Printable View
Can anyone tell me that in the entire of St.Thiruvalluvar's Thirukrazh has there been any mention of any particular GOD, i mean by any particular god's name ... i know there are description like "Kadavul" or "bagawan" in general.
What i am trying to understand is, probably during that period we might have been only a nature worshippers and our people were worshipping sun and other such natural entity and not any god in particular.
Friends,
I see two different persons in NVK of his website, and another who is defending Kural as following Jainistic Ethics.
Jainism which is a Reformative movement of Vedic Hinduism which took from it the Developments of Upanishadaic periods. Sankyam Philosophy dated to 1000Bce is totally against Sacrifices. Mimasam is Agnostic. These are much more emphasised in Jainism.
Ahimsa is the Core if Jainism. It gives such an importance that it bans Farming and Carpentry to Jains. Jainism equally has acccepted Varna breaks. NVK says there are many Jain Farmers. I have my own Clients from Jains as Leather Tanners and Fishing Hatcheries. My statement is based on Ancient Jain Teachings. Jainism's Ahumsa has gone beyond Practical level, it says if you take away water from Lakes the water- the Water animals would be killed- Hence do not bath. Weaving again is considered harming many insects etc., sofor Jain monks - no dress etc.,
Jainism believes that a Soul to be born as Human is due to Sins, and Meditation, Being Vegeterian is must for all.
Valluvar has brought Vegetarianism and Against Killing in Thuraviayal and not for Family men, as per many Scholars.
Can we leave which ever is to suit our Speculations that Valluar said these just as Simili and not because he Agrees or Disagrees. Then 70% of Kural become Meaningless.
Valluvar names Vishnu, Lashmi in many Kurals, names Kama or Manmatha, refers Raghu and Kethu in Kurals.
Valluvar also refers to Temple worship in Two Kurals.
Valluvar also refers Vedas by name in few Kurals asper the Tradition of Sangam Lit.
Is Valluvar against Caste- NVK's claim shows he refers only one Kural, and in many Kurals Valluvar refers and agrees Varna System.
Even the Kural NVK refers the Translation should be :
The difference in men is by PROFESSION THEY do.
Varna System breaks men by Profession.
Is Valluvar against Vedic Yagnas and is the Interpretation of NVK right, Igive from myearlier posting in page 9 here again.
NOW SAYINg this word is Tamil, by trying to work out some root, in most cases the pattern which is used does not consider the Historic Linguistics- the usage of the relevant period Sangam Literature or others. And whether these roots follow Tholkappiyam rules of WordS.
In most cases - No ? why You go by assumptions and not by Actual HISTORICAL Truths.
Now on Kurals where valluvar referred Anthanar, and what does it mean- there is no use quoting various Authors- who tells what MAla wants. For the Benefit of all Viewers - I take from Madurai Kamarajar University’s Kural Peedam established by Mu.Varadarajanar, and Peedam selected Lecturer. Selvi.Kamatchi Sinivasan, who was born in a Saivite family in Srilanka, came to India, served various collages before Joining the Kural Peedam. She had converted to Christianity also. She was of highest repute for integrity, and Peedam asked her to bring Books
1. ÌÈû ÜÚõ ºÓ¾¡Âõ
2. ¾¢ÕÌÈÙõ ŢŢĢÂÓõ (Tirukural and Bible)
3. ÌÈû ÜÚõ ºÁÂõ ( Religion of Tirukural) and One more also.
The books were published by Peetam after the death of the Author, i.e., the views represented edited by A team of Experts who made final Edition.
The Author was selected for Her Strict Integrity, being a Christian Convert- as that was the time Deivanayagam was making with the political support of DMK rule and Pavanar links that Tiruvalluvar was Christian and Tirukural is a book based on Bible. The end result was that the Author Madam lost her beliefs on Christianity on researching Bible. Now let me come to the references of Anthanar in this.
«ó¾½÷ ±ý§À¡÷ «È§Å¡÷Áü ¦Èù×¢÷ ìÌõ
¦ºó¾ñ¨Á âñ¦¼¡Ø¸ Ä¡ý. 30
The author of the book analysises the Relligious situation in Tholkappiyam to and takes all references of every song in Sangam Literature, Tholkappiyam, Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai and confirms the research view.
I QUOTE:
«ó¾½÷ Ñ¡üÌõ «Èò¾¢üÌõ ¾¢Â¡ö
¿¢ýÈÐ ÁýÉÅý §¸¡ø. 543
«ó¾½÷ ±ýÛõ ¦º¡üÌ ±ù×¢÷Ìõ ¦ºó¾ñ¨Á âñ¦¼¡Ø̧š÷ ±É ÅûÙÅ÷ ÜȢɡá¢Ûõ þíÌ «î¦º¡ø À¢ÃÁ¡½¨Ãì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¾¡¸ì ¦¸¡ûŦ¾ ¦À¡ÕóÐõ. «ó¾½÷ áø ±ýÀÐõ §Å¾õ ӾĢ ºÁÂëø¸¨Ç§Â ±ÉÄ¡õ. þùÅ¡§È À¨Æ ¯¨Ã¡º¢Ã¢Â÷¸û «¨ÉÅÕõ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ñ¼É÷.
«Ú¦¾¡Æ¢§Ä¡÷ ±É º¢Ã¢Â÷ ÌÈ¢À¢ð¼Ðõ À¢ÃÁ¡½÷¸¨Ç§Â ¡¾¡ø §ÅñÎõ. µ¾ø, µÐÅ¢ò¾ø, §Åð¼ø, §ÅðÀ¢ò¾ø, ®¾ø ²üÈø ±ýÛõ Ú ¦¾¡Æ¢ø¸û «Å÷ìÌâ ±ýÀÐ ºí¸ ¸¡Äò¾¢ø Óý¦À ÅÌì¸ôÀð¼Ð. þùÅ¡Ú ¦¾¡Æ¢ø¸û À¾¢üÚÀò¾¢ÛûÙõ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀðÎûÇÉ.
µ¾ø §Åð¼ø «¨ÅÀ¢È÷î ¦ºö¾ø
®¾ø ²üÈø ±ýÚ ÚÒâóÐ ´ØÌõ
«Èõ Òâ «ó¾½÷ .. .. À¾¢üÚÀò¾Ð 24.
¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢ÂÕõ
“ «ÚŨ¸ôÀð¼ À¡÷ôÀÉô Àì¸Óõ ¦º¡ø-75
±Éô À¡÷ôÀÉâý «Ú¦¾¡Æ¢¨Äì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ð¼¡÷. §Å¾õ ӾĢ ºÁÂáø¸¨Çì ¸üÀÐ º¢ÈôÀ¡¸ «ó¾½÷ (À¢ÃÁ¡½÷) ¸¼¨Á ±É «ì¸¡ÄòÐ ¿¢ÄŢ ¸Õò¨¾ ÅûÙÅÕõ ²üÚì ¦¸¡ñ¼¡÷ §À¡Öõ.
µÐÅ¢ò¾Öõ «Å÷¸û ¦¾¡Æ¢ø ¨¸Â¢É¡ø «ó¾½÷ «øÄ¡¾ À¢È÷ìÌõ
(ÁýÉÅ÷ Ž¢¸÷ ÌÄò¾Åá?) §Å¾õ ӾĢ áø¸¨Çì ¸üÀ¢òòÅ÷ ±Éì ¸Õ¾Ä¡õ.
ÀÂý ÌýÚõ «Ú¦¾¡Æ¢§Ä¡÷ Ñ¡øÁÈôÀ÷
¸¡ÅÄý ¸¡Å¡ý ±É¢ý. 560
Áì¸û Å¡ú쨸¢ø §Å¾õ ӾĢ º¨ÁÂáü¸øÅ¢ìÌ þ¼õ ¯ñÎ, «¨Å Áì¸ðÌ ¿ý¨Á ÀÂôÀÉ ±ýÈ ¸ÕòÐ ²üÚì ¦¸¡ûÇô ÀΞɡ§Ä§Â «Åü¨È ¾Ã¢ôÀÐ ÁýÉÉ¢ý ¸¼¨Á¡¢üÚ.
¸¡ÅÄý ¸¡Å¡¦ÉÉ¢ý «Ú¦¾¡Æ¢§Ä¡÷ Ñ¡øÁÈôÀ÷ ±É ±îºÃ¢ì¸ô ÀÎÅÐõ ºÁ áø¸û ÁÈì¸ô Àξø ºÓ¾¡Âò¾¢üÌ §¸Î ±Éì ¸Õ¾ô ÀΞɡ§Ä§Â.
ÁÈôÀ¢Ûõ µòÐì ¦¸¡ÇÄ¡Ìõ À¡÷ôÀ¡ý
À¢Èô¦À¡Øì¸í ÌýÈì ¦¸Îõ. 134
þìÌÈû À¡÷ôÀ¡¨ÃÔõ «Å÷ µÐõ §Å¾ò¨¾Ô§Á ÌȢ츢Ȧ¾ýÀÐ ¦¾Ç¢×. “ÁÈôÀ¢Ûõ µòÐì ¦¸¡ÇÄ¡Ìõ” (134) ±ýÈ ¦¾¡¼Õõ À¡÷ôÀ¡ý µò¨¾(§Å¾õ µ¾ì¸üȨ¾) ÁÈò¾Ä¡¸¡Ð. ´Õ¸¡ø ÁÈôÀ¢Ûõ Å¢¨ÃÅ¢ø ¾¢ÕõÀ µ¾¢ì ¸üÚì ¦¸¡ûÇø §ÅñÎõ ±ýü ¸Õò¨¾ò ¾Õõ
Àì¸õ-194,195.
On Kural which was interpreted as Valluvar being against Vedas, the Peedam Author again confirms
«Å¢¦º¡Ã¢ó ¾¡Â¢Ãõ §Åð¼Ä¢ý ´ýÈý
¯Â¢÷¦ºÌò Ðñ½¡¨Á ¿ýÚ. 259
¾£ ãðÊ ¦ºöÂô ÀÎõ §ÅûÅ¢¨Âì â ÅÆ¢À¡Î ӨȨ§ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ô Àθ¢ýÈÐ. §¾Å÷¸ÙìÌ ¯½Å¡¸ò ¾£Â¢Ä¢¼ÀÎõ ¦À¡Õ¨Ç§Â ż¦Á¡Æ¢Â¢ø †Å¢Š ±ýÀ÷, «Ð§Å ¾Á¢Æ¢ø “«Å¢” ¡¢üÚ, .. «Å¢ô¦À¡Õû¸¨Ç ¦¿ÕôÀ¢ø ¦º¡Ã¢óР¢Ãõ §ÅûÅ¢ ¦ºöŨ¾ Å¢¼ ´ýÈ¢ý ¯Â¢÷ ¦ºÌòÐ «¾ý °¨É ¯ñ½¡¨Á ¿ýÚ ±É ÅûÙÅ÷ þíÌ ÜȢɡ÷. þ¾É¡ø §ÅûÅ¢ ¾£ÂÐ ±É ÅûÙÅ÷ ¸Õ¾¢É¡÷ ±Éø ÌÁ¡? §ÅûÅ¢¨ÂÔõ ¿øľ¡¸ì ¸Õ¾¢ò¾¡§É §ÅûÅ¢ ¦ºö¾¨Ä Å¢¼ì ¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á ¿ýÚ ±ýÈ¡÷. .. .. â §ÅûÅ¢ì¸Çò¾¢Ö§Á ¯Â¢÷즸¡¨ÄÔõ Å¢ÄíÌÀÄ¢Ôõ þø¨Ä. ÀÍ¡¸õ ±ÉôÀÎõ º¢Ä §ÅûÅ¢¸Ç¢ø ÁðΧÁ Å¢ÄíÌÀÄ¢ÂÇ¢ôÀ÷. ¦¿ö, À¡ø, ¾¡É¢Âí¸û ¾¡É¢Âí¸Ç¢É¡ø ¦ºöÂôÀð¼ ¯½×ô ¦À¡Õð¸û ¸¢ÂÅü¨È ¦¿ÕôÀ¢Ä¢ðÎõ §ÅûÅ¢¸û ¦ºöÅ÷ ( Author quotes this from " INDIA OF THE AGE OF THE BRAMANAS" book-iii, CHAP-2, The forms of Sacrifice- by Basu, Dr.Jogiraj.). ±É§Å ¯Â¢÷ì ¦¸¡¨Ä¢ýÈ¢ þùÅ¡Ú ¦ºöÂôÀÎõ §ÅûÅ¢¸û ÅûÙÅ÷ìÌ ¯¼ýÀ¡Î ±ý§È ¦¸¡ûÇÄ¡õ. Àì¸õ - 192,193.
FSG, Bismala, Idiyappam etc., has a peculiar problem, of denying the Indian Heritage, and the part played by every section of Indians.
Tiruvalluvar must be viewed by what Valluvar said, and Not by Misinterpretting Tirukural.
I intend to cover in History section of Indian Heritage- as to how Vedas are touched in Sangam Lit. and Tholkappiyam and also views of Pavanar etc., on this. I certainly do not believe Casteism is right or that any caste is superior, and though I Had this book for long, I did not want to put these, as Mala-FSG-iDIYappam-mahadevan etc., views in page no 6,7 as unwarranted blabbers need to be ignored, in spite of Anchaneya giving Verbatim of MuVa and others Vurais. As Mala started to quote again from Partial Author’s views, I have put this.
All references of Vetham, Naalvetham, Maarai etc, in Sangam Lit. only refers to Inidan Vedas, and I intend to give more on this in appropriate threads.
Leave Kural from these few Couplets if that is not to your liking. Ofcourse knowing these E.V.Ramasamy Naicker of Dravidian Movement said- “ ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âý âÂì ÜÄ¢. â ¾÷Áò¨¾§Â ¾Á¢ú þÄ츽Á¡¸î ¦ºöРŢð¼ Á¡¦ÀÕõ ЧḢ.
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅý «ì¸¡Äò¾¢üÌ ²üÈ Å¨¸Â¢ø â ¸ÕòÐìÌ ¾Ã× ¦¸¡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.
Take views of Valluvar on Vegetarianism and God fearing and speaking truths, please,and more and more evidences can be added, but please stop with misinterpretations.
Jainusn took Ahimsa beyond practical levels,and Valluvar is Practical
and a Perfectly Vedic with reformatic of his day. More on this shortly.
Devapriya
Dear Friends,
The following Link given by K.P.Aravindan gives about the various research papers on Kural.
here:
http://www.thirukkural2005.org/call_for_papers.htm
This Discuses also as Valluvar not being Jain/Buddhist/Vedic
Devapriya must Reply for Vedic postion
Uppuma
Dear Manuel,Quote:
Originally Posted by manuel
Though one may state that no deity has been mentioned by name, Jains could argue that "adi bhagawan" in couplet 1 is a reference to their first Tirthankara "Bhagawan Adinath" or Rishabha Deva. But the phrase "Adi Bhagawan" can also be translated as "Primordial God" as most "Theistic" translators interpret. But for this one reference, Valluvar seems to have deliberately avoided any deity by name. The word "ati alanthaan" is a clear reference to Lord Vishnu, but here also he has avoided Him by name!
If you are to consider the Kural as a work that appeared during the times of nature worship, then you should take the Kural as work of the Sangam period or even pre-Sangam period since there are references Shiva, Vishnu and Lord Murugan even in Sangam classics (Paripaadal in particular)! Since the Kural has chapters that talk about the Soul-Body-Birth relationship, doctrine of samsara or Rebirth, "Mei unarthal" or Realization of Truth, practices of penance, renunciation and the like, I would consider the Kural as a work that appeared during the time when Brahminical Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism were in vogue.
Note: I am travelling and will be back in my realm only by the 29th of this month. I may have access to net in between, but nothing is certain.
thanks ashraf ...though still not convinced i think i need to do some heavy reading on this.
Dear Friends,
We have a Grave Problem, a Special School of Thinking is developed by the worst style of research methods followed by Missonaries and later Indian Missionary minded like Pavanar for conversion Purposes. Thani Tamil movement fell on to this trap, and a Proper Research is virtually absent. Any Opinion on Research based onSangam are attacked on Caste etc.,
Sangam Literature calls at more than 100 Places Vedic Practice by Brahmins, and not once any Animal Sacrifice is mentioned. However Sangam Lit also talks about Velan Veriyattu- something similar to Jewish Prophets where in Sacrifices were available.
Uppumaji, I Saw the Link and following articles are releavent to this thread.
http://www.thirukkural2005.org/resea.../Kasirajan.pdf
http://www.thirukkural2005.org/resea...asturiraja.pdf
http://www.thirukkural2005.org/resea...ryamoorthi.pdf
http://www.thirukkural2005.org/resea...ndrakumary.pdf
http://www.thirukkural2005.org/resea.../Veeramani.pdf
Veeramani- tells Kural is not Vedic - because of the misleading School of thoughts. He says Saivam did not exist in Valluvar days.
Thirumurugatrupadai is part of Saiva SiddanthA Lit.
Manimekhalai talks of Saiva Vathi & Vaishnava Vathi.. Valluvar names Anthanar Vetham many a times.
NVKji wrote :
தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
God, guests, kindred, ancestors and himself. * SS
(i) Adoration of deity (தெய்வம்), //The word "theyvam" here can easily be taken to mean a Creator God.
(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).// THE INTERPRETATION IS TOTALLY WRONG. THENPULATHAR MEANS YOUR OWN BLOOD RELATIVES-ANCESTORS.
Let us analyse Sangam Literature to Silapathirkaram, and for our reference.
Purananuru song 9 says-
‘×õ, É¢Âü À¡÷ôÀÉ Á¡ì¸Ùõ,
¦ÀñÊÕõ, À¢½¢Ô¨¼ £Õõ §À½¢ò
¦¾ýÒÄõ Å¡ú¿÷ìÌ «Õí¸¼ý ÚìÌõ
¦À¡ý§À¡ü Ò¾øÅ÷ô ¦ÀÈ¡« ¾£Õõ,
This song tells that while Going to war, Youngman who have not got their Male Children to perform Thenpula valnar kadan are exempted from Participating in WAR. A Son performs his Thenpula duty for his father and 2 further past Generations as per Tradition. So Young men without Son to carryout this duty if he dies are exempted.
After death for Marumai, these rituals are to be done and some Offerings as Gifts are given to this date and Puram 232 and 234 and Silapathikaram 15 talks of this.
SO SAYING THENPULATHAR- TO GURU WORSHIP IS CUTTING LEG TO SUIT SHOE.
Actually The HINDU 5 rituals called Panchayagnayams, are given in the right order by Valluvar in Kural- 43
தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
ThenPulathar is already explained, this is Pithru Yagnayam, Theivam- Devayagnayam- worship of GOD Almighty, Third comes- Athithi Yagnayam.
Chapter.5. Å¢Õ󧾡õÀø 1.2.5. Hospitality
þ¨ÉòШ½ò ¦¾ýÀ¦¾¡ý È¢ø¨Ä Å¢Õó¾¢ý
Ш½òШ½ §ÅûÅ¢ô ÀÂý. 87
À¡¢ó§¾¡õÀ¢ô ÀüÈü§Èõ ±ýÀ÷ Å¢Õ󧾡õÀ¢
§ÅûÅ¢ ¾¨ÄôÀ¼¡ ¾¡÷. 88 and in this chapter Valluvar uses almost Velvi a word equivalent to Yagnayam.
Agains Listening and Reading of Good Literature - Satsangh is very important and this is recommended for all. And this is considered equivalent to Yagnayam WHERE in we try to please the Devas and KURAL 413
413. ¦ºÅ¢Ô½Å¢ü §¸ûÅ¢ Ô¨¼Â¡÷ «Å¢Ô½Å¢ý
ýÈ¡§Ã¡ ¦¼¡ôÀ÷ ¿¢ÄòÐ. HERE agains Valluvar uses this Vedic term.
«ó¾½÷ Õ쨸
´Õº¡÷-«Èò¦¾¡Î §Å¾õ Ò½÷ ¾Åõ ÓüÈ¢,
Å¢Èø Ò¸ú ¿¢üÀ, Å¢Çí¸¢Â §¸ûÅ¢ò
¾¢Èò¾¢ý ¾¢¡¢× øÄ¡ «ó¾½÷ ®ñÊ, .. .. 20 Paripadal- agains proves that §¸ûÅ¢ would more mean SATSANGAM.
The Names of God- in Chapter-1 KADAVUZ VAAZTHU -கடவுள் வாழ்த்து- The Tamil word
கடவுள் is really needs to be looked in depth. What does it come.
Who is He? Where is He?
He is above all. எல்லாவற்றையும் கடந்தவன். He is there every where எங்குமே உள்ளவன்.
.so Valluvar when gave the First Chapter- “கடவுள் வாழ்த்து”- refers to God Almighty, the Creator God.
With Respect to Chapter-1, ஆ¾¢ «ó¾½ý- for Brahma and «ÁÃ÷ §ÅûÅ¢ô À¡¸õ ¯ñ¼ ¨Àí ¸ð À¡÷ôÀ¡ý for Siva in Sangam Literature –Paripadal.
ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º Ó¾øÅÛõ, all of this are there, much earlier to Tirukural.
Vaalarivan could well suit Sat-chit-ananda
§Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡ÉÊ, ¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý- Every Religious Follower is going to say His Religious god by Similar Titles, and you have given proofs also.
-Valluvar could he have referred mortal men as Risahba. Most Scholars who are neutral do not Agree.
¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý ¾¡û§º÷ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø
ÁÉì¸Å¨Ä Á¡üÈø «¡¢Ð.
¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý ¾¡û§º÷ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø
ÁÉì¸Å¨Ä Á¡üÈø «¡¢Ð.
À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£óÐÅ÷ ¿£ó¾¡÷
þ¨ÈÅý «Ê§ºÃ¡ ¾¡÷. - in this Three Kurals Valluvar makes it Conditional clause- Only- «øÄ¡ø & ¿£ó¾¡÷- Valluvar has used many Smilies from Various Scriputures such as Gita, Mahabharatha, Manusmirithi, Dammapatha, etc., Now He can say if you follow Rishaba or Buddha You might attain Moksha, but being Indic order Valluvar to Use Only Clause- We can very clearly take it refers to God Alimighty -Superior Creator God, and certainly not Mortel Gurus or Dead Man.
Valluvar Wrote Kural when Jainistic Kalapira’s Sword was above him, and hence he used this Tricky method of SECULAR TITLES, but a Straight look with Unbiased look would prove that He follows Hinduism.
Jainism virtually does not recommend Family Life and it is virtually impossible to reach Birthless state with Family Life.
First Chapter of Valluvar in Kural’s
«ÈòÐôÀ¡ø - after À¡Â¢ÃÅ¢Âø is 1.2. þøÄÈÅ¢Âø DOMESTIC VIRTUE, and again here first chapter is 1.2.1. þøÅ¡ú쨸 1.2.1. Married Life
41. þøÅ¡úÅ¡ý ±ýÀ¡ý þÂøÒ¨¼Â ãÅ÷ìÌõ
¿øÄ¡üÈ¢ý ¿¢ýÈ Ð¨½.
The ideal householder is he
Who aids the natural orders there.
from NVK Site- The three orders possibly refer to these stages: Student, Elders and Renunciates- þÂøÒ¨¼Â ãÅ÷ìÌõ பிரம்மசாரி, வானப்பிரஸ்தம் & சன்னியாஸி
42. ÐÈó¾¡÷ìÌõ ÐùÅ¡ ¾Å÷ìÌõ þÈó¾¡÷ìÌõ
þøÅ¡úÅ¡ý ±ýÀ¡ý Ш½.
His help the monk and retired share,
And celibate students are his care.
46. «Èò¾¡üÈ¢ý þøÅ¡ú쨸 üÈ¢ý ÒÈò¾¡üÈ¢ý
§À¡´öô ¦ÀÚÅ ¦¾Åý.
Who turns from righteous family 46
To be a monk, what profits he?
47. þÂøÀ¢É¡ý þøÅ¡ú쨸 Å¡úÀÅý ±ýÀ¡ý
ÓÂøÅ¡Õû ±øÄ¡õ ¾¨Ä.
Of all who strive for bliss, the great 47
Is he who leads the married state.
48. üÈ¢ý ´Ø츢 «ÈÉ¢Ø측 þøÅ¡ú쨸
§¿¡üÀ¡¡¢ý §¿¡ý¨Á ¯¨¼òÐ.
Straight in virtue, right in living 48
Make men brighter than monks praying.
49. «Èý ±Éô À𼧾 þøÅ¡ú쨸 «·Ðõ
À¢ÈýÀÆ¢ôÀ ¾¢øġ¢ý ¿ýÚ.
Home-life and virtue, are the same; 49
Which spotless monkhood too can claim.
50. ¨ÅÂò¾¢ý Å¡úÅ¡íÌ Å¡úÀÅý Å¡ý¯¨ÈÔõ
¦¾öÅòÐû ¨Åì¸ô ÀÎõ.
He is a man of divine worth 50
Who lives in ideal home on earth.
Valluvar’s Ethics is that Family way of living is much better than Sanyasam, which is totally OPPOSITE to the Fundamental ROOT OF JAINSIM.
Valluvar next Chapter is 1.2.2 Å¡ú쨸ò Ш½¿Äõ 1.2.2 The Worth of a Wife
54. ¦Àñ½¢ý ¦ÀÕó¾ì¸ ¡×Ç ¸ü¦ÀýÛõ
¾¢ñ¨Á¯ñ ¼¡¸ô ¦ÀÈ¢ý.
What greater fortune is for men 54
Than a constant chaste woman?
58. ¦ÀüÈ¡ü ¦ÀÈ¢ý¦ÀÚÅ÷ ¦ÀñÊ÷ ¦ÀÕﺢÈôÒô
Òò§¾Ç¢÷ Å¡Øõ ¯ÄÌ.
The woman who gains her husband's love
Gains great glory in the heaven.
Women who win their husbands' heart 58
Shall flourish where the gods resort.
Now, we have already discussed Jainism Denies comnpletely Moksha to Women and they need to be Sanyasin to prey to be born as Man So that in next birth they can have chance of Moksha, Valluvar gives totally opposite etic and good family Lady with Chasticity is promised of Heaven.
How was Tamilnadu during Sangam Days- Paripadal says
âÅ¢Ûû À¢È󧾡ý ¿¡Å¢Ûû À¢Èó¾
¿¡ýÁ¨Èì §¸ûÅ¢ ¿Å¢ø ÌÃø ±ÎôÀ
²Áý Тø ±Æ¢¾ø «øĨ¾,
šƢ ÅﺢÔõ §¸¡Æ¢Ôõ §À¡Äì
§¸¡Æ¢Â¢ý ±Æ¡Ð, ±õ §À÷ °÷ Т§Ä. Paripadal Thirattu
You Chola capital Uraiyur (§¸¡Æ¢) Chera Capital Vanchi- Raise up from Sleep with the crawl of Cock- We in Pandiya Madurai Wake-up daily with Brahmins Vedic Chandting- which they received from Brahma.
NVKji says that Valluvar was against Castes by quoting Kural 972. This is a Wonderful Kural – But I look at You as A Scholar and I want you to apply equal yardstick to both you are looking. (For Record Jainism also has accomdated Varna System as its part). Can we Totally sat Valluvar has Outrightly rejected Caste and Varna Ashramas- I do not think so. I certainly agree he has given lot of reformative thoughts, but still the following confirms his acceptance to-
À¢Èô¦À¡Øì¸í ÌýÈì ¦¸Îõ. 134
1075. «îº§Á ¸£ú¸ÇÐ º¡Ãõ ±îºõ
«Å¡×ñ§¼ø ¯ñ¼¡õ º¢È¢Ð.
Fear forms the conduct of the low 1075
Craving avails a bit below.
681. «ýÒ¨¼¨Á ýÈ ÌÊôÀ¢Èò¾ø §Åó¾Å¡õ
ÀñÒ¨¼¨Á àШÃôÀ¡ý ÀñÒ.
Love, noble birth, good courtesy 681
Pleasing kings mark true embassy.
குடிபிறப்பு,
அறுதொழிலார்
41. þøÅ¡úÅ¡ý ±ýÀ¡ý þÂøÒ¨¼Â ãÅ÷ìÌõ
¿øÄ¡üÈ¢ý ¿¢ýÈ Ð¨½.
The ideal householder is he
Who aids the natural orders there.
from NVK Site- The three orders possibly refer to these stages: Student, Elders and Renunciates- þÂøÒ¨¼Â ãÅ÷ìÌõ பிரம்மசாரி, வானப்பிரஸ்தம் & சன்னியாஸி
NVKji accepts that Valluvar refers Creator God in Kural 43 and also his selection of Translation:
Couplet: 1062
If some must beg and live, let the Creator of the world
Himself roam and perish
- These are against Jainism.
NVK says in One of the Aricles:
Same is true to NVK here.Quote:
Mr. Vidyarthi, Dr. Haq and Mr. Menon all belong to the same school of religious scholars who read their ideas into others' scriptures to extract what they want. It is unfortunate that Mr. Anderson has drawn his conclusions about Hindu scriptures from the works of such people. He should have verified the authenticity of these translations before making such comments on Hindu scriptures
Mr. Vidyarthi, Dr. Haq and Mr. Menon all belong to the same school of religious scholars who read their ideas into others' scriptures to extract what they want. It is unfortunate that Mr. Anderson has drawn his conclusions about Hindu scriptures from the works of such people. He should have verified the authenticity of these translations before making such comments on Hindu scriptures.-
Vegetarianism is not a concept of Jainism, it was taken over from Hinduism, but emphasised to all by Jainism, But Valluvar says it only in Thuraviyal.
Valluvar was totally Vedic but with Reformative type of the day like Vivekanand or Raja Ram MohanRai, or Bharathiyar.
Devapriya
Dear Mr. Sivamaalaa,
I am surprised how I missed this important posting of yours! You have raised an interesting point and I would be too happy to dwell into it. You wrote in your posting dated 27th June, 2006, Subject: Direct/Indirect influences:
"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. "
(i) Modern Jaina historians reiterate that Jainism pre-existed Vedic or Brahminical Hinduism and they cite references to naked ascetics and mention of some of the Jaina Tirtankakaras in Vedas and other Brahminical texts. However, some scholars like Jagdishchandra Jain (1992) consider that the mention of some Tirthankaras by name cannot be taken as an indication of the antiquity of Jainism. He writes: "It is certain that certain terms related to divine personages recognized by Jains occur in the early Vedic literatures, but there is nothing to prove so far that they signify the same meaning as known to Jain authors". But one thing is certain: that Jaina religious practices existed during the time of Buddha and thus Buddha himself practiced the extreme case of severe austerities before he opted for the middle path. Dhammapada itself has references to 'śramanas':
As for the man who is undisciplined and untruthful, his shaven head does not make him an ascetic.
Full of desire and greed, how can he be a Samana? (Dhammapada 264)
He who is purged of all evil, both great and small, can be called a Samana,
For he is purified of all evil. (Dhammapada 265)
(ii) It is true that Jain writers have adopted many of the Hindu beliefs and legends into their religion simply for the sake of religious propagation. Of course at the time of Valluvar, there may not have been a clear cut division of Jainism from Hinduism or vice versa, as we see today. As I mentioned in one of my earlier postings, what we called Hinduism is the name given to all sects, except Jainism and Buddhism, that stand together as an university of religion based on a 'common minimum program'. What we call Hinduism now, is a conglomeration of many religious sects. One may say that Jainism and Buddhism are outgrowths of Hinduism, but the fact remains (as emphasized by many scholars) that many of the Buddhist and Jaina ideas were absorbed into Hinduism. George Feurestein, for instance, writes that Hinduism had to accept many of the Buddhist ideas into its fold in order to eliminate Buddhism from its country of origin.
However, it is also true that many of the Indian religious beliefs (we now call them under the umbrella "Hinduism") were also adopted by Jains and Buddhists in order to promote their faiths. Jagdishchandra Jain (1992) mentions how Jaina writers adopted the Vishnu-Bali legend, wrote their own Ramayana and even adopted many of the Panchatantra tales for the furtherance of their religious course. Interestingly, the popular recensions of Panchatantra are the works of the Jainas (Jain, 1999). There had been a number of Jain editions of Panchatantra and in course of time many such works became so popular that the readers, including Jains, completely forgot their Jaina origin (Hertel, J.). There are many verses of Panchatantra and Hitopadesa that look very similar to that of Valluvar! The Panchatantra (Book III: Crows and Owls) "Even truth should be concealed if causing sorrow when revealed" echoes very much like Valluvar's definition on "truthfulness" in couplet 291 and 292! We can definitely seen an "ahimsa" overtone in Pachatantra.
Now coming to Vishnu-Bali legend. Jagdishchandra Jain (1992) writes: "The adoption of Vishnu-Bali legend is an example wherein God Vishnu is tranformed into an ascetic Vishnukumara by Jains. Jaina authors of Vishnu-Bali legend adress the month Vishnu by the purifying name Tivikkama or Trivikrama as stated in the Brahminic legend". Interestingly Valluvar also refers to this legend when he says "அடி அளந்தான்" in couplet 610.
When a new faith takes shape (here Jainism), it is quite natural that many of the traditional religious beliefs (in this case that of Brahminical or Vedic Hinduism) would naturally be adopted into it. But remember that we cannot say that Jains copied those from Hinduism! Neither can we say Islam is a copy of Jewish and Christian ideas! It is just like the split of a political party from the other: ADMK from DMK, and Trinamul Congress from Congress. There will of course be similarities between them, but differentiated by key issues on which they differ.
(iii) Now coming to your formula. You wrote.....
Hinduism > Jainism
Hinduism > KuRaL
Therefore: (it appears) Jainism > KuRaL.
When I interpret this formula of yours, I get the following implications:
Jainism came from Hinduism
The Kural is actually a product of a Hindu mind
But the Kural appears to be a product of Jainism because the latter evolved from Hinduism!
I presume this is what you meant. In replying to this suggestion of yours, I would like to quote what you said earlier: "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."
Very rightly so. But we can easily find out that such works are on Hinduism because of the dominance of Hindu ideas in them. Let us take the example of the Sikh religion. Its denouncement of idol worship, insistence on ONE Creator God, absence of rituals like poojas and its Gurudwara architecture are all indications of a strong Islamic influence. But still, doctrinally Sikhism is closer to Hinduism than Islam because its fulcrum is on the belief in karma and samsara. Sikhism is therefore fundamentally an Indian religio-philosphical tradition. Similarly Tirukkural is an ethical treatise that evolved in the Indian ethico-philosophical tradition with considerable Jaina overtone. Valluvar did not stop there, but he wrote an Invocation which some Tamil scholars found it difficult to digest! V.O.C. Chidambaram Pillai, in spite of being a believer in God, regarded the first chapter to be a later addition (Veeramani, 2002). We do not know what made VOC to say so but we can speculate that the very noticeable applicability of all attributes in the first chapter to Jaina deities would have made him to proclaim so!
References:
Jain, J. 1992. Studies in Early Jainism. Navrang, New Delhi.
Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith. p. 191
Hertel, J. On the literature of Svetambaras of Gujarat, p. 8. Cited by Jagdishchandra Jain in his section "Animal tales in Jaina narrative literature" p 111-117
Veeramani, K. 2002. திருவள்ளுவரின் 'கடவுள் வாழ்த்து?'. In: வள்ளுவம்: Valluvam. Editors: Palladam Manickam and E. Sundaramurthy. திருக்குறள் பண்பாட்டு ஆய்வு மையம், விருத்தாச்சலம். Tiruvalluvar Year 2033. Issue No. 19. Pp 16-27
Devapriya sees two different NVKs!
Devapriya began one of his earlier postings with this note:
"I see two different persons in NVK of his website, and another who is defending Kural as following Jaina Ethics".
But Devapriya did not explain in detail what he meant by this. From the subsequent paragraphs and the following posting, I could figure out that he is perhaps referring to those translations of Kurals I have uploaded on my website, some of which are "Hindu" in character, and there are quite "contradictory" to my observation that the Kural follows Jaina ethics. I presume this is what he meant.
Actually, Mr. Devapriya is in confused. This confusion has come because he is not able to distinguish ethical values from beliefs and practices that Valluvar refers throughout his work. When Valluvar says "திங்களைப் பாம்பு கொண்டு அற்று" in couplet 1146, if I have to be true to the original, I have to opt for the correct translation which says "as if a serpent has swallowed the moon" and mention in the notes that this actually refers to lunar eclipse. When Valluvar says "அடி அளந்தான்" in couplet 610, I should chose a translation that provides the literal meaning "Lord had measured by his feet". This is obviously a reference to Lord Vishnu measuring the whole universe in three strides. By saying so, Tirukkural does not become a work of a Hindu or for that matter a work based on Brahminical or Vedic beliefs.
Take Cilappathikaram for instance. Most scholars agree that Ilango Adigal was a venerable ascetic prince who renounced the world, but his work contains a predominant quantum of non-Jaina ideas and beliefs. Before the resurgence of Hinduism through Azhwars and Nayanmars in Tamil Nadu during the 6th and 7th century AD, the Jaina works were largely secular in nature and their emphasize was on ethics. Parthasarathy (1993) who translated Cilappathikaram into English had this to say: "It is somewhat exceptional in the Indian literature for a renouncer (sanyasin) to have composed a secular classic such as the Cilappatikaram, which is totally unlike a religious one such as the Ramayana". My question is this. If a renouncer can write Cilappathikaram which is not religious, why not Jaina householder like Valluvar compose a work which is secular in outlook? Parthasarathy continues: "That the eponymous author of Cilappatikaram was perhaps a Jaina there is little doubt, for Jaina ideas crisscross the poem like a golden thread". Similarly I would say that Jaina ethics crisscross the Kural like a golden thread and this only goes on to show that the author of the Kural must have been either a Jain or someone who was inclined towards Jaina ethics.
Now coming back to Mr. Devapriya's confusion. He did not cite any couplet to illustrate by contradicting nature, but I presume he pointed out the the couplet on உலகியற்றியான் (Creator of the world) only in this context.
Writes Devapriya:
"NVKji accepts that Valluvar refers Creator God in Kural 43 and also his selection of Translation: Couplet: 1062. If some must beg and live, let the Creator of the world Himself roam and perish - These are against Jainism".
I wonder what here is against Jainism. Is cursing or praising a Creator God against Jainism? Here Valluvar curses God! I had touched upon this controversial issue in my posting on May 27, 2006 (Post subject: Creator of the world...) addressed to Sivamaalaa, but Mr. Devapriya seem to have not read it. Let me reproduce that again.
//
"In this posting I will reproduce here the part that deals controversy regarding the reference to "Creator of the World" (உலகியற்றியான்) in couplet 1062:
Valluvar did not hesitate to use these beliefs about God and gods as similes and superlatives while composing a couplet to give that extra punch to drive home his message. Two couplets would suffice to cite such instances in Kural:
Couplet: 1062
If some must beg and live, let the Creator of the world
Himself roam and perish! PS, SI
Popley (1931) and Gopalan (1979) maintained that no other couplet in the Kural can be more opposed to the Jaina idea than this couplet 1062 on Creator God. Their contention was that Valluvar believed in a Creator God and therefore he referred to Him as the Creator of the world. According to Chakravarti (1953), Valluvar here strongly condemns the religious attitude which tries to justify social evils as a result of divine will. Valluvar is actually cursing God here if He had to be held responsible for some men to beggars in this life! He wouldn't have done so, had he believed in a Creator God who is just and full of mercy and compassion. In Jainism, which has an extreme position of Law of Karma, grief and joy in this life has nothing to do with God but to the consequences of one's deeds in the past alone. Nāladiyār, a Jaina classic beyond doubt, declares:
Nāladiyār 107:
If people, with heart full of grief, beg from door to door and suffer endless misery,
It is the result of their deeds in a former birth.
Valluvar seems to have only reinforced this idea by saying that the Creator God may himself go begging if he has to be held responsible for some to live on begging. The same Valluvar has mentioned elsewhere in the Kural that propriety of conduct is great birth, while impropriety will sink into a mean birth (Kural 133). In couplet 330, he says a deprived life of diseased bodies comes from depriving the life of another (in the previous birth). So too begging, which is a result of one's deeds in the past and not a result of Creator God's will.
//
References:
i) Chakravarti, A. 1953. Tirukkural. Deccan Press, Vepery, Madras. 648 pages
ii) Gopalan, S. 1979. Tirukkural and Indian traditions. In: The Social Philosophy of Tirukkural. Affiliated East-West Press Pvt Ltd. pp 41-74
iii) Parthasarathy, R. 1993. Translator. The Cilappatikaram of Ilanko Atikal. Columbia University Press, NY. 425 pages
iv) Popley, H.A. 1931. The Sacred Kural or The Tamil Veda of Tiruvalluvar. YMCA Publishing House, Calcutta. pp 23-24
Arrangement of chapters in Kural
Mr. Devapriya wrote:
"Vegetarianism is not a concept of Jainism, it was taken over from Hinduism, but emphasized to all by Jainism. But Valluvar sys it only in Thuraviyal. Valluvar was totally Vedic but with reformative type of the day like Vivekananda or Raja Ram Mohanraj or Bharathiyar."
Valluvar's objective was to produce a classic on mandatory ethics for householders, ascetics and rulers and help everyone to progress to "சான்றான்மை". While doing so, he freely cited the prevailing beliefs and religious practices of his time. Valluvar was NOT a reformer of Hinduism. Hinduism, in the form we see today, never existed during the time of Valluvar for us to consider him a reformer of that religion. During the times of Vivekananda, Raja Ram and Bharathiyar, yes! And that's why we call them reformers. If reforming Vedic Hinduism was his objective, Valluvar would have definitively mentioned it in his work. What Valluvar has left us is only a set couplets from which we have to extract the information to pinpoint his religious inclination.
Even if we are to agree that Jainism is a deviation from Hinduism, we cannot consider that vegetarianism was TAKEN from "Hinduism" because Hinduism as we identify now never existed during that time. In any religious tradition, there would have always been groups or sects emphasizing a particular point and you cannot conclude that they have TAKEN those ideas from that tradition when they manage to establish a faith of their own (like Jainism and Buddhism). Like the Sufi movement within Islam (surprisingly being tolerated by the majority in spite of it being radically different from orthodox Islam), Śramana practices were a movement within the Indian religio-philosophical tradition. You cannot call that Hinduism!. While writing about monastic practices in India, Buddhist scholar G.C. Pande (1995) wrote: "The immediate context of the emergence of Buddhism in India in the 5th century B.C. is the Śramana movement, in which independent ascetics freed themselves from Vedic authority, Brahminic ritualism and conservative social tradition, and established communities for the purpose of exploring new paths to spiritual liberation". This reminds us very much like the sects like the ascetic group of Essenes (apart from Sadduces and Pharisees) of Judea during the time of Jesus. The difference? While some of the Śramanas went on to establish the Jaina religion, the Essenes never found even a mention in the New Testament, in spite of Jesus being closely associated with them.
Now coming to Devapriya's mention about Vegetarianism in "Thuraviyal". Devapriya had mentioned this point even in his earlier posting: "Valluvar has brought Vegetarianism and Against Killing in Thuraviyal and not for Family men, as per many scholars". To answer this issue, let me reproduce the following two paragraphs from my article on Jaina ideas in Tirukkural:
//
Popley (1931) said Valluvar included two chapters (Not killing and Not eating meat) under the subdivision Ascetic Virtue and not under Domestic Virtue. His line of argument is that if Valluvar had been a Jain, he would have listed these two chapters under Domestic Virtue, instead of giving an impression that ahimsā and vegetarianism are something to be followed by monks alone. But a cursory look at the organization of different subjects and chapters in Kuŗal will reveal that many chapters of relevance to either groups (householder and monks) are listed under both subdivisions of Ascetic and Domestic Virtue, and sometimes even under the II Division "Wealth" which according to many scholars are meant for Rulers! For example, chapters on Self-restraint (13) and Forbearance (16) are equally ascetic virtues but why are they included under Domestic Virtue? Why is Compassion (chapter 58), which can also be regarded as an ascetic virtue, listed under the second division "Wealth"? And why is "Greatness of ascetics" (chapter 3) not under Ascetic virtue? Subramanian and Rajalakshmi (1984) who dwelled in some detail about the distribution and sequencing of some chapters in Kuŗal, ask why the chapter 92 on Prostitutes, 93 on Abstinence and 94 on Gambling were not deemed serious enough to merit inclusion in the first division Aŗattuppāl (Virtue)!
Saman Suttam, the well known anthology of Jaina principles and teachings, says a householder is one who is free from seven vices (sūtrā 302) such as (i) sex with other's wives, (ii) gambling, (iii) liquor, (iv) hunting, (v) harshness in speech, (vi) harshness in punishment and (vii) misappropriation of wealth. Valluvar has devoted a chapter each to deal with these subjects but all are not under the subdivision Domestic Virtue. Of the seven, only vices (i), (v) and (vii) are under 'Domestic Virtue' (chapters 15, 10, 18 respectively), while the rest are either under 'Ascetic Virtue' (iv) and in the second division on "Wealth" (ii, iii and vi). Therefore, it appears that the relevance of any couplet or subject matter to either householders or monks cannot be decided based on its placement in Kuŗal. Commenting on the distribution of chapters and couplets in the Kuŗal, Subramanian and Rajalakshmi (1984) concluded that the verses themselves are couched in such general language that it is difficult to say to whom especially they are meant.
//
References:
Pande, G.C. 1995. The Message of Gotama Buddha and Its Earliest Interpretations. In: Buddhist Spirituality. Editor: Yoshinori, Takeuchi. Buddhist Spirituality. p 3-33
Popley, H.A. 1931. The Sacred Kuŗal or the Tamil Veda of Tiruvalluvar. The Heritage of India Press, Calcutta.
Subramanian, N. and Rajalakshmi, R. 1984. The Concordance of Tirukkural (With Critical Introduction). Ennes Publications, Madurai. 250 pages
Arrangement of chapters in Kural
Mr. Devapriya wrote:
"Vegetarianism is not a concept of Jainism, it was taken over from Hinduism, but emphasized to all by Jainism. But Valluvar sys it only in Thuraviyal. Valluvar was totally Vedic but with reformative type of the day like Vivekananda or Raja Ram Mohanraj or Bharathiyar."
Valluvar's objective was to produce a classic on mandatory ethics for householders, ascetics and rulers and help everyone to progress to "சான்றான்மை". While doing so, he freely cited the prevailing beliefs and religious practices of his time. Valluvar was NOT a reformer of Hinduism. Hinduism, in the form we see today, never existed during the time of Valluvar for us to consider him a reformer of that religion. During the times of Vivekananda, Raja Ram and Bharathiyar, yes! And that's why we call them reformers. If reforming Vedic Hinduism was his objective, Valluvar would have definitively mentioned it in his work. What Valluvar has left us is only a set couplets from which we have to extract the information to pinpoint his religious inclination.
Even if we are to agree that Jainism is a deviation from Hinduism, we cannot consider that vegetarianism was TAKEN from "Hinduism" because Hinduism as we identify now never existed during that time. In any religious tradition, there would have always been groups or sects emphasizing a particular point and you cannot conclude that they have TAKEN those ideas from that tradition when they manage to establish a faith of their own (like Jainism and Buddhism). Like the Sufi movement within Islam (surprisingly being tolerated by the majority in spite of it being radically different from orthodox Islam), Śramana practices were a movement within the Indian religio-philosophical tradition. You cannot call that Hinduism!. While writing about monastic practices in India, Buddhist scholar G.C. Pande (1995) wrote: "The immediate context of the emergence of Buddhism in India in the 5th century B.C. is the Śramana movement, in which independent ascetics freed themselves from Vedic authority, Brahminic ritualism and conservative social tradition, and established communities for the purpose of exploring new paths to spiritual liberation". This reminds us very much like the sects like the ascetic group of Essenes (apart from Sadduces and Pharisees) of Judea during the time of Jesus. The difference? While some of the Śramanas went on to establish the Jaina religion, the Essenes never found even a mention in the New Testament, in spite of Jesus being closely associated with them.
Now coming to Devapriya's mention about Vegetarianism in "Thuraviyal". Devapriya had mentioned this point even in his earlier posting: "Valluvar has brought Vegetarianism and Against Killing in Thuraviyal and not for Family men, as per many scholars". To answer this issue, let me reproduce the following two paragraphs from my article on Jaina ideas in Tirukkural:
//
Popley (1931) said Valluvar included two chapters (Not killing and Not eating meat) under the subdivision Ascetic Virtue and not under Domestic Virtue. His line of argument is that if Valluvar had been a Jain, he would have listed these two chapters under Domestic Virtue, instead of giving an impression that ahimsā and vegetarianism are something to be followed by monks alone. But a cursory look at the organization of different subjects and chapters in Kuŗal will reveal that many chapters of relevance to either groups (householder and monks) are listed under both subdivisions of Ascetic and Domestic Virtue, and sometimes even under the II Division "Wealth" which according to many scholars are meant for Rulers! For example, chapters on Self-restraint (13) and Forbearance (16) are equally ascetic virtues but why are they included under Domestic Virtue? Why is Compassion (chapter 58), which can also be regarded as an ascetic virtue, listed under the second division "Wealth"? And why is "Greatness of ascetics" (chapter 3) not under Ascetic virtue? Subramanian and Rajalakshmi (1984) who dwelled in some detail about the distribution and sequencing of some chapters in Kuŗal, ask why the chapter 92 on Prostitutes, 93 on Abstinence and 94 on Gambling were not deemed serious enough to merit inclusion in the first division Aŗattuppāl (Virtue)!
Saman Suttam, the well known anthology of Jaina principles and teachings, says a householder is one who is free from seven vices (sūtrā 302) such as (i) sex with other's wives, (ii) gambling, (iii) liquor, (iv) hunting, (v) harshness in speech, (vi) harshness in punishment and (vii) misappropriation of wealth. Valluvar has devoted a chapter each to deal with these subjects but all are not under the subdivision Domestic Virtue. Of the seven, only vices (i), (v) and (vii) are under 'Domestic Virtue' (chapters 15, 10, 18 respectively), while the rest are either under 'Ascetic Virtue' (iv) and in the second division on "Wealth" (ii, iii and vi). Therefore, it appears that the relevance of any couplet or subject matter to either householders or monks cannot be decided based on its placement in Kuŗal. Commenting on the distribution of chapters and couplets in the Kuŗal, Subramanian and Rajalakshmi (1984) concluded that the verses themselves are couched in such general language that it is difficult to say to whom especially they are meant.
//
References:
Pande, G.C. 1995. The Message of Gotama Buddha and Its Earliest Interpretations. In: Buddhist Spirituality. Editor: Yoshinori, Takeuchi. Buddhist Spirituality. p 3-33
Popley, H.A. 1931. The Sacred Kuŗal or the Tamil Veda of Tiruvalluvar. The Heritage of India Press, Calcutta.
Subramanian, N. and Rajalakshmi, R. 1984. The Concordance of Tirukkural (With Critical Introduction). Ennes Publications, Madurai. 250 pages