THIRUKKURALH

Mr. Devpapriya,

I have been reiterating in this thread that the Kural is not a work on Jaina philosophy or sundry laws and therefore its affiliation to Jainism or any other faith cannot be established by looking for the presence or absence of philosophical or metaphysical statements of that particular faith. Any such attempts will prove futile considering the fact that the Kural is an ethical treatise. One has to look at the ethical teachings embedded in the Kural and look for their similarity with Brahmana, Buddhist or Jaina ethics.

Now let me reproduce what I have written in my article in the last section: “Kuŗal not a work on Jaina philosophy”

“……. The author of Kuŗal might have built his moral percepts based on Jaina ethics, but was careful enough to avoid his work being categorized as a work on Jainism. He seem to have deliberately avoided typical Jaina terms that would have forced modern scholars to list the Kuŗal also along with many other Jaina works like Nāladiyār, Cívakacintāmani, Nílakéci and other works.

Let us also compare the Kuŗal with the Jaina classic Nāladiyār which is often considered an amplified version of Kuŗal (Ramachandran, 2000). No other work than Nāladiyār in Tamil comes so close to Kuŗal in similarity. The quatrains in Nāladiyār are strikingly similar in content and style to the Kuŗal, besides being organized the same way as the Kuŗal. In spite of such similarities, the Kuŗal is not considered a work on Jainism because it differs from Nāladiyār in many respects.

While Kuŗal is life-affirming, Nāladiyār like any other Jaina work is life-denying. Unlike typical Jaina works, TiruKuŗal does not harp on the transitory nature of life. Valluvar does talk about "Impermanence" (நிலையாமை) and at one place (Kuŗal 345) even asks why carry other attachments when the very body itself is a burden on the way to liberation [PS], but he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are typical of a Jaina work. Emphasizing on the transient nature of youth, Nāladiyār asks not to cherish the love for woman whose beauty will soon disappear when she is old (Nāladiyār 17). But Valluvar on the contrary, in the third division "Love" (காமத்துப்பால்), wondered if heaven can be sweeter than slumbering on the soft shoulders of the women you love (Kuŗal 1103).

At another place Nāladiyār says: "See how they remove the corpse while kinsfolk gather around and carry it to crematory. Yet he marries and fondly imagines there is happiness in this world". But Valluvar said in couplet 61 that there is nothing worth than begetting intelligent children. Nāladiyār repeatedly despises the body throughout the work. He calls the body unstable (29), impure (43) and valueless (120). And not surprisingly, like in Kundakunda's Ashta Pahuda (AP, 5:42), Nāladiyār also states that the entrails of the body are nothing but marrow, blood, bone, tendons, flesh and fat (46). One would never see such statements in the Kuŗal. While the Kuŗal has an entire chapter on "Cherishing the Kindred" (Chapter 53), Nāladiyār would state that only fools forget the aims of life and continue to live because of the joy they find in domestic relations (182)!

Let us this time take the popular collection of Jaina teachings, Saman Suttam for comparison. Chapter 29 Saman Suttam is about percepts of Meditation but Valluvar never indulged in technicalities of pathways to liberation. Valluvar has only dealt with Realization of Truth (மெய்யுணர்தல்) which is unfalteringly applicable to all faiths. Unlike we see in Saman Suttam, Valluvar has not devoted any chapter to describe the fundamental truths of Jaina philosophy. For instance, Valluvar describes soul as something distinct from the body (Kuŗal 338, 340) but does not go into details of the nature of soul. Being a Jaina ethico-metaphysical anthology, Saman Suttam describes soul as consciousness, something eternal, formless and enjoyer of Karmas (592). It also differentiates Soul as ajiva and jiva (593, 594) but the Kuŗal makes no such distinctions. Saman Suttam says "Birth is painful, old ages is painful, disease and death are painful, worldly existence where living beings suffer afflictions is also painful" (55).

While Valluvar would emphasize only on moderate eating (couplet 942), a Jaina eithico-philosophical treatise Saman Suttam would state that taking delicious dishes in excessive quantity would simulate lust in a person (293). Valluvar asks in couplet 327 not to remove the dear life of any being even when your own life is under threat. But he does not mention, like Saman Suttam (391-292)t is only these differences that prove to be a decisive factor in categorizing the Kuŗal as non-sectarian work, preventing scholars from regarding it a classic on Janism. Still Valluvar's morals are based on the foundation of Jaina ideas as we have seen in sections 1 and 2 of this article. Even though the very foundation of Valluvar's moral prescriptions is Jaina-based, he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are life negating.

To conclude, let us revert back to Nílakési's Jaina commentator Vamana Munivar's reference to the Kuŗal as the scripture of Jains. This cannot be the case for two reasons. Firstly, the Kuŗal is not a scripture and is very unlike like some works such as Tirumandiram or even Nāladiyār in that respect. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the Kuŗal was written for any particular community. The author addresses humanity at large, his sole objective being to raise every man to the level sānrõr and live with fame. …..”

Reference:
Ramachandran, T.N. 2000. A note on the significance and the history of editions as well as translations of the Nāladiyār. In: The Nāladiyār. Translation by S. Anavaratavinayakam Pillai. International Institute of Tamil Studies, Chennai. pp 1-10.

Thiru Ashroff

VaNakkam.

I have to thank you for your replies.

Like a Sangappulavar, you are prepared to place yourself in a forum to answer queries. I have to commend you for the adoption of this method, unlike other ordinary authors (regardless of whatever degrees they may have to decorate their names ) who prefer to work in academic isolation to avoid questions. The fact that you are ready to place yourself in the forefront for public scrutiny of your research material is proof of your scholarship in your research area.

I do not know whether I should trouble you with this:


I have one question. Hinduism pre-existed Jainism,( though Jain history may dispute this. I won’t be surprised).
If the former is true, then it can be expected that some of the Hindu precepts, customs, deities, etc ., would have found their way into KuraL either directly or via Jainism. Just like if a Hindu were to write presently on Hinduism, some Christian or Islamic ideas may find their way into her work without the writer even knowing it. Are you able to say to what extent Jainism was unaffected/affected by Hinduism? You get this formula:

Hinduism > Jainism
Hinduism > KuRaL
Therefore: (it appears) Jainism > KuRaL.

Rather taxing for you to delve into this, when I am asking in the abstract without real examples. If too troublesome, you may just ignore this question.

Dear Friends,

NVKji wants to search to derive what he wants from Kural than what is directly Said.

The Problem is while you agree with most of the points raised, and

//I am not suggesting that the first couplet is not applicable to a Creator God! In fact many of the couplets in Chapter 1 are perfectly suitable to describe a Creator God. My contention is that all the first 10 couplets suit well for Jaina god as well. And I agree with your Advaitic interpretation of the first couplet. It lends to that interpretation. I don't have any objection.//

Biased against WOMEN
//Yes I agree. The great Jaina āchārya Kundakunda says in his Ashta Pahuda: "Has any one seen dogs, donkeys, cows and other cattle or women attain Nirvana?" (AP, 8:29)

I appreciate your 'extension' of the definition of "Beyond likes and Dislikes' to juddge God of the Semitic World. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the Qur'an and Torah, cannot have the previlege of being called 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்'.//


On Negative Trait of Jainism
The attribute of this couplet "thanakkuvamai illāthān" (தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்), meaning "the one beyond compare" could perfectly suit any deity, be it of Brahmana, Śramana or Semitic origin. This attribute of being not equal to others or being unique is easily the commonest quality attributed to God in most religious scriptures.

Of course, yes (but why include Christianity here?). The Kural life affirming and it is only because it does not endorse Jaina religious teachings of this type, that it is not considered a work on Jaina philosophy. While Kuŗal is life-affirming, Nāladiyār like any other Jaina work is life-denying. Unlike typical Jaina works, Tirukuŗal does not harp on the transitory nature of life. Valluvar does talk about "Impermanence" (நிலையாமை) and at one place (Kuŗal 345) even asks why carry other attachments when the very body itself is a burden on the way to liberation [PS], but he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are typical of a Jaina work.//

Assumptions on Early Jainism
//Secondly the thoughts such as Vegetarianism and other ethics are the Continuation of Vedic Tradition, Pythogorous who spent 9 years in India, and was the Father of Greek Philosophy, suggests Vegetarianism, no doubt He got from India in 8th Cen BCE, much before Mahaveera founded Jainism. Only that Mahavira emphasised more on this.

I am sorry to say that I disagree with you on this. Studies have shown that the doctrine of ahimsa practices by the Śramanās existed even before the Aryan's came! Many Western scholars like Jacobi, Vincent Smith, Furlong and Zimmer have accepted the Pre-Aryan prevalence of Jainism (Kalghatgi, 1984). I think you need to update your understanding on the history and antiquity of Jainism. In fact I also used to be under the impression that Jainism is an offshoot of Aryan Brahminical 'Hindiusm' but it is not.

What we call "Hinduism" today existed as "Brahmana" sect in the past, and what we call "Jainism" now existed as "Sramana" sect before.//

Why Bring the Artificial Aryan Nonsense Here- and I have to bring VIVEKANANDA’S VIEW HERE -
//In India we have fallen during the last few centuries into a fixed habit of unquestioning deference to Authority. .. We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Henotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainty with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.
So Great is the force of Generalisation and widely popularised errors that all the world goes on Perpetuating the blunder talking of the Indo-European Races claiming or disclaiming Aryan Kinship and building on that basis of falsehood the most far-reaching Political, social or Pseudo Scientific Conclusion.’// -Swami Vivekananda

The Missionary minded Indologists who found that Sanskrit was Mother of Greek and Latin- which in turn were the Eldest of Most European Languages, and the amount of Depth and Knowledge in it brought the “Aryan” Invasion Myths- i.e., Indians are not capable of such a Wealth Language and Civilisation. It is a continual attack to run down India's great accomplishments and Civilisation...

Proper Study of Harappah and Mohanjadero now confirms that most of its Contents are Aryan, And the Speculation of the Seals being Proto Dravidian is weakening. Even the Die-hard Aryan Incoming Supporters put that from BCE7000- 1500. Linguists who worked with Tamil, popularly Identified as Dravidianists from Caldwell, Burrows etc., – All say Dravidians came around 3000 BCE and later to India from Outside.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA : “There is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans ever came from anywhere outside India.... The whole of India is Aryan, nothing else.”

U.S. archaeologist Jim Shaffer puts it : “Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from prehistoric to historic periods”

Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, biological anthropologist at Cornell University, U.S.A., who has worked extensively on Harappan sites to study human skeletal remains, concludes unambiguously: “Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity.... What the biological data demonstrate is that no exotic races are apparent from laboratory studies of human remains excavated from any archaeological sites, including those accorded Aryan status [by the old school]. All prehistoric human remains recovered thus far from the Indian subcontinent are phenotypically identifiable as ancient South Asians.... In short, there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture.”

J. M. Kenoyer, who is still pursuing excavations at Harappa, is even more categorical :There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC.

NVK in reply to Uppuma Said
//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.//

Now we can See What is Dubious-See Bismala’s Nonsense-//Gita was also composed after the era of sangap pulavar Kapilar, "sitaanaam kapilO muni" says Gita, a clear reference to kapilar, the sangam Tamil poet//-

Puram166. ¡Óõ ¦ºø§Å¡õ! À¡ÊÂÅ÷: ç÷ ãÄí ¸¢Æ¡÷.
À¡¼ôÀ𧼡ý : §º¡½¡ðÎô âﺡüê÷ô À¡÷ôÀ¡ý ¦¸ª½¢Âý Å¢ñ½ó¾¡Âý. ¾¢¨½: Å¡¨¸. ШÈ: À¡÷ÀÀÉ Å¡¨¸.

¿ý È¡öó¾ ¿£û ¿¢Á¢÷º¨¼
ÓÐ Ó¾øÅý Å¡ö §À¡¸¡Ð,
´ýÚ ÒÃ¢ó¾ ®Ã¢ ÃñÊý,
Ú½÷ó¾ ´Õ ÓÐáø this Song, in subsequent line refers the Presence of different belief groups. Now Painkat Parppan(Brahahmin- Siva continuously says- ®Ã¢ÃñÊý- 2 x 2 = 4Vedas, which has 6 Braches and are 1.Siksha, 2. Chandas 3. Viyakarnam 4. Niruktham 5. Jothisham and 6. Kalpam. Are perfectly referred in the above song and these names are given in detail in Mankmekhalai
'¸üÀõ ¨¸ ºó¾õ ¸¡ø ±ñ ¸ñ ,
¦¾ü¦Èý ¿¢Õò¾õ ¦ºÅ¢ º¢ì¨¸ ãìÌ
¯üÈ Å¢Â¡¸Ã½õ Ó¸õ ¦ÀüÚî
º¡÷À¢ý §¾¡ýÈ¡ ý §Å¾ìÌ
¾¢ «ó¾õ þø¨Ä «Ð ¦¿È¢' ±Ûõ
§Å¾¢Âý ¯¨Ã¢ý Å¢¾¢Ôõ §¸ðÎ

Now Vedics are split as 6 Philosophies-
1. Vaiseshikam - Ganathar(Author)
2. Niyayam - Gouthamar
3. Sankiyam - Kapilar
4. Yogam - Pathanjali
5. Mimamsaa - jaimini
6. Vethantham - Vetha Viyasa now all these have been referred with few author names in Manimekhalai.
À¢È÷ ¦º¡Äì ¸Õ¾ø þô ¦ÀüȢ «Ç¨Å¸û
À¡íÌÚõ ¯§Ä¡¸¡Â¾§Á ¦Àªò¾õ
º¡í¸¢Âõ ¨¿Â¡Â¢¸õ ¨Å§ºÊ¸õ
Á£Á¡ïº¸õ õ ºÁ º¢Ã¢Â÷ , 27-080
¾¡õ À¢Õ¸üÀ¾¢ º¢É§É ¸À¢Äý
«ì¸À¡¾ý ¸½¡¾ý ¨ºÁ¢É¢
¦ÁöôÀ¢Ãò¾¢Âõ «ÛÁ¡Éõ º¡ò¾õ
¯ÅÁ¡Éõ «Õò¾¡Àò¾¢ «À¡Åõ
þ¨Å§Â þô§À¡Ð þÂýÚ ¯Ç «Ç¨Å¸û'
±ýÈÅý ¾ý¨É Å¢ðÎ 'þ¨ÈÅý ®ºý' ±É
¿¢ýÈ ¨ºÅ Å¡¾¢ §¿÷ÀξÖõ

See what earlier Bismala’s Blabber, and now another would quote Bismala and that becomes a Proven- one(Nonsense). GITA REFERS SANKIYAM AUTHOR KAPILA. THESE TYPE OF HALF BAKED NONSENSE ONLY PUTS TIURVALLUVAMALAI AS DUBIOUS.

One can easily say the Manuscripts we have both KURAL and ValluvaMalai are of equal dating and for any body to say one Is OK and Other is not Spurious, and Authors like Maraimalai Aadigal, Pavanar, Appadurai Ka.Su.Pillai etc., etc., stands discredited for their highly Partial and Unwarranted way of Research and Quiet a few Voices against this Fraudulent Thani-Tamil movement has been already been given in the earlier Pages of same Thread.

Because in the name of Indology, the Missionaries made such a Fraud and spread Hatred against Vedas and the Design of This is confirmed by Maxmuller in letter to HIS WIFE, OXFORD, December 9, 1867.
“…I feel convinced, though I shall not live to see it, that this edition of mine and the translation of THE VEDA will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the ROOT OF THEIR RELIGION, and to show them what that root is, I feel sure, the ONLY WAY OF UPROOTING all that has sprung from it during the last 3,000 years.”

Now I suggest every one should read Swami.Dayanand Saraswathi on the Fradulant Translations of Maxmuller, and much more easily by Dr.B.R.Bharti- “Maxmuller a Masquerade”, After the English Church sent Highly Knowledgeable Rev. Adams to Convert Sir.Rajaram Mohanrai and his Brahma Samaj as Christians- Mohanrai who is Scholar of Greek, Hebrew,Perrsian and Arabi along with Sanskrit proved Adams that Vedas are Monotheistic where as Semitic Religions are Polytheistic and Rev.Adams was converted to Brahmos. Oxford University which had a Chair for Sanskrit – setup by an Officer of British served in India Colonel Boden – to read Sanskrit for Conversion Purposes was used and Maxmuller was appointed to do this Job. Now Dr.B.R.Bharti’s book has Copies of the Colonel Boden of early 19th Cen. Will of that Sanskrit Chair Creation and various letters of Maxmuller, and on Maxmuller’s Hynotheism, and How He Continued to Work for Missionary works.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA //”We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Hynotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainity with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.”//

Many authors have speculated Kural with Samana and Buddha ideologies simply
`because of the Hatred run on Vedas by Missionaries to Pavanar with highly Tendentious Conversion morives. So to say Valluvamalai is dubious itself is dubious, but I still do not need VALLUVAMALAI alone to analyse KURAL.

Kural is one of the most popular of all Tamil scriptures, why?- Because of its method of not putting Religious motive over Ethics. More than that From Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam we have about Tamil Society- Tamil Society is filled with Vedas, (Though Valluvar has accepted Caste by indirect references, but he has not touched in depth.) along with its good culture it also tells us that Polygamy and Polyandry was prevalent, Prostitution was available, Premarital Sex, Drinking of Wine was done by all including Women, Killing of Animals and eating in God worship are present. Where as Kural is against all this. Certainly Valluvar shows his lwanings to Hinduism and says much against Jainism.

These Dubious Thani Tamil Scholars took few odd verses positive only about Tamil Civilisation and extensively used Kural for their Highly Partial works.
I give-Historian M. G. S. Narayanan, who finds in Sangam literature –
“no trace of another, indigenous, culture other than what may be designated as tribal and primitive.” And concludes :
“The Aryan-Dravidian or Aryan-Tamil dichotomy envisaged by some scholars may have to be given up since we are unable to come across anything which could be designated as purely Aryan or purely Dravidian in the character of South India of the Sangam Age. In view of this, the Sangam culture has to be looked upon as expressing in a local idiom all the essential features of classical “Hindu” culture. M. G. S. Narayanan, “The Vedic-Puranic-Shastraic Element in Tamil Sangam Society and Culture,” in Essays in Indian Art, Religion and Society, p. 128.

Nilakanta Sastri goes a step further and opines,
“There does not exist a single line of Tamil literature written before the Tamils came into contact with, and let us add accepted with genuine appreciation, the Indo-Aryan culture of North Indian origin.”

Previous Researchers and Conclusions
//Please explain me how. I am keen to know and even ready to revert my opinions on my Jaina foundation of Tirukkural if the explanations given are found satisfactory. After all, in the past, I also used to deny the claims of Kural's Jaina affinity! Whether Valluvar was a Jain or not, his work is dominated by Jaina ideas! By the by who is Tho Po Me?//

//You also wrote:
Buddishism and Jainism, for that reason every Man made religions absorbed from the Older existing religions and changed and claimed as its own. Buddhism and Jainism took Ramayan and Mahabaratha and wrote to suit their beliefs. Judaism took from Zoroastrianism. Christianity took from Judaism, Mithraism. Manichism took from Zorashraism , Christianity and Buddhism and claimed Manes as the Last Prophet for all of these. Islam’s Prophet took from Manes and Christianity and made similar claims.

You are giving the impression that only Hinduism I mentioned earlier about the pre-Aryan existence of Jainism. Well, it didn't exist as "Jainism" like what we call now, just like what we Hinduism today did not exist as Hinduism in the past! Jains were called "Śramanās" (Strivers or Equals) in the past and Buddhist texts have numerous reference to them as naked ascetics. The historicity of the 23th Tirthankara 'Parsva' of Jains has been established and is accepted by most Scholars. Writes I.C. Sharma (1991) in his book on Ethical philosophies of India (on page 121, Johnsen Publishing Company, New York) "There is no doubt that Mahavira cannot be considered the founder of Jaina religion, for he was only a reformer or rejuvenator of Jainism".

History has shown that every religion has taken and given ideas to other religions. I agree that Islam was an offshoot of Judaism and Christianity, and Judaism itself owes a lot to Zoroastrianism. You may say Buddhism evolved from Brahiminical 'Hinduism', but not Jainism. Ninian Smart (1964. In: Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy, Allen and Unwin, p 163), one of the greatest of religious scholars known in the West, mentions that the Indian view of Karma was doubtless of non-Aryan provenance and it was a kind of natural law.//

I am Sorry again, Unless Some Scholar tells me where from they found what is Aryan and what is Non Aryan and what was their Source, from which Century these material belong and Allen is not the first on all this meaningless speculations, Albert Schweitzer had said this also, but which Old Literature tells this. As I said Allen quote Schweitzer and another quotes both, but what was the Source for this Speculation? And I can only Point out that Earlier the Fraudulent claims of Archaeology proves Aryan Invasion and that Lord Shiva being Dravidian God. The Very Noun Siva or Lingam Worship does not appear in Sangam- TholKappiyam- Kural- Mainmekhalai Period, and Silapathikaram explains temples only using Perishable items for Idols, and no mention of Stone Idols. Where as Siva, Lingam worship all are there in Rig, and Lord Muruga worship is there in Rig as in the name of Marutham.

No Jainism work is dated earlier than middle of 3rd Century BCE, and its Linguistic research confirms it has developed from Vedic Hinduism. All Western Scholars and Tamil Chauvinists wants to give of any Speculative claim of not Veda but else, gave rise to the Pavanar Group and Church to claim that Tirukural was a Christian work and Valluvar was converted to Christianity by Apostle Saint.Thomas personally, and the books written in the name of Dr.M.Deivanayagam had foreword from M.Karunanithi and others, whereas Today the Church researchers doubt an existence of such Thomas at all. But Deivanayagam’s work and ArchBishop Aruallappa trying to fabricate OLD PALM LEAF MANSUCRIPTS to prove Valluvar as Christian all ended as a shame- and details on these can be seen from www.hamsa.org articles on ArchBishop Aruallappa, Deivanayagam and Acharya Paul.

NVKji’s following sentence is really surprising-
//I have a counter question. Is not Valluvar against the negative ethics of Vedic Hinduism (like animal sacrifice)?//

Is Hinduism means Animal Sacrifice only- why this much Hate on Hinduism?

Now Old Testament’s Torah-first Five Book- called as Towrath in Islam Tradition- the laws given by the local god yhwh or moon god allah and dated to 350-250BCE was summarised by a Christian Convert African Maths Professor- “that local god wanted The Jerusalem Temple’s Priest must eat 88 Pigeons every day and that god wanted killing of 400- 1600 Goats every minute every day.”

The Missionaries and Thani Tamil Scholars have been picking up few odd verses from here and there and produced them to spread Falsehood against Hinduism. I am giving a small collection of Verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice.

Vedas and agamas, Hinduism's Scriptures
LET YOUR AIMS BE COMMON, and your hearts be of one accord, and all of you be of one mind, so you may live well together. Rig Veda Samhita 10.191
Protect both our species, two-legged and four-legged. Both food and water for their needs supply. May they with us increase in stature and strength. Save us from hurt all our days, O Powers! Rig Veda Samhita 10.37.11. VE, 319
One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head.
Rig Veda Samhita, 10.87.16, FS 90
Peaceful be the earth, peaceful the ether, peaceful heaven, peaceful the waters, peaceful the herbs, peaceful the trees. May all Gods bring me peace. May there be peace through these invocations of peace. With these invocations of peace which appease everything, I render peaceful whatever here is terrible, whatever here is cruel, whatever here is sinful. Let it become auspicious, let everything be beneficial to us. Atharva Veda Samhita 10. 191. 4
Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices. Atharva Veda Samhita 19.48.5. FS, 90
If we have injured space, the earth or heaven, or if we have offended mother or father, from that may Agni, fire of the house, absolve us and guide us safely to the world of goodness. Atharva Veda Samhita 6.120.1. VE, 636
You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32. FS, 90
May all beings look at me with a friendly eye. May I do likewise, and may we all look on each other with the eyes of a friend. Yajur Veda 36.18.
Nonviolence is all the offerings. Renunciation is the priestly honorarium. The final purification is death. Thus all the Divinities are established in this body.
Krishna Yajur Veda, Prana Upanishad 46-8. VE, 413-14
To the heavens be peace, to the sky and the earth; to the waters be peace, to plants and all trees; to the Gods be peace, to Brahman be peace, to all men be peace, again and again-peace also to me! O earthen vessel, strengthen me. May all beings regard me with friendly eyes! May I look upon all creatures with friendly eyes! With a friend's eye may we regard each other! Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita 36.17-18. VE, 306; 342
No pain should be caused to any created being or thing.
Devikalottara agama, JAV 69-79. RM, 116
The Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, Epic History
The very name of the cows is aghnya, indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who, then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a bull commits the most heinous crime. Mahabharata, Shantiparva 262.47. FS,pg. 94
The purchaser of flesh performs himsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and eats it -all of these are to be considered meat-eaters.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.40. FS, pg 90
He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.47. FS, pg. 90
One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Yielding to desire and acting differently, one becomes guilty of adharma. Mahabharata 18.113.8.
Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of injury. Mahabharata 18.115.8.
Ahimsa is the highest dharma. Ahimsa is the best tapas. Ahimsa is the greatest gift. Ahimsa is the highest self-control. Ahimsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahimsa is the highest power. Ahimsa is the highest friend. Ahimsa is the highest truth. Ahimsa is the highest teaching.
Mahabharata 18.116.37-41.
He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in all that is-immortal in the field of mortality-he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path. Bhagavad Gita 13. 27-28. BgM, pg. 101
Nonviolence, truth, freedom from anger, renunciation, serenity, aversion to fault-finding, sympathy for all beings, peace from greedy cravings, gentleness, modesty, steadiness, energy, forgiveness, fortitude, purity, a good will, freedom from pride-these belong to a man who is born for heaven. Bhagavad Gita 16.2-3. BGM, pg. 109
AHIMSA IS NOT CAUSING pain to any living being at any time through the actions of one's mind, speech or body. Sandilya UpanishadWhen mindstuff is firmly based in waves of ahimsa, all living beings cease their enmity in the presence of such a person. Yoga Sutras 2.35. YP, pg. 205
Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world. Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.5.4. FS, pg, 90 .
Vedas now with the Archeological support of River Saraswathi which started drying up by 2200 BCE, and completely dried by 1900 BCE, has to be dated to earlier than 2000 BCE, and we see many voices in Upasnishads itself against Sacrifics and Karmas. Upanishads are traditionally dated to 1000BCE to 600BCE, by Western Indologists who want to fit TORAH- World CREAtion myths by lord Chronology- in 4004 BCE, and Vedas to 2000-1000BCE. But with ..

I would like to reiterate my stand that the Kural is a work based on on Jaina ethics and not a work on Jainism. I have mentioned that again and again and many people in this forum have not understood this. All your points in your last posting are reflection of this misunderstanding.

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.

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


//The attribute of this couplet "thanakkuvamai illāthān" (தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்), meaning "the one beyond compare" could perfectly suit any deity, be it of Brahmana, Śramana or Semitic origin. This attribute of being not equal to others or being unique is easily the commonest quality attributed to God in most religious scriptures.//

The Question is not All followers of their Respective Religions had called or not the Question is Valluvar who specifically Avoided Naming God would have used it for a mortal Man- either Rishaba – or Mahavira. My Answer is Not Possible.

Now the question is §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É - Now Jainism denies Women of Salvation Completely; they have to reborn as Male to get Salvation.

Yes I agree. The great Jaina āchārya Kundakunda says in his Ashta Pahuda: "Has any one seen dogs, donkeys, cows and other cattle or women attain Nirvana?" (AP, 8:29). In fact Jaina religion has many such teachings (need for ascetics to be naked "naked") but the Kural is based on Jaina ethics and not on Jaina philosophy.

Valluvar’s God does not have male or female preference- and He is §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É.

'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்' means "The One beyond likes and dislikes" which has a wider connotation and I am sorry you cannot take it specifically to mean that Valluvar's god has no bias towards men and women.

Here Judaism’s Prayer for every Male is - lord, I thank you for your have not made born me as Female or Dog (means Non-Jews); this Prayer is practised from at least BCE 350 When Judaism Historically was born to till date. Secondly Bible and Quran tells of Chosen People and that israel’s small god converting the River Nile to Blood and Killing of all First Infants of Human and Animals of Egyptians, and certainly this god is not §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É or even the Suprme God.

Very good! I appreciate your 'extension' of the definition of "Beyond likes and Dislikes' to juddge God of the Semitic World. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the Qur'an and Torah, cannot have the previlege of being called 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்'

- Again No doubt Every Religious follower would call its founder or their Deity as 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்' means "The One beyond likes and dislikes- but Would Valluvar give it to a Sect’s (founder) who denies Moksha to One half of the Population. My Answer is know.

You said:
«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý- Referring God by the term ”«ó¾½ý” is a Practice to Shiva, Brahma etc., In Sangam Literature itself and never to Jainistic Rishba till atleast next 800 years after Valluvar. «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ is Secular word.

However, Chakravarti (1953), Subramanyam (1983) and Sundaram (1990) mention that F.W. Ellis, who translated the Kuŗal into English in 1812, found the word "anthañan" in the then dictionaries meant only two gods, namely the Brahminical Brahma and Jaina Arugan. The use of the word "anthañan" (அந்தணன்) in the chapter on "Praise of God" is rather surprising, especially when the literal import of this word is "Brahmin". Since it comes under the Chapter 1, it has to be taken as a reference to a godhead.

BOTH Siva and Brahma is called Brahmin as bewlow
¾¢ «ó¾½ý «È¢óÐ Àâ ¦¸¡ÙÅ,
§Å¾ Á¡ âñ ¨ÅÂò §¾÷ °÷óÐ,
¿¡¸õ ¿¡½¡, Á¨Ä Å¢øÄ¡¸,
ãŨ¸ ÷ ±Â¢ø µ÷ «Æø-«õÀ¢ý ÓÇ¢Â, 25

Á¡¾¢Ãõ «ÆÄ, ±öÐ «ÁÃ÷ §ÅûÅ¢ô
À¡¸õ ¯ñ¼ ¨Àí ¸ð À¡÷ôÀ¡ý
¯¨Á¦Â¡Î Paaaripadal

The Calling of God as Brahmin – Anthanan was never done in Jain Tamil Literature for atlease 500 years after Valluvar, where as it is existing in Hinduism even before Valluvar.


«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ¾¡û§º÷ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø
À¢ÈÅ¡Æ¢ ¿£ó¾ø «¡¢Ð.
À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£óÐÅ÷ ¿£ó¾¡÷
þ¨ÈÅý «Ê§ºÃ¡ ¾¡÷.

- In both this Kurals Valluvar cannot refer to Deadmen feat, but to the Supreme God, even Diehard Jain or Buddha believer would ask us to follow their Teachings and not on holding feet, Valluvar is very Clear, He refers to Supreme God, and Valluvar when names at 25 Different Kurals various Hindu Deity names, follows Henotheism.//

Now Again Valluvar who is from Indic Tradition and not a Political type of Semitic Religion where Accept my god and get Moksha and do these rituals or else You are God’s Enemy- Indic Tradition always allows that a mountain can be claimed from several Sides, and All rivers join same Ocean- so to say This is The Way- could only be applied to Supreme God- In both the above Kural Valluvar is clear that is the Only way. No doubt that during Valluvar days –all Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism where there- AND Valluvar by calling Supreme God’s feet very clearly rejects the Agnostic Religions. To Aravazi Viran or Aravazi Arasan could bring the meaning Jainists extract, but the term Valluvar used is One Clearly confirms his Leanings. Jaina Mortal Deities being called Brahmin is much later than Valluvar to site them as examples, where as I Quote Prior to it and as you also agreed.

//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.//

¸¼×û Å¡úòÐ Paripadal 8. ¦ºù§Åû
À¡ÊÂÅ÷ :: ¿øÄóÐÅÉ¡÷ ¨ºÂ¨Áò¾Å÷ :: ÁÕòÐÅý ¿øÄî;ɡ÷
Àñ :: À¡¨Ä¡ú -¾¢ÕôÀÃíÌýÈò¾¢ý «¨ÁôÒõ º¢ÈôÒõ

ÁñÁ¢¨º---«Å¢úÐÆ¡ö ÁÄ÷¾Õ ¦ºøÅòÐô
ÒûÁ¢¨ºì ¦¸¡Ê§Â¡Ûõ, Òí¸Åõ °÷§Å¡Ûõ,
ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º Ó¾øÅÛõ, ÁüÚ «ÅÉ¢¨¼ò §¾¡ýÈ¢
¯ÄÌ Õû «¸üȢ À¾¢ýÁÕõ, ÕÅÕõ,
ÁÕóÐ ¯¨Ã ÕÅÕõ, ¾¢ÕóÐ áø ±ñÁÕõ

So Anthanan, MalarMisai are more in vogue for Hindus much prior toValluvar, where as Jainism used it much later.
Now I just show that most of the titles used by Valluvar is more better suited to Hinduism(- the following in Baamini Script) and Siva here..

jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk;>
'Mjp ghjNk Xjp ca;k;kpNd"
'gukd; gftd; guNkr;Rtud; godefuhNu" (1:67:4)

,iwtid 'thywptd;" (flTs; tho;j;J> 2) vdf; Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh;.
thywptd; vd;why; Jha mwptpdd;> epiwe;j QhdKilatd; vdg; nghUs;.
jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk;> 'Qhdj;jpusha; epd;w ngUkhd;" (1:69:3) vd ,iwtidg;
Nghw;Wfpd;whh;.

jpUts;St; ,iwtd; md;gh;fspd; neQ;rkhfpa jhkiukyhpy; tPw;wpUg;gtd; vd
'kyh;kpir Vfpdhd;" (Fws;> 3) vd Fwpg;gpLtJk;> jpUQhdrk;ge;jh; 'kyh;kpir
naOjU nghUs;" (1:21:5) vd;W ,iwtdg; Nghw;WtJk; xg;Gnehf;fj;jf;fJ.

,iwtd; mwf;flyhf tpsq;Ftij ts;Sth; 'mwthop" ((Fws;> 8) vd;fpd;whh;.
jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk; ,iwtd; mwtbtpdd; vd;gij mwpTWj;Jfpd;whh; (1:9:2> 2:199:11).

,iwtdpd ; Fzqf;fs;:;: ,iwtid 'vz;Fzj;jhd;" (Fws;> 9) vd ts;Sth;
Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh;. jd;taj;jdhjy; (Rje;juKilatd;) Jhaclk;gpddhjy;>
,ay;ghfNt ghrq;fis ePf;fpatd;> ,aw;if czh;tpdd;> Kw;Wzh;tpdd;>
NguUSilatd;> Kbtpyhw;wYilatd;> tuk;gpypd;gKilatd; vd vz;Fzq;fisg; ghpNkyofh; Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh;. jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk; ,iwtd; vz;Fzj;jpdd; vdf; Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh; (1:131:1)

Now NVKji says-
//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
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

(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).//

I AM really feeling that NVKji is tended to carry on with misinterpretation of Kural, by picking A Kural and searching something similar in Jainism, (probably some Book has already done that) and somehow suit it (wrongly) and I quote his interpretation in previous post for the same Kural-

//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.//

The Orthodox Hindu Tradition- gives much more importance to Pithuru KARMAS-
“Then Pulathar” over even Worship of God- i.e., When A Family Person Dies, all his Blood Relatives need to carry rituals for One year and During that One year They do not visit Temples, or do Fesitival Worships in Home, and even not put Kolam outside their home, and also every month’s New Moon Day- The same, then comes Mahalaya New Moon day etc., ie., Pithru Karma over God worship, and this Kural confirms the order very clearly of that, and as Hindu Tradition with this five duties- Sixth comes Paying Taxes for the country. Veneration of Guru is not certainly ThenPulathar- as Sangam and SILApathikaram uses this term only for your Direct Blood Relations.

Purananuru says that - For a War- Young men Who has not got sons to do Thenpulathar Kadamai should not be taken for fighting, and this has gone to Jews, and till date Israel gives concession to Young First Sons - need not be in frontal positions.


So this Kural is more of confirming to Orthodox Hinduism.
தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
Ancestors God, guests, kindred, and himself. * SS

Jainism that being Born as Human is an Unwanted act and that We need to be doing Penance, always and Fasting is advised to all for most of the Occasions and this is not a Philosophy but the Fundamental Root of Jainism and Jains are referred in AkaNanuru as உண்ணாமையின் உயங்கிய மருங்கின்
ஆடாப் படிவத்து ஆன்றோர் போல, - Valluvar never gives importance for Fasting.

And on use of God names- NVKji says // செய்யவள் is found in Cilappadikāram (2.12.69)//

The Unwanted elements of Scholarship made Tamil research as meaningless, there is a famous quote from abroad- “Politics is the Last refuge of Unwanted Elements”. The Kannadiga- E.V.Ramasamy Naicker said “ Tamil and Tamil Chavunism is the Last refuge of Unwanted Elements” and
EVR further said said -
“ ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âý ஆâÂì ÜÄ¢. ஆâ ¾÷Áò¨¾§Â ¾Á¢ú þÄ츽Á¡¸î ¦ºöРŢð¼ Á¡¦ÀÕõ ЧḢ.
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅý «ì¸¡Äò¾¢üÌ ²üÈ Å¨¸Â¢ø ஆâ ¸ÕòÐìÌ ஆ¾Ã× ¦¸¡ÎìÌõ «ÇÅ¢ø ÀÌò¾È¢¨Åô ôüÈ¢ ¸Å¨Äô À¼¡Áø ¿£¾£ ÜÚõ ӨȢø ¾ÉÐ Á¾ ¯½÷§Â¡Î ²§¾¡ ÜÈ¢î ¦ºýÈ¡÷. ôì¸õ 7 ¾Á¢Øõ ¾Á¢ÆÕõ. I just want to bring this to the notice of all.

Now Can Silapathikaram can fully be ascribed as Jainistic- much doubtful- and I Quote “Viththuvan
“கோவலன் கண்ணகியர் இன்ன சமயத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவர் என்று சிலபதிகாரத்தில் குறிப்பிடப் படவில்லை. சமணத்துறவி கவுந்தியடிகள் அவ்விருவர்க்கும் வழித் துணையாகிறார். வைணவ மாதரி அவ்விருவரை விருந்தோம்புகின்றாள். சைவ செங்குட்டுவன் தெய்வக் கல் எடுக்கின்றான். எந்த் மதத்தையும் தழுவாமல் கடவுள் பற்றுடைய இள்ங்கோ அடிகள் இவ்விருவரையும் பாடுகின்றார்.
மதுரை செல்ல நினைத்த கோவலன் கண்ணகியர், வீட்டைக் கடந்து, திருமால் கோட்டத்தையும் இந்திர விகாரத்தையும், சாரணர் சிலாதலத்தயும் தொழுது சென்று காவிரிக் கரையை அடைகின்றனர். சிலப்பதிகாரத்தில் இப்பகுதியை படிக்கும் போது காவியத் தலைமக்களின் மதச்சார்பு ந்மக்கு புலப்படவில்லை. ஆனால் மணிமேகலை பௌத்த மதத்தைச் சார்ந்தவல் என்று இந்நூலில் தெளிவாய்த் தெரிகிறது.//

Silapathikaram and even Manimekhalai gives such a wide information on Tamil Society during Sangam Period and high details on Vedas, Of course always Maimekhalai uses better words for Buddhism and Anti- Hinduism - which is absent in Silapathikaram. Silapathikaram, Author puts much in Praise of Samanam in One Character KavunthiAdigal. But majority supports Vedic Hinduism, which I shall put here or in other Appropriate thread.

Where as Thani- Tamil Scholars went on to go by the Jainistic Probaganda- that Silapathikaram and Kural are Jainistic, with very flimsy few picked verses. Even few went on to say that Marai or Vetham or Ooththu in Tholkappiyam, Sangam-Kural – Manimekhalai could be some Non Existent Tamil Vedams etc., and The Missionary Motived Pavanar had to himself has to admit-

// " Nalvetham or Nanmarai, Arangam Agamam enbana ellam Arya Noolkale enbathum, Thirukural thavira ippothulla Pandai Noolkalellam Anthanar enbathum Brahmararie Kurikkum Enpathu Sariye. Page- 102 Tamilar Matham.//


As for as Vedic Sects itself- Sankiyam Philosophy authored by KapilaMuni was against Sacrifices and Practised Ahimsa. (Dr.S.Radakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol-2, P.307) and also Dr.S.Radakrishnan in Vol-1, Pages 148-149 shows that during Upanishad times itself Animal Sacrifices have lost its importance.

Indian Culture and Civilisation is the Oldest and If Foreigners wrote meaninglessly, then the Indian by Birth, but Christian Fathers- and writers did it, and MahaKavi Bharati condemns it in his Short ARTICLE called Á¾¢ôÒ

þó¾¢Â¡¨Å ¦ÅÇ¢Ôĸò¾¡÷ À¡Á羺õ ±ýÚ ¿¢¨ÉìÌõÀÊ ¦ºö¾ Ó¾ü ÌüÈõ ¿õÓ¨¼ÂÐ. ÒÈì¸ÕÅ¢¸û ÀÄ. ӾġÅÐ, ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢. «¦Áâ측ŢÖõ ³§Ã¡ôÀ¡Å¢Öõ º¢Ä ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸û, ¾í¸û Á¾ Å¢„ÂÁ¡É À¢Ãº¡Ãò¨¾ ¯ò§¾º¢òÐ ¿õ¨Áì ÌÈ¢òÐô ¦Àâ ¦Àâ ¦À¡ö¸û ¦º¡øÄ¢, þôÀÊ𠾡úóÐ §À¡ö Á¸ð¾¡É «¿¡¸Ã¢¸ ¿¢¨Ä¢ø þÕìÌõ ƒÉí¸¨Çì ¸¢È¢ŠÐ Á¼ò¾¢§Ä §º÷òÐ §Áý¨ÁôÀÎòÐõ Òñ½¢Âò¨¼î ¦ºöž¡¸î ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¸û. þóÐì¸û ÌÆ󨾸¨Ç ¿¾¢Â¢§Ä §À¡Î¸¢È¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, Šòâ¸¨Ç (Ó츢ÂÁ¡¸, «¿¡¨¾¸Ç¡öô ÒÕ„÷¸¨Ç þÆóÐ ¸¾¢Â¢øÄ¡Áø þÕìÌõ ¨¸õ¦Àñ¸¨Ç) ¿¡ö¸¨Çô §À¡Ä ¿¼òи¢È÷¸û ±ýÚõ ÀÄÅ¢¾Á¡É «ÀÅ¡¾í¸û ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¡÷¸û. ¿õÓ¨¼Â ƒ¡¾¢ô À¢Ã¢×¸Ç¢¦Ä þÕìÌõ ÌüÈí¸¨Ç¦ÂøÄ¡õ â¾ì¸ñ½¡Ê ¨ÅòÐì ¸¡ðθ¢È¡÷¸û. þó¾ì ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸Ç¡§Ä ¿ÁìÌ §¿÷ó¾ «ÅÁ¡Éõ «ÇÅ¢ø¨Ä. Barathiyar, ¸ðΨÃ- Á¾¢ôÒ

Another example- The Unwanted item in India - the Caste system is put as Vedic -the Truth is the Opposite- as I QUOTE I put these from Dravidian protogonist Gilbert Slater
- who gives from Maxmuller, and I Quote from Tamil Translation by PanmozhiPulavar Appadurai.
ÁÛÅ¢ø ÌÈ¢ì¸ôÀðÎ þýÚ ÅÆ츢ÖûÇ º¡¾¢ Ó¨È §Å¾í¸Ç¢ý Á¢¸ô ÀƨÁÂ¡É ºÁÂò ¾òÐÅí¸Ç¢ø þ¼õ ¦ÀÚ¸¢È¾¡? "þø¨Ä" ±ýÈ ´§Ã¦º¡øÄ¢ø ¿¡õ «¨¾ «Øò¾Á¡¸ ÁÚðÐÅ¢¼Ä¡õ. ¦ÀÕﺢì¸ø Å¡öó¾ º¡¾¢ «¨ÁôÒ Ó¨Èò ¾¢ð¼òÐìÌ §Å¾ Ýì¾í¸Ç¢ø ±ò¾¨¸Â ¾ÃÓõ þø¨Ä. «Ð §À¡Ä§Å Ýò¾¢Ãâý þÆ¢¾¨¸ ¿¢¨Ä¨ÁìÌ ¾¡Ã§Á¡; Àø§ÅÚ ÅÌôÀ¢É÷ ´Õí§¸ ÌØÁ¢ Å¡Æ, ´Õí§¸ ¯ñ½ô ÀÕ¸ò ¾¨¼ Å¢¾¢ìÌõ ±ó¾î ºð¼§Á¡; Àø§ÅÚ º¡¾¢Â¢É÷ ¾õÓû ´ÕÅÕ즸¡ÕÅ÷ Á½ ¯È× ¦¸¡ûŨ¾ò ¾ÎìÌõ ӨȨÁ§Â¡; «ò¾¨¸Â Á½ ¯ÈÅ¡ø ÅÕõ À¢û¨Ç¸ÙìÌ Å¢Äì¸ ÓÊ¡¾ ¾£ìÌȢ¢ðÎð ¾£ñøò¾¸¡¾ÅḠ´Ð츢 ¨ÅìÌõ ¸ðÎôÀ¡§¼¡; ±Ð×õ «ÅüÈ¢ø þø¨Ä. «òмý º¢Åý, ¸¡Ç¢ ¸¢ÂÅ÷¸Ç¢ý «îºó ¾Õõ ¦ºÂø Өȸ¨Çô ÀüÈ£§Â¡; ¸ñ½É¢ý º¢üÈ¢ýÀì ¸Ç¢Â¡ð¼õ ÀüÈ¢§Â¡; .. ... §Åòò¾¢ø ´Õ ÍÅÎ Ü¼ì ¸¢¨¼Â¡Ð. ¸¼×ÙìÌâ Á¾¢ô¨Àò ¾¦Á¦¾Éì ¦¸¡ñÎ ÀÆ¢ÝØõ ´Õ ÌÕÁ¡÷ ÌØÅ¢ý Å£õÒâ¨Á¸û, ÁÉ¢¾ þÉò¾¢ý þøÄí¸¨Ç Å¢Äí¸¢Éí¸Ç¢Ûõ ¸¢Æ¡¸ þÆ¢× ÀÎòÐõ Ó¨È ¸¢ÂÅü¨È ¾Ã¢ìÌõ ±ó¾î ºð¼Óõ «ÅüÈ¢ø þø¨Ä. ÌÆó¨¾ Á½ò¾¢üÌ ¾Ã§Å¡, ÌÆó¨¾ Å¢¾¨Å¸û Á½ò¨¾ò ¾¨¼¦ºö§š ¸½Åý À¢½òмý ¯Â¢ÕûÇ ¨¸õ¦Àñ½¢ý ¯¼¨ÄÔõ ¨Åò¦¾Ã¢ìÌõ ¦À¡øÄ¡ô ÀÆì¸ò¨¾ ¾Ã¢Å¢ì¸§Å¡ «¾¢ø ´Õ Å¡º¸í Ü¼ì ¸¢¨¼Â¡Ð. þ¨Å ¡×õ §Å¾ò¾¢ý ¦º¡øÖìÌõ ¦À¡ÕÙì̧Á Á¡ÚÀð¼¨Å." Quote frm Maxmuler “þó¾¢Â ¿¡¸Ã¢¸ò¾¢ø ¾¢Ã¡Å¢¼ô ÀñÒ”- ¸¢øÀ÷𠺢§Äð¼÷, ¾Á¢ú ¸¡.«ôÀ¡Ð¨Ã. Àì¸õ 40,41.

But Tons and Tons of Articles are there against this Truth, and still being advertised with Foreign funds. The Truth is the opposite.

Vedas cannot be dated later than 1900BCE, by which time entire Saraswathi River has Dried up. John Marshall remarked in 1931, -
“THE HARAPPAN] RELIGION IS SO CHARACTERISTICALLY INDIAN AS HARDLY TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM STILL LIVING HINDUISM.”

Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Cambridge University Press, 1988,
“IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHAT IS PARTICULARLY NON-ARYAN ABOUT THE INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION.”

Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization (Karachi & Islamabad : Oxford University Press & American Institute of Pakistan Studies, 1998) -“MANY SCHOLARS HAVE TRIED TO CORRECT THIS ABSURD THEORY [OF AN ARYAN INVASION], BY POINTING OUT MISINTERPRETED BASIC FACTS, INAPPROPRIATE MODELS AND AN UNCRITICAL READING OF VEDIC TEXTS. HOWEVER, UNTIL RECENTLY, THESE SCIENTIFIC AND WELL-REASONED ARGUMENTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN ROOTING OUT THE MISINTERPRETATIONS ENTRENCHED IN THE POPULAR LITERATURE.”

So now Valluvar was Opposed to Fundamentals of the roots of Jainism, and even does not support the minimum Compulsory ethical rituals of Jainism. And basic ethics remain same for all Religions. And no particular ethic can be said as special to Jainism at all unless you Discredit all the available information on Vedas and Upanishads, against all Scientific Evidences as Saraswathi River and other Proofs, I shall give links in my next Thread. The Majority of Independent Scholars put dating of Vedas to 5000-2000BCE, and I am against saying Vedas or Hinduism as “Brahmanism” this is a Fraud my Missionaries, even today Many Church Apologist use Mohammedans and not Muslim or Islam.

Please throw away the Glasses you hold- against Hinduism, and it would be more appropriate to say- Jainism is like Protestant to Christianity - a Reformist movement from Hinduism and took from the then developments within Hinduism against Sacrifices and took that as One of its main Plank. No Ethics of Indian Civilisation can be attributed from any Other Tradition than Vedic as the Oldest of Jaina Lit. is from 300BCE

Now to bring Aryan Myths- in to a Literature as Kural of 250-300 CE, is meaningless.
Can we look at the amount of Words for Vedas - referred in Sangam Literature- மறை,
நான்மறை, நால்வேதம், ஓத்து , ஆகமம் , அறம், ஆறங்கம் etc., where as the word Samana is just the Tamilised form of Shramana-the Sanskrit word.

For Jains, the path to moksa begins with ahimsa or non-harming. This means for the layity, not harming any two to five sensed beings and for the ascetics, complete ahimsa for all creatures. And this has made Their Fundamental Ethics against Family Way, Banning of works such as Carpentry and Farming for Jains.

The only way to obtain moksa is to live a life of complete asceticism. This means renouncing all worldly things. In fact, monastics do not participate in temple worship because it focuses on worldly things but they do participate in Pilgrimages. This means is worshipping of Supreme God is not real part, but to accommodate Converts Hindu Gods were absorbed as below Rishaba- the mortal man. This is Blasphemy, and this is what is done by Christianity to Judaism and Islam to Judaism-Christianity and Manichaeism.

The Problem is not with Valluvam but misinterpretations and False assumptions of Aryan and Dravidian etc., for which no Literary support OR Archaeological support exists.

If you could be more specific to any or few of the Kurals which you feel Valluvar is against Orthodox Hinduism, I Want them to be discussed threadbare with more agreeable Scholarly views, please.

Let us look Valluvam as it is.

DevaPriya.

Dear Devapriya,

You wrote:
So Anthanan, MalarMisai are more in vogue for Hindus much prior toValluvar, where as Jainism used it much later.
Now I just show that most of the titles used by Valluvar is more better suited to Hinduism(- the following in Baamini Script) and Siva here..

jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk;>
'Mjp ghjNk Xjp ca;k;kpNd"
'gukd; gftd; guNkr;Rtud; godefuhNu" (1:67:4)

Can you please tell me the source of this Brahmi script work? Is it Tamil?

Brahminism and Mohammedanism

Dear Mr. Devapriya,

For the first time, your reply has given some food for thought. Some of the points you made on the Kural are worth taking note of (I will come to this later). However, bulk of your last posting contains copy paste of my previous replies and a substantial part on Aryan invasion and Christian or Western ‘misinterpretation’ against Hinduism. Since all your postings were in “black” I found it very difficult to differentiate between my statements and your replies. The marking “//” did not help either, as there was no consistency. I would appreciate if you could use a different colour to differentiate what you say from mine.

Obviously you seem to be very passionate towards Hinduism and do not appreciate anything being pointed out about Hinduism. You also have a tendency, for no rhyme or reason, to immediately point your figures at Christianity and the West, often forgetting the fact that we are discussing Tirukkural. We are looking at Kural’s affiliation to the then prevailing religious traditions like Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism and while doing so, obviously I will highlight the practices that differentiate these traditions. There is no need to get emotional about it.

You wrote:
“I am against saying Vedas or Hinduism as “Brahmanism” this is a Fraud my Missionaries, even today Many Church Apologist use Mohammedans and not Muslim or Islam.”

Well, I don’t know why you seem to be disappointed with this. It is quite natural that the West called “Hinduism” as Brahminism and Islam as Mohammedanism. After all Islam was founded by Mohammed and Hinduism is dominated by rituals primaritly instituted by Brahmins.

If Muslims have an objection to calling Islam as Mohammedanism, there is some reason. The Quran has many references to Islam as the religion of Muslims. Where is the word “Hinduism” in Upanishads, Gita and Vedas? Please tell me.

“Hinduism refers not to an entity; it is a name that the West has given to a prodigiously variegated series of facts” (C.W. Smith, 1964. The Meaning and Ed of religions. Mentor Religious Classics). The same Westerners who called it Brahminism, have coined the word “Hinduism”. We have to use a word to coin the religion that existed during the time of Valluvar and there is nothing wrong in calling it Brahminism.

You said:
“Please throw away the Glasses you hold- against Hinduism, . . . .”

I am sorry Mr. Devapriya, my objective here is to find the religious inclination of the Kural and while doing so, I will be producing every now and then verses in support of certain practices prevalent in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism (Brahminism to put it rightly). You cannot be sentimental about it Mr. Devapriya.

And also, when I said Valluvar is against animal sacrifice which is an age-old Vedic practice, you responded saying: “Is Hinduism means Animal Sacrifice only- why this much Hate on Hinduism?”

Did I say Hinduism means only Animal Sacrifice? Please tell me where. இடம் சுட்டி பொருள் விளக்கம் தருக.

How can you say that I hate Hinduism simply because I mentioned a practice that was prevalent during the time of Valluvar? Many of Muslim friends have called me anti-Islamic simply because I point out to certain inadequacies in their religion. Please don’t take that stance. I am a scholar and a scholar’s objective is to inform the beliefs, practices and facts as it is. There is no room for emotional attachments, aversions and pre-conceived notions. Hope you are aware that there is Animal Sacrifice in Islam also. Doesn’t mean I hate Islam! For that matter Judaism!

Dear Friends,

NVKji wants my Opinion on Origin of Brahmi Scripts.

Brahmi Tamil Scripts have gone to 3 Stages.

Brahmi-1, The writing in Tamil but Grammer and ending are closer to Praaakrit BCE 250- bCE100
Brahmi-2 More Tamil wrods Upto CE100
Brahmi Pulli- Using Dots CE 100 - 300
TholKapapaaaiyam belong to Brahmi-Pulli.

The Vowels of Sanskrit is differs from Tamil and Prakrit.
Both Tamil Brahmi, and the present writing system till 1825 followed the Sanskrit Vowel Pattern. Hence it is more likely that Brahmi was developed for Sanskrit, but for some reason used for Prakarit earlier. Vedic Literature clearly refers scripts towards the middle itself.

Sorry for Confusions, As I depend on NetCafes for Posting and there Tamil Fonts absence Troubles. Let me try to be more clear from next post.

The name Hindu is existent atleast at the time Old Testament Book Esther was written, which refers India as Hodu, in a twisted form, natural for its distance.

I have quiet a lot of Muslim Friends who are Vegetarians and also Brahmins who eat all type of Non-Vegetarian.

I am equally attacked for veing too Agnostic, but here due to too many Tamil Chavunists spreading wrong Venomic views, I am forced to take on Indian Heritage.

Sorry, if you are Hurt, when we take on Religions, as a Student of Comparitive Relistions I look evenly of all till its root.

Devapriya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devapriya

Dear Friends,

NVKji wants my Opinion on Origin of Brahmi Scripts.
Brahmi Tamil Scripts have gone to 3 Stages.
................. ..........
Devapriya

---

I am sorry I didn't ask about the devopment and history of Brahmi script! I wanted to know the source of the citation. From which text? Tamil? If so, why not reproduce the same in the present Tamil alphabet, please?

Animal Sacrifice in Brahminical Hinduism

Continuing from where I left in my last posting on 28th June.

Mr. Devapriya said:
The Missionaries and Thani Tamil Scholars have been picking up few odd verses from here and there and produced them to spread Falsehood against Hinduism. I am giving a small collection of Verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice.

And you produced a few verses from Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Prasna Upanishad, Gita and a few others like Bhagavatam that speak about Non-violence or Ahimsa and said they are “a small collection of verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice” (your own words).

Let us look at them one by one and see what they say:
1) Rig Veda 10.37.11 - protecting species, two legged and four legged
2) Rig Veda 10.87.16 – one who partakes of human, horse or any animal flesh
3) Atharva Veda 10.191.4 – Peaceful be the earth, ether, heaven, waters . . . . .
4) Atharva Veda 19.48.5 – Those who protect all animals . . . . . .
5) Atharva Veda 6.120.1 – We have injured space, earth or heaven . . . .
6) Yajur Veda 12.32 – Must not use your body for killing gods creatures . .l . .
7) Yajur Veda 36.18 – May all beings look at me with friendly eye . . . . .
8) Prasna Upanishad 46.8 – Non violence is all the offerings . . . .
9) Yajur Veda 36.17-18 – May I look at all creatures with friendly eyes. . . .
10) Agama – No pain should be caused to any created being
11) Many verses from Mahabharata – Cows should never be slaughtered - purchaser of flesh performs himsa - he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste - He who eats the flesh of other creatures lives in misery - one should never do another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self, one should abstain from injury - Ahimsa is the highest dharma, friend, self control, tapas, power, friend, truth and highest teaching.
12) Bhagavad Gita – Not to hurt others, non-violence belong to men born of heaven
13) Yoga Sutras – Ahimsa is not causing pain to any living being
14) Bhagavatam – Those ignorant of real dharma only kill animals without any fear and they will be eaten in their next life by the same animals

Let me repeat what you said in the beginning of these citations: “I am giving a small collection of verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice” (your own words).

Tell me Mr. Devapriya. Which of these 14 verses you reproduced above talk against Animal Sacrifice? None. They only talk about Ahimsa which is an ethical teaching common to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

(i) It is only in Jainism that any kind of slaughter and meat consumption is consistently prohibited. (duly emphasized by Valluvar).

Kural 254:
What is grace? It is not killing. To kill, disgrace.
And senseless to eat that meat. * PS

(ii) In Buddhism slaughter is not permitted but consumption is. Valluvar promptly disapproves such practice.

Kuŗal 256:
The world may say: “Meat we eat, but don’t kill’.
But no one will sell if there is none to buy. * KS

(iii) In Hinduism, meat eating is prohibited in some scriptures (Thirumandiram). I mentioned in my previous posting about Manu condemning meat eating, that too in Valluvar's own terms (Manu 5:52 is just like Kuŗal 251!). In some scriptures only cow slaughter is forbidden (you cited this one from Mahabharata – “Cows should never be slaughtered” – it obviously means others can be slaughtered?). But the same scriptures that proclaim ahimsa, permit animal sacrifice. I cited this verse from Manu Smriti which 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. Devapriya. I am surprised why you remained silent on this Manu dictum and instead posted a series of verses from other Hindu Scriptures that talk about meat eating and killing.

K.N. Subramanyam (1987) writes: "When there is such an open condemnation of animal sacrifice which is sanctioned by Vedic ritualism and the Buddhist practice of eating meat by a convenient interpretation of Ahimsa doctrine, it is clear, by a process of elimination, that the only religion that conforms to the principles enunciated in the book is the religion of Ahimsa upheld by the Jainas".

But you said: “. . . . . Polygamy and Polyandry was prevalent, Prostitution was available, Premarital Sex, Drinking of Wine was done by all including Women, Killing of Animals and eating in God worship are present. Where as Kural is against all this. Certainly Valluvar shows his leanings to Hinduism and says much against Jainism.”

You said killing of Animals and eating its meat in God worship was present during the time of Valluvar. I agree. You said Kural is against all these. I agree with this also. But you say this only shows his leanings towards Hinduim and against Jainism! I disagree! Your conclusion is not logical. It is only in Vedic or Brahminical Hinduism that Animal sacrifice is practiced to please gods existed. Jains and Buddhists don't. How can you then say Valluvar is against Jainism? In fact Valluvar is not against any religious tradition by name. He is only against some religious practices of his time.

Surprisingly, the very same Devapriya began his last posting with this statement:

“NVKji wants to search to derive what he wants from Kural than what is directly Said”

Let the readers decide who is trying to derive the stuff they want from the Kural.

Reference:
Subramanyam, K. N. 1987. Tiruvalluvar and His Kuŗal. Bharatiya Jnanpith Publication. 220 pages

Ahimsa dharma in Brahminism, Jainism and Buddhism

Mr. Devapriya,

I am aware that Ahimsa is an ethical teaching common to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism and in fact I have included this feature in my article.

Five virtues (dakshinās) in Brahminism (Chāndogya Upanishad: 3.17.4)
(i) Penance
(ii) Charity
(iii) Right conduct
(iv) Non-injury (கொல்லாமை)
(v) Speaking truth (பொய்யாமை, வாய்மை)

Five moral percepts (pañca-sila) in Buddhism (Mahāvagga 1:56)
(i) To abstain from killing (கொல்லாமை)
(ii) Avoid what has not been given
(iii) Avoid sexual misconduct
(iv) Avoid false speech (பொய்யாமை, வாய்மை)
(v) Avoid intoxicants

Five minor vows (anuvratās) of a householder (Saman Suttam, Sūtrā 309)
(i) Avoid injury to living beings (கொல்லாமை)
(ii) Avoid speaking falsehood (பொய்யாமை, வாய்மை)
(iii) Avoid things not given
(iv) Avoid sexual misconduct
(v) Avoid undue desire for possessions

Therefore, it is not because of Ahimsa teaching in Tirukkural that I consider it as a work based on Jaina ethics; because other faiths have also emphasized it. A combination various factors all put together that makes me to conclude that the Kural’s basis is Jaina ethics and ideals. But remember it is not a work that extols the doctrines and sundry laws in Jainism. Thus the Kural has very little to do with the religious philosophy of Jainism. It is futile to look for sundry religious laws in Kural to judge the author's religious inclination.

Dear Devapriya,

In my discussion about Brahminism and Hinduism, I had pointed out the absence of the word "Hinduism" in Sacred texts of Hinduism. I also mentioned that the term was given by the West. But you made an interesting statement in your last posting:

"The name Hindu is existent atleast at the time Old Testament Book Esther was written, which refers India as Hodu, in a twisted form, natural for its distance"

Come on, Mr. Devapriya. Do you really believe this? Are you not reading your ideas into strange words that appear in other scriptures? It is unfortunate that you have to look for the word "Hodu or Hindu" from a Scripture of Semitic origin! Please refrain from such acts. It is not a disgrace for any religion, not to have its name in its sacred text. Many religions don't have. You accused me of reading my ideas into the Kural. This is what you said: “NVKji wants to search to derive what he wants from Kural than what is directly Said”

The same person who said this is now looking for "Hodu" from Old Testament! Please don't employ double standards.

If you want to know more about the origin of Hinduism, please read the following paragraphs reproduced from two links. Anyone will say that the word "Hinduism" is a recently coined word. It came from Arabs/Persians and the British referred to religion of India as "Hinduism".

Interestingly enough, the word "Hindu" is not actually found anywhere in Vedic scriptures. The term "Hindu" is vague, and even a misnomer. The term was introduced by Muslims from neighboring countries who referred to people living across the River Sindhu, a people who actually held a vast array of religious beliefs. There is no one "Hindu religion."
From: Hinduism and Vegetarianism By Paul Turnerhttp://www.ivu.org/news/march2000/hinduism.html

Here is another citation:

In fact the word Hindu has no link whatsoever with the subsequently developed creed, ‘Hinduism’. Because emerge of the word ‘Hindu’ was far more ancient than the surge of the creed, ‘Hinduism’. And as a matter of fact the word ‘Hinduism’ have been coined far more later (i.e. round about after 2000 years) for the creed of the ‘caste-rule’ (i.e. Vern Ashram) by the western orientalists - and thus the word ‘Hindu’ had not been derived from Hinduism, for that could have not been done. The word Hindu is admittedly a corruption of ‘Sindhu’ - a native of ‘Sindh - Valley’ (i.e. Indus - Valley).
From: Islami Jumhoria Hind by Aftab Alam Khan http://www.storyofpakistan.com/contr...rtid=C068&Pg=2