THIRUKKURALH

Sivamaalaa,

While I will keep answering to your new questions and strange conclusions you make from my old postings, you keep avoiding the questions I raise.

By raising two more pettyissues, you have exposed your ignorance again, Ms. Sivamaalaa. I will show how.

(i) The first issue

You proclaimed:
"You have demolished your own case long ago. You r no diff from a snake charmer putting on a show with a dead snake. So, I do not want to make myself busy hitting it."

Why you said so? Because I had written "It is therefore not a book that Jains can claim to be theirs! Interestingly, when people take the Kural as a Hindu work, there are no disagreements." (PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 12:51 am)

My reply:
Of course, I have always been saying that Tirukkural is NOT a book that Jains can claim to be theirs! What is strange and disagreeable about this statement? In the same vain, Tirukkural is NOT a book that Hindus can claim to be theirs! The Kural may contain predominant Jaina, Buddhist or Hindu ideas (as different groups claim), but it is not a book written with a particular community in mind. The reason is because the Kural is NOT a book on Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism. Ms. Sivamaalaa, didn't I say in the very preceding sentence of the same posting (Post Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 12:51 am) the reason behind not considering the Kural as a work on Jainism, the religion? How come you managed to once again edit that from my posting and copy paste only that section that seems suitable to you? Deceitful tactics? Please read the point in full.

"I understand your predicaments in accepting the dominating Jaina ideas in Kural. I repeat once again. The Kural is not a work on Jainism. It is therefore not a book that Jains can claim to be theirs!"

The Jains can claim Samaya Sara, Tatvartha Sutra, Acaranga Sutra, Nalatiyar, Valaiyapathy, Civaka Cintamani etc as their work, but not the Kural. Ms. Sivamaalaa, there is a difference in saying that the Kural is based on Jaina ethics and ideas and saying that the Kural is a work on Jainism. இப்பொழுதாவது புரிஞ்சதா, சிவமாலா அவர்களே!

In my post dated 7th August, I had also said: "The Jains have every right to say that Valluvar was a Jain, or at least claim that the author of the Kuŗal was inclined towards Jaina ideals. But they do not have the right to claim the Kuŗal as their scripture for the simple reason that the Kuŗal was not written for any particular sect in mind"

Wonder why such sentences fail to catch your attention, Ms. Sivamaalaa? Strangely, your mind works very selectively!

(ii) Second issue.

You wrote:
"You have tacitly agreed that Dravidians were by and large vegetarians during Valluvar’s time. You agreed that VaLLuvar need not have to go to Gujarat to learn about it!! Keep it up."

You made this statement because I had apparently said in my posting on Thu Jun 29, 2006 2 that "It is only in Vedic or Brahminical Hinduism that Animal sacrifice is practiced to please gods existed".

How do you manage to bring out such concocted conclusions, Ms Devapriya? If animal sacrifice existed in one community, it does not mean others were vegetarians! What a crooked conclusion. Moreover why should Valluvar go to Gujarat to learn about Jainism? If a common man had to know about Buddhism in the 5th Century AD, it doesn't mean he would have learnt about it only by coming to Bodhgaya! For your information, there are non-vegetarians who do not practice animal sacrifice. And there are also vegetarians who eat meat only at the time of their annual animal sacrifice event (eg. The Todas of Nilgiris).

Ms. Sivamaalaa, you are increasingly becoming like my old "friend" Ibrahim of Malaysia who, during our discussion in the Indolink forum five years ago, needlessly kept insisting that the reference to "navdāara puré" in Hindu scriptures is nothing but a reference to the Mecca with nine entrances. No amount of citations from wide range of Hindu scriptures could convince him that it is nothing but a reference to the human body with nine gates! (I was then using my second name Kunhunu). This discussion went for months together on the same subject!. I did a google search and found the link below, but apparently they have removed all old postings.

INDOlink Arts-Culture Discussion Forum Forum - Kunhunu: 9 gates ...
Ibrahim says : My dear kunhunu, I just had a chance to verify whether your claims that the city with 9 gates refers to our body as per the reference you ...
www.indolink.com/Forum/Arts-Culture/messages/2918.html - 7k - Supplemental Result -

//Ms. Sivamaalaa, you are increasingly becoming like my old "friend" Ibrahim of Malaysia who, during our discussion in the Indolink forum five years ago, needlessly kept insisting that the reference to "navda-ara puré" in Hindu scriptures is nothing but a reference to the Mecca with nine entrances. No amount of citations from wide range of Hindu scriptures could convince him that it is nothing but a reference to the human body with nine gates! (I was then using my second name Kunhunu). This discussion went for months together on the same subject!. I did a google search and found the link below, but apparently they have removed all old postings. //

¯ÁìÌ ÁÉ §¿¡ö ¯ûǦ¾ýÀÐ þô§À¡Ð ÒâóÐÅ¢ð¼Ð. þÕ ¦À¡ÕûÀÎõ ´ýÈ¢ø, ¿£÷ ¦º¡øÖõ ¦À¡Õû¾¡ý ºÃ¢ ±ýÚ ÀÄ Á¡¾í¸û «¨Ãò¾ Á¡¨Å§Â À¢¨ºóЦ¸¡ñÊÕó¾¢Õ츢ȣ§Ã!! «¨¾ ±ýɦÅýÀÐ? «¨¾§Â ¾¡ý þíÌõ ¦ºöЦ¸¡ñÊÕ츢ȣ÷!

§ÁÖõ ¯ÁÐ Å¡¾í¸Ç¢ø ¯ûÇ µð¨¼¸¨Ç ±ÎòÐ¡ýÉ¡ø, Àì¸òРš츢Âí¸¨Ç ¦ÂøÄ¡õ Ш½ì¸¨ÆòÐ, À¢¾üȢ즸¡ñÊÕôÀÐ «ó§¿¡ö ÓüȢ¾ý «È¢ÌÈ¢¾¡§É¡?

¿¡ý «È¢Â¡¨Á¢ø ±Ø¾¢Ôû§Çý ±ý¸¢È£÷! «Îò¾¸½§Á ²Á¡üÚžüÌ «ôÀÊ ±Øи¢§Èý ±ý¸¢È£÷! þùÅ¢ÃñÊÖõ ±Ð ¯ñ¨Á? þÃñÎõ ±ôÀÊ ´òÐÅÕ¸¢ýÈÉ?

±Ø¾¢ Å¢¨Ç¡Îž¡Â¢ý þùÅ¡ñÎ ÓØÅÐõ ±Ø¾¢ì¦¸¡ñÊÕì¸Ä¡õ. ¬É¡ø ÀÂÉ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ¨¾ Óý§À ÜȢŢð§¼ý.

ÁÉ¿Ä Á¨É¢ø ¯õ ¿¢¨Ä ±ôÀÊô §À¡¸¢ÈÐ ±ýÀ¨¾ §¿Ãõ ¸¢¨¼ìÌõ§À¡Ð ÅóÐ À¡÷츢§Èý. ÁÉ ¿Äõ Á£Ç ±ý Å¡úòÐì¸û!! bye!!

Quote:

---

How do you manage to bring out such concocted conclusions, Ms Devapriya? If animal sacrifice existed in one community, it does not mean others were vegetarians! What a crooked conclusion.

---

You can't even recognise with whom you are conversing!! Very serious mental disease.... che che!! :cry:

Unanswered questions

To Sivamaalaa,

In your previous posting, you wrote:
"உமக்கு மன நோய் உள்ளதென்பது இப்போது புரிந்துவிட்டது. இரு பொருள்படும் ஒன்றில், நீர் சொல்லும் பொருள்தான் சரி என்று பல மாதங்கள் அரைத்த மாவையே பிசைந்துகொண்டிருந்திருக்கிறீரே!! அதை என்னவென்பது? அதையே தான் இங்கும் செய்துகொண்டிருக்கிறீர்!"

Instead of talking in riddles like this, it would be useful for me if you can tell me what this "இரு பொருள்படும் ஒன்று" is! And also specify where I said "நான் சொல்லும் பொருள்தான் சரி என்று". I am keen to know this so that I can reply. Or at least I can correct myself if had gone wrong anywhere.

You also said:
மேலும் உமது வாதங்களில் உள்ள ஓட்டைகளை எடுத்துச்சொன்னால், பக்கத்து வாக்கியங்களை யெல்லாம் துணைக்கழைத்து, பிதற்றிக்கொண்டிருப்பது அந்நோய் முற்றியதன் அறிகுறிதானோ?

At least ஒரு ஐந்து ஓட்டைகளையாவது சொல்லமுடியுமா? I am desperate to know them. Don't make general sweeping statements without any supporting evidence. The hallmark of a scholar is to provide evidences to support the argument.

You also said: "நான் அறியாமையில் எழுதியுள்ளேன் என்கிறீர்! அடுத்தகணமே ஏமாற்றுவதற்கு அப்படி எழுதுகிறேன் என்கிறீர்! இவ்விரண்டிலும் எது உண்மை? இரண்டும் எப்படி ஒத்துவருகின்றன?"

What is this? When did I say so? Please tell me. Your allegation is very intriguing! Unlike you, I would like answer every question of yours.

I will not evade questions like you have been doing in this thread. Let me once again reproduce the questions for which you have not answered so far. This discussion between you and me has been dragging along because of the following unanswered questions. There cannot be an end or conclusion to any discussion if one party refuses to provided answers. If you go through the points below, you will realize that they were ALL in response to the comments you made. I have not asked or raise any out of the bloom issues!

(A) Questions raised in my posting on Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:56 am
Post subject: Sivamaalaa's interesting replies!

(1) When you said may other faiths including Christians are claiming the Kural as their work, I pointed out to similar claims in every religion and said: "Sivamaala, are you are willing rank these claims, based on a simple criteria of reasonability of such claims! i.e. எது மிகவும் நியாயமான முறையீடு என்று?" இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(2) I had also said: "You will appreciate that the contents of the first chapter are more relevant to describe a Jaina deity than deities of other faiths. Buddhism comes close second" இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(3) When you said: "There are similarities between some percepts of Jainism with certain corners of KuRal" I replied: "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". No comments from your side on this also!

(4) When you provided this famous oft repeated evidence to show Valluvar as a non-Jaina, you said: "He emphasized family virtues and begetting children. He devoted about one third of his book to love and sex". To this I replied saying: "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? I will agree with your argument if Tirukkural....." இதற்கும் இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(5) When you cited "anpin vaziyathu uyirnilai" and said "Valluvar preached love", I said: "எனக்குப் புரியவில்லை. சுத்தமாகப் புரியவில்லை. "அன்பின் வழியது உயிர் நிலை" means the "seat of life love" (SB) or "The throb of life is love" (JN). Here Valluvar is equating Soul with Love: "A loveless body is as good as a Soulless one". Can you tell what this has to do with Jainism? Don't they believe in the existence of Soul? Or, do you mean to say Jain and Buddhist religions has nothing to do with LOVE?" இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(6) When you wrote: "VaLLuvar is a thoroughbred Tamilian in body and mind, who commence with "a" and ended hi KuRal with "n". I asked: "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"?." இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(7) When you said: "சமண துறவியாகவோ போவதில் புண்ணியமில்லை என்கிறார் (வள்ளுவர்)" , I had these two questions addressed to you. .

(i) Where does Valluvar say it is useless to become Jaina and Buddhist renunciates?
(ii) How did the same Valluvar exalted Ascetic life in the following verse?
இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(B) Questions raised in my posting on Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:32 am
Post subject: Vegetarianism and Not killing only for Ascetics?

(8) When you said: "மேலும் கொல்லாமை என்பது துறவிகளுக்கே அவர்கள் மேற்கொள்ளுவதற்குரிய நோன்பாக எடுத்துரைக்கப் பட்டுள்ளது. இதில் சமணக் கருத்து ஏதுமில்லை." I asked the following questions....

* 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"?

* 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?

* 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?

These are very relevant questions. இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(C) Questions raised in my posting on Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:00 am
Post subject: Jainism during the time of Valluvar?

(9) When you wrote: "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", I had stated "For this to be true, you should place Valluvar before 2nd Century B.C. I don't think any one has dated Valluvar that early! Hope you understand what I mean. If you can't, please let me know."
No explanation given so far from your side!

(10) When you said: "In any case, the previous post I referred to is still available at the time of my posting and even now. There is nothing to hide. You have used the wrong word against a fellow hubber: the word hide. You are shamelessly refusing to admit your mistake now.", I wrote back saying "You have already stated that you are biased in reproducing citations and you will do so because they do not serve your purpose. If the word "hide" is improper, then please let me know how I should call someone who crops parts a group citations and present only those that support his argument."

If it is not "hiding", you should have suggested me an alternate word to label activities like what you have done. i.e. Copy pasting stuff that would support your case and excluding (hiding) the other part which would prove otherwise. YOU HAVE DONE THIS TWICE SO FAR (Once in the case of "தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்" and on the other occasion you removed the sentence "The Kural is not a work on Jainism". . இதுவரை செய்யவில்லை!

(D) Questions raised in my posting on Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:38 am
Post subject: Is Valluvar a Saivite?

(10) When you said: "மதத்தைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டு பாடினான் என்பது வெறுங்கூளம்", I said: "மதத்தைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டு பாடவில்லை என்றால், எப்படி சிவனைக் குறிக்கும் சொற்கள் திருக்குறளில் உள்ளதாகக் கூறுகிறீர்கள்?". Here you were contradicting yourself!

But no comments from you so far on this. இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(11) This is what you said: "சிவனைக் குறிக்கும் சொற்கள் குறளில் உளவாகையால், வள்ளுவர் ஒரு சைவப் பெருமகனார் என்பது தெளிவு." To this I had asked you to comment on some of the statements found in Dr. K Moharaj’s (1983) seminal research work “Idealism and Universalism of Tiruvalluvar” (University of Madras) on a pages 343-345. Let me reproduce some of them here.

1. கடவுள் உயிர்களுடனும் உலகத்துடனும் கலந்து நிற்கின்றார் என்னும் கருத்து இன்மை,
2. மாயை பற்றிய கருத்து இன்மை,
3. ஆன்மா வீட்டு நிலையில் இறைவனிடமிருந்தே பேரின்பத்தைப் பெறுகிறது என்னும் கருத்து தெளிவாகக் கூறப்படாமை,
4. கடவுளின் அருளையும் வழிபாட்டையும் குறித்த கருத்துகள் சித்தாந்த நூல்களில் காணபடுவது போல இன்மை,
5. வழிபாட்டு முறைகள் கூறப்படாமை,
6. மணிமேகலையில் சைவசமயக் கடவுளர்க்கு உரியனவாகக் கூறப்படும் எட்டு வடிவங்களோ பிற இறையியற் கொள்கைகளோ இன்மை,
7. சிவபெருமான் எங்கும் வெளிப்படையாகச் சுட்டப்படாமை.

இவைகளுக்கும் இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை! சும்மா, வள்ளுவர் சைவர் என்று சொன்னால் மட்டும் போதாது. You have to not only provide evidence but also refute disclaimers like those above.

i dono if the one who recited spoiled the poem...or one who wrote, spoiled the text..
guess his image is spoiled i feel portrayal does not match the locution
valluvar how come you with long thaadi and long hair ?
dint you say ?

'no need of tonsure or long hair, if one avoids
what the world condemns'

There are objections from few sections of the society against the depiction of Valluvar in any form. The most vehement of all has been Professor Thirukkural Bhaskar of Karunakaran Tirukkural Library, Anna Nagar. You go and meet him, he will give you a pamphlet where he criticises those who try to depict Valluvar in a particular portrait.

It has been a tradition in India and even outside, to depict the great sages in a particular form. We have images for Krishna, Appar, Tirumoolar, Jesus, Moses etc. even though we NO IDEA as to how they actually looked like. These images only provide us a tamp of identity and they do not mean their actual representation.

It is folly to think that the popular image of Valluvar we follow worldwide is the actual represevation of the poet himself.

as-Salamu alaikum NVK Ashraf
Jesus was actually born in around 4-6 BC (not AD)
has a good chance to think ( possible) that the wordsmith known as valluvar lived same period?
( sorry if this not the subject matter at issue )
thanks

Quote:

---

I am keen to know this so that I can reply. Or at least I can correct myself if had gone wrong anywhere.

---

You are not fit for discharge from your mental institution yet. So you can’t correct yourself presently. You won’t know where you had gone wrong even if I tell you now!!

Quote:

---

//then please let me know how I should call someone who crops parts a group citations and present only those that support his argument."//

---

Since you could not understand what I have said, there is no point telling you anything more. Your illness is persisting!!

Quote:

---

//If it is not "hiding", you should have suggested me an alternate word to label activities like what you have done//

---

That is not my duty!! Even if I did, it cannot penetrate your skull.

Quote:

---

//Here you were contradicting yourself!//

---

You think so because of your acute mental incapacity. I have to wait and see if you can recover.

VaLLuvar is a Saivite; all other arguments to the contrary are rejected in toto.

Saivite's main bourne is to praise shiva is it ?
something came to mind here
There once was a man of St Bees
Who was stung in the hand by a wasp;
When asked, "Does it hurt?"
He replied, "Yes, it does,
I'm so glad it wasn't a hornet."

சிவமாலா எழுதியது....

(i) You are not fit for discharge from your mental institution yet. So you can’t correct yourself presently. You won’t know where you had gone wrong even if I tell you now!!
(ii) Since you could not understand what I have said, there is no point telling you anything more. Your illness is persisting!!
(iii) That is not my duty!! Even if I did, it cannot penetrate your skull.
(iv) You think so because of your acute mental incapacity. I have to wait and see if you can recover.

இப்படி ஏதாவது எழுதிக்கொண்டு மனதைத் தேர்த்துக்கொள்வதைவிட வேறு வழியில்லை சிவமாலாவிற்கு!

VaLLuvar is a Saivite; all other arguments to the contrary are rejected in toto.

Thanks for proclaiming so! I understand there is no room for research and scholarship (வள்ளுவர் கூறுவதைப்போல "ஆராய்ந்த கல்வி") in your vocabulary. Unlike you I would never say that Valluvar IS a Jaina and other arguments to the contrary are to be rejected in toto. That is the difference between Sivamaalaa and Ashraf.