Tiruvalluvar and Religion
Dear Friends,
When we have something we need to look on what it says, but searching on what is hidden comes when you are sure what is said in the front have been verified completely.
NVKji says,
//The very fact that Vedic religion says there is a Superior God, goes on to show there are inferior gods as well! Forget about why MaxMuller was commissioned, but the word he coined "Henotheism" is correct. It is only because in Hinduism the presence of other gods is accepted that one particular god had to be considered the Supreme. Monotheism is a word coined by the West and let us not be mislead to believe that is the best and correct. Judaic monotheism is based on a belief in a God with the exclusion of all other gods (relevant text to read is Karen Amstrong's History of God) and Vedic 'monotheism' is the belief in a Superior god with the inclusion of all other gods.//
I feel complete Prejudice here. Judaism as a Religion was never Practiced at all. It Acknowledges several gods when looking for Superior Creator. The lord or “YHWH” commonly called yahweh or jehowah is not the ultimate God, but a smaller One or a god for the territory of the Landmass- Israel, and Bible tells many such smaller Dieties. Archealogy shows that Idol worship continued even upto Roman days, and even Idols for jehwah . The real meaning of the Divine names are not known- “El”, “Elohim”. “ ElShaddai” and “yhwh”are unknown. Ellohim went to Arab and became Allahudum or Allah. Now Scholors see that El is from the Tamil word “எல்” and Ellohim- where Hi is Femnine Pludral and virtually an equivalent of Tamil Ammaiappan. Shaddai- a common word to refer God Shiva. As per various Theosophical Society revelations the writing of yhwh in Hebrew represent the Vedic God ShivaLinga. I can show several proofs for acknowledgement of smaller gods and lord or jehovah is a smaller deity with in the Jewish Beliefs.
Let us Concentrate on KURAL:
"ஆதி பகவன் முதற்றே உலகு", AS I have explained Chief Minister is translated as முதல் அமைச்சர், so here it is Suprme GOD, Now on your question why Vlluvar uses ஆதி and not Other words, the first thing is He must follow all the Rules for Venba, that he should not miss Thalai etc., and Tamil rules. For Eg. TholKappiyam is clear that “sa, sai, sow” cannot be start of Tamil words, and Valluvar had hardly Used them. So Grammer Rules is important. You go away from Kural with assumptions that Valluvar missed end, why you search for Interpretations you want. In first Couplet Ellam covers all- and if applied to Ulagu, then Advaitic All are made by God and He is in all comes. The Word உலகு is certainly referring to the Universe can be confirmed with various Other Kurals, details in other Posts.
Further as I had mentioned earlier The Timing of Valluvar 250-300CE, had given him no Freedom under Kalapira rule, so He used terms uncommon and looks like they can be linked to Jains/ Buddhists. The Concept of Creator God is revealed by Valluvar.
Now the question is
§Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É - Now Jainism denies Women of Salvation Completely; they have to reborn as Male to get Salvation. Valluvar’s God does not have male or female preference- and He is §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É. Here Judaism’s Prayer for every Male is - lord, I thank you for your have not made born me as Female or Dog ( means Non-Jews); this Prayer is practised from at least BCE 350 When Judaism Historically was born to till date. Secondly Bible and Quran tells of Chosen People and that israel’s small god converting the River Nile to Blood and Killing of all First Infants of Human and Animals of Egyptians, and certainly this god is not §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É or even the Suprme God.
¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý- Now Mahavira, Buddha, Valluvar, Rishaba Deva, Jesus or Mohammed all are Mortal Souls and Never Valluvar would have referred this to any Man and this has been the interpretation of morethan 95% of Commentators, who looked at them Impartially.
«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý- Referring God by the term ” «ó¾½ý” is a Practice to Shiva, Brahma etc., In Sangam Literature itself and never to Jainistic Rishba till atleast next 800 years after Valluvar. «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ is Secular word.
«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ¾¡û§º÷ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø
À¢ÈÅ¡Æ¢ ¿£ó¾ø «¡¢Ð.
À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£óÐÅ÷ ¿£ó¾¡÷
þ¨ÈÅý «Ê§ºÃ¡ ¾¡÷. - In both this Kurals Valluvar cannot refer to Deadmen feat, but to the Supreme God, even Diehard Jain or Buddha believer would ask us to follow their Teachings and not on holding feet, Valluvar is very Clear, He refers to Supreme God, and Valluvar when names at 25 Different Kurals various Hindu Deity names, follows Henotheism.
Now Secondly Both Jainism and Buddhism and even Christinity follow Negative Ethics- Be Disciplined, are else You would Perish; No Enjoyment at all (LIFE NEGATION). Tirukural is more a Postivie Life Oriented Ethics i.e., “World and Life affirmation as Hinduism”. This basic trait completely takes Valluvar away from Jainism. Due to this Jainish ethics say- “must not drink Honey, Do not take Bath, do not Wash Tooth etc., Valluvar is clear on bathing, drinking Honey etc.,
Secondly the thoughts such as Vegetarianism and other ethics are the Continuation of Vedic Tradition, Pythogorous who spent 9 years in India, and was the Father of Greek Philosophy, suggests Vegetarianism, no doubt He got from India in 8th Cen BCE, much before Mahaveera founded Jainism. Only that Mahavira emphasised more on this. Due to the Highly Volatile situation in TN/India, by Preaching of Missionaries and later the Thani-Tamil and Dravidian movements- to look for the real Interpretations of Vedas itself is rarely been done.
Tho.Po.Me. who wrote the Book “SAMANA TAMIL ILAKIYA VARALARU” - on Thiru Valluvar his opinion is Kural does not confirm that Valluvar was Jain after a detailed Analyses on KURAL, because Valluvar goes many ways against Jain Ethics.
þÕû§º÷ þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡ þ¨ÈÅý
¦À¡Õû§º÷ Ò¸úÒ¡¢ó¾¡÷ Á¡Ðî
The twin deeds of dark illusion do not affect those
Who delight meaningfully in Lord's praise. -----from NVK website.
Here again It is on God’s Praise,and if we say on Dead Great men- I feel a great disservice to Valluvar. And þ¨ÈÅý ¦À¡Õû§º÷- He directs things - is against Jainism.
Buddishism and Jainism, for that reason every Man made religions absorbed from the Older existing religions and changed and claimed as its own. Buddhism and Jainism took Ramayan and Mahabaratha and wrote to suit their beliefs. Judaism took from Zoroastrianism. Christianity took from Judaism, Mithraism. Manichism took from Zorashraism , Christianity and Buddhism and claimed Manes as the Last Prophet for all of these. Islam’s Prophet took from Manes and Christianity and made similar claims.
First if we Understand that Valluvar’s Period and His Compulsions with Alien Rulers then we can understand He Used Secular words specifically to thwart the Kalapira rulers and he used the names of God an indirectly refered Vedas etc.,
Devapriya.
(2) More on the first couplet
(2) More on the first couplet
To Devapriya:
You wrote:
Let us Concentrate on KURAL:
"ஆதி பகவன் முதற்றே உலகு", AS I have explained Chief Minister is translated as முதல் அமைச்சர், so here it is Suprme GOD, Now on your question why Vlluvar uses ஆதி and not Other words, the first thing is He must follow all the Rules for Venba, that he should not miss Thalai etc., and Tamil rules. For Eg. TholKappiyam is clear that “sa, sai, sow” cannot be start of Tamil words, and Valluvar had hardly Used them. So Grammer Rules is important.
Ok. I understand grammar rules are important. But I am not suggesting that he should have included "அந்தம்" also in the couplet in the present form! Writers first conceive the idea in mind before putting them in writing. If Valluvar's idea was to include "அந்தம்" also, he would have obviously composed the couplet in a different style, as per the conventional rules of Tamil grammar. The key twin-words Valluvar had in his mind were the Sanskrit words "ஆதி" and "பகவன்" and these must have been his first choice. In spite of so many other terms available for God, he has deliberately chosen them.
You go away from Kural with assumptions that Valluvar missed end, why you search for Interpretations you want. In first Couplet Ellam covers all- and if applied to Ulagu, then Advaitic All are made by God and He is in all comes.
Sorry, I am not saying that Valluvar "missed" the "End". Neither am I looking for interpretations I want. I am not suggesting that the first couplet is not applicable to a Creator God! In fact many of the couplets in Chapter 1 are perfectly suitable to describe a Creator God. My contention is that all the first 10 couplets suit well for Jaina god as well. And I agree with your Advaitic interpretation of the first couplet. It lends to that interpretation. I don't have any objection. I mentioned about "ஆதி முதல்வன்" in Mañimékalai and the word “ஆதி பிரான்” in Tirumandiram in my last posting. We may all have a disagreement with Kural, but we know for sure that Mañimékalai is a Buddhist work. Can you please tell what this "ஆதி முதல்வன்" is.
The Word உலகு is certainly referring to the Universe can be confirmed with various Other Kurals, details in other Posts.
I disagree. The word உலகு, depending on the context, can mean either the physical world or the people of the world. Please read couplet 256. "தினல் பொருட்டால் கொல்லாது உலகு எனின் யாரும் விலைப் பொருட்டால் ஊன் தருவார் இல்". Here it refers to the people of the world. Any doubt? Here is the translation:
"The world may say: “Meat we eat, but don’t kill’.
But no one will sell if there is none to buy. * (Kasthuri Srinivasan)
(3) God, beyond likes and dislikes
(3) God, beyond likes and dislikes
To Devapriya:
You wrote:
Now the question is §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É - Now Jainism denies Women of Salvation Completely; they have to reborn as Male to get Salvation.
Yes I agree. The great Jaina āchārya Kundakunda says in his Ashta Pahuda: "Has any one seen dogs, donkeys, cows and other cattle or women attain Nirvana?" (AP, 8:29). In fact Jaina religion has many such teachings (need for ascetics to be naked "naked") but the Kural is based on Jaina ethics and not on Jaina philosophy.
Valluvar’s God does not have male or female preference- and He is §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É.
'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்' means "The One beyond likes and dislikes" which has a wider connotation and I am sorry you cannot take it specifically to mean that Valluvar's god has no bias towards men and women.
Here Judaism’s Prayer for every Male is - lord, I thank you for your have not made born me as Female or Dog (means Non-Jews); this Prayer is practised from at least BCE 350 When Judaism Historically was born to till date. Secondly Bible and Quran tells of Chosen People and that israel’s small god converting the River Nile to Blood and Killing of all First Infants of Human and Animals of Egyptians, and certainly this god is not §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É or even the Suprme God.
Very good! I appreciate your 'extension' of the definition of "Beyond likes and Dislikes' to juddge God of the Semitic World. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the Qur'an and Torah, cannot have the previlege of being called 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்'. But I am going to tell you more on this. Since you are so inclined with the concept of a Creator God, let me reproduce below what I have written in my article on "Jaina Ideas in Kural": (Will be uploaded soon at this link: http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvk...uvar/jaina.htm
The phrase "வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்" which means "He who has neither desire nor aversion" has a strong ascetic flavour and would therefore be more relevant to a Jaina or Buddhist ascetic than to a Creator God. In Bhagvad Gita, we see Krishna telling Arjuna that all living entities are born into delusion, overcome by the dualities of desire and hate (7:27). Remember here Lord Krishna is telling about mortals like us. A creator God is not born into delusion for him to be overcome by the dualities of love and hate.
Once again verses of similar import from some Tamil Jaina works like Thirukkampakam (வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமையில்லாத வீரன், 58) and Thiru Nūtranthāthi (ஆர்வமும் செற்றமும் நீக்கிய அச்சுதனே, செய்யுள், 20). However, we also see Appar attributing this quality to Lord Shiva as well: "வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இல்லான் றன்னை" (Tirumurai, 6.46.9). [You will see Appar being different from other Saiva saints in Thirumuŗai, often describing Shiva in Jaina terms! Effect of a hang-over of being a Jaina in the past?]
(4) The God beyond compare
(4) The God beyond compare
To Devapriya:
You wrote:
¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý- Now Mahavira, Buddha, Valluvar, Rishaba Deva, Jesus or Mohammed all are Mortal Souls and Never Valluvar would have referred this to any Man and this has been the interpretation of morethan 95% of Commentators, who looked at them Impartially.
Once again, I reproduce here from what I have written in my article to be uploaded soon at http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvk...uvar/jaina.htm
The attribute of this couplet "thanakkuvamai illāthān" (தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்), meaning "the one beyond compare" could perfectly suit any deity, be it of Brahmana, Śramana or Semitic origin. This attribute of being not equal to others or being unique is easily the commonest quality attributed to God in most religious scriptures.
"No one can compare to You, Lord" (ਤੁਮ ਸਰਿ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਲਾਗੇ) says Guru Grant Sahib (p. 688).
"There is none like unto the Lord our God" (אֵין כַּיהוָה אֱלֹהֵינו), says the Bible (Exodus 8:6).
"There is none comparable unto Him" (وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ) says the Qur'an (Qur’an 112:3-4).
"There is none here below to equal Shiva" (அவனொடு ஒப்பார் இங்கு யாவரும் இல்லை) says the principal text of Saiva Siddhānta, Tirumandiram (verse 5).
"ஒப்பில்லா ஒருவன் றன்னை" (6.26.4), "மற்றாருந் தன்னொப்பார் இல்லாதான் காண்" (6.24.10), "தன்னொப்பு இலானை" (7.68.1) says Thévāram of Thirumurai.
Baghvad Gita says "There exists none who is equal to You" (न त्वत्समः) (Gita, 11:43).
In Samaya-sāra, the Jaina āchāryā Kundakunda describes Jaina God as the one without compare (anovamam)
वन्दित्तु सव्वा सिद्धे धुवम् अचलम् अणोवमं गदिं पत्ते
वोच्चामि समया पाहुडम् इनामो सुय केवली भणियं॥
From the numerous examples cited above, it is evident that this attribute is commonly used for a Creator God. The only religion missing from the list is Buddhism (of course Zoroastrianism and Bahai). I am sure there must be a reference somewhere, either in Theravādā or Mahāyānā tradition, that refers Lord Buddha as "Incomparable".
(5) Sea of Virtue and Wheel of Virtue
(5) Sea of Virtue and Wheel of Virtue
Dear Devapriya:
You said:
«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý- Referring God by the term ”«ó¾½ý” is a Practice to Shiva, Brahma etc., In Sangam Literature itself and never to Jainistic Rishba till atleast next 800 years after Valluvar. «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ is Secular word.
However, Chakravarti (1953), Subramanyam (1983) and Sundaram (1990) mention that F.W. Ellis, who translated the Kuŗal into English in 1812, found the word "anthañan" in the then dictionaries meant only two gods, namely the Brahminical Brahma and Jaina Arugan. The use of the word "anthañan" (அந்தணன்) in the chapter on "Praise of God" is rather surprising, especially when the literal import of this word is "Brahmin". Since it comes under the Chapter 1, it has to be taken as a reference to a godhead.
«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ¾¡û§º÷ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø
À¢ÈÅ¡Æ¢ ¿£ó¾ø «¡¢Ð.
À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£óÐÅ÷ ¿£ó¾¡÷
þ¨ÈÅý «Ê§ºÃ¡ ¾¡÷.
- In both this Kurals Valluvar cannot refer to Deadmen feat, but to the Supreme God, even Diehard Jain or Buddha believer would ask us to follow their Teachings and not on holding feet, Valluvar is very Clear, He refers to Supreme God, and Valluvar when names at 25 Different Kurals various Hindu Deity names, follows Henotheism.
Once again I reproduce here from my article to appear at: http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvk...uvar/jaina.htm
With the word "அழி" meaning both "circle" as well as "sea", the phrase aŗavāzhi (அறவாழி) can be taken to mean, either "sea of virtue" or "wheel of the virtue”. Both the meanings appear to be correct. Similarly the word "பிறவாழி" in the second line could either mean "ocean of births" or "other oceans". As far the common English rendering of couplet eight is concerned, the rendering by Drew and Lazarus has been presented here as an example:
None can swim the sea of births, but those united
To the feet of that Being, a sea of virtue. DL
However, depending on the combination of these meanings chosen, the couplet can also be translated in the following ways:
[i] "Only those who reach the feet of the lord, the ocean of virtue, can cross those other oceans" - * NC. (The other two oceans could be oceans of Wealth and Pleasure)
[ii] "Only by clinging to the feet of the Lord of the wheel of virtue, that one can swim the ocean of this life" * - SG.
But it is the Jaina God Aruhan who is the benevolent Lord with the wheel of Dharma (Chakravarti, 1953) and thus "caused and possesses the circle of virtue" (Sundaram, 1990). Jains believe that human beings are subjected to a continuous cycle of time represented by upward and downward turning of a wheel. The 24th and the last Fordmaker or Tirthankara of the present turning wheel (ஆழி) was Mahavira. Buddhists also believe in cyclical time period. Thus the phrase "அறவாழி அந்தணன்" could also mean Lord Buddha for he is said to have set in motion the wheel of dharma (Dharmachakra), the popular symbol of the Buddhist universal law (Gour, 2001). There is indeed a reference to this effect in Mañimékalai "ஆதி முதல்வன் அறஆழி ஆள்வோன்" (Mañimékalai 6.7)! To make matters worse, even Vishnu, one of the gods of Hindu trinity, has wheel of Vishnu (Vishnuchakra) but there is evidence to show that it can also be called as "Wheel of Dharma". Interestingly in Tiruvāimozhi (திருவாய்மொழி) we find the statement "அறவனை அழிப்படை அந்தணை" referring to "the one of aŗam, the anthañan who has the wheel/disc weapon". Even though saint Nammāzhvār refers to Vishnu here, the use of the three words aŗam, āzhi, and anthañan strongly suggest he has modeled this on the usage in Kuŗal (Palaniappan, undated).
Interestingly many literary works that came after Kuŗal also contain this phrase. I had earlier cited this verse from Kayādara Nigañdu, a Jaina work:
கோதிலருகன் திகம்பரன் எண்குணன் முக்குடையோன்,
ஆதிபகவன் அசோகமர்ந்தோன் அறவாழி அண்ணல்
Emphasizing that the aŗavāzhi anthañan of ThirukKuŗal is none other than Arhat, Venkataramaiyah (2001) cites the following references from several Jaina works in Tamil:
Ceevacintāmañi (1611) "அறவாழியண்ணல் இவன் என்பார்"
Ceevacintāmañi (செய்யுள் 7) "அருளோடெழும் அறவாழியப்பா"
Annūl (செய்யுள் 27) "அறவாழி கொண்டே வென்ற அந்தணனே"
And what about Saiva works? They also contain numerous references to Shiva as "அந்தணன்"
Thirumurai (1.107.1) "அந்தணனைத் தொழுவார் அவலம் அறுப்பாரே"
Thirumurai (2.110.7) "அறவனாகிய கூற்றினைச் சாடிய அந்தணன்"
Thirumurai (6.33.4) "இமையோர் போற்றும் அந்தணனை"
Therefore we have enough evidences in Tamil literature to show that both Jaina, Buddhist, Saiva and Vaishnava deities being called "அந்தணன்". What about "அறவாழி அந்தணன்"? Only in Mañimékalai and many Jaina treatises like Ceevacintāmañi, Ceevacintāmañi etc.
References:
Chakravarti, A. 1953. Kuŗal. Deccan Press, Vepery, Madras. 648 pages
Gour, H.S. 2001. The Spirit of Buddhism. Rupa and Co. pp 590
Palaniappan, S. (undated). The couplet showing Buddhist influence. indology@liverpool.ac.uk
Sundaram, P.S. 1990. Introduction. In: Tiruvalluvar: The Kuŗal. Penguin Books. pp 7-16
Venkataramaiah, K.M. 2001. திருக்குறளும் சமண சமயமும். In: வள்ளுவம்: Valluvam. Editors: Palladam Manickam and E. Sundaramurthy. திருக்குறள் பண்பாட்டு ஆய்வு மையம், விருத்தாச்சலம். Tiruvalluvar Year 2032. Issue No. 14. Pp 14-24.
(6) Life denial and Life affirming
(6) Life denial and Life affirming
To Devapriya:
You wrote:
Now Secondly Both Jainism and Buddhism and even Christinity follow Negative Ethics- Be Disciplined, are else You would Perish; No Enjoyment at all (LIFE NEGATION). Tirukural is more a Postivie Life Oriented Ethics i.e., “World and Life affirmation as Hinduism”. This basic trait completely takes Valluvar away from Jainism. Due to this Jainish ethics say- “must not drink Honey, Do not take Bath, do not Wash Tooth etc., Valluvar is clear on bathing, drinking Honey etc.,
Of course, yes (but why include Christianity here?). The Kural life affirming and it is only because it does not endorse Jaina religious teachings of this type, that it is not considered a work on Jaina philosophy. While Kuŗal is life-affirming, Nāladiyār like any other Jaina work is life-denying. Unlike typical Jaina works, Tirukuŗal does not harp on the transitory nature of life. Valluvar does talk about "Impermanence" (நிலையாமை) and at one place (Kuŗal 345) even asks why carry other attachments when the very body itself is a burden on the way to liberation [PS], but he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are typical of a Jaina work. Emphasizing on the transient nature of youth, Nāladiyār asks not to cherish the love for woman whose beauty will soon disappear when she is old (Nāladiyār 17). But Valluvar on the contrary, in the third division "Love" (காமத்துப்பால்), wondered if heaven can be sweeter than slumbering on the soft shoulders of the women you love (Kuŗal 1103). To cite more examples, Valluvar describes soul as something distinct from the body (Kuŗal 338, 340) but does not go into details of the nature of soul. Being a Jaina ethico-metaphysical anthology, Saman Suttam (Jinendra Varni, 1993) describes soul as consciousness, something eternal, formless and enjoyer of Karmas (23:592). It also differentiates Soul as ajiva and jiva (593, 594) but the Kuŗal makes no such distinctions. I am only saying that Valluvar's ethics has its basis in Jainism and the deity invoked in first chapter suits perfectly for Jaina godhead(s).
Secondly the thoughts such as Vegetarianism and other ethics are the Continuation of Vedic Tradition, Pythogorous who spent 9 years in India, and was the Father of Greek Philosophy, suggests Vegetarianism, no doubt He got from India in 8th Cen BCE, much before Mahaveera founded Jainism. Only that Mahavira emphasised more on this.
I am sorry to say that I disagree with you on this. Studies have shown that the doctrine of ahimsa practices by the Śramanās existed even before the Aryan's came! Many Western scholars like Jacobi, Vincent Smith, Furlong and Zimmer have accepted the Pre-Aryan prevalence of Jainism (Kalghatgi, 1984). I think you need to update your understanding on the history and antiquity of Jainism. In fact I also used to be under the impression that Jainism is an offshoot of Aryan Brahminical 'Hindiusm' but it is not.
What we call "Hinduism" today existed as "Brahmana" sect in the past, and what we call "Jainism" now existed as "Sramana" sect before.
References:
Kalghatgi, T.G. 1984. Jaina View of Life. Lalchand Hirachand Doshi, Jaina Samskrti Samraksaka Sangha, Sholapur. 233 pages
Jinendra Varni (Compiler), 1993. Saman Suttam. Edited by: Sagarmal Jain. Translated by T.K. Tukol and K.K. Dixit. Bhagwan Mahavir Memorial Samiti, New Delhi. pages 290.
(7) Twin deeds of dark illusion
(7) Twin deeds of dark illusion
To Devapriya:
You wrote:
þÕû§º÷ þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡ þ¨ÈÅý
¦À¡Õû§º÷ Ò¸úÒ¡¢ó¾¡÷ Á¡Ðî
The twin deeds of dark illusion do not affect those
Who delight meaningfully in Lord's praise. -----from NVK website.
Here again It is on God’s Praise, and if we say on Dead Great men- I feel a great disservice to Valluvar. And þ¨ÈÅý ¦À¡Õû§º÷- He directs things - is against Jainism.
How do you say Valluvar is praising a creator God here? I think you are being mislead by the word "இறைவன்" here which for most of us, due to years of indoctrination and habituation, regard it as a reference to a creator God. How do you say "இறைவன் பொருள் சேர்" means God directing things? Reproduced below are 10 different translations of the fifth couplet. Will you please browse through them and tell me one translator rendering "இறைவன் பொருள் சேர்" as "God directing things" which you believe is against Jainism?
1) Good and bad, delusion's dual deeds, do not disturb those who delight in praising the immutable, worshipful One (SS)
2) The twin deeds of dark illusion do not affect those who delight meaningfully in Lord's praise (SM Diaz)
3) God's praise who tell, are free from right and wrong, the twins of dreaming night (Suddhananta Bharati)
4) Those lost in the Lord are free from the stain of two-fold human actions (Srinivasa Iyengar)
5) Results of good or bad actions springing from ignorance will not affect those devoted to the true greatness of God (K. Krishnaswamy & Vijaya Ramkumar)
6) The men, who on the 'King's' true praised delight to dwell, affects not them the fruit of deeds done ill or well. (G.U. Pope)
7) The two-fold deeds that spring from darkness shall not adhere to those who delight in the true praise of God. (Drew and Lazarus)
8) The delusions caused by good deeds and bad shall never be theirs who seek God's praises (P.S. Sundaram)
The twin deeds affiliated to darkness of ignorance will not affect those who ever sing the true glory of God (G. Vanmikanathan)
9) They who take delight in praising the real Great will be free from the baneful effects both good and evil actions. (Poornalingam Pillai)
10) The two kinds of dark karmas will never approach those that sing the praise of the Lord (A. Chakravarti)
Now let me come to my understanding of the couplet. Reproduced from my article I am writing:
"இருள்சேர் இருவினையும் சேரா" (The twin deeds of dark illusion) here refers to the fruits of good and evil deeds. Using the word "இருவினை", Rajasingham (1987) interprets this to mean the inseparable dualities in union of the opposites, a characteristic feature of Saiva Siddhānta (eg. Shiva and Sakti as fire and heat, flower and fragrance etc. Tirumandiram 2341, 1137). According to Chakravarti (1953), these twin deeds of dark illusion refer to the two groups of four Destructive Karmās and four harmless Karmās of Jaina philosophy. In Jainism, like in Hinduism and Buddhism, life in this world of Samsārā is associated with Karmic Bondage. Since Jainism does not believe in a Creator God, this effect of Karma on the quality of life has its great emphasis in Jainism.
Uthayakumar (2004) who claims Kuŗal to be a work of a Buddhist, provides an interesting interpretation for "இருள்சேர் இருவினையும் சேரா இறைவன்". According to him the word "இருவினை" refers to the extremes of "self-mortification" and "self-indulgence" and therefore the god (இறைவன்) to be praised here is the One who has avoided these extremes! If we are to go by this interpretation, then the couplet be only translated like this: "Find delight in the meaningful praise of the Lord Who has avoided the twin deeds of darkness". This does not read well simply because the word by used Valluvar is "சேரா", meaning "will not reach or affect" and therefore refers to the devotee than as an attribute of the deity (in this case Lord Buddha). or Vedic deity. However, there is no need to contort the translation like this, since the usual translation itself can mean Lord Buddha. By translating the word "iŗaivan" as Lord, the rendering could be made equally valid for Jaina, Buddhist or Vedic deity.
References:
Chakravarti, A. 1953. Kuŗal. Deccan Press, Vepery, Madras. 648 pages
Rajasingham, C. 1987. Thiruk-Kuŗal: The Daylight of the Psyche. International Institute of Tamil Studies, Madras. p
Uthayakumar, A.S. 2004. இந்திய அரசியல் உதைபந்தாடலில் சிக்கியுள்ள திருக்குறள் பெருநூல்! தமிழ்ப்பௌத்தம்-3. Available at Sooriyan.com. (http://sooriyan.com/index.php?option...=705&Itemid=32)
Tiruvalluvar and Discipline AND HIS RELIGION
Dear Friends,
Mr. NVK said first that many feel that Valluvar was UNorthodox Hindu.
Can he please say why he does not support.
If Valluvar is agianst negative ethics of Jainsism, then how is Valluvar is Jain.
Has NVK read TiruvalluvaMalai and what is his opinion.
How does NVK feel Valluvar is not Hindu, when his Web site clearly gives meanings chosen closer to Hindu etics.
Devapriya- Please give proofs that El- of Bible which forms basis for Quran's Allah as Tamil. I have read many Articles that Allah is just one of the Moon gods of Pre Muhammed Arabia.
I also remember a Tamil Muslim Scholar confirming Allah is from Tamil El in AnanthaVikatan or so. Please give proofs.
Instead of looking at forced interpretation of First Chapter- nvk see in totality of Kurals.
Devapriya respond quicer.
uppuma.
No general statements please
Uppuma said:
Mr. NVK said first that many feel that Valluvar was UNorthodox Hindu. Can he please say why he does not support.
Support what? Please be clear. Are you asking me why I do not support others' argument that Valluvar was an unorthodox Hindu? Have I not given detailed explanations? Please respond to them, point to point, if you think otherwise, instead of making general statements.
Mr. Uppuma says:
If Valluvar is agianst negative ethics of Jainsism, then how is Valluvar is Jain.
Please tell me which ethic of Jainism is Valluvar against. Moreover, I am not saying he was a Jain! I am only stating that his work is based on Jaina ethics, throbs on Jaina principles and the Deity he invokes in Chapter 1 suits well for the Jaina ones. In other words, his work shows considerable Jaina inclinations than any other faith. The author is probably a Jain or some one who had strong likings for Jaina ideals in life.
I have a counter question. Is not Valluvar against the negative ethics of Vedic Hinduism (like animal sacrifice)? Then how do you consider him to be a Hindu? Oh, yes! .... you consider him to an unorthodox or uncoventional Hindu!. Well, in the same manner, what is the problem in calling him an "unorthodox" Jain?
Uppuma also said:
Has NVK read TiruvalluvaMalai and what is his opinion.
Yes I have. Many scholars consider that most of the stuff in Tiruvalluvamalai are spurious stuff! I can produce with citations from different scholars if you want.
How does NVK feel Valluvar is not Hindu, when his Web site clearly gives meanings chosen closer to Hindu etics.
I didn't understand this point. Would be nice if you can indicate the verses that seem to be a Hindu rendering. I can correct them, if I have gone wrong.
Again I am travelling next week. Will be back only by the 23rd. Might get some access to internet in between.
Kural is not a book on Jainism.......
Kural is not a book on Jainism.......
Devapriya wrote:
Jainism says for all men- Sanyasi life is the best way for reaching Birthless postion and this is difficult for Family life. Tiruvalluvar never says that. Jainism says for a Female there is no way Attaining Birthless state- they have to meditate to be born as Male in next birth, so that they can attempt in next birth.
Of course, you are correct. But didn't I reiterate again and again that Valluvar's work is not an exposition of Jaina philosophy but Jaina ideas, particularly ethics?
You also said:
Jainism always wants Sanyasi Life- Tirukural has just 15 Chapters for Thuravu, against entire balance is for Family Life. Even out of 150 Couplets in this Thuraviyal many are for Family Men.
My answer to this question is the same as above.
You mentioned about 7 rituals in Sanyasa dharma of Jainism:
Jainism in Sanyasi Dharma- comples 7 rituals. They are ULOSAM, THIHAMBARAM, NIIRADAMAI, THARAIYIL URANGUTHAL, PAL THEIKAMAI, NINDRU UNNAL AND EKA PUKTHAM. Valluvar virtually is against all of this.
1. Ulosam- While Taking Sanyasam- They need to pull all hairs individually and become Bare headed. Valluvar is against bare head and Too much growth.(Kural -280)
2. Thihambaram- Walking Nakedly. KURAL-1012 & 788 tells us the importance of Dressing.
3. NIRADAMAI- Valluvar even for Thurviyal says in Kural 298 the importance of bathing, and that Sanyasis taking bath in Kural 278.
4. THARAIYIL URANGUTHAL- Valluvar never says about sleeping in Floor, atleast he refers soft bed in Kural 1191.
5. PAL THEIKAMAI- in Kural 1121, when Valluvar refers clean Mouth- certainly He is for Brushing Teeths regularly.
6. NINDRU UNNAL – We don’t find this in any of the Kurals at all.
7. EKA PUKTHAM- Eating only once a Day- Valluvar has not said this anywhere, where as he says Eat again after the earlier food has been Digested i.e., within 6 hours.
Devapriya, again you are taking Kural as a work on Jainsim and more so as a work against the practices of Jaina ascetics! You have picked up verses from here and there and produced them to show that they are against these Jaina monk's practices. Everyone agrees that the Kural extols householdership more than sanyaasa. Be it Hinduims, Buddhism or Jainism. You will never find a mention or refutation of the common ritualistic Jaina or even Hindu or Buddhist practices in the Kural. Because the Kural is not that kind of a work.
You mentioned about the seven Jaina monk rituals, but I hope you are aware fo the six daily duties for a Jaina householder.
Social service is a prominent part of Jaina ethics, and therefore Jainism prescribes six daily duties for every householder (Jain, 1999), some of which are astonishingly similar to what Valluvar said above!
Deva-puja gurupastih svdhyayah samyamas-tapah,
Danam cheti grhasthnam sat karmani dine dine
Mentioned below are the six duties and within brackets the terms used by Valluvar in Kural 43:
தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
God, guests, kindred, ancestors and himself. * SS
(i) Adoration of deity (தெய்வம்),
(ii) Veneration of gurus or ancestors (தென்புலத்தார்),
(iii) Study of scriptures (not mentioned in the couplet)
(iv) Practice of self discipline (தான்),
(v) Penance or austerities (not in this couplet)
(vi) Charity (விருந்தோக்கல்).
Of course penance and study of scriptures are emphasized by Valluvar in other places.
References:
Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith, New Delhi. 234
Couplets against Vedic practice
COUPLETS AGAINST VEDIC PRACTICE
Devapriya wrote:
Valluvar has not a single Kural says any word against Vedic Life, as per it He says a Positive Life Orientation. Where as Jainism and Buddhism are Negative Ethics.
The answer to the second part of this statement of yours, will be provided in my next posting. You said “Where as Jainism and Buddhism are Negative Ethics”. Well, no religion would teach “negative ethics”. I think this sentence of yours should read “Where as Jainism and Buddhism are life negating”. I presume this is what you meant. Please tell me if it is otherwise.
Now coming to the first part of your statement “Valluvar has not a single Kural says any word against Vedic Life”. I am surprised to know this. Only a person who has not read the Kural properly can make a statement like this.
It is not Valluvar’s intention to criticize any particular faith by name, but he has done so in one or two places against some particular practices that was prevalent during his time. Let me again reproduce the following paragraphs from section 1 “Kuŗal's affiliation to various Indian philosophical traditions” of my article which will appear soon at http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvk...uvar/jaina.htm. Here I have compared the Kural with Manu Smriti. Hope you aware that Manu supports varnāshrama dharma. Varnāshrama is one of single most characteristic feature of Hinduism that differentiates between the sramana systems like Buddhism and Jainism.
Here is the part of my article …..
“But the most important reason for considering Manu Smriti as a Vedic text stems from the frequent references Manu makes on the four varnās - the caste system, giving special preference and exceptions to Brahmins. Manu says a Brahmana retains his divinity whether he is learned or ignorant (IX: 317). But Valluvar would say "The ignorant, however high-born, is lower than the low-born learned" PS (409). Thus Manu Smriti abhors varnā system, the Kuŗal has not a word about it. Valluvar, in the following couplet, said inequality arises not by birth but by one's deeds:
Kuŗal 972:
By birth all men are equal. The differences in their action
Render their worth unequal. SM
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). By highlighting the absence of clear cut references to the āśrama scheme (i.e. stages of Student, Householder, Retirement, Renunciation) and the absence of delineation of duties as per the Vedic varņā concept found in Dharma Śāstras like Manu Smriti, Gopalan (1979) concluded that the Kuŗal does not wholly accept all the major ideas of Brahminical Hinduism.
….. We see Manu condemning meat eating, that too in Valluvar's own terms (Manu 5:52 is just like Kuŗal 251!), which makes us believe that Manu promoted vegetarianism. In X:63, Manu declares that abstention from injuring creatures and unlawful appropriation others' goods, veracity, purity, and self control form the summary of the law for all the four castes. Though this sounds very similar to the ethics of Tiruvalluvar, Manu does not consider animal sacrifice as himsa!
Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices;
Sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world);
Hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering. (Manu 5:39)
But the following couplet from Tirukkural condemns animal sacrifice, an age old Vedic practice.
Kuŗal 259:
Better than a thousand burnt offerings
Is one life un-killed, un-eaten. PS
……”
Mr. Devpapryia. You said: “Valluvar has not a single Kural says any word against Vedic Life”. Are these couplets not against Vedic practices? Please remember that it is only for these reasons that Hindu scholars on Tirukkural call Valluvar a “radical” or “unconventional” Hindu! One way of getting out of the troubles like this.
References:
Gopalan, S. 1979. Kuŗal and Indian traditions. In: The Social Philosophy of Kuŗal. Affiliated East-West Press Pvt Ltd. pp 41-74
