No general statements please
Uppuma said:
Mr. NVK said first that many feel that Valluvar was UNorthodox Hindu. Can he please say why he does not support.
Support what? Please be clear. Are you asking me why I do not support others' argument that Valluvar was an unorthodox Hindu? Have I not given detailed explanations? Please respond to them, point to point, if you think otherwise, instead of making general statements.
Mr. Uppuma says:
If Valluvar is agianst negative ethics of Jainsism, then how is Valluvar is Jain.
Please tell me which ethic of Jainism is Valluvar against. Moreover, I am not saying he was a Jain! I am only stating that his work is based on Jaina ethics, throbs on Jaina principles and the Deity he invokes in Chapter 1 suits well for the Jaina ones. In other words, his work shows considerable Jaina inclinations than any other faith. The author is probably a Jain or some one who had strong likings for Jaina ideals in life.
I have a counter question. Is not Valluvar against the negative ethics of Vedic Hinduism (like animal sacrifice)? Then how do you consider him to be a Hindu? Oh, yes! .... you consider him to an unorthodox or uncoventional Hindu!. Well, in the same manner, what is the problem in calling him an "unorthodox" Jain?
Uppuma also said:
Has NVK read TiruvalluvaMalai and what is his opinion.
Yes I have. Many scholars consider that most of the stuff in Tiruvalluvamalai are spurious stuff! I can produce with citations from different scholars if you want.
How does NVK feel Valluvar is not Hindu, when his Web site clearly gives meanings chosen closer to Hindu etics.
I didn't understand this point. Would be nice if you can indicate the verses that seem to be a Hindu rendering. I can correct them, if I have gone wrong.
Again I am travelling next week. Will be back only by the 23rd. Might get some access to internet in between.
Kural is not a book on Jainism.......
Kural is not a book on Jainism.......
Devapriya wrote:
Jainism says for all men- Sanyasi life is the best way for reaching Birthless postion and this is difficult for Family life. Tiruvalluvar never says that. Jainism says for a Female there is no way Attaining Birthless state- they have to meditate to be born as Male in next birth, so that they can attempt in next birth.
Of course, you are correct. But didn't I reiterate again and again that Valluvar's work is not an exposition of Jaina philosophy but Jaina ideas, particularly ethics?
You also said:
Jainism always wants Sanyasi Life- Tirukural has just 15 Chapters for Thuravu, against entire balance is for Family Life. Even out of 150 Couplets in this Thuraviyal many are for Family Men.
My answer to this question is the same as above.
You mentioned about 7 rituals in Sanyasa dharma of Jainism:
Jainism in Sanyasi Dharma- comples 7 rituals. They are ULOSAM, THIHAMBARAM, NIIRADAMAI, THARAIYIL URANGUTHAL, PAL THEIKAMAI, NINDRU UNNAL AND EKA PUKTHAM. Valluvar virtually is against all of this.
1. Ulosam- While Taking Sanyasam- They need to pull all hairs individually and become Bare headed. Valluvar is against bare head and Too much growth.(Kural -280)
2. Thihambaram- Walking Nakedly. KURAL-1012 & 788 tells us the importance of Dressing.
3. NIRADAMAI- Valluvar even for Thurviyal says in Kural 298 the importance of bathing, and that Sanyasis taking bath in Kural 278.
4. THARAIYIL URANGUTHAL- Valluvar never says about sleeping in Floor, atleast he refers soft bed in Kural 1191.
5. PAL THEIKAMAI- in Kural 1121, when Valluvar refers clean Mouth- certainly He is for Brushing Teeths regularly.
6. NINDRU UNNAL – We don’t find this in any of the Kurals at all.
7. EKA PUKTHAM- Eating only once a Day- Valluvar has not said this anywhere, where as he says Eat again after the earlier food has been Digested i.e., within 6 hours.
Devapriya, again you are taking Kural as a work on Jainsim and more so as a work against the practices of Jaina ascetics! You have picked up verses from here and there and produced them to show that they are against these Jaina monk's practices. Everyone agrees that the Kural extols householdership more than sanyaasa. Be it Hinduims, Buddhism or Jainism. You will never find a mention or refutation of the common ritualistic Jaina or even Hindu or Buddhist practices in the Kural. Because the Kural is not that kind of a work.
You mentioned about the seven Jaina monk rituals, but I hope you are aware fo the six daily duties for a Jaina householder.
Social service is a prominent part of Jaina ethics, and therefore Jainism prescribes six daily duties for every householder (Jain, 1999), some of which are astonishingly similar to what Valluvar said above!
Deva-puja gurupastih svdhyayah samyamas-tapah,
Danam cheti grhasthnam sat karmani dine dine
Mentioned below are the six duties and within brackets the terms used by Valluvar in Kural 43:
தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
God, guests, kindred, ancestors and himself. * SS
(i) Adoration of deity (தெய்வம்),
(ii) Veneration of gurus or ancestors (தென்புலத்தார்),
(iii) Study of scriptures (not mentioned in the couplet)
(iv) Practice of self discipline (தான்),
(v) Penance or austerities (not in this couplet)
(vi) Charity (விருந்தோக்கல்).
Of course penance and study of scriptures are emphasized by Valluvar in other places.
References:
Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith, New Delhi. 234
Couplets against Vedic practice
COUPLETS AGAINST VEDIC PRACTICE
Devapriya wrote:
Valluvar has not a single Kural says any word against Vedic Life, as per it He says a Positive Life Orientation. Where as Jainism and Buddhism are Negative Ethics.
The answer to the second part of this statement of yours, will be provided in my next posting. You said “Where as Jainism and Buddhism are Negative Ethics”. Well, no religion would teach “negative ethics”. I think this sentence of yours should read “Where as Jainism and Buddhism are life negating”. I presume this is what you meant. Please tell me if it is otherwise.
Now coming to the first part of your statement “Valluvar has not a single Kural says any word against Vedic Life”. I am surprised to know this. Only a person who has not read the Kural properly can make a statement like this.
It is not Valluvar’s intention to criticize any particular faith by name, but he has done so in one or two places against some particular practices that was prevalent during his time. Let me again reproduce the following paragraphs from section 1 “Kuŗal's affiliation to various Indian philosophical traditions” of my article which will appear soon at http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvk...uvar/jaina.htm. Here I have compared the Kural with Manu Smriti. Hope you aware that Manu supports varnāshrama dharma. Varnāshrama is one of single most characteristic feature of Hinduism that differentiates between the sramana systems like Buddhism and Jainism.
Here is the part of my article …..
“But the most important reason for considering Manu Smriti as a Vedic text stems from the frequent references Manu makes on the four varnās - the caste system, giving special preference and exceptions to Brahmins. Manu says a Brahmana retains his divinity whether he is learned or ignorant (IX: 317). But Valluvar would say "The ignorant, however high-born, is lower than the low-born learned" PS (409). Thus Manu Smriti abhors varnā system, the Kuŗal has not a word about it. Valluvar, in the following couplet, said inequality arises not by birth but by one's deeds:
Kuŗal 972:
By birth all men are equal. The differences in their action
Render their worth unequal. SM
With respect to the varņā concept, the Gita is also no different from Manu Smriti for it also sanctions the division amongst men. Says Lord Krishna that the four divisions of human society were created by him (Gita 14:13). By highlighting the absence of clear cut references to the āśrama scheme (i.e. stages of Student, Householder, Retirement, Renunciation) and the absence of delineation of duties as per the Vedic varņā concept found in Dharma Śāstras like Manu Smriti, Gopalan (1979) concluded that the Kuŗal does not wholly accept all the major ideas of Brahminical Hinduism.
….. We see Manu condemning meat eating, that too in Valluvar's own terms (Manu 5:52 is just like Kuŗal 251!), which makes us believe that Manu promoted vegetarianism. In X:63, Manu declares that abstention from injuring creatures and unlawful appropriation others' goods, veracity, purity, and self control form the summary of the law for all the four castes. Though this sounds very similar to the ethics of Tiruvalluvar, Manu does not consider animal sacrifice as himsa!
Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices;
Sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world);
Hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering. (Manu 5:39)
But the following couplet from Tirukkural condemns animal sacrifice, an age old Vedic practice.
Kuŗal 259:
Better than a thousand burnt offerings
Is one life un-killed, un-eaten. PS
……”
Mr. Devpapryia. You said: “Valluvar has not a single Kural says any word against Vedic Life”. Are these couplets not against Vedic practices? Please remember that it is only for these reasons that Hindu scholars on Tirukkural call Valluvar a “radical” or “unconventional” Hindu! One way of getting out of the troubles like this.
References:
Gopalan, S. 1979. Kuŗal and Indian traditions. In: The Social Philosophy of Kuŗal. Affiliated East-West Press Pvt Ltd. pp 41-74
