Oh my, now the fire is burning on both sides of the rope and I suggest we all let go of it and leave Thiruvalluvar as who he is rather than stamping a religion upon him. It is the religion that has brought down many destructions in the past and present. It is such a pity to see a person like you who actually adores Thirukkural would cause demise to it by associating it with one particular religion. As you said in other threads, Thirukkural should be accepted and read by all. Some people that follow their own religion very strictly will not be interested in it had they known it is a religious (relating to one religion) text.

Another thing I noticed is that you are appalled by the fact that Thiruvalluvar possibly had produced other works. You asked for evidence pointing to this. I ask you the same, are there evidence or "scholar[ly]" essays (in your own words) that contradicts this point of view i.e. that Thiruvalluvar did not produce anything else? I know you are going to say, "these scholars only wrote about Thirukkural, therefore I am going to believe that he only produced that book." My reply to you that is very similar to that of bis_mala's and others alike. People only talk about what was more popular rather than as a whole. For example, Dan Brown wrote many books but he was both criticized and acclaimed for the Da Vinci Code mainly. In fact, there were many books that were written in response to this particular novel. I know you will ask for references and I suggest you go into http://www.amazon.com and type in da vinci code and you will see for yourself.

Anyways, just my two cents.

Dear Sadhama,

Thanks for the response and pointing out to some apparent “contradictions” in my postings:

You said:
For example, in the above statement you actually admit that you understand about poets having distinctive styles.

Yes, and therefore anything written in a different style and content or subject has been considered as written by more than one author.

However, you further state that it is easier for people to copy their style of writing.

Yes, that is why many false verses and sayings have managed to find a place in the Hadith of Muslims, as Buddha’s sayings in Nikayas, and Kabir’s sayings in Dohas and Bijaks. Thus, works that differ in style are straight away set aside and works or verses that look similar are included or accepted as works of the same author. Mind you, these are not my opinions, but those of scholars who have studied these works.

Surprisingly, you contradict yourself by saying that in the case of Thirukkural, you have seen people come up with "dummy" couplets. Obviously these people did not follow the distinctiveness of Thiruvalluvar for you to have noticed that they were just dummies.

I know these people (who are my contemporaries!) and therefore I am able to say that they are fakes, in spite of them managing to imitate the Kural!!! How can this be a contradiction?

Without fire, there wouldn't have been an implication that Thiruvalluvar was a Saivist (the smoke). Oh my, now the fire is burning on both sides of the rope and I suggest we all let go of it and leave Thiruvalluvar as who he is rather than stamping a religion upon him. It is such a pity to see a person like you who actually adores Thirukkural would cause demise to it by associating it with one particular religion. As you said in other threads, Thirukkural should be accepted and read by all. Some people that follow their own religion very strictly will not be interested in it had they known it is a religious (relating to one religion) text.

I am sure you have not read my posting well. I have repeatedly said that I am not trying to put Valluvar into the fold of any religion. Valluvar's message is loud and clear. It is for all the world. After all, like you and me, he must have been also born into some religion. Or at least he must have been influenced by some religious philosophy. But his composition is non-sectarian or at least that is how he wanted his work to be known. But his work contains more Jaina ideas than others. But that does not mean Jains have the authority to call it their work or scripture.

You said "It is such a pity to see a person like you who actually adores Thirukkural would cause demise to it by associating it with one particular religion. " Please remove this notion from your mind that only those who do not wish to associate the Kural with any religion should be qualified to adhore it!

Another thing I noticed is that you are appalled by the fact that Thiruvalluvar possibly had produced other works. You asked for evidence pointing to this. I ask you the same, are there evidence or "scholar[ly]" essays (in your own words) that contradicts this point of view i.e. that Thiruvalluvar did not produce anything else? I know you are going to say, "these scholars only wrote about Thirukkural, therefore I am going to believe that he only produced that book." My reply to you that is very similar to that of bis_mala's and others alike. People only talk about what was more popular rather than as a whole.

I am sorry I am not "appalled". I have read Mu.Va’s History of Tamil Literature, Zvelebil’s 1975 work on Tamil Literature, gone through the introductions of Kural and Valluvar in about 15 translations in English, at least 25 articles or essays written about Valluvar and I am yet to come across a statement that there are also other works attributed to Valluvar. I have only come across statements that the Kural is the only work written by him! It is quite natural that I am surprised to know that none of these works mentioned about the other works of Valluvar! I have already spoken to a professor who frequently translates Tamil classics into English and he promptly agrees that there are other works attributed to Valluvar!. And there are also no controversies in accepting them as his work! As I mentioned earlier, I will be only too happy to accept this.

What is perplexing to me is that none of the writers who tried to establish the religion of Valluvar utilized his other works also to look for evidences!

Quote:

---

What is perplexing to me is that none of the writers who tried to establish the religion of Valluvar utilized his other works also to look for evidences!

---

Nothing surprising or perplexing Mr Ashraf. That is the norm.
For some years, I have been looking for "Chadakoparanthaathi" by Kambar. I cannot find it. Neither have I come across any Kambar commentator mentioning or citing any stanza from the work.

Recently I learnt that Jeyangkondar had also another work, besides KalinggaththuparaNi. I cannot get the book. But someone quoted a verse from it for me.

Saaththanaar had one other work in his name besides his great work Manimekalai. I managed to read parts of it from someone.

Some publishers have done a wonderful service for Tamil by republishing or reprinting some such rare works. Notably SSWPS and Dr Meyappan.

Tamils should be vigilant. Otherwise they may even lose most of what they have now.

NVK Ashraf,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVK Ashraf

I know these people (who are my contemporaries!) and therefore I am able to say that they are fakes, in spite of them managing to imitate the Kural!!! How can this be a contradiction?

---

I did not realize you were referring to people of the present day. I had to go back to read your post again and yes you did mention people that you currently know. My apologies. However, I was actually referring to people from the past. You said it's easier for people to duplicate others' works and pointing to current trends you implied that it would have been possible in the past as well.

I don't know much about Thiruvalluvar but if what you are saying is true, is it possible Thiruvalluvar himself might have copied off from his predecessors? In this case, his predecessors being people before him who were poets themselves but whose works were never found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVK Ashraf

Please remove this notion from your mind that only those who do not wish to associate the Kural with any religion should be qualified to adhore it!

---

If you read my post again, NVK Ashraf, you will notice that I did not imply this at all. I said there are cases where "SOME" people might not accept Thirukkural if it's being associated with one particular religion. I did not say it was the case for everyone.

BTW, it's Sadhana, not Sadhama :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bis_mala

Tamils should be vigilant. Otherwise they may even lose most of what they have now.

---

I totally agree with you on this, bis_mala. As I mentioned in another thread, the use of Thamizh is becoming rarer and rarer and I am afraid for its future. It's true that the recent advancements in technology will actually help us preserve the many Thamizh works electronically. But will there be enough people with lots of interest in the language to keep it going? :?

Hi Sadhana,

You said:
I don't know much about Thiruvalluvar but if what you are saying is true, is it possible Thiruvalluvar himself might have copied off from his predecessors? In this case, his predecessors being people before him who were poets themselves but whose works were never found.

Copied from where? Scholars only mention that Valluvar had a good knowledge of many works like Arthasasthra, Manu Smriti, Tamil Sangam classics and some Ayurvedic treatise of his time. He only put all his learnings, wisdom and the prevailing beliefs amongst people to convey his message across in the form of poetry. No one says that the Kural was a copy of any previous works, but only as a work that shows shades of resemblence to many great literary classics, surprisingly including to those originated outside India (eg. Analects, Gulistan and Proverbs). This is quite natural and expected in the case any ethical treatise. For morals worldwide are the same, only the similes and local beliefs change. The Kural is being regarded as a work by a single author, though there are some like VOC who believed that the first four chapters might have been written by someone else, at a later period. But there is no evidence to this.

You wrote:
I said there are cases where "SOME" people might not accept Thirukkural if it's being associated with one particular religion. I did not say it was the case for everyone.

For centuries the Kural is has been considered as a work of a Hindu by the Hindu majority in Tamil Nadu. It is already been associated with a religion! It is still widely accepted. I wonder if it is because the majority are Hindus! Unlikely because the Kural is regarded by Christians and Muslims as well. Of course by Jains as well. We don't have any good representation of Buddhists in India, for otherwise it would have also gained acceptance amongst them. The Kural is not a Gita or Upanishad or an Agama to be neglected by others. You will agree with me on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVK Ashraf

It is already been associated with a religion!

---

You mean "he" has already been associated with a religion (not his work)?
Like Gandhi, a Hindu, but his service was for all - not just the Hindus.

However, he used the word "aathi bakavan" (God who is the beginning ) and iRaivan ( God who is the end of all things).

Consider:

iRu = (iRuthal) mudithal.
iRu > iRuthi (-thi suffix)..
iRu + ai (suffix) = iRai. (- end).
iRai > iRaivan ( = anthamaanavan).

Athi - antham is not a Jain concept. Isn't it? Your comments pl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bis_mala

You mean "he" has already been associated with a religion (not his work)? Like Gandhi, a Hindu, but his service was for all - not just the Hindus.

---

Yes, he is! Don't people consider him a Hindu or at least an "uncoventional" Hindu and don't most (almost alll) commentators interpret the first chapter as a reference to a Creator God? And you as well!

On your second sentence. Yes, Like Gandhi, Valluvar's services is for all - even if he was a Buddhist or Jain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bis_mala

However, he used the word "aathi bakavan" (God who is the beginning ) and iRaivan (God who is the end of all things).
Consider:
iRu = (iRuthal) mudithal.
iRu > iRuthi (-thi suffix)..
iRu + ai (suffix) = iRai. (- end).
iRai > iRaivan ( = anthamaanavan).
Athi - antham is not a Jain concept. Isn't it? Your comments pl.

---

Not a bad assumption. I appreciate it. I hope you are aware that "iRai" also means so many other things. I referred Rev. J.P. Rottler's Tamil Dictionary. iRai means so many things:

God,
King
Exalted
Chief
Line of any joint of the fingers
Minuteness (siRumai)
An instant (kaal viraivu)
Dues, tax, pay tribute
Halt, halting place, appointed place by God
Trouble, (varuththam)
Eaves of a building
Feather or wing
Fire at the day of judgment

Somehow, the "End" is missing in this list.

I have question. If Valluvar had used "iRaivan" to denote the "End", why did he use it in couplet 5 as well?

As you said, I also believe that god as the "End" is not a Jaina concept. Please refer to one of my earlier postings, now reproduced below:

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.

How do you find this explanation? Please let me know.

Mr Ashraff

þÃóÐõ ¯Â¢÷Å¡ú¾ø §ÅñÊý ÀÃóÐ
¦¸Î¸ ¯Ä¸¢ÂüÈ¢ ¡ý.

This is a direct reference to a creator God. "¯Ä¸¢ÂüÈ¢ ¡ý".

"¦¾öÅõ ¦¾¡Æ¡«û"
"¦¾öÅò¾¡ø ¬¸¡ ¦¾É¢Ûõ"
"Å¡Û¨ÈÔõ ¦¾öÅòÐû ¨Åì¸ôÀÎõ".

You may wish to study all these (I am giving from memory) whilst I will take a little time to draft a reply to your query /discussion points above.

I hope the materials I am forwarding will be helpful to you. I am not objecting to your views.

Dear Sivamaalaa,

Thanks for your information. I have included all these issues under section 4 of my article "God, gods and saints in Tirukkural".

4. God and gods in Tirukkural
4.1. The word "தெய்வம்" (theyvam) in Tirukkural
4.2. Scriptures and Brahmins in Tirukkural
4.3. Jaina concept of God
4.4. Gods and celestials in Tirukkural

In this posting I will reproduce here the part that deals controversy regarding the reference to "Creator of the World" (உலகியற்றியான்) in couplet 1062:

Valluvar did not hesitate to use these beliefs about God and gods as similes and superlatives while composing a couplet to give that extra punch to drive home his message. Two couplets would suffice to cite such instances in Kural:

Couplet: 1062
If some must beg and live, let the Creator of the world
Himself roam and perish! PS, SI
Couplet: 1073
The base are like the gods:
They also do whatever they like. PS

Here Valluvar's emphasis is the dreads of begging and the baseness of the wicked. Just like couplet 55 where his concern was to emphasize the virtues of being an obedient wife. The focus should be on what Valluvar tries to emphasize and not what similes Valluvar employs to drive home the message. To cite another instance, Valluvar says in Kural 931 "Don’t gamble even if you win for it draws you in like fishes drawn to shining baits". You may ask how Valluvar, a staunch promoter of ahimsā and vegetarianism, can even mention about fishing. Well, the emphasis here is not on promoting fishing, but only use that as a simile to highlight the importance of the dangers in gambling. In the third division on "Love", Valluvar says in couplets 1090 and 1201 that love is sweeter than wine. Here too, one may ask how Valluvar who wrote a chapter exclusively on "Abstinence from alcohol" could have compared love with wine and even suggesting that wine does delight and intoxicate when consumed! Once again, the the author here is not upholding the habit of drinking wine but only uses it as a simile to emphasis on the unique qualities of love. All these only goes on to show that Valluvar did not hesitate to use the beliefs and practices prevailing amongst the people of his time as similes to put his message across.

Popley (1931) and Gopalan (1979) maintained that no other couplet in the Kural can be more opposed to the Jaina idea than this couplet 1062 on Creator God. Their contention was that Valluvar believed in a Creator God and therefore he referred to Him as the Creator. According to Chakravarti (1953), Valluvar here strongly condemns the religious attitude which tries to justify social evils as a result of divine will. Valluvar is actually cursing God here if He had to be held responsible for some men to beggars in this life! He wouldn't have done so, had he believed in a Creator God who is just and full of mercy and compassion. In Jainism, which has an extreme position of Law of Karma, grief and joy in this life has nothing to do with God but to the consequences of one's deeds in the past alone. Nāladiyār, a Jaina classic beyond doubt, declares:

Nāladiyār 107:
If people, with heart full of grief, beg from door to door and suffer endless misery,
It is the result of their deeds in a former birth.

Valluvar seems to have only reinforced this idea by saying that the Creator God may himself go begging if he has to be held responsible for some to live on begging. The same Valluvar has mentioned elsewhere in the Kural that propriety of conduct is great birth, while impropriety will sink into a mean birth (Kural 133). In couplet 330, he says a deprived life of diseased bodies comes from depriving the life of another (in the previous birth). So too begging, which is a result of one's deeds in the past and not a result of Creator God's will.

References:
i) Chakravarti, A. 1953. Tirukkural. Deccan Press, Vepery, Madras. 648 pages
ii) Gopalan, S. 1979. Tirukkural and Indian traditions. In: The Social Philosophy of Tirukkural. Affiliated East-West Press Pvt Ltd. pp 41-74
iii) Popley, H.A. 1931. The Sacred Kural or The Tamil Veda of Tiruvalluvar. YMCA Publishing House, Calcutta. pp 23-24

Dear Sivamaalaa,

Here also I reproduce from my article which is nearing completion.

The word "theyvam" occurs in six couplets in Tirukkural. Let us take these two first.

Couplet: 55
Even rains fall at the command of the wife who upon rising
Worships not God, but her husband. SS

Couplet: 1023
The Lord himself will wrap his robes
And lead the one bent on social service. * SS, PS

From these couplets, we can appreciate that Valluvar was aware of the "belief in God", "Worship of God" and also aware of the notion that "God has the capability to do all". If Jains do not believe in a Creator God, how come Valluvar used these beliefs in his work? The reference to such beliefs in God cannot be taken as an indication to prove that Tirukkural is non-Jaina in character; for the simple reason that the emphasis in these couplets is not to affirm such beliefs but use them to emphasize virtues like industry in couplet 619, obedience to husband in couplet 55 and on social service in couplet 1023.

If Valluvar had only used the word "தெய்வம்" in Tirukkural to emphasize another point, then we need to look at couplet 43 where he declares serving god as one of the five duties of a householder!

தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.

A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
God, guests, kindred, ancestors and himself. * SS

The word "theyvam" here can easily be taken to mean a Creator God. Social service is a prominent part of Jaina ethics, and therefore Jainism prescribes six daily duties for every householder: Adoration of deity, veneration of gurus (ancestors), study of scriptures, practice of self discipline, observance of fasts and charity. Thus the word "theyvam" could well mean the adoration of a Jaina god, be it a Tirthankara, Arhat or Siddha.

In some places, the word "theyvam" could taken to mean "fate". Nālatiyār, a Jaina work beyond doubt, has this verse: "திருத் தன்னை நீப்பினும், தெய்வம் செறினும்" which literally means "Even if fortune forsakes and gods frown" (verse 304). While Rev. F. J. Leeper translates this verse as "Though Lakshmî withdraw from them and God be angry", S. Anavaratavinayakam Pillai translates as "Though fortune forsakes him and fate frown on him". Note the choice of the word "fate" here. Going by this logic, the word "theyvam" in couplet 619 (தெய்வத்தான் ஆகாது எனினும் முயற்சி தன் மெய் வருத்தக் கூலி தரும்) which comes under the chapter "Fate" (ஊழ்), can also be translated as "fate". Even Suddhanta Bharathi translates here as "fate"!

Another word used by Valluvar to mean "fate" appears to be "vaguthān" (வகுத்தான்) in couplet 377 (வகுத்தான் வகுத்த வகை அல்லால் கோடி தொகுத்தார்க்கும் துய்த்தல் அரிது). Not surprisingly, this couplet also comes under the chapter "Fate". Even it is translated or meant as "Dispenser", we have to take it as reference to the prevailing beliefs during the time of Valluvar, which the author has utilized to give his message that extra punch. Therefore the word "theyvam" in Tirukkural could mean three different things depending on the context. It could mean "fate" (619), a deity to be worshipped (43) or a deity capable of doing what man cannot achieve (55).