Vegetarianism and Not killing only for Ascetics?
Vegetarianism and Not killing only for Ascetics?
சிவமாலா எழுதுகிறார். . . .
ஒழுக்கம் விழுப்பம் தரலான் ஒழுக்கம்
உயிரினும் ஓம்பப் படும் ---
என்ற குறளுக்கு நான் கூறிய விளக்கம் சரியானதுதான். இக்குறளுக்கு "தன்" என்ற சொல்லைப் பெய்து பொருளுரைத்தவர்கள் தம்மை அறியாமலேயே அதன் முழுப்பொருளையும் குறுக்கிவிட்டனர் என்றுதான் கொள்ளவேண்டும்.
.... என்று தாங்கள் கூறினால் சரிதான்! P.S. Sundaram, Suddhananta Bharathi, C. Rajagopalachari, G.U. Pope, VVS Aiyar, Drew/Lazarus, S.M. Diaz ஆகியோரை ஒரே அடியில் ஒதுக்கிவிட்டீர்கள் போங்கள்! Keep it up.
Sivamaala said:
மேலும் கொல்லாமை என்பது துறவிகளுக்கே அவர்கள் மேற்கொள்ளுவதற்குரிய நோன்பாக எடுத்துரைக்கப் பட்டுள்ளது. இதில் சமணக் கருத்து ஏதுமில்லை.
எப்படிச்சொல்லுகிறீர், சிவமாலா அவர்களே? Is it because chapter "Not Killing" has been placed under "Ascetic Virtue"? இதே கதையைத்தான் தேவப்ரியாவும் கூறினார்.
(a) Chapters on "Thieving" and "Covetousness"
Chapter 29 (Thieving: கள்ளாமை) has been placed under "Ascetic virtue" and couplet 283 says "Stolen wealth may seem to swell but in the end will burst" (PS). First of all ascetics are not supposed to even have a desire for wealth, leave alone accumulating wealth, or for that matter indulge in thieving! In fact most of the couplets in this chapter talk about evils of thieving, therefore more relevant for householders who are occupied in social life and therefore have opportunities to indulge in thieving, corruption and the like! Let us look at the other chapter 18 (Covetousness: கயவாமை) placed under "Domestic virtue" and these two couplets ("They will not sin for fleeting pleasures who seek eternal joy"-173; "Their senses conquered, the clear-eyed cite not their poverty to covet" -174). Clearly these couplets are more appropriate for placing under "Ascetic virtue". Mr. Sivamaalaa, can you explain why this discrepancy?
(b) Chapters on "Self control" and "Forbearance"
These chapters (13: அடக்கமுடைமை and 16: பொறையுடைமை) are placed under "Domestic virtue". Do you mean to say those who follow the ascetic path need not show "self control" and "forbearance"?
(c) Chapters on "Truthfulness and "Kindliness"
These chapters (30: வாய்மை and 25: அருளுடைமை) are placed under "Ascetic virtue". Do you mean to say householders need not be truthful and compassionate?
(d) Prostitution, Alcoholism and Gambling
And what about these two chapters (92: வரைவின் மகளிர், 93: கள்ளுண்ணாமை, 94: சூது) which are neither in "Ascetic virtue" nor in "Domestic virtue". Does it mean householders and ascetics can make merry with மது, மாது and சூது?
I have explained all these things in great detail in my posting on "Arrangement of chapters in Tirukkural" (dated Aug 01, 2006). சிவமாலா இதையெல்லாம் படிப்பதில்லை போலும். மலையாளத்தில் உள்ள ஒரு பழமொழி எனக்கு ஞாபகத்திற்கு வருகிறது: "போத்தினோடு வேதம் ஓதி எந்து காரியம்?"
Sivamaalaa said:
இந்தியாவில் பழம்பெரு நாகரிகமும் பண்பாடும் உடையோர் தமிழர். அவர்கள் கொல்லாமை, பொய்யாமை முதலியவற்றை அறியாமல் இருந்து, வட மானிலத்துத் தோன்றிய சமணரிடமிருந்து உணர்ந்துகொண்டனர் என்பது ஒத்துக் கொள்ளமுடியாத கருத்து.
Here comes the real reason why Sivamaalaa is not ready to accept Jaina influence on Tirukkural! He does not want to show that Valluvar got his ideas from others! There we go. தமிழ்ப்பாசம் தேவைதான், அதற்காக இப்படியா? On the contrary, we all know that Valluvar's work, like any other work in general, is a conglomeration of ideas he acquired from various sources (both written and oral) that were available to him during his lifetime. That is why Tirukkural, like any other ethical work, shows resemblance to many Indian works written on Polity, Economics, Dharma, Ahimsa, Medicine and Love. அவையேல்லாம் கவிதை வடிவில் வகுத்தார் என்பதே உண்மை. Of course, there are plenty of couplets for which we cannot see parallels in other sources. These bear the stamp of originality of the poet.
There are Muslims who refuse to accept the fact that the Qur'an is based on Christian and Jewish ideas! Of course it has the status of a revelation amongst Muslims and they cannot accept the proposition that prophet Muhammad was influenced by the Jewish and Christian ideas of his time. இதை ஒப்புக்கொள்வதால் திருக்குரானின் மதிப்பு ஒன்றும் குறையப் போவதில்லை. In fact, all revelations have been in the native tongue based on the native religious beliefs and customs. History has not seen a Semitic Prophet who spoke about "karmā" and "samsārā" and an Indian Avatār who recapitulated the struggle of prophets of the Semitic world.
Going higher means "Excommunication"?
Going higher means "Excommunication"?
Dear Sivamaalaa,
How come, you never agreed to ANY OF MY presentations of Jaina ideas in Tirukkural (literally whatever I said), but at the same time readily accepted to this statement of mine (that Valluvar even goes a step higher and says in couplet 327)? Is it because it simply suits your argument? Given below are the two verses I cited:
A man should wander about treating all creatures
As he himself would be treated. (Saman Suttam 1.11.33)
Avoid removing the dear life of another
Even when your own life is under threat. (Tirukkural Kural 327)
If you were an unbiased scholar, you should have taken up these two verses and reflected on them, instead of focusing on the words I used to express what I meant. Still, your argument looks very absurd to me. You say "Well, if someone goes a step higher, then he was not following the religious text in question strictly". "Then it is very clear that he was not an adherent of that religion".
Going by this logic of yours....
Should a Sikh who says one should not even get involved in trading cigarettes would cease to be a Sikh, just because he went a step higher. Or a Muslim who refuses to eat any food in a hotel where pork is also served?
Wonder if there is any point in providing such examples to either illustrate a point or point out the lacunae in your argument. I have been doing it consistently throughout my discussion in this forum, but to no avail. I have addressed a series of questions to you in my last 2 or 3 postings which were all in response to the statements you made. I had to ask those questions because some of the statements you made looked incorrect and strange to me (I hope you know what I am talking about).
The problem with you and Sivamaalaa is that you all do not pinpoint the place I have gone wrong in my presentation. Just like how I do while replying to your postings.. ஏதோ கடலில் காயம் கலக்கிய மாதிரி பதில் எழுதுவது சரியில்லை. இடம் சுட்டி பொருள் விளக்கம் தர வேண்டும். The problem with such replies is that many of the questions I raise go unanswered. And by employing such "கூட்டத்தில கோவிந்தா" strategy, people believe they can get away from answering such tricky questions. Let me reproduce them here.
I had asked ......
(i) But do you at least agree that the similarity is more with Jainism than with Buddhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism or Christianity for that matter? If not, then please prove me otherwise.
(ii) So what? Do you mean to say Jains and Buddhists never indulged in procreation? Do you mean to say there were no Buddhist and Jaina householders during the time of Valluvar?
(iii) Don't they (Jains) believe in the existence of Soul? Or, do you mean to say Jain and Buddhist religions has nothing to do with LOVE?
(iv) Do you meant to say Jains and Buddhists were not Tamilians? What this has to do with Valluvar being a Hindu or a believer in Creator God or whatever it is? Or, are you implying that only a believer in Creator God would have written a book beginning with "அ" and end with "ன்"?.
(v) If he had denounced "Asceticism" and Ascetic practice, please tell me why he wrote a special chapter on "Ascetics greatness" and placed it before "Domestic life"? And also wrote chapters on "Renunciation", "Penance", "Imposture", "Impermanence" and "Desirelessness" which all have something to do with Ascetic life, in some way or the other ?
I am waiting for answers for these.
The problem with you is....?
//The problem with you and Sivamaalaa is that you all do not pinpoint the place I have gone wrong in my presentation. Just like how I do while replying to your postings.. ஏதோ கடலில் காயம் கலக்கிய மாதிரி பதில் எழுதுவது சரியில்லை. இடம் சுட்டி பொருள் விளக்கம் தர வேண்டும். The problem with such replies is that many of the questions I raise go unanswered. And by employing such "கூட்டத்தில கோவிந்தா" strategy, people believe they can get away from answering such tricky questions. Let me reproduce them here.//
Miss Ashraff! This is the most inane outpouring I have ever come across in these threads.
You must remember that it is you who wanted to prove to the world at large the connection between VaLLuvar and Jainism. Others and I here are just innocent browsers more like passers-by on the road coming across a snake charmer doing some show along the pavement. If you have problems handling your snake, would you scold the passers-by for your inadequacy? If your snake turns against you or it starts running haywire and we run after it and catch it for you, it is just a bonus for you. If no one around comes forward to help, would you leave the snake to run zig zag on the public thoroughfare and go after us for no fault of ours for failing to catch it for you? We are not the ones who came with the idea of snake show in the first place. So what is our obligation??
Why do you say that we are trying to avoid tricky questions? Is it part and parcel of your scholarship to pose tricky questions to us? What are the tricks you have in your questions anyway that we are running away from? Can you compose yourself and address your issues correctly and methodically?
to keep in the background
The prevailing beliefs and religious practices of Valluvar’s time was Hinduism., and for this purpose, we may disregard differences between current practices and the practices then. There is no reason to deny that vegitarianism was the prevailing practice among the people at the time. Until Śramana practices grew to become a distinct belief group, it grew within Hinduism. It cannot be otherwise. Buddhist scholar G.C. Pande (1995) has been quoted: "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". To the question where did the Jains get their philosophy and ethics, the answer is that they got it from Hinduism of the day, regardless of the fact Hinduism did not exist under that name then!! To the question: where did Hinduism get its philosophy and ethics, the answer should be: from Dravidians, who were the then inhabitants of the entire subcontinent, who spread all over from ancient Tamiz KuuRum Nallulakam.
VaLLuvar, if at all he had to take anything from anywhere, took his materials from “ Hinduism” of the day, practiced by the Dravidians then. In any discussion, we should not forget this history.
The alleged Jain connection to kuRaL should therefore be discarded.
