THIRUKKURALH

Discrepancies in citation of verses

To Devapriya:

Some of the verses on “ahimsa” you quoted from Vedas and Upanishads do not match, either in translation of the contents or in reference number:

(a) Problem in Atharva Veda:

You cited the verse no 10.191.4. Atharva Veda has 20 Books or Kandas. I have Devi Chand’s translation of Atharva Veda. Division or Book 10 has only 10 hymns. Where did this 191 come from?

I think the verse number you gave is wrong.

(b) Problem in verses from Yajur Veda:

You cited this one:
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

But the translation by Devi Chand of the same verse (12:32) goes like this:
“O King, the preacher of knowledge, just as the sun, resplendent with its auspicious flames of fire, and shining with mighty beams of light, works in the universe, so attain to happiness, and destroy not the bodies of the subjects deserving protection.”

I think the number you gave is wrong.

(c) Problem in citation from Prasna Upanishad:

“Nonviolence is all the offerings. Renunciation is the priestly honorarium. The final purification is death. Thus all the Divinities are established in this body" Yajur Veda, Prana Upanishad 46-8. VE, 413-14

There is no section 46 in Prasna Upanishad. This Upanishad is based on the six questions or prasnas and therefore has 6 sections. It is a small work and I didn’t see any verse speaking about non-violence. Please mention the correct reference.

Here also, I believe, you have gone wrong in the numbering.

Please produce the correct verse numbers.

Is Caste system Non-Vedic?

Mr. Devichand proclaims:

“. . . . . the Caste system is put as Vedic -the Truth is the Opposite- . . . . . But Tons and Tons of Articles are there against this Truth, and still being advertised with Foreign funds. The Truth is the opposite.”

Let us now see first if Caste or Varna system is Vedic or not. Pratima Bowes (1976) on page 7 of his book “The Hindu Religious Tradition” (Allied Publishers) writes: “In the earlier literature the Vedas and Upanishads, the system does not appear to have been finally fixed, the varna idea, as distinct from caste, still retaining some applicability”. Let us see the following Vedic verses which I managed to trace from the net:

The first indication of the caste system is outlined in the hymn to Purusha in Rig Veda, the embodied human spirit who is one-fourth creature and three-fourths eternal life in heaven.

The Brahman was his mouth,
of both his arms was the Rajanya made.
His thighs became the Vaisya,
from his feet the Sudra was produced. (Rig Veda 10.90.12)

According to the Atharva Veda (5:17:8-9), a Brahman could take a wife from the husband of any other caste simply by seizing her hand. Here are those two verses, translated by Devi Chand:

Even if ten former guardians, none of whom is a Brahmin, espouse the cause of Vedic knowledge, they are no match for a Brahman, who takes into his hand the task of propagating her. He alone is her true guardian. (1087)

Not Vaisya, not Rajanya, nor the Brahman alone is needed her guardian. God, in His dispensation proclaim this to the five races * of mankind. (1088)

Translator Devi Chand’s footnotes for the verse 5.17.9 reads like this.
* "Five races: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Shudra, Nishada".

Now, tell me Mr. Devapriya. You cited a Tamil translation of Maxmuller’s write up. “வேத்த்தில் ஒரு சுவடுகூடக் கிடையாது”. Are these references I cited from Rig and Atharva Veda not from Vedas? However, I agree that the system was not well developed during the Vedic times. But it existed, that is for sure.

You are also giving the impression that Manu Smriti alone talks about castiesm (glad to know that you agree with this at least). I did mention in one of my earlier postings (posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006, subject: Couplets against Vedic practice) the following:

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).

You have not said anything on this. Whether Vedic or not, caste system would have been prevalent during Valluvar’s time. We all agree that Buddha came before Valluvar. Buddha’s Dhammapada contains a full chapter 26 “Brahmin” where he says:

393. One is not a brahmin by virtue of matted hair, lineage or caste. When a man possesses both Truth and truthfulness, then he is pure, then he is a brahmin.

396. I do not call him a brahmin who is so by natural birth from his mother. He is just a supercilious person if he still has possessions of his own. He who owns nothing of his own, and is without attachment - that is what I call a brahmin.

Whether Vedic, or post-Vedic, all these goes on to show that the varna system (sometimes confused with caste system) existed during the time Buddha and Valluvar. When Valluvar says ……

பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும் சிறப்பொக்கும்
செய்தொழில் வேற்றுமை யான். (972)

……. it obviously refers to the fact that all equal at birth. You yourself said in your last posting that Valluvar himself accepted caste by indirect references:

“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”

By trying to emphasize that Caste system was not Vedic, you have kept away form answering the relevant question. Whether Vedic or post Vedic is not the question here! You have unnecessarily wasted time writing about this. You should instead concentrate on the Kural 972 and say if this couplet is against the division of men according to birth. Just answer to the point, please (instead of trying to deny the Vedic origin of caste system about which we are not concerned here).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVK Ashraf

Is Caste system Non-Vedic?

Mr. Devichand proclaims:

“. . . . . the Caste system is put as Vedic -the Truth is the Opposite- . . . . . But Tons and Tons of Articles are there against this Truth, and still being advertised with Foreign funds. The Truth is the opposite.”

Let us now see first if Caste or Varna system is Vedic or not. Pratima Bowes (1976) on page 7 of his book “The Hindu Religious Tradition” (Allied Publishers) writes: “In the earlier literature the Vedas and Upanishads, the system does not appear to have been finally fixed, the varna idea, as distinct from caste, still retaining some applicability”. Let us see the following Vedic verses which I managed to trace from the net:

The first indication of the caste system is outlined in the hymn to Purusha in Rig Veda, the embodied human spirit who is one-fourth creature and three-fourths eternal life in heaven.

The Brahman was his mouth,
of both his arms was the Rajanya made.
His thighs became the Vaisya,
from his feet the Sudra was produced. (Rig Veda 10.90.12)

According to the Atharva Veda (5:17:8-9), a Brahman could take a wife from the husband of any other caste simply by seizing her hand. Here are those two verses, translated by Devi Chand:

Even if ten former guardians, none of whom is a Brahmin, espouse the cause of Vedic knowledge, they are no match for a Brahman, who takes into his hand the task of propagating her. He alone is her true guardian. (1087)

Not Vaisya, not Rajanya, nor the Brahman alone is needed her guardian. God, in His dispensation proclaim this to the five races * of mankind. (1088)

Translator Devi Chand’s footnotes for the verse 5.17.9 reads like this.
* "Five races: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Shudra, Nishada".

Now, tell me Mr. Devapriya. You cited a Tamil translation of Maxmuller’s write up. “வேத்த்தில் ஒரு சுவடுகூடக் கிடையாது”. Are these references I cited from Rig and Atharva Veda not from Vedas? However, I agree that the system was not well developed during the Vedic times. But it existed, that is for sure.

You are also giving the impression that Manu Smriti alone talks about castiesm (glad to know that you agree with this at least). I did mention in one of my earlier postings (posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006, subject: Couplets against Vedic practice) the following:

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).

You have not said anything on this. Whether Vedic or not, caste system would have been prevalent during Valluvar’s time. We all agree that Buddha came before Valluvar. Buddha’s Dhammapada contains a full chapter 26 “Brahmin” where he says:

393. One is not a brahmin by virtue of matted hair, lineage or caste. When a man possesses both Truth and truthfulness, then he is pure, then he is a brahmin.

396. I do not call him a brahmin who is so by natural birth from his mother. He is just a supercilious person if he still has possessions of his own. He who owns nothing of his own, and is without attachment - that is what I call a brahmin.

Whether Vedic, or post-Vedic, all these goes on to show that the varna system (sometimes confused with caste system) existed during the time Buddha and Valluvar. When Valluvar says ……

பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும் சிறப்பொக்கும்
செய்தொழில் வேற்றுமை யான். (972)

……. it obviously refers to the fact that all equal at birth. You yourself said in your last posting that Valluvar himself accepted caste by indirect references:

“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”

By trying to emphasize that Caste system was not Vedic, you have kept away form answering the relevant question. Whether Vedic or post Vedic is not the question here! You have unnecessarily wasted time writing about this. You should instead concentrate on the Kural 972 and say if this couplet is against the division of men according to birth. Just answer to the point, please (instead of trying to deny the Vedic origin of caste system about which we are not concerned here).

---

Caste-divisions was the King-made... Code of DOMINATION over the people..

..and has nothing to do with any of te holy Scriptures like Vedas and Geetha.

The name "Indian" is adopted and used for various Tribals of world countries... as Australian-Indians... Red-Indians...American-ancient-Indians... and so on...

...which has no relation to an Indian born in a country named India.

On this point of PERVERTED SENSE...taking a False-shelter under the alleged justification by Veda and Geetha...

...vide my postings under...RAMANUJACHARYA... analytically

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...p=637179#63719

Sudaamaa wrote:
Caste-divisions was the King-made... Code of DOMINATION over the people.. ..and has nothing to do with any of te holy Scriptures like Vedas and Geetha.

If so, then how come those references to division of men in Vedas and Gita I cited. Didn’t Lord Krishna himself state that the four divisions of human society were created by him (Gita 14:13)?

And the link you gave is not working.
http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...p=637179#63719

Three bombs from Devapriya: Now coming to Cilappathikaram!

Devapriya posted three bombs. The first one was that Hinduism is against animal sacrifice and to ‘support’ that he produced verses from various Hindu scriptures which all talked about “ahimsa” (non-injury) and not against animal sacrifice. I also cited a verse from Manu Smriti which does not call animal sacrifice as “himsa”.

The second bomb was that the Caste system is not Vedic. I have also replied to this in my last posting stating that it (varna system) actually began during the Vedic period though it became rigorous only subsequently.

In both the above cases (animal sacrifice and varna system), I wanted Devapriya only to comment on my observation on the two couplets Tirukkural namely 259 and 972 which are against such practices of oblations using animal sacrifice and differentiating people by birth. Instead Mr. Devapriya dwelt on non-Vedic origin of varna system (or casteism if I may call so) and tried to project verses on “ahimsa” in Hindu scriptures to support his observation (but in vain) that Hinduism is also against animals sacrifice.

Now coming the latest bomb in the series. Devpariya believes Cilappathikaram is a non-Jaina work. If it is not a Jaina work, why then scholars irrespective of their religious affiliation regard it as work by Jaina?

There are people who affiliate Tirukkural with Christianity and by citing what they have said, the Kural does not become a Christian work. Mr. Devapriya has also done the same.

Mr. Devapriya says Vedic Hindu ideas dominate Cilappathikaram as opposed to Jaina ideas. I my reply to Sivamaalaa to his question on the occurrence of "தெய்வம் தொழாஅள்", "தெய்வத்தால் கா தெனினும்" and "வானுறையும் தெய்வத்துள் வைக்கப்படும்" in Tirrukkural, I had mentioned that gods and goddesses very well fall into the scheme of Jaina beliefs and that a reference to a god or goddess of other faith cannot be taken as an indication to show Valluvar's inclination towards that faith, for the simple reason that the author seem to have had no hesitation in using the prevailing beliefs amongst the people of his time and use them often as similes to emphasize his message. I had also mentioned some of these words like செய்யவள் and முகடி are found in many established Jaina literary works as well. I cited the presence of செய்யவள் in Cilappadikāram (2.12.69) and முகடி is Cūdāmañi Nigañdu (Verse 145), both written by Jaina authors.

Mr. Devapriya’s reply to this is that Cilappathikaram is not a Jaina work. Wondering why he didn’t have anything to say about Cūdāmañi Nigañdu!

Devpariya wrote:
“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.”

Of course I agree. But the author of the work Ilangoadigal was a Jain. I don’t know whether you agree with this or not, but scholars agree. Page 187 on Sahitya Akademi’s Anthology on Ancient Indian Literature says: “Tamil tradition ascribes the composition to the Jaina monk Ilanko Atigal”. Chakravarti on page 50 of his work “Jaina literature in Tamil” says: “Its author is the Cera Prince, who became a Jaina ascetic, by name Ilangovadigal”. Mu. Varadarajan in his work on the History of Tamil Literature says “He (Ilango Adigal) showed great eagerness in portraying the best of human virtues in life,. . . . despite being a Jaina by birth” on page 86 of the chapter on “The Twin Epics”.

Devapriya wrote:
"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."

I have a simple question. Does Devapriya agree that Ilangovadigal was a Jaina? If so, then he has to agree to the fact that Jaina scholars have also produced non-sectarian works like Cilappathikaram (so also Tirukkural). Simply because it is unlike Manimekalai which was written with a religious motive and thus Buddhist propaganda predominates over literary features (Varadarajan, 1988). In spite of all this, Seshadri (2000) writes in the Chapter on Cilappathikaram, “Given its Jaina bias, it is throughout informed by the idea of nonviolence, as the nun Kavunti never fails to emphasize. The Mahabharata and Iliad, on the other hand, revel in violence”.

Thus, Cilappathikaram is written by a Jaina monk and that is why it is called a Jaina work.

Reference:

Seshadri, C.K. 2000. Executive Editors in the Volume III Tamil and Kannada. Cilappathikaram. In: Ancient Indian Literature: An Anthology. Sahitya Akademi. Page 187.

Varadarajan, Mu.Va. 1988. A History of Tamil Literature. Translated from Tamil by E. Sa. Visswanathan. Sahitya Akademi. Page 93.

Thirukkural and the Fundamentals Jaina ethics

Devapriya proclaims without any evidence:
“So now Valluvar was Opposed to Fundamentals of the roots of Jainism, and even does not support the minimum Compulsory ethical rituals of Jainism”

The fundamentals of Jainism are Non-injury (ahimsa) and truthfulness (satya). These form the first two vratā’s (vows) in Jainism. Interestingly, the Jaina definition of Truthfulness or Not speaking falsehood itself has ahimsā connotation. Says H.L. Jain (2002) in his book on Jaina Tradition: "It is interesting to note that even speaking truth which results in injury to others should be avoided". Wondering if Mr. Devapriya is aware of the fact that two of most important ethical teachings of Valluvar are Non-Lying and Not-Killing (பொய்யாமை, கொல்லாமை). It is an utter lie to say that Valluvar was opposed to the Fundamental roots of Jainism. On the contrary this is what scholars had to say about this:

"The ethics of Kuŗal are rather reflective of the Jaina moral code"
K.V. Zvelebil, 1975
"The book Kuŗal is an exposition of the fundamental principles of Jainism"
A. Chakravarti, 1953
"Valluvar’s work has as its basis the Dharma of Jainism”
V. Kalyanasundaranar

I have three questions to Mr. Devapriya:
* Does he know that Non-killing and Not-hurting (through deeds and words) are two of the most important ethical teachings of Valluvar?
* Is he aware of Valluvar’s definition of truthfulness? (வாய்மை எனப்படுவது யாதெனின். . . . .?)
* Is he aware that Valluvar places ahima above satya which is quite opposite to that of Arichandra? (ஒன்றாக நல்லது கொல்லாமை. . . . .)

If he is not aware of these things, then I would like upload in my next posting the most important reasons for considering the Kural as work based on Jaina ethics.

Mr. Devapriya says Valluvar did not support the minimum compulsory ethical rituals of Jainism. Wondering what he is talking about? What is this “ethical ritual”? Rituals are often different from ethics and I have not heard of anything called an “ethical ritual”! If he is referring to Jaina rituals like plucking hair, walking naked, not drinking honey etc? If so, I am afraid Tirukkural is not the work to look for such things. Let me reproduce here what I said before in this thread:

“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”

But Mr. Devapriya refuses to understand. I wonder how many more time will I have to emphasize this point to him. Valluvar had only this to say about rituals:

Kural 18.
சிறப்பொடு பூசனை செல்லாது வானம்
வறக்குமேல் வானோர்க்கும் ஈண்டு.
If the heavens dry up, the very gods will lack
Festival and worship. PS

The word “பூசனை” obviously refers to the rituals, but Valluvar hardly mentioned, denied or supported any ritual by name. The only ritual he was against was the practice of animal sacrifice. I repeat that particular couplet again:

Kuŗal 259:
அவி சொரிந்து ஆயிரம் வேட்டலின் ஒன்றன்
உயிர்செகுத்து உண்ணாமை நன்று.
Better than a thousand burnt offerings
Is one life un-killed, un-eaten. PS

Well, Buddhists and Jains definitely do not indulge in this practice. In spite of such an open condemnation against this practice which was followed only in Hinduism, Mr. Devapriya refuses to accept. But instead proclaims without any basis "Valluvar was Opposed to Fundamentals of the roots of Jainism". As I said before in one of my posts, Valluvar does not refer to any faith by name! That being the case, wondering how Devapriya can conclude that the Kural is against the fundamentals of Jainism!

Devapriya continues. . . . .
“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”

Yes, there are some basic ethics that remain the same for all the three Indic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). I had mentioned about Five virtues (dakshinās) in Brahminism, five moral percepts (pañca-sila) in Buddhism and five minor vows (anuvratās) of a householder in Jainism. In such cases, how do we go about to find out the religious inclination of the author of Kural? Only by looking at the work holistically.

Reference:

Jain, H.R. 2002. Jaina Tradition in Indian thought. Editor: D.C. Jain. Sharada Publishing House, Delhi. pp 273-289

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVK Ashraf

Sudaamaa wrote:
Caste-divisions was the King-made... Code of DOMINATION over the people.. ..and has nothing to do with any of te holy Scriptures like Vedas and Geetha.

If so, then how come those references to division of men in Vedas and Gita I cited. Didn’t Lord Krishna himself state that the four divisions of human society were created by him (Gita 14:13)?

And the link you gave is not working.
http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...p=637179#63719

---

All such PERVERTED NOTIONS were raised to Ramanujacharya by the Vedic-pundits...

... who claimed that the Communal discrimination...by birth and PARENTAGE is authenticated by the so called Hindu Holy Scriptures...

...quoting from Geetha, Vedas and Vishnu-Sahasranama.

Refuting analytically Ramanuja thwarted out all such MISCONCEPTIONS ...

... defending on its TRUE SENSE of such Gospels propogating to Global Mankind ...

... the Large- hearted Philosophical sense of Universal Human- Equanimity ...

...far Contrary to the "Man-made" PAROCHIAL OUTLOOK of Social-Discrimination by Parentage... ETERNALLY.!!

...by means of TWISTING the Healthy Terminologies of such Holy Scriptures... conveying HIGH CONCEPT .

My recent postings in detail, REPUDIATING your False-claim, can be found under the Thread :--

... RAMANUJACHARYA...even more than what you have asked for.

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewt...854&postdays=0
&postorder=asc&start=45

..under the HEADINGS :---

Page: 4 - Ramanuja Acharya preached SOCIAL EQUANIMITY.
... - Discriminatory MANU- "DHARMA-SASTHRAM(?) ...Genuine ?
... - Vedas & Geetha stipulate COMMUNAL DIVISIONS ?
... - Geetha stipulates CASTE-DIVISIONS as God-made ?

Page: 5 - Geetha authorises SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION ?
... - Vedas authorise CASTE DIVISIONS of Society ?
... - High and Low Castes ...GOD-MADE SOCIAL-STRATA?
... - To Continue.

To Devapriya:

As a reply to your posting "TIRU KURAL IS NOT OF JAINISM" (Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006), I had so far posted my replies under the following headings.

1. Brahminism and Mohammedanism
2. Animal Sacrifice in Brahminical Hinduism
3. Ahimsa dharma in Brahminism
4. Jainism and Buddhism
5. Origin of the word Hinduism
6. Discrepancies in citation of verses
7. Is Caste system Non-Vedic?
8. Three bombs from Devapriya: Now coming to Cilappathikaram!
9. Thirukkural and the Fundamentals of Jaina ethics

Except for the last topic, none of the other topics have any direct relevance to the topic of our discussion "Tirukkural". I have been forced to comment on them as you deviated considerably from the topic and wrote extensively about Aryan invasion, the design of missionaries Max Muller to spread hatred against Vedas, about Dubious Tamil scholars like Sastri and passing unfair judgments on Jaina beliefs. All these were only side attractions and had very little to do with our subject of discussion.

Now let me come to the subject proper. You wrote about the following attributes in Chapter 1.

(i) வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான் (Kural 4)
(ii) அறவாழி அந்தணன் (Kural 8)
(iii) மலர்மிசை ஏகினான் (Kural 3)

I will now look at your comments on these, one by one.

(i) வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான் (One without any likes and aversions)

You wrote:
"- 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"

I mentioned in my posting on "(3) God, beyond likes and dislikes" (Posted: Tue May 30, 2006) that only humans are born into delusion and get overcome by the dualities of desire and hate. I cite a reference from Gita but you refuse to acknowledge. Here is the citation in full from Baghavad Gita, the quintessence of Hindu scriptures:

O scion of Bharata [Arjuna], O conqueror of the foe,
All living entities are born into delusion,
Overcome by the dualities of desire and hate. (Gita 7:27)

I also mentioned that Lord Krishna is telling about mortals like us who are born with likes (desire) and dislikes (hate). The phrase "வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்" thus has a strong ascetic flavour and would therefore be more relevant to one who has become a Veetaraga, the desireless self. A creator God is not born into delusion for him to be overcome by the dualities of love and hate. I did not say this, Mr. Devapriya. A Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita says this!

You didn't express any opinion on this observation of mine! And instead you have reemphasized the usual point that Valluvar wouldn't have called a Jaina deity who denies moksha to half the population (obviously referring to women) as the one without like and dislikes. Mr. Devapriya, your knowledge about Jainism is still rudimentary to say the least. Jaina deities do not have the power of bestowing or withdrawing moksha to anyone. They are nothing but freed souls that are divine in nature as they are perfect and omniscient (Kalghatgi, 1984). The deity in Jainism is, by its very nature, is absolutely devoid of love and hatred, attachment and aversion (Jain, 1993). This love and hatred has nothing to do with rewards or punishments. The worship of Tirthankaras (Arhats) is only to remind the Jains that they are to be kept as ideals in their journey to self-realization and to emulate the worship of such perfect beings (Kalghatgi, 1984).

References:

Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith, New Delhi. 234 pages

Kalghatgi, T.G. 1984. Jaina View of Life. Lalchand Hirachand Doshi, Jaina Samskrti Samraksaka Sangha, Sholapur. 233 pages

(ii) அறவாழி அந்தணன்

I mentioned in posting "(5) Sea of Virtue and Wheel of Virtue" (Posted: Tue May 30, 2006) that the word "அழி" can mean both "circle" as well as "sea", and therefore the phrase aŗavāzhi (அறவாழி) can be taken to mean, either "sea of virtue" or "wheel of the virtue”. I also mentioned that if we take the phrase அறவாழி as "wheel of virtue", then it may either refer to the Jaina Arhat, or Buddha. Even to Lord Vishnu with some push.

You had nothing to comment on these observations of many scholars. Instead you have reiterated the same point that the word "அந்தணன்" occurred in Sangam literature to describe Hindu God, much before it was used to denote Jaina deities. And you produced the following verse from Paripādal to justify the same:

ஆதி அந்தணன் அறிந்து பரி கொளுவ,
வேத மா பூண் வையத் தேர் ஊர்ந்து,
நாகம் நாணா, மலை வில்லாக,
மூவகை ர் எயில் ஓர் அழல்-அம்பின் முளிய, - 25

மாதிரம் அழல, எய்து அமரர் வேள்விப்
பாகம் உண்ட பைங் கட் பார்ப்பான்
உமையொடு புணர்ந்து, காம வதுவையுள்,
அமையாப் புணர்ச்சி அமைய, நெற்றி
இமையா நாட்டத்து ஒரு வரம் கொண்டு - 30
(Paaaripādal, Chapter 5)

I had already mentioned in my last posting "(5) Sea of Virtue and Wheel of Virtue" (Posted on Tue May 30, 2006) that we have enough evidences in Tamil literature to show that deities of Jaina, Buddhist, Saiva and Vaishnava being called "அந்தணன்". Thanks for pointing out to the practice of calling both Siva or Brahma as "அந்தணன்". I will include this reference also in my article at the appropriate place. I had also mentioned in that posting about the numerous references to Shiva as "அந்தணன்" in Thirumurai.

Citing this verse from Paripādal, you said:
"The Calling of God as Brahmin – Anthanan was never done in Jain Tamil Literature for at least 500 years after Valluvar, where as it is existing in Hinduism even before Valluvar."

Obviously because much of the Jaina literatures came later during the post-Sangam period. N. Subramaniam (1966) says "During the period lighted by the Sangam literarure, we see as much of Jainism as of Buddhism but both are clearly subordinate to the indigenous practices of the Brahminical Vedic region". But to say that "அந்தணன்" in this particular couplet in Tirukkural refers to a Creator God simply because it was in vogue to describe a Hindu god much earlier does not argue well with me. Thirukkural is also post-Sangam anyway! Going by this argument of yours, we will have to say that all those references to a deity as "அந்தணன்" in all literatures (listed below) that came after Paripādal has to be taken as a reference to Brahma or Shiva simply because the word "அந்தணன்" in Paripādal meant Hindu deities!

1. Mañimékalai 6.7: "ஆதி முதல்வன் அறஆழி ஆள்வோன்"
2. Thiruvaimozhi: "அறவனை அழிப்படை அந்தணை"
3. Kayādara Nigañdu: "ஆதிபகவன் அசோகமர்ந்தோன் அறவாழி அண்ணல்"
4. Ceevacintāmañi (1611) "அறவாழியண்ணல் இவன் என்பார்"
5. Ceevacintāmañi (செய்யுள் 7) "அருளோடெழும் அறவாழியப்பா"
6. Annūl (செய்யுள் 27) "அறவாழி கொண்டே வென்ற அந்தணனே"
7. Thirumurai (1.107.1) "அந்தணனைத் தொழுவார் அவலம் அறுப்பாரே"
8. Thirumurai (2.110.7) "அறவனாகிய கூற்றினைச் சாடிய அந்தணன்"
9. Thirumurai (6.33.4) "இமையோர் போற்றும் அந்தணனை"

Mr. Devpriya, I am not referring to the usage of the word "அந்தணன்" alone but the combination of the words "அறவாழி and அந்தணன்"? As I said before "அறவாழி" (Sea of Virtue) is mentioned only in Mañimékalai, Ceevacintāmañi, Ceevacintāmañi and of course in Tirukkural and it refers to either Arhat or Buddha.

You made an interesting conclusion:
"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".

No where is there any evidence in the Kural to say that Valluvar rejects Agnostic religions. It is your wishful conclusion. Like you, I will not say that Valluvar rejects Theistic religions! Because there is no evidence in Tirukkural to conclude so. Thirukkural only refers to different beliefs and practices, and on most occasions Valluvar uses them only as similes to emphasize a different point. "அறவாழி அந்தணன் தாள்" means either "the feet of the lord, the ocean of virtue," or "the feet of the Lord of the wheel of virtue". If taken as "ocean of virtue" it can refer of any deity. If taken as "wheel of virtue" it is applicable to either Buddha or Arhat. As simple as that.

References:

Subramaniam, N. 1966. Sangam Polity. p. 367. Cited by A. Chakravarti in "Jaina literature in Tamil" on page ix (Bhāratiya Jnānapita Publication).

(iii) மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்

I have never posted anything on the third couplet in Chapter 1. I have been thinking of posting it at an appropriate time and the moment has come now. You cited the following poem from Paripadal and said "So Anthanan, MalarMisai are more in vogue for Hindus much prior toValluvar, where as Jainism used it much later." Here is that poem:

மண்மிசை---அவிழ்துழாய் மலர்தரு செல்வத்துப்
புள்மிசைக் கொடியோனும், புங்கவம் ஊர்வோனும்,
மலர்மிசை முதல்வனும், மற்று அவனிடைத் தோன்றி
உலகு இருள் அகற்றிய பதின்மரும், இருவரும்,
மருந்து உரை இருவரும், திருந்து நூல் எண்மரும் (Paripādal 8:1-5)

Once again let me ask you the same question, as in the case of "அறவாழி அந்தணன்", why you did not consider the both words "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்" (actually three words மலர், மிசை and ஏகினான்) together, but only bothered to cite a reference containing only one phrase "மலர்மிசை". Between "மலர்மிசை" and "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்", there is lot of difference Mr. Devapriya.

Nevertheless, your observation from Paripādal is indeed worth taking note of and I will duly consider it for inclusion in my article. It is a new information for me. The interpretation of "மலர்மிசை முதல்வனும்" is "தாமரை மலரின்மேல் (அமர்ந்த) பிரமனும்" (Subramanian et. al., 2004). What does "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்" mean? தாமரை மலரின்மேல் நடந்தவன். Who is the one who walked on flowers? Now let me reproduce here from the article which will soon appear here: http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvk...uvar/jaina.htm

// This couplet has been given two different renderings, one the Jaina way and the other Hindu way. We will soon realize that it can easily be given a Buddhist interpretation as well. Jaina claims include that the one who walked over the lotus flowers placed for him by the gods is none other than the Tirthankara or Arhat (arugan in Tamil). This Jain deity is depicted as standing on a lotus flower (Pope, 1886). The feet of arugan are always supported by this divine lotus and hence addressed as one who walked on lotus flower (Chakravarti, 1953) or his feet referred as "மலர்மிசை நடந்த மலரடி" (Zvelebil, 1975). We see Kavunthiyadigal praising Jaina god Arugan in Cilappathikāram:

மலர்மிசை நடந்தோன் மலர்அடி அல்லதென்
தலைமிசை உச்சி தான்அணிப் பொறாஅது
(1: புகார்க் காண்டம், 10: நாடுகாண் காதை, Lines 204-205)

The Jaina claim is further reinforced by similar references to the Jaina deity in Ceevakacintāmañi (பூந்தாமரை மேல் சென்ற திருவாரடி, 2814), Mérumandira Purāñam (கமல மீதுலவும் உனை, செய்யுள் 66), Cūlāmañi (தாமரைப் பூவின்மேல் சென்றான் புகழ் அடி, துறவு 71) and Neelakési (தண் தாமரை மலரின் மேல் நடந்தாய், 33).

The only other person two whom malarmisai ékinān could refer to is Lord Buddha. I am not aware of Buddha being called as "மலர்மிசை நடந்தோன்" or "பூமேல் நடந்தான்" in Tamil literature.

Parimélazhagar makes this interesting statement: "இதனைப் பூமேல் நடந்தான் என்பதோர் பெயர் பற்றிப் பிறிதோர் கடவுட்கு ஏற்றுவாரும் உளர்". (i.e. "There are also people who consider "One who walked on flower" as a reference to some other god"). Who is this other god "பிறிதோர் கடவுள்"? Parimelazhagar is obviously referring here to the Jains! Manakkudavar, generally accepted as a Jaina commentator, renders the phrase unambiguously as "He who walked on flowers". In chronology, Manakkudavar's commentary is considered to be the earliest (Sundaram, 1990).

Satguru Subramaniyaswami, Rajasingham and many others have rendered phrase (malarmisai ékinān) "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்" as "He who resides in the lotus hearts". This interpretation, surprisingly one of the common ones, is little far stretched considering the fact that there is no reference to the heart in this couplet. It is iniquitous on the part of those who translate "நிலம் மிசை" in the second line as "on the earth" to translate "மலர் மிசை" in the first as "in the heart". Such an interpretation seems nothing but a extrapolation based on the Hindu belief that heart is abode of God (e.g. Shiva) which is not implied any where in the Kuŗal. Here I quote Thirumandiram again which repeats this idea of "Shiva abiding in the heart" throughout the work:

அகம் படிகின்ற நம் ஐயனை ஒரும்
அகம் படிகண்டவர் அல்லலில் சேரார்
Muse on the Lord who resides in your heart;
They who see Him residing within, know sorrows none.
(Tirumandiram 1874)

Who lives in the heart according Valluvar? Being a moralist and concerned with conduct of man in this world, he had only this to say:

உள்ளத்தால் பொய்யாது ஒழுகின் உலகத்தார்
உள்ளத்துள் எல்லாம் உளன்.
He who lives truly in his own heart,
Truly lives in the hearts of all people. (294) SS

Is there any reference to Hindu deities being called as the One who walked on flowers? Venkatasamy in his book "திருக்குறள் மூலமும் கட்டுறைகளும்" (part of this work "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்" reproduced here by R. Banukumar) brings to the notice a reference to Lord Siva as the 'one with flower embedded feet' in Thévāram: "தாளிடைச் செங்கமலத் தடங்கோள் சேவடியார் போலும், நாளுடைக் காலன்விடி வுதைசெய்த நம்பர் போலும்". He wonders if it was due to Appar's prior experience of being a Jaina chief! If it was a practice in Saivism to refer Lord Siva with this attribute, it must have been also mentioned in other Saiva literatures.

எரியாய தாமரைமேல் இயங்க னாரும்
இடைமருது மேவிய ஈசனாரே. (Appar in Thirumurai 6.16.7)
பூமேல எழுந்தருளி இருந்தானை (Appar in Thirumurai, 6.84.1)

All these evidences only go on to show that the deity referred in this couplet suits perfectly the the Jaina Arhat. And to Lord Buddha as well in spite of the fact that there are not many references in Tamil literature like the one for Arhat. //

References:

Chakravarti, A. 1953. Kuŗal. Deccan Press, Vepery, Madras. 648 pages

Pope, G.U. 1886. The Sacred Kurral of Tiruvalluva Nayanar. Asian Educational Services, New Delhi. 328 pages

Subramanian, P., Palasubramanian, K.V. and Thatchinamurthy, A. 2004. பரிபாடல் [மூலமும் உரையும்). Chief Editors: Parimanam, A.M. and Balasubramian, K.V. New Century Book House (P) Ltd. Chennai. page 195.

Sundaram, P.S. 1990. Introduction. In: Tiruvalluvar: The Kuŗal. Penguin Books. pp 7-16

Zvelebil, K.V. 1975. Tamil Literature. E.J. Brill. p. 125-26