THIRUKKURALH

Mr. Devpapriya,

I have been reiterating in this thread that the Kural is not a work on Jaina philosophy or sundry laws and therefore its affiliation to Jainism or any other faith cannot be established by looking for the presence or absence of philosophical or metaphysical statements of that particular faith. Any such attempts will prove futile considering the fact that the Kural is an ethical treatise. One has to look at the ethical teachings embedded in the Kural and look for their similarity with Brahmana, Buddhist or Jaina ethics.

Now let me reproduce what I have written in my article in the last section: “Kuŗal not a work on Jaina philosophy”

“……. The author of Kuŗal might have built his moral percepts based on Jaina ethics, but was careful enough to avoid his work being categorized as a work on Jainism. He seem to have deliberately avoided typical Jaina terms that would have forced modern scholars to list the Kuŗal also along with many other Jaina works like Nāladiyār, Cívakacintāmani, Nílakéci and other works.

Let us also compare the Kuŗal with the Jaina classic Nāladiyār which is often considered an amplified version of Kuŗal (Ramachandran, 2000). No other work than Nāladiyār in Tamil comes so close to Kuŗal in similarity. The quatrains in Nāladiyār are strikingly similar in content and style to the Kuŗal, besides being organized the same way as the Kuŗal. In spite of such similarities, the Kuŗal is not considered a work on Jainism because it differs from Nāladiyār in many respects.

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).

At another place Nāladiyār says: "See how they remove the corpse while kinsfolk gather around and carry it to crematory. Yet he marries and fondly imagines there is happiness in this world". But Valluvar said in couplet 61 that there is nothing worth than begetting intelligent children. Nāladiyār repeatedly despises the body throughout the work. He calls the body unstable (29), impure (43) and valueless (120). And not surprisingly, like in Kundakunda's Ashta Pahuda (AP, 5:42), Nāladiyār also states that the entrails of the body are nothing but marrow, blood, bone, tendons, flesh and fat (46). One would never see such statements in the Kuŗal. While the Kuŗal has an entire chapter on "Cherishing the Kindred" (Chapter 53), Nāladiyār would state that only fools forget the aims of life and continue to live because of the joy they find in domestic relations (182)!

Let us this time take the popular collection of Jaina teachings, Saman Suttam for comparison. Chapter 29 Saman Suttam is about percepts of Meditation but Valluvar never indulged in technicalities of pathways to liberation. Valluvar has only dealt with Realization of Truth (மெய்யுணர்தல்) which is unfalteringly applicable to all faiths. Unlike we see in Saman Suttam, Valluvar has not devoted any chapter to describe the fundamental truths of Jaina philosophy. For instance, 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 describes soul as consciousness, something eternal, formless and enjoyer of Karmas (592). It also differentiates Soul as ajiva and jiva (593, 594) but the Kuŗal makes no such distinctions. Saman Suttam says "Birth is painful, old ages is painful, disease and death are painful, worldly existence where living beings suffer afflictions is also painful" (55).

While Valluvar would emphasize only on moderate eating (couplet 942), a Jaina eithico-philosophical treatise Saman Suttam would state that taking delicious dishes in excessive quantity would simulate lust in a person (293). Valluvar asks in couplet 327 not to remove the dear life of any being even when your own life is under threat. But he does not mention, like Saman Suttam (391-292)t is only these differences that prove to be a decisive factor in categorizing the Kuŗal as non-sectarian work, preventing scholars from regarding it a classic on Janism. Still Valluvar's morals are based on the foundation of Jaina ideas as we have seen in sections 1 and 2 of this article. Even though the very foundation of Valluvar's moral prescriptions is Jaina-based, he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are life negating.

To conclude, let us revert back to Nílakési's Jaina commentator Vamana Munivar's reference to the Kuŗal as the scripture of Jains. This cannot be the case for two reasons. Firstly, the Kuŗal is not a scripture and is very unlike like some works such as Tirumandiram or even Nāladiyār in that respect. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the Kuŗal was written for any particular community. The author addresses humanity at large, his sole objective being to raise every man to the level sānrõr and live with fame. …..”

Reference:
Ramachandran, T.N. 2000. A note on the significance and the history of editions as well as translations of the Nāladiyār. In: The Nāladiyār. Translation by S. Anavaratavinayakam Pillai. International Institute of Tamil Studies, Chennai. pp 1-10.

Thiru Ashroff

VaNakkam.

I have to thank you for your replies.

Like a Sangappulavar, you are prepared to place yourself in a forum to answer queries. I have to commend you for the adoption of this method, unlike other ordinary authors (regardless of whatever degrees they may have to decorate their names ) who prefer to work in academic isolation to avoid questions. The fact that you are ready to place yourself in the forefront for public scrutiny of your research material is proof of your scholarship in your research area.

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.

Dear Friends,

NVKji wants to search to derive what he wants from Kural than what is directly Said.

The Problem is while you agree with most of the points raised, and

//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.//

Biased against WOMEN
//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)

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'.//


On Negative Trait of Jainism
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.

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.//

Assumptions on Early Jainism
//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.//

Why Bring the Artificial Aryan Nonsense Here- and I have to bring VIVEKANANDA’S VIEW HERE -
//In India we have fallen during the last few centuries into a fixed habit of unquestioning deference to Authority. .. We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Henotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainty with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.
So Great is the force of Generalisation and widely popularised errors that all the world goes on Perpetuating the blunder talking of the Indo-European Races claiming or disclaiming Aryan Kinship and building on that basis of falsehood the most far-reaching Political, social or Pseudo Scientific Conclusion.’// -Swami Vivekananda

The Missionary minded Indologists who found that Sanskrit was Mother of Greek and Latin- which in turn were the Eldest of Most European Languages, and the amount of Depth and Knowledge in it brought the “Aryan” Invasion Myths- i.e., Indians are not capable of such a Wealth Language and Civilisation. It is a continual attack to run down India's great accomplishments and Civilisation...

Proper Study of Harappah and Mohanjadero now confirms that most of its Contents are Aryan, And the Speculation of the Seals being Proto Dravidian is weakening. Even the Die-hard Aryan Incoming Supporters put that from BCE7000- 1500. Linguists who worked with Tamil, popularly Identified as Dravidianists from Caldwell, Burrows etc., – All say Dravidians came around 3000 BCE and later to India from Outside.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA : “There is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans ever came from anywhere outside India.... The whole of India is Aryan, nothing else.”

U.S. archaeologist Jim Shaffer puts it : “Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from prehistoric to historic periods”

Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, biological anthropologist at Cornell University, U.S.A., who has worked extensively on Harappan sites to study human skeletal remains, concludes unambiguously: “Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity.... What the biological data demonstrate is that no exotic races are apparent from laboratory studies of human remains excavated from any archaeological sites, including those accorded Aryan status [by the old school]. All prehistoric human remains recovered thus far from the Indian subcontinent are phenotypically identifiable as ancient South Asians.... In short, there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture.”

J. M. Kenoyer, who is still pursuing excavations at Harappa, is even more categorical :There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC.

NVK in reply to Uppuma Said
//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.//

Now we can See What is Dubious-See Bismala’s Nonsense-//Gita was also composed after the era of sangap pulavar Kapilar, "sitaanaam kapilO muni" says Gita, a clear reference to kapilar, the sangam Tamil poet//-

Puram166. ¡Óõ ¦ºø§Å¡õ! À¡ÊÂÅ÷: ç÷ ãÄí ¸¢Æ¡÷.
À¡¼ôÀ𧼡ý : §º¡½¡ðÎô âﺡüê÷ô À¡÷ôÀ¡ý ¦¸ª½¢Âý Å¢ñ½ó¾¡Âý. ¾¢¨½: Å¡¨¸. ШÈ: À¡÷ÀÀÉ Å¡¨¸.

¿ý È¡öó¾ ¿£û ¿¢Á¢÷º¨¼
ÓÐ Ó¾øÅý Å¡ö §À¡¸¡Ð,
´ýÚ ÒÃ¢ó¾ ®Ã¢ ÃñÊý,
Ú½÷ó¾ ´Õ ÓÐáø this Song, in subsequent line refers the Presence of different belief groups. Now Painkat Parppan(Brahahmin- Siva continuously says- ®Ã¢ÃñÊý- 2 x 2 = 4Vedas, which has 6 Braches and are 1.Siksha, 2. Chandas 3. Viyakarnam 4. Niruktham 5. Jothisham and 6. Kalpam. Are perfectly referred in the above song and these names are given in detail in Mankmekhalai
'¸üÀõ ¨¸ ºó¾õ ¸¡ø ±ñ ¸ñ ,
¦¾ü¦Èý ¿¢Õò¾õ ¦ºÅ¢ º¢ì¨¸ ãìÌ
¯üÈ Å¢Â¡¸Ã½õ Ó¸õ ¦ÀüÚî
º¡÷À¢ý §¾¡ýÈ¡ ý §Å¾ìÌ
¾¢ «ó¾õ þø¨Ä «Ð ¦¿È¢' ±Ûõ
§Å¾¢Âý ¯¨Ã¢ý Å¢¾¢Ôõ §¸ðÎ

Now Vedics are split as 6 Philosophies-
1. Vaiseshikam - Ganathar(Author)
2. Niyayam - Gouthamar
3. Sankiyam - Kapilar
4. Yogam - Pathanjali
5. Mimamsaa - jaimini
6. Vethantham - Vetha Viyasa now all these have been referred with few author names in Manimekhalai.
À¢È÷ ¦º¡Äì ¸Õ¾ø þô ¦ÀüȢ «Ç¨Å¸û
À¡íÌÚõ ¯§Ä¡¸¡Â¾§Á ¦Àªò¾õ
º¡í¸¢Âõ ¨¿Â¡Â¢¸õ ¨Å§ºÊ¸õ
Á£Á¡ïº¸õ õ ºÁ º¢Ã¢Â÷ , 27-080
¾¡õ À¢Õ¸üÀ¾¢ º¢É§É ¸À¢Äý
«ì¸À¡¾ý ¸½¡¾ý ¨ºÁ¢É¢
¦ÁöôÀ¢Ãò¾¢Âõ «ÛÁ¡Éõ º¡ò¾õ
¯ÅÁ¡Éõ «Õò¾¡Àò¾¢ «À¡Åõ
þ¨Å§Â þô§À¡Ð þÂýÚ ¯Ç «Ç¨Å¸û'
±ýÈÅý ¾ý¨É Å¢ðÎ 'þ¨ÈÅý ®ºý' ±É
¿¢ýÈ ¨ºÅ Å¡¾¢ §¿÷ÀξÖõ

See what earlier Bismala’s Blabber, and now another would quote Bismala and that becomes a Proven- one(Nonsense). GITA REFERS SANKIYAM AUTHOR KAPILA. THESE TYPE OF HALF BAKED NONSENSE ONLY PUTS TIURVALLUVAMALAI AS DUBIOUS.

One can easily say the Manuscripts we have both KURAL and ValluvaMalai are of equal dating and for any body to say one Is OK and Other is not Spurious, and Authors like Maraimalai Aadigal, Pavanar, Appadurai Ka.Su.Pillai etc., etc., stands discredited for their highly Partial and Unwarranted way of Research and Quiet a few Voices against this Fraudulent Thani-Tamil movement has been already been given in the earlier Pages of same Thread.

Because in the name of Indology, the Missionaries made such a Fraud and spread Hatred against Vedas and the Design of This is confirmed by Maxmuller in letter to HIS WIFE, OXFORD, December 9, 1867.
“…I feel convinced, though I shall not live to see it, that this edition of mine and the translation of THE VEDA will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the ROOT OF THEIR RELIGION, and to show them what that root is, I feel sure, the ONLY WAY OF UPROOTING all that has sprung from it during the last 3,000 years.”

Now I suggest every one should read Swami.Dayanand Saraswathi on the Fradulant Translations of Maxmuller, and much more easily by Dr.B.R.Bharti- “Maxmuller a Masquerade”, After the English Church sent Highly Knowledgeable Rev. Adams to Convert Sir.Rajaram Mohanrai and his Brahma Samaj as Christians- Mohanrai who is Scholar of Greek, Hebrew,Perrsian and Arabi along with Sanskrit proved Adams that Vedas are Monotheistic where as Semitic Religions are Polytheistic and Rev.Adams was converted to Brahmos. Oxford University which had a Chair for Sanskrit – setup by an Officer of British served in India Colonel Boden – to read Sanskrit for Conversion Purposes was used and Maxmuller was appointed to do this Job. Now Dr.B.R.Bharti’s book has Copies of the Colonel Boden of early 19th Cen. Will of that Sanskrit Chair Creation and various letters of Maxmuller, and on Maxmuller’s Hynotheism, and How He Continued to Work for Missionary works.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA //”We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Hynotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainity with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.”//

Many authors have speculated Kural with Samana and Buddha ideologies simply
`because of the Hatred run on Vedas by Missionaries to Pavanar with highly Tendentious Conversion morives. So to say Valluvamalai is dubious itself is dubious, but I still do not need VALLUVAMALAI alone to analyse KURAL.

Kural is one of the most popular of all Tamil scriptures, why?- Because of its method of not putting Religious motive over Ethics. More than that From Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam we have about Tamil Society- Tamil Society is filled with Vedas, (Though Valluvar has accepted Caste by indirect references, but he has not touched in depth.) along with its good culture it also tells us that Polygamy and Polyandry was prevalent, Prostitution was available, Premarital Sex, Drinking of Wine was done by all including Women, Killing of Animals and eating in God worship are present. Where as Kural is against all this. Certainly Valluvar shows his lwanings to Hinduism and says much against Jainism.

These Dubious Thani Tamil Scholars took few odd verses positive only about Tamil Civilisation and extensively used Kural for their Highly Partial works.
I give-Historian M. G. S. Narayanan, who finds in Sangam literature –
“no trace of another, indigenous, culture other than what may be designated as tribal and primitive.” And concludes :
“The Aryan-Dravidian or Aryan-Tamil dichotomy envisaged by some scholars may have to be given up since we are unable to come across anything which could be designated as purely Aryan or purely Dravidian in the character of South India of the Sangam Age. In view of this, the Sangam culture has to be looked upon as expressing in a local idiom all the essential features of classical “Hindu” culture. M. G. S. Narayanan, “The Vedic-Puranic-Shastraic Element in Tamil Sangam Society and Culture,” in Essays in Indian Art, Religion and Society, p. 128.

Nilakanta Sastri goes a step further and opines,
“There does not exist a single line of Tamil literature written before the Tamils came into contact with, and let us add accepted with genuine appreciation, the Indo-Aryan culture of North Indian origin.”

Previous Researchers and Conclusions
//Please explain me how. I am keen to know and even ready to revert my opinions on my Jaina foundation of Tirukkural if the explanations given are found satisfactory. After all, in the past, I also used to deny the claims of Kural's Jaina affinity! Whether Valluvar was a Jain or not, his work is dominated by Jaina ideas! By the by who is Tho Po Me?//

//You also wrote:
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.

You are giving the impression that only Hinduism I mentioned earlier about the pre-Aryan existence of Jainism. Well, it didn't exist as "Jainism" like what we call now, just like what we Hinduism today did not exist as Hinduism in the past! Jains were called "Śramanās" (Strivers or Equals) in the past and Buddhist texts have numerous reference to them as naked ascetics. The historicity of the 23th Tirthankara 'Parsva' of Jains has been established and is accepted by most Scholars. Writes I.C. Sharma (1991) in his book on Ethical philosophies of India (on page 121, Johnsen Publishing Company, New York) "There is no doubt that Mahavira cannot be considered the founder of Jaina religion, for he was only a reformer or rejuvenator of Jainism".

History has shown that every religion has taken and given ideas to other religions. I agree that Islam was an offshoot of Judaism and Christianity, and Judaism itself owes a lot to Zoroastrianism. You may say Buddhism evolved from Brahiminical 'Hinduism', but not Jainism. Ninian Smart (1964. In: Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy, Allen and Unwin, p 163), one of the greatest of religious scholars known in the West, mentions that the Indian view of Karma was doubtless of non-Aryan provenance and it was a kind of natural law.//

I am Sorry again, Unless Some Scholar tells me where from they found what is Aryan and what is Non Aryan and what was their Source, from which Century these material belong and Allen is not the first on all this meaningless speculations, Albert Schweitzer had said this also, but which Old Literature tells this. As I said Allen quote Schweitzer and another quotes both, but what was the Source for this Speculation? And I can only Point out that Earlier the Fraudulent claims of Archaeology proves Aryan Invasion and that Lord Shiva being Dravidian God. The Very Noun Siva or Lingam Worship does not appear in Sangam- TholKappiyam- Kural- Mainmekhalai Period, and Silapathikaram explains temples only using Perishable items for Idols, and no mention of Stone Idols. Where as Siva, Lingam worship all are there in Rig, and Lord Muruga worship is there in Rig as in the name of Marutham.

No Jainism work is dated earlier than middle of 3rd Century BCE, and its Linguistic research confirms it has developed from Vedic Hinduism. All Western Scholars and Tamil Chauvinists wants to give of any Speculative claim of not Veda but else, gave rise to the Pavanar Group and Church to claim that Tirukural was a Christian work and Valluvar was converted to Christianity by Apostle Saint.Thomas personally, and the books written in the name of Dr.M.Deivanayagam had foreword from M.Karunanithi and others, whereas Today the Church researchers doubt an existence of such Thomas at all. But Deivanayagam’s work and ArchBishop Aruallappa trying to fabricate OLD PALM LEAF MANSUCRIPTS to prove Valluvar as Christian all ended as a shame- and details on these can be seen from www.hamsa.org articles on ArchBishop Aruallappa, Deivanayagam and Acharya Paul.

NVKji’s following sentence is really surprising-
//I have a counter question. Is not Valluvar against the negative ethics of Vedic Hinduism (like animal sacrifice)?//

Is Hinduism means Animal Sacrifice only- why this much Hate on Hinduism?

Now Old Testament’s Torah-first Five Book- called as Towrath in Islam Tradition- the laws given by the local god yhwh or moon god allah and dated to 350-250BCE was summarised by a Christian Convert African Maths Professor- “that local god wanted The Jerusalem Temple’s Priest must eat 88 Pigeons every day and that god wanted killing of 400- 1600 Goats every minute every day.”

The Missionaries and Thani Tamil Scholars have been picking up few odd verses from here and there and produced them to spread Falsehood against Hinduism. I am giving a small collection of Verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice.

Vedas and agamas, Hinduism's Scriptures
LET YOUR AIMS BE COMMON, and your hearts be of one accord, and all of you be of one mind, so you may live well together. Rig Veda Samhita 10.191
Protect both our species, two-legged and four-legged. Both food and water for their needs supply. May they with us increase in stature and strength. Save us from hurt all our days, O Powers! Rig Veda Samhita 10.37.11. VE, 319
One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head.
Rig Veda Samhita, 10.87.16, FS 90
Peaceful be the earth, peaceful the ether, peaceful heaven, peaceful the waters, peaceful the herbs, peaceful the trees. May all Gods bring me peace. May there be peace through these invocations of peace. With these invocations of peace which appease everything, I render peaceful whatever here is terrible, whatever here is cruel, whatever here is sinful. Let it become auspicious, let everything be beneficial to us. Atharva Veda Samhita 10. 191. 4
Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices. Atharva Veda Samhita 19.48.5. FS, 90
If we have injured space, the earth or heaven, or if we have offended mother or father, from that may Agni, fire of the house, absolve us and guide us safely to the world of goodness. Atharva Veda Samhita 6.120.1. VE, 636
You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32. FS, 90
May all beings look at me with a friendly eye. May I do likewise, and may we all look on each other with the eyes of a friend. Yajur Veda 36.18.
Nonviolence is all the offerings. Renunciation is the priestly honorarium. The final purification is death. Thus all the Divinities are established in this body.
Krishna Yajur Veda, Prana Upanishad 46-8. VE, 413-14
To the heavens be peace, to the sky and the earth; to the waters be peace, to plants and all trees; to the Gods be peace, to Brahman be peace, to all men be peace, again and again-peace also to me! O earthen vessel, strengthen me. May all beings regard me with friendly eyes! May I look upon all creatures with friendly eyes! With a friend's eye may we regard each other! Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita 36.17-18. VE, 306; 342
No pain should be caused to any created being or thing.
Devikalottara agama, JAV 69-79. RM, 116
The Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, Epic History
The very name of the cows is aghnya, indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who, then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a bull commits the most heinous crime. Mahabharata, Shantiparva 262.47. FS,pg. 94
The purchaser of flesh performs himsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and eats it -all of these are to be considered meat-eaters.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.40. FS, pg 90
He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.47. FS, pg. 90
One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Yielding to desire and acting differently, one becomes guilty of adharma. Mahabharata 18.113.8.
Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of injury. Mahabharata 18.115.8.
Ahimsa is the highest dharma. Ahimsa is the best tapas. Ahimsa is the greatest gift. Ahimsa is the highest self-control. Ahimsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahimsa is the highest power. Ahimsa is the highest friend. Ahimsa is the highest truth. Ahimsa is the highest teaching.
Mahabharata 18.116.37-41.
He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in all that is-immortal in the field of mortality-he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path. Bhagavad Gita 13. 27-28. BgM, pg. 101
Nonviolence, truth, freedom from anger, renunciation, serenity, aversion to fault-finding, sympathy for all beings, peace from greedy cravings, gentleness, modesty, steadiness, energy, forgiveness, fortitude, purity, a good will, freedom from pride-these belong to a man who is born for heaven. Bhagavad Gita 16.2-3. BGM, pg. 109
AHIMSA IS NOT CAUSING pain to any living being at any time through the actions of one's mind, speech or body. Sandilya UpanishadWhen mindstuff is firmly based in waves of ahimsa, all living beings cease their enmity in the presence of such a person. Yoga Sutras 2.35. YP, pg. 205
Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world. Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.5.4. FS, pg, 90 .
Vedas now with the Archeological support of River Saraswathi which started drying up by 2200 BCE, and completely dried by 1900 BCE, has to be dated to earlier than 2000 BCE, and we see many voices in Upasnishads itself against Sacrifics and Karmas. Upanishads are traditionally dated to 1000BCE to 600BCE, by Western Indologists who want to fit TORAH- World CREAtion myths by lord Chronology- in 4004 BCE, and Vedas to 2000-1000BCE. But with ..

I would like to reiterate my stand that the Kural is a work based on on Jaina ethics and not a work on Jainism. I have mentioned that again and again and many people in this forum have not understood this. All your points in your last posting are reflection of this misunderstanding.

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.

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


//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.//

The Question is not All followers of their Respective Religions had called or not the Question is Valluvar who specifically Avoided Naming God would have used it for a mortal Man- either Rishaba – or Mahavira. My Answer is Not Possible.

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'

- Again No doubt Every Religious follower would call its founder or their Deity as 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்' means "The One beyond likes and dislikes- but Would Valluvar give it to a Sect’s (founder) who denies Moksha to One half of the Population. My Answer is know.

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.

BOTH Siva and Brahma is called Brahmin as bewlow
¾¢ «ó¾½ý «È¢óÐ Àâ ¦¸¡ÙÅ,
§Å¾ Á¡ âñ ¨ÅÂò §¾÷ °÷óÐ,
¿¡¸õ ¿¡½¡, Á¨Ä Å¢øÄ¡¸,
ãŨ¸ ÷ ±Â¢ø µ÷ «Æø-«õÀ¢ý ÓÇ¢Â, 25

Á¡¾¢Ãõ «ÆÄ, ±öÐ «ÁÃ÷ §ÅûÅ¢ô
À¡¸õ ¯ñ¼ ¨Àí ¸ð À¡÷ôÀ¡ý
¯¨Á¦Â¡Î Paaaripadal

The Calling of God as Brahmin – Anthanan was never done in Jain Tamil Literature for atlease 500 years after Valluvar, where as it is existing in Hinduism even before Valluvar.


«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 Again Valluvar who is from Indic Tradition and not a Political type of Semitic Religion where Accept my god and get Moksha and do these rituals or else You are God’s Enemy- Indic Tradition always allows that a mountain can be claimed from several Sides, and All rivers join same Ocean- so to say This is The Way- could only be applied to Supreme God- In both the above Kural Valluvar is clear that is the Only way. No doubt that during Valluvar days –all Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism where there- AND Valluvar by calling Supreme God’s feet very clearly rejects the Agnostic Religions. To Aravazi Viran or Aravazi Arasan could bring the meaning Jainists extract, but the term Valluvar used is One Clearly confirms his Leanings. Jaina Mortal Deities being called Brahmin is much later than Valluvar to site them as examples, where as I Quote Prior to it and as you also agreed.

//Of course I agree with your observation that we should not depend on works that came after Tirukkural as proofs because the later authors have only employed phrases from a work that must have been very popular during their times.//

¸¼×û Å¡úòÐ Paripadal 8. ¦ºù§Åû
À¡ÊÂÅ÷ :: ¿øÄóÐÅÉ¡÷ ¨ºÂ¨Áò¾Å÷ :: ÁÕòÐÅý ¿øÄî;ɡ÷
Àñ :: À¡¨Ä¡ú -¾¢ÕôÀÃíÌýÈò¾¢ý «¨ÁôÒõ º¢ÈôÒõ

ÁñÁ¢¨º---«Å¢úÐÆ¡ö ÁÄ÷¾Õ ¦ºøÅòÐô
ÒûÁ¢¨ºì ¦¸¡Ê§Â¡Ûõ, Òí¸Åõ °÷§Å¡Ûõ,
ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º Ó¾øÅÛõ, ÁüÚ «ÅÉ¢¨¼ò §¾¡ýÈ¢
¯ÄÌ Õû «¸üȢ À¾¢ýÁÕõ, ÕÅÕõ,
ÁÕóÐ ¯¨Ã ÕÅÕõ, ¾¢ÕóÐ áø ±ñÁÕõ

So Anthanan, MalarMisai are more in vogue for Hindus much prior toValluvar, where as Jainism used it much later.
Now I just show that most of the titles used by Valluvar is more better suited to Hinduism(- the following in Baamini Script) and Siva here..

jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk;>
'Mjp ghjNk Xjp ca;k;kpNd"
'gukd; gftd; guNkr;Rtud; godefuhNu" (1:67:4)

,iwtid 'thywptd;" (flTs; tho;j;J> 2) vdf; Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh;.
thywptd; vd;why; Jha mwptpdd;> epiwe;j QhdKilatd; vdg; nghUs;.
jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk;> 'Qhdj;jpusha; epd;w ngUkhd;" (1:69:3) vd ,iwtidg;
Nghw;Wfpd;whh;.

jpUts;St; ,iwtd; md;gh;fspd; neQ;rkhfpa jhkiukyhpy; tPw;wpUg;gtd; vd
'kyh;kpir Vfpdhd;" (Fws;> 3) vd Fwpg;gpLtJk;> jpUQhdrk;ge;jh; 'kyh;kpir
naOjU nghUs;" (1:21:5) vd;W ,iwtdg; Nghw;WtJk; xg;Gnehf;fj;jf;fJ.

,iwtd; mwf;flyhf tpsq;Ftij ts;Sth; 'mwthop" ((Fws;> 8) vd;fpd;whh;.
jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk; ,iwtd; mwtbtpdd; vd;gij mwpTWj;Jfpd;whh; (1:9:2> 2:199:11).

,iwtdpd ; Fzqf;fs;:;: ,iwtid 'vz;Fzj;jhd;" (Fws;> 9) vd ts;Sth;
Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh;. jd;taj;jdhjy; (Rje;juKilatd;) Jhaclk;gpddhjy;>
,ay;ghfNt ghrq;fis ePf;fpatd;> ,aw;if czh;tpdd;> Kw;Wzh;tpdd;>
NguUSilatd;> Kbtpyhw;wYilatd;> tuk;gpypd;gKilatd; vd vz;Fzq;fisg; ghpNkyofh; Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh;. jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk; ,iwtd; vz;Fzj;jpdd; vdf; Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh; (1:131:1)

Now NVKji says-
//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
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

(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).//

I AM really feeling that NVKji is tended to carry on with misinterpretation of Kural, by picking A Kural and searching something similar in Jainism, (probably some Book has already done that) and somehow suit it (wrongly) and I quote his interpretation in previous post for the same Kural-

//The word "theyvam" here can easily be taken to mean a Creator God. Social service is a prominent part of Jaina ethics, and therefore Jainism prescribes six daily duties for every householder: Adoration of deity, veneration of gurus (ancestors), study of scriptures, practice of self discipline, observance of fasts and charity. Thus the word "theyvam" could well mean the adoration of a Jaina god, be it a Tirthankara, Arhat or Siddha.//

The Orthodox Hindu Tradition- gives much more importance to Pithuru KARMAS-
“Then Pulathar” over even Worship of God- i.e., When A Family Person Dies, all his Blood Relatives need to carry rituals for One year and During that One year They do not visit Temples, or do Fesitival Worships in Home, and even not put Kolam outside their home, and also every month’s New Moon Day- The same, then comes Mahalaya New Moon day etc., ie., Pithru Karma over God worship, and this Kural confirms the order very clearly of that, and as Hindu Tradition with this five duties- Sixth comes Paying Taxes for the country. Veneration of Guru is not certainly ThenPulathar- as Sangam and SILApathikaram uses this term only for your Direct Blood Relations.

Purananuru says that - For a War- Young men Who has not got sons to do Thenpulathar Kadamai should not be taken for fighting, and this has gone to Jews, and till date Israel gives concession to Young First Sons - need not be in frontal positions.


So this Kural is more of confirming to Orthodox Hinduism.
தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
Ancestors God, guests, kindred, and himself. * SS

Jainism that being Born as Human is an Unwanted act and that We need to be doing Penance, always and Fasting is advised to all for most of the Occasions and this is not a Philosophy but the Fundamental Root of Jainism and Jains are referred in AkaNanuru as உண்ணாமையின் உயங்கிய மருங்கின்
ஆடாப் படிவத்து ஆன்றோர் போல, - Valluvar never gives importance for Fasting.

And on use of God names- NVKji says // செய்யவள் is found in Cilappadikāram (2.12.69)//

The Unwanted elements of Scholarship made Tamil research as meaningless, there is a famous quote from abroad- “Politics is the Last refuge of Unwanted Elements”. The Kannadiga- E.V.Ramasamy Naicker said “ Tamil and Tamil Chavunism is the Last refuge of Unwanted Elements” and
EVR further said said -
“ ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âý ஆâÂì ÜÄ¢. ஆâ ¾÷Áò¨¾§Â ¾Á¢ú þÄ츽Á¡¸î ¦ºöРŢð¼ Á¡¦ÀÕõ ЧḢ.
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅý «ì¸¡Äò¾¢üÌ ²üÈ Å¨¸Â¢ø ஆâ ¸ÕòÐìÌ ஆ¾Ã× ¦¸¡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. I just want to bring this to the notice of all.

Now Can Silapathikaram can fully be ascribed as Jainistic- much doubtful- and I Quote “Viththuvan
“கோவலன் கண்ணகியர் இன்ன சமயத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவர் என்று சிலபதிகாரத்தில் குறிப்பிடப் படவில்லை. சமணத்துறவி கவுந்தியடிகள் அவ்விருவர்க்கும் வழித் துணையாகிறார். வைணவ மாதரி அவ்விருவரை விருந்தோம்புகின்றாள். சைவ செங்குட்டுவன் தெய்வக் கல் எடுக்கின்றான். எந்த் மதத்தையும் தழுவாமல் கடவுள் பற்றுடைய இள்ங்கோ அடிகள் இவ்விருவரையும் பாடுகின்றார்.
மதுரை செல்ல நினைத்த கோவலன் கண்ணகியர், வீட்டைக் கடந்து, திருமால் கோட்டத்தையும் இந்திர விகாரத்தையும், சாரணர் சிலாதலத்தயும் தொழுது சென்று காவிரிக் கரையை அடைகின்றனர். சிலப்பதிகாரத்தில் இப்பகுதியை படிக்கும் போது காவியத் தலைமக்களின் மதச்சார்பு ந்மக்கு புலப்படவில்லை. ஆனால் மணிமேகலை பௌத்த மதத்தைச் சார்ந்தவல் என்று இந்நூலில் தெளிவாய்த் தெரிகிறது.//

Silapathikaram and even Manimekhalai gives such a wide information on Tamil Society during Sangam Period and high details on Vedas, Of course always Maimekhalai uses better words for Buddhism and Anti- Hinduism - which is absent in Silapathikaram. Silapathikaram, Author puts much in Praise of Samanam in One Character KavunthiAdigal. But majority supports Vedic Hinduism, which I shall put here or in other Appropriate thread.

Where as Thani- Tamil Scholars went on to go by the Jainistic Probaganda- that Silapathikaram and Kural are Jainistic, with very flimsy few picked verses. Even few went on to say that Marai or Vetham or Ooththu in Tholkappiyam, Sangam-Kural – Manimekhalai could be some Non Existent Tamil Vedams etc., and The Missionary Motived Pavanar had to himself has to admit-

// " Nalvetham or Nanmarai, Arangam Agamam enbana ellam Arya Noolkale enbathum, Thirukural thavira ippothulla Pandai Noolkalellam Anthanar enbathum Brahmararie Kurikkum Enpathu Sariye. Page- 102 Tamilar Matham.//


As for as Vedic Sects itself- Sankiyam Philosophy authored by KapilaMuni was against Sacrifices and Practised Ahimsa. (Dr.S.Radakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol-2, P.307) and also Dr.S.Radakrishnan in Vol-1, Pages 148-149 shows that during Upanishad times itself Animal Sacrifices have lost its importance.

Indian Culture and Civilisation is the Oldest and If Foreigners wrote meaninglessly, then the Indian by Birth, but Christian Fathers- and writers did it, and MahaKavi Bharati condemns it in his Short ARTICLE called Á¾¢ôÒ

þó¾¢Â¡¨Å ¦ÅÇ¢Ôĸò¾¡÷ À¡Á羺õ ±ýÚ ¿¢¨ÉìÌõÀÊ ¦ºö¾ Ó¾ü ÌüÈõ ¿õÓ¨¼ÂÐ. ÒÈì¸ÕÅ¢¸û ÀÄ. ӾġÅÐ, ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢. «¦Áâ측ŢÖõ ³§Ã¡ôÀ¡Å¢Öõ º¢Ä ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸û, ¾í¸û Á¾ Å¢„ÂÁ¡É À¢Ãº¡Ãò¨¾ ¯ò§¾º¢òÐ ¿õ¨Áì ÌÈ¢òÐô ¦Àâ ¦Àâ ¦À¡ö¸û ¦º¡øÄ¢, þôÀÊ𠾡úóÐ §À¡ö Á¸ð¾¡É «¿¡¸Ã¢¸ ¿¢¨Ä¢ø þÕìÌõ ƒÉí¸¨Çì ¸¢È¢ŠÐ Á¼ò¾¢§Ä §º÷òÐ §Áý¨ÁôÀÎòÐõ Òñ½¢Âò¨¼î ¦ºöž¡¸î ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¸û. þóÐì¸û ÌÆ󨾸¨Ç ¿¾¢Â¢§Ä §À¡Î¸¢È¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, Šòâ¸¨Ç (Ó츢ÂÁ¡¸, «¿¡¨¾¸Ç¡öô ÒÕ„÷¸¨Ç þÆóÐ ¸¾¢Â¢øÄ¡Áø þÕìÌõ ¨¸õ¦Àñ¸¨Ç) ¿¡ö¸¨Çô §À¡Ä ¿¼òи¢È÷¸û ±ýÚõ ÀÄÅ¢¾Á¡É «ÀÅ¡¾í¸û ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¡÷¸û. ¿õÓ¨¼Â ƒ¡¾¢ô À¢Ã¢×¸Ç¢¦Ä þÕìÌõ ÌüÈí¸¨Ç¦ÂøÄ¡õ â¾ì¸ñ½¡Ê ¨ÅòÐì ¸¡ðθ¢È¡÷¸û. þó¾ì ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸Ç¡§Ä ¿ÁìÌ §¿÷ó¾ «ÅÁ¡Éõ «ÇÅ¢ø¨Ä. Barathiyar, ¸ðΨÃ- Á¾¢ôÒ

Another example- The Unwanted item in India - the Caste system is put as Vedic -the Truth is the Opposite- as I QUOTE I put these from Dravidian protogonist Gilbert Slater
- who gives from Maxmuller, and I Quote from Tamil Translation by PanmozhiPulavar Appadurai.
ÁÛÅ¢ø ÌÈ¢ì¸ôÀðÎ þýÚ ÅÆ츢ÖûÇ º¡¾¢ Ó¨È §Å¾í¸Ç¢ý Á¢¸ô ÀƨÁÂ¡É ºÁÂò ¾òÐÅí¸Ç¢ø þ¼õ ¦ÀÚ¸¢È¾¡? "þø¨Ä" ±ýÈ ´§Ã¦º¡øÄ¢ø ¿¡õ «¨¾ «Øò¾Á¡¸ ÁÚðÐÅ¢¼Ä¡õ. ¦ÀÕﺢì¸ø Å¡öó¾ º¡¾¢ «¨ÁôÒ Ó¨Èò ¾¢ð¼òÐìÌ §Å¾ Ýì¾í¸Ç¢ø ±ò¾¨¸Â ¾ÃÓõ þø¨Ä. «Ð §À¡Ä§Å Ýò¾¢Ãâý þÆ¢¾¨¸ ¿¢¨Ä¨ÁìÌ ¾¡Ã§Á¡; Àø§ÅÚ ÅÌôÀ¢É÷ ´Õí§¸ ÌØÁ¢ Å¡Æ, ´Õí§¸ ¯ñ½ô ÀÕ¸ò ¾¨¼ Å¢¾¢ìÌõ ±ó¾î ºð¼§Á¡; Àø§ÅÚ º¡¾¢Â¢É÷ ¾õÓû ´ÕÅÕ즸¡ÕÅ÷ Á½ ¯È× ¦¸¡ûŨ¾ò ¾ÎìÌõ ӨȨÁ§Â¡; «ò¾¨¸Â Á½ ¯ÈÅ¡ø ÅÕõ À¢û¨Ç¸ÙìÌ Å¢Äì¸ ÓÊ¡¾ ¾£ìÌȢ¢ðÎð ¾£ñøò¾¸¡¾ÅḠ´Ð츢 ¨ÅìÌõ ¸ðÎôÀ¡§¼¡; ±Ð×õ «ÅüÈ¢ø þø¨Ä. «òмý º¢Åý, ¸¡Ç¢ ¸¢ÂÅ÷¸Ç¢ý «îºó ¾Õõ ¦ºÂø Өȸ¨Çô ÀüÈ£§Â¡; ¸ñ½É¢ý º¢üÈ¢ýÀì ¸Ç¢Â¡ð¼õ ÀüÈ¢§Â¡; .. ... §Åòò¾¢ø ´Õ ÍÅÎ Ü¼ì ¸¢¨¼Â¡Ð. ¸¼×ÙìÌâ Á¾¢ô¨Àò ¾¦Á¦¾Éì ¦¸¡ñÎ ÀÆ¢ÝØõ ´Õ ÌÕÁ¡÷ ÌØÅ¢ý Å£õÒâ¨Á¸û, ÁÉ¢¾ þÉò¾¢ý þøÄí¸¨Ç Å¢Äí¸¢Éí¸Ç¢Ûõ ¸¢Æ¡¸ þÆ¢× ÀÎòÐõ Ó¨È ¸¢ÂÅü¨È ¾Ã¢ìÌõ ±ó¾î ºð¼Óõ «ÅüÈ¢ø þø¨Ä. ÌÆó¨¾ Á½ò¾¢üÌ ¾Ã§Å¡, ÌÆó¨¾ Å¢¾¨Å¸û Á½ò¨¾ò ¾¨¼¦ºö§š ¸½Åý À¢½òмý ¯Â¢ÕûÇ ¨¸õ¦Àñ½¢ý ¯¼¨ÄÔõ ¨Åò¦¾Ã¢ìÌõ ¦À¡øÄ¡ô ÀÆì¸ò¨¾ ¾Ã¢Å¢ì¸§Å¡ «¾¢ø ´Õ Å¡º¸í Ü¼ì ¸¢¨¼Â¡Ð. þ¨Å ¡×õ §Å¾ò¾¢ý ¦º¡øÖìÌõ ¦À¡ÕÙì̧Á Á¡ÚÀð¼¨Å." Quote frm Maxmuler “þó¾¢Â ¿¡¸Ã¢¸ò¾¢ø ¾¢Ã¡Å¢¼ô ÀñÒ”- ¸¢øÀ÷𠺢§Äð¼÷, ¾Á¢ú ¸¡.«ôÀ¡Ð¨Ã. Àì¸õ 40,41.

But Tons and Tons of Articles are there against this Truth, and still being advertised with Foreign funds. The Truth is the opposite.

Vedas cannot be dated later than 1900BCE, by which time entire Saraswathi River has Dried up. John Marshall remarked in 1931, -
“THE HARAPPAN] RELIGION IS SO CHARACTERISTICALLY INDIAN AS HARDLY TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM STILL LIVING HINDUISM.”

Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Cambridge University Press, 1988,
“IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHAT IS PARTICULARLY NON-ARYAN ABOUT THE INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION.”

Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization (Karachi & Islamabad : Oxford University Press & American Institute of Pakistan Studies, 1998) -“MANY SCHOLARS HAVE TRIED TO CORRECT THIS ABSURD THEORY [OF AN ARYAN INVASION], BY POINTING OUT MISINTERPRETED BASIC FACTS, INAPPROPRIATE MODELS AND AN UNCRITICAL READING OF VEDIC TEXTS. HOWEVER, UNTIL RECENTLY, THESE SCIENTIFIC AND WELL-REASONED ARGUMENTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN ROOTING OUT THE MISINTERPRETATIONS ENTRENCHED IN THE POPULAR LITERATURE.”

So now Valluvar was Opposed to Fundamentals of the roots of Jainism, and even does not support the minimum Compulsory ethical rituals of Jainism. And basic ethics remain same for all Religions. And no particular ethic can be said as special to Jainism at all unless you Discredit all the available information on Vedas and Upanishads, against all Scientific Evidences as Saraswathi River and other Proofs, I shall give links in my next Thread. The Majority of Independent Scholars put dating of Vedas to 5000-2000BCE, and I am against saying Vedas or Hinduism as “Brahmanism” this is a Fraud my Missionaries, even today Many Church Apologist use Mohammedans and not Muslim or Islam.

Please throw away the Glasses you hold- against Hinduism, and it would be more appropriate to say- Jainism is like Protestant to Christianity - a Reformist movement from Hinduism and took from the then developments within Hinduism against Sacrifices and took that as One of its main Plank. No Ethics of Indian Civilisation can be attributed from any Other Tradition than Vedic as the Oldest of Jaina Lit. is from 300BCE

Now to bring Aryan Myths- in to a Literature as Kural of 250-300 CE, is meaningless.
Can we look at the amount of Words for Vedas - referred in Sangam Literature- மறை,
நான்மறை, நால்வேதம், ஓத்து , ஆகமம் , அறம், ஆறங்கம் etc., where as the word Samana is just the Tamilised form of Shramana-the Sanskrit word.

For Jains, the path to moksa begins with ahimsa or non-harming. This means for the layity, not harming any two to five sensed beings and for the ascetics, complete ahimsa for all creatures. And this has made Their Fundamental Ethics against Family Way, Banning of works such as Carpentry and Farming for Jains.

The only way to obtain moksa is to live a life of complete asceticism. This means renouncing all worldly things. In fact, monastics do not participate in temple worship because it focuses on worldly things but they do participate in Pilgrimages. This means is worshipping of Supreme God is not real part, but to accommodate Converts Hindu Gods were absorbed as below Rishaba- the mortal man. This is Blasphemy, and this is what is done by Christianity to Judaism and Islam to Judaism-Christianity and Manichaeism.

The Problem is not with Valluvam but misinterpretations and False assumptions of Aryan and Dravidian etc., for which no Literary support OR Archaeological support exists.

If you could be more specific to any or few of the Kurals which you feel Valluvar is against Orthodox Hinduism, I Want them to be discussed threadbare with more agreeable Scholarly views, please.

Let us look Valluvam as it is.

DevaPriya.

Dear Devapriya,

You wrote:
So Anthanan, MalarMisai are more in vogue for Hindus much prior toValluvar, where as Jainism used it much later.
Now I just show that most of the titles used by Valluvar is more better suited to Hinduism(- the following in Baamini Script) and Siva here..

jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk;>
'Mjp ghjNk Xjp ca;k;kpNd"
'gukd; gftd; guNkr;Rtud; godefuhNu" (1:67:4)

Can you please tell me the source of this Brahmi script work? Is it Tamil?

Brahminism and Mohammedanism

Dear Mr. Devapriya,

For the first time, your reply has given some food for thought. Some of the points you made on the Kural are worth taking note of (I will come to this later). However, bulk of your last posting contains copy paste of my previous replies and a substantial part on Aryan invasion and Christian or Western ‘misinterpretation’ against Hinduism. Since all your postings were in “black” I found it very difficult to differentiate between my statements and your replies. The marking “//” did not help either, as there was no consistency. I would appreciate if you could use a different colour to differentiate what you say from mine.

Obviously you seem to be very passionate towards Hinduism and do not appreciate anything being pointed out about Hinduism. You also have a tendency, for no rhyme or reason, to immediately point your figures at Christianity and the West, often forgetting the fact that we are discussing Tirukkural. We are looking at Kural’s affiliation to the then prevailing religious traditions like Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism and while doing so, obviously I will highlight the practices that differentiate these traditions. There is no need to get emotional about it.

You wrote:
“I am against saying Vedas or Hinduism as “Brahmanism” this is a Fraud my Missionaries, even today Many Church Apologist use Mohammedans and not Muslim or Islam.”

Well, I don’t know why you seem to be disappointed with this. It is quite natural that the West called “Hinduism” as Brahminism and Islam as Mohammedanism. After all Islam was founded by Mohammed and Hinduism is dominated by rituals primaritly instituted by Brahmins.

If Muslims have an objection to calling Islam as Mohammedanism, there is some reason. The Quran has many references to Islam as the religion of Muslims. Where is the word “Hinduism” in Upanishads, Gita and Vedas? Please tell me.

“Hinduism refers not to an entity; it is a name that the West has given to a prodigiously variegated series of facts” (C.W. Smith, 1964. The Meaning and Ed of religions. Mentor Religious Classics). The same Westerners who called it Brahminism, have coined the word “Hinduism”. We have to use a word to coin the religion that existed during the time of Valluvar and there is nothing wrong in calling it Brahminism.

You said:
“Please throw away the Glasses you hold- against Hinduism, . . . .”

I am sorry Mr. Devapriya, my objective here is to find the religious inclination of the Kural and while doing so, I will be producing every now and then verses in support of certain practices prevalent in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism (Brahminism to put it rightly). You cannot be sentimental about it Mr. Devapriya.

And also, when I said Valluvar is against animal sacrifice which is an age-old Vedic practice, you responded saying: “Is Hinduism means Animal Sacrifice only- why this much Hate on Hinduism?”

Did I say Hinduism means only Animal Sacrifice? Please tell me where. இடம் சுட்டி பொருள் விளக்கம் தருக.

How can you say that I hate Hinduism simply because I mentioned a practice that was prevalent during the time of Valluvar? Many of Muslim friends have called me anti-Islamic simply because I point out to certain inadequacies in their religion. Please don’t take that stance. I am a scholar and a scholar’s objective is to inform the beliefs, practices and facts as it is. There is no room for emotional attachments, aversions and pre-conceived notions. Hope you are aware that there is Animal Sacrifice in Islam also. Doesn’t mean I hate Islam! For that matter Judaism!

Dear Friends,

NVKji wants my Opinion on Origin of Brahmi Scripts.

Brahmi Tamil Scripts have gone to 3 Stages.

Brahmi-1, The writing in Tamil but Grammer and ending are closer to Praaakrit BCE 250- bCE100
Brahmi-2 More Tamil wrods Upto CE100
Brahmi Pulli- Using Dots CE 100 - 300
TholKapapaaaiyam belong to Brahmi-Pulli.

The Vowels of Sanskrit is differs from Tamil and Prakrit.
Both Tamil Brahmi, and the present writing system till 1825 followed the Sanskrit Vowel Pattern. Hence it is more likely that Brahmi was developed for Sanskrit, but for some reason used for Prakarit earlier. Vedic Literature clearly refers scripts towards the middle itself.

Sorry for Confusions, As I depend on NetCafes for Posting and there Tamil Fonts absence Troubles. Let me try to be more clear from next post.

The name Hindu is existent atleast at the time Old Testament Book Esther was written, which refers India as Hodu, in a twisted form, natural for its distance.

I have quiet a lot of Muslim Friends who are Vegetarians and also Brahmins who eat all type of Non-Vegetarian.

I am equally attacked for veing too Agnostic, but here due to too many Tamil Chavunists spreading wrong Venomic views, I am forced to take on Indian Heritage.

Sorry, if you are Hurt, when we take on Religions, as a Student of Comparitive Relistions I look evenly of all till its root.

Devapriya

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by devapriya

Dear Friends,

NVKji wants my Opinion on Origin of Brahmi Scripts.
Brahmi Tamil Scripts have gone to 3 Stages.
................. ..........
Devapriya

---

I am sorry I didn't ask about the devopment and history of Brahmi script! I wanted to know the source of the citation. From which text? Tamil? If so, why not reproduce the same in the present Tamil alphabet, please?

Animal Sacrifice in Brahminical Hinduism

Continuing from where I left in my last posting on 28th June.

Mr. Devapriya said:
The Missionaries and Thani Tamil Scholars have been picking up few odd verses from here and there and produced them to spread Falsehood against Hinduism. I am giving a small collection of Verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice.

And you produced a few verses from Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Prasna Upanishad, Gita and a few others like Bhagavatam that speak about Non-violence or Ahimsa and said they are “a small collection of verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice” (your own words).

Let us look at them one by one and see what they say:
1) Rig Veda 10.37.11 - protecting species, two legged and four legged
2) Rig Veda 10.87.16 – one who partakes of human, horse or any animal flesh
3) Atharva Veda 10.191.4 – Peaceful be the earth, ether, heaven, waters . . . . .
4) Atharva Veda 19.48.5 – Those who protect all animals . . . . . .
5) Atharva Veda 6.120.1 – We have injured space, earth or heaven . . . .
6) Yajur Veda 12.32 – Must not use your body for killing gods creatures . .l . .
7) Yajur Veda 36.18 – May all beings look at me with friendly eye . . . . .
8) Prasna Upanishad 46.8 – Non violence is all the offerings . . . .
9) Yajur Veda 36.17-18 – May I look at all creatures with friendly eyes. . . .
10) Agama – No pain should be caused to any created being
11) Many verses from Mahabharata – Cows should never be slaughtered - purchaser of flesh performs himsa - he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste - He who eats the flesh of other creatures lives in misery - one should never do another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self, one should abstain from injury - Ahimsa is the highest dharma, friend, self control, tapas, power, friend, truth and highest teaching.
12) Bhagavad Gita – Not to hurt others, non-violence belong to men born of heaven
13) Yoga Sutras – Ahimsa is not causing pain to any living being
14) Bhagavatam – Those ignorant of real dharma only kill animals without any fear and they will be eaten in their next life by the same animals

Let me repeat what you said in the beginning of these citations: “I am giving a small collection of verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice” (your own words).

Tell me Mr. Devapriya. Which of these 14 verses you reproduced above talk against Animal Sacrifice? None. They only talk about Ahimsa which is an ethical teaching common to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

(i) It is only in Jainism that any kind of slaughter and meat consumption is consistently prohibited. (duly emphasized by Valluvar).

Kural 254:
What is grace? It is not killing. To kill, disgrace.
And senseless to eat that meat. * PS

(ii) In Buddhism slaughter is not permitted but consumption is. Valluvar promptly disapproves such practice.

Kuŗal 256:
The world may say: “Meat we eat, but don’t kill’.
But no one will sell if there is none to buy. * KS

(iii) In Hinduism, meat eating is prohibited in some scriptures (Thirumandiram). I mentioned in my previous posting about Manu condemning meat eating, that too in Valluvar's own terms (Manu 5:52 is just like Kuŗal 251!). In some scriptures only cow slaughter is forbidden (you cited this one from Mahabharata – “Cows should never be slaughtered” – it obviously means others can be slaughtered?). But the same scriptures that proclaim ahimsa, permit animal sacrifice. I cited this verse from Manu Smriti which 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. Devapriya. I am surprised why you remained silent on this Manu dictum and instead posted a series of verses from other Hindu Scriptures that talk about meat eating and killing.

K.N. Subramanyam (1987) writes: "When there is such an open condemnation of animal sacrifice which is sanctioned by Vedic ritualism and the Buddhist practice of eating meat by a convenient interpretation of Ahimsa doctrine, it is clear, by a process of elimination, that the only religion that conforms to the principles enunciated in the book is the religion of Ahimsa upheld by the Jainas".

But you said: “. . . . . Polygamy and Polyandry was prevalent, Prostitution was available, Premarital Sex, Drinking of Wine was done by all including Women, Killing of Animals and eating in God worship are present. Where as Kural is against all this. Certainly Valluvar shows his leanings to Hinduism and says much against Jainism.”

You said killing of Animals and eating its meat in God worship was present during the time of Valluvar. I agree. You said Kural is against all these. I agree with this also. But you say this only shows his leanings towards Hinduim and against Jainism! I disagree! Your conclusion is not logical. It is only in Vedic or Brahminical Hinduism that Animal sacrifice is practiced to please gods existed. Jains and Buddhists don't. How can you then say Valluvar is against Jainism? In fact Valluvar is not against any religious tradition by name. He is only against some religious practices of his time.

Surprisingly, the very same Devapriya began his last posting with this statement:

“NVKji wants to search to derive what he wants from Kural than what is directly Said”

Let the readers decide who is trying to derive the stuff they want from the Kural.

Reference:
Subramanyam, K. N. 1987. Tiruvalluvar and His Kuŗal. Bharatiya Jnanpith Publication. 220 pages

Ahimsa dharma in Brahminism, Jainism and Buddhism

Mr. Devapriya,

I am aware that Ahimsa is an ethical teaching common to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism and in fact I have included this feature in my article.

Five virtues (dakshinās) in Brahminism (Chāndogya Upanishad: 3.17.4)
(i) Penance
(ii) Charity
(iii) Right conduct
(iv) Non-injury (கொல்லாமை)
(v) Speaking truth (பொய்யாமை, வாய்மை)

Five moral percepts (pañca-sila) in Buddhism (Mahāvagga 1:56)
(i) To abstain from killing (கொல்லாமை)
(ii) Avoid what has not been given
(iii) Avoid sexual misconduct
(iv) Avoid false speech (பொய்யாமை, வாய்மை)
(v) Avoid intoxicants

Five minor vows (anuvratās) of a householder (Saman Suttam, Sūtrā 309)
(i) Avoid injury to living beings (கொல்லாமை)
(ii) Avoid speaking falsehood (பொய்யாமை, வாய்மை)
(iii) Avoid things not given
(iv) Avoid sexual misconduct
(v) Avoid undue desire for possessions

Therefore, it is not because of Ahimsa teaching in Tirukkural that I consider it as a work based on Jaina ethics; because other faiths have also emphasized it. A combination various factors all put together that makes me to conclude that the Kural’s basis is Jaina ethics and ideals. But remember it is not a work that extols the doctrines and sundry laws in Jainism. Thus the Kural has very little to do with the religious philosophy of Jainism. It is futile to look for sundry religious laws in Kural to judge the author's religious inclination.

Dear Devapriya,

In my discussion about Brahminism and Hinduism, I had pointed out the absence of the word "Hinduism" in Sacred texts of Hinduism. I also mentioned that the term was given by the West. But you made an interesting statement in your last posting:

"The name Hindu is existent atleast at the time Old Testament Book Esther was written, which refers India as Hodu, in a twisted form, natural for its distance"

Come on, Mr. Devapriya. Do you really believe this? Are you not reading your ideas into strange words that appear in other scriptures? It is unfortunate that you have to look for the word "Hodu or Hindu" from a Scripture of Semitic origin! Please refrain from such acts. It is not a disgrace for any religion, not to have its name in its sacred text. Many religions don't have. You accused me of reading my ideas into the Kural. This is what you said: “NVKji wants to search to derive what he wants from Kural than what is directly Said”

The same person who said this is now looking for "Hodu" from Old Testament! Please don't employ double standards.

If you want to know more about the origin of Hinduism, please read the following paragraphs reproduced from two links. Anyone will say that the word "Hinduism" is a recently coined word. It came from Arabs/Persians and the British referred to religion of India as "Hinduism".

Interestingly enough, the word "Hindu" is not actually found anywhere in Vedic scriptures. The term "Hindu" is vague, and even a misnomer. The term was introduced by Muslims from neighboring countries who referred to people living across the River Sindhu, a people who actually held a vast array of religious beliefs. There is no one "Hindu religion."
From: Hinduism and Vegetarianism By Paul Turnerhttp://www.ivu.org/news/march2000/hinduism.html

Here is another citation:

In fact the word Hindu has no link whatsoever with the subsequently developed creed, ‘Hinduism’. Because emerge of the word ‘Hindu’ was far more ancient than the surge of the creed, ‘Hinduism’. And as a matter of fact the word ‘Hinduism’ have been coined far more later (i.e. round about after 2000 years) for the creed of the ‘caste-rule’ (i.e. Vern Ashram) by the western orientalists - and thus the word ‘Hindu’ had not been derived from Hinduism, for that could have not been done. The word Hindu is admittedly a corruption of ‘Sindhu’ - a native of ‘Sindh - Valley’ (i.e. Indus - Valley).
From: Islami Jumhoria Hind by Aftab Alam Khan http://www.storyofpakistan.com/contr...rtid=C068&Pg=2

Discrepancies in citation of verses

To Devapriya:

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

(a) Problem in Atharva Veda:

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

I think the verse number you gave is wrong.

(b) Problem in verses from Yajur Veda:

You cited this one:
You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32. FS, 90

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

I think the number you gave is wrong.

(c) Problem in citation from Prasna Upanishad:

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

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

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

Please produce the correct verse numbers.

Is Caste system Non-Vedic?

Mr. Devichand proclaims:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to the varņā concept, the Gita is also no different from Manu Smriti for it also sanctions the division amongst men. Says Lord Krishna that the four divisions of human society were created by him (Gita 14:13).

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

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

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

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

பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும் சிறப்பொக்கும்
செய்தொழில் வேற்றுமை யான். (972)

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

“More than that From Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam we have about Tamil Society- Tamil Society is filled with Vedas, (Though Valluvar has accepted Caste by indirect references, but he has not touched in depth.) along with its good culture”

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVK Ashraf

Is Caste system Non-Vedic?

Mr. Devichand proclaims:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to the varņā concept, the Gita is also no different from Manu Smriti for it also sanctions the division amongst men. Says Lord Krishna that the four divisions of human society were created by him (Gita 14:13).

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

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

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

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

பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும் சிறப்பொக்கும்
செய்தொழில் வேற்றுமை யான். (972)

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

“More than that From Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam we have about Tamil Society- Tamil Society is filled with Vedas, (Though Valluvar has accepted Caste by indirect references, but he has not touched in depth.) along with its good culture”

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three bombs from Devapriya: Now coming to Cilappathikaram!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Devpariya wrote:
“Silapathikaram and even Manimekhalai gives such a wide information on Tamil Society during Sangam Period and high details on Vedas, Of course always Maimekhalai uses better words for Buddhism and Anti- Hinduism - which is absent in Silapathikaram. Silapathikaram, Author puts much in Praise of Samanam in One Character KavunthiAdigal. But majority supports Vedic Hinduism, which I shall put here or in other Appropriate thread.”

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

Devapriya wrote:
"Where as Thani- Tamil Scholars went on to go by the Jainistic Probaganda- that Silapathikaram and Kural are Jainistic, with very flimsy few picked verses."

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

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

Reference:

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

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

Thirukkural and the Fundamentals Jaina ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I have been reiterating in this thread that the Kural is not a work on Jaina philosophy or sundry laws and therefore its affiliation to Jainism or any other faith cannot be established by looking for the presence or absence of philosophical or metaphysical statements of that particular faith. Any such attempts will prove futile considering the fact that the Kural is an ethical treatise. One has to look at the ethical teachings embedded in the Kural and look for their similarity with Brahmana, Buddhist or Jaina ethics”

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

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

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

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

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

Devapriya continues. . . . .
“And basic ethics remain same for all Religions. And no particular ethic can be said as special to Jainism at all unless you Discredit all the available information on Vedas and Upanishads, against all Scientific Evidences as Saraswathi River and other Proofs, I shall give links in my next Thread”

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

Reference:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVK Ashraf

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

Refuting analytically Ramanuja thwarted out all such MISCONCEPTIONS ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

..under the HEADINGS :---

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

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

To Devapriya:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You wrote:
"- Again No doubt Every Religious follower would call its founder or their Deity as 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்' means "The One beyond likes and dislikes- but Would Valluvar give it to a Sect’s (founder) who denies Moksha to One half of the Population. My Answer is know"

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

(ii) அறவாழி அந்தணன்

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You made an interesting conclusion:
"No doubt that during Valluvar days –all Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism where there- AND Valluvar by calling Supreme God’s feet very clearly rejects the Agnostic Religions".

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

References:

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

(iii) மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manuel

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.

---

Dear 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:

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.-

---

Same is true to NVK here.

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

Five rituals: Cutting the leg to suit the shoe

I had mentioned in my posting on June 23, 2006 (subject: "Kural is not a book on Jainism") that 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 the couplet 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).

To this Mr. Devapriya said:
"Saying Thenpulathar to Guru Worship is cutting leg to suit shoe. Atually the HINDU five rituals called "Panchayagnayams" are given in the right order by Valluvar in Kural 43".

I entirely agree with his point that the word தென்புலத்தார் cannot be taken as an equivalent for Guru worship. I have been trying to find out equivalents for these five duties from Hindu, Jaina and Buddhist works, but have not managed to find suitable ones far. Devapriya identifies these a Pithru Yagnayam, Devayagnayam, Athithi Yagnayam, etc. (the last two has not been listed). It would be nice if Devapriya lists the remaining ones with actual citation from the Hindu scripture, so that I can include his observation also in my article.

I have been trying to identify the importance of ahimsa doctrine and its relevance and importance to other virtues in Hinduism by comparing the five 'commandments' mentioned in different scriptures. (see my posting dated 29th June 2006, Subject: Ahimsa dharma in Brahminism, Jainism and Buddhism). I had mentioned about Five virtues (dakshinās) in Hinduism, Five moral percepts (pañca-sila) in Buddhism and Five minor vows (anuvratās) in Jainism. Interestingly the five anuvratas (Five minor Vows) of Jains, namely ahimsa, satya, asteya, brahmacharya and aparigraha (namely Non-harming, truthfulness, non-stealing, chastity and greedlessness) were listed down as "Restraints" in the same order by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutra (II.30). We all know Patanjali was not a Jain and his work appeared during the third century A.D. It is indeed a surprise how these vratas got into Yoga Sutra as "restraints". But then Patanjali's Ishvara is not a creator but a person whose sins are destroyed (Pungaliya, 1997). Writes George Feuerstein, the famous exponent Yoga, in his commentary on Yoga Sutra: "It is perfectly clear from the Yoga-Sutra that eh Ishvara is neither the kind of Absolute envisaged by the Vedanta thinkers, nor the anthropomorphic deity of Christianity or Judaism. Nor is 'the lord' a type of enlightened super-being such as the buddhas or transcendental bodhisattvas of Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhisms respectively". Patanjali's concept of Ishvara is very near to Jaina Darshana says Yogi Swatmarama Yogi in his commentary on Hatha Yoga Pradipika (Pungaliya, 1997). Yoga Sutra I.24 says "Ishwara is a special self [because he is] untouched by the causes of affliction, action [and its] fruition [and by] the deposit [in the depth-memory". Commenting on this sutra, Feuerstein (1979) says: "Ishwara's uniqueness likes in the fact that he has never been, nor will ever be, touched by the mechanisms of Nature. He has at no time been subjected to the cause-of affliction". Does it sounds like Valluvar's வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான் because he is பொறி வாயில் ஐந்து அவித்தான்! No doubt Patanjali, as Feuerstein (1979) says, has been frequently criticized for his diluted concept of Ishvara!

References:

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

Pungaliya, G.K. 1997. Yoga philosophy of Jhaneshvara and Patanjali. Article available at http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/yoga_ph...naneshvara.htm)

Praise of God: கடவுள் வாழ்த்து

Mr. Devapriya has all of a sudden decided that the first chapter in Tirukkural refers only to a Creator God because it is nothing but கடவுள் வாழ்த்து. Devapriya wrote:
"The Name of God in Chapter 1 KADAVUZ VAAZTHU கடவுள் வாழ்த்து The Tamil world 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 everywhere எங்குமே உள்ளவன். So Valluvar when gave the first chapter "கடவுள் வாழ்த்து" refers to God Almighty, the Creator God"

I do not think Mr. Devapriya is reading my earlier postings properly. I have already touched upon this subject. Let me reproduce it again, afresh.

Mr. Devapriya seem to indicate that any Tamil work that begins with a "Kadavul Vaazhthu" should be a non-Jaina work since the very word "கடவுள்" is a reference to a Being who is everywhere. I had mentioned in one of my previous postings that etymologically the word 'கடவுள்' is a perfect one to denote a Reality which is both Transcendent (கட) and Immanent (உள்). There are many literary texts in Tamil that underline this twin attributes of God, be it Shiva or Vishnu.

Is not "kadavuļ" a word to be used in non-Jaina works alone? I think this is Devapriya's question. The answer is "NO" because "Kadavul Vaaltthu" is found in many established Jaina works as well. Wonder how Devapriya will explain the beginning of Nalatiyar with a "கடவுள் வாழ்த்து"! Iļango Adigal, the Jaina author of Cilappathikāram, has frequently used the words "கடவுள்" (1.5.178, 2.11.5, 3.24.13), "தெய்வம்" (1.2.47, 1.3.1, 3.24.1) and "இறைவன்" (2.20.37, 2.22,144) in his work. So also Valluvar. Therefore to conclude that Valluvar has referred to Creator God in Chapter 1, simply based on the mere occurrence of a title "கடவுள் வாழ்த்து" is incorrect.

In spite of my elaborate and clear cut explanations to point out that all the attributes of divinity in Chapter 1 (like ஆதி பகவன், மலர்மிசை ஏகினான், வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான், தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான் etc.) are relevant to describe a Jaina deity, Mr. Devapriya is not ready accept.

* I had asked why Valluvar decided to use the phrase "ஆதி பகவன்", words of Sanskrit origin (வடமொழி), in his very first couplet itself. Mr. Devapriya has not answered.

* Citing Gita (2.27), I had pointed out that "வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்" (One without any desire or aversion) is more applicable to describe mortals who have raised to the stature of a being without likes and dislikes. Citing this important verse from Gita, I had stated that a Creator God cannot be born into delusion for him to be called as a being without desires and aversion. Mr. Devapriya has not answered.

* I had also cited references from Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Sikh and Jaina scriptures to show that the attribute தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான் (the one beyond compare) could perfectly suit any deity, be it of Brahmana, Śramana or Semitic origin. Mr. Devapriya is ready to accept this attribute as a reference to Creator God but not for a Jaina deity. I wonder why this partiality.

* I had also described in detail why most translators translate "மலர் மிசை ஏகினான்" as "He who resides in the lotus hearts" instead of opting for the literal meaning which is "He one who walked on flowers". Mr. Devapriya has nothing to comment on this.

Devapriya has not replied to any of these my observations specifically. அப்படிச்செய்வதை விட்டுவிட்டு, அரைத்த மாவையே மீண்டும் மீண்டும் அரைத்துக்கொண்டிருக்கிறார் திரு தேவப்ரியா அவர்கள்.

* Now, I will touch upon couplet six which talks about "பொறி வாயில் ஐந்து அவித்தான்" in my next posting. This has not been discussed so far in this thread. Devapriya said: "Valluvar when gave the first chapter "கடவுள் வாழ்த்து" refers to God Almighty, the Creator God". I would like to know how "பொறி வாயில் ஐந்து அவித்தான்" could refer to a Creator God! Wonder why Mr. Devapriya has not even mentioned about this couplet so far! Does he himself believe that it is a difficult verse for Theistic interpreters to defend?

While I do not have any problem in attributing some of these qualities or names (like தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான், இறைவன், வாலறிவன், எண் குணத்தான் and even ஆதி பகவன்) to Creator God, Mr. Devapriya for strange reasons refuses to accept that these attributes could perfectly fit in for describing a Jaina deity (Arhat or Siddha) also.

Strangely, Mr. Devapriya comes out an interesting reasoning as to why Valluvar wrote his Kural in SECULAR tone! He wrote:
"Valluvar wrote Kural when Jainistic Kalapira's Sword was above him, and hence he used this Tricky method of SECULAR ................. but a Straight look with unbiased look would prove that he follows Hinduism".

Here Mr. Devapriya declares that Valluvar wrote his couplets under the THREAT of some Jaina terrorists! This is news to me!

Wonder if Mr. Devapriya knows the meaning of biased and unbiased observations. He refuses to accept the fact that the attributes of the Deity mentioned by Valluvar in Chapter 1 could well be relevant for Jaina deity also. He refuses to acknowledge anything to do with Jainism and Kural. With all these lacunae in hand, he is the one talking about neutrality and unbiased mind!

To Mr. Devapriya:

Who controls the five senses?

பொறிவாயில் ஐந்தவித்தான் பொய்தீர் ஒழுக்க
நெறிநின்றார் நீடு வாழ்வார். (6)
Long life is theirs who tread the path of Him
Who conquered the five senses. PS

Generally translators refer to God as the one who controlled his senses. The question why should a creator God be praised for controlling his senses? P.S. Sundaram (1990) writes: "It may seem strange to refer to God as one who conquered the five senses as if this was for Him a matter of effort." S.M. Diaz (2000), another translator, also mentions that there is a controversy on the real meaning of "aindavithān" for it would be wrong to describe God as the one who has scotched the five senses as He is above all this. In Bhagvad Gita, Lord Krishna says:

One who restrains his senses and fixes his consciousness upon Me,
Is known as a man of steady intelligence. (Gita 2:61).

Satguru Subramaniyaswami (2000) translates the phrase poŗivāyil aindhavithān (பொறிவாயில் ஐந்தவித்தான்) as "Him who controls the five senses" but as we saw the slôka from Gita, only humans are required to control their senses. Rajasingham (1987) while commenting on his translation clearly mentions the difficulty in translating the couplet. In his attempt to make it conform to the nature of Lord Shiva, he ended up producing a translation that is no way close to the original: "The deathless state to reach, liberation it is from falsehood; When path ahead is found, senses verily are restrained". Other translators like K. Krishnaswamy & Vijaya Ramkumar (http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/mirrors/vv.../kuralndx.html) have attempted to get over this difficulty by employing non-committal rendering: "He who has controlled the five senses and is established in the path of righteousness will lead a life of fulfillment". This translation is not a reference to any deity and it is also not close to the original.

It is only in Jainism and Buddhism that Tirthankarās, Siddhās and Bodhisatvās, being men, could control their five senses and rise to godhood. A Hindu interpreter can even get away by translating Ādi Bagavan as Primordial God but not while translating couplet six, unless he takes it as a reference to a sage. Well aware of this difficulty, Rajasingham (1987) quite rightly agrees that this couplet is a difficult one to translate.

Control of the five senses is the attribute of an ascetic, be it a Jaina, Buddhist or a Hindu. It is worth noting that the word ‘Jina’ literally means "conqueror or victorious", i.e. the conqueror of five senses. Cilappadikāram (10.198) says "ஐவரை வென்றோன்", Ceevacambõthanai (1-29) says "பொறிவாயில் ஐந்தவித்த புனிதன் நீயே" and Ceevacintāmañi (2563) says "பொறிவரம்பாகிய புண்ணிய முதல்வன்". couplet six appears to be a reference to a "Victorious" Jaina God who has conquered the five senses. This act of conquering five senses has been repeatedly mentioned in the Kuŗal.

Couplet 24.
The restraint of senses five by the ankush of firmness
Is the seed for the bliss of heaven. NV

Couplet 25:
Even the celestial king Indra will vouch the strength
Of one who rules his senses five. * KK, PS

Couplet: 126.
If you withdraw -like a tortoise- your senses five in one birth,
It will protect you in seven. NV

Couplet 343.
To be controlled are the senses five,
And to be given up at once are all cravings. NV

What is implied in couplet six has been reemphasized by Valluvar under chapter 35 on "Renunciation" when he says: "Cling to the one who clings to nothing; and so clinging, cease to cling" PS (Kuŗal 350). Only a human being, after conquering the five senses, would be expected to live a life free of any attachments. Valluvar here seem to ask ascetics to shed their desires by clinging to those who do not cling to anything in this world.

References:

Diaz, S.M. 2000. Tirukkural. General Editor: N. Mahalingam. Ramanandha Adigalar Foundation, Coimbatore. pp 9-30.

Rajasingham, C. 1987. Thiruk-Kuŗal: The Daylight of the Psyche. International Institute of Tamil Studies, Madras.

Satguru Subramaniaswami. 2000. Weaver's Wisdom. Himalayan Academy Publications.

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

PATH OF ASCETICS AND HOUSEHOLDERS

Mr. Devapriya wrote:
1. "Jainism virtually does not recommend Family Life and it is virtually impossible to reach Birthless state with Family Life"
2." Valluvar's Ethics is that Family way of living is much better than Sanyasam, which is totally OPPOSITE to the Fundamental ROOT OF JAINISM"
3. "Now, we have already discussed Jainism Denies completely 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 edict and good family Lady with Chastity is promised of Heaven"

Once again Mr. Devapriya அரைத்த மாவையே மீண்டும் மீண்டும் அரைத்துக்கொண்டிருக்கிறார். I have reiterated several times that Tirukkural's affinity to Jainism (of for that matter any other religious tradition) cannot be determined by looking at the presence of religious sundry laws, ideas on moksha (first of all he wrote only on Dharma, Artha and Kama and did not venture to write about Moksha!). Please refer to my posting on Jun 24, 2006 (Post subject: The Kural is not a book on Jainism) where I had emphasized this point. Let me reproduce a small section from that posting again here:

//"Even though the very foundation of Valluvar's moral prescriptions is Jaina-based, he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are life negating.......... It is only these differences that prove to be a decisive factor in categorizing the Kuŗal as non-sectarian work, preventing scholars from regarding it a classic on Janism. Still Valluvar's morals are based on the foundation of Jaina ideas."//

To substantiate his view, Mr. Devapriya cited all the couplets from chapter five on "இல்வாழ்க்கை" and said "Valluvar places Householders above Ascetics, and therefore he against the Fundamental Root of Jainism". Indeed the following couplet 48 in chapter 5 seem to clearly substantiate his view:

Couplet 48.
ஆற்றின் ஒழுக்கி அறன் இழுக்கா இல் வாழ்க்கை
நோற்பாரின் நோன்மை உடைத்து.
A virtuous householder endures more
Than the penance of the penance doer. * (DZ, DL)

But the same Tiruvalluvar says in Chapter 3 on "Greatness of Ascetics" ......

Couplet 23.
இருமை வகை தெரிந்து ஈண்டு அறம் பூண்டார்
பெருமை பிறங்கிற்று உலகு.
The world shines on the greatness of those who,
Knowing both, choose renunciation. * (PS)

Why is there a "contradiction" here? At one place Valluvar says Householder's endurance is greater than the penance of the Ascetic, and at another place exalts the greatness of those who choose ascetic life over the other? One may also ask why Valluvar placed "Greatness of Ascetics" (Chapter 3) ahead of Domestic Virtue (Chapter 5)!

The answer to this "contradiction" in emphasis lies in discovering the style of Tiruvalluvar. He would exalt one virtue over the other in one chapter and at the same time exalt the other in another chapter. I reproduce here a section from my article "An Introduction to Tirukkural and its author" (http://www.geocities.com/nvkashraf/k.../Kural-Int.htm) where I briefly touched upon the style of Valluvar (a detailed article on this is on the pipeline):

//A close look at the different chapters would reveal that Valluvar composed every chapter, perhaps in response to a demand or request to produce 10 best couplets on a particular subject. He would bring together all his experience, the knowledge he has gained in mastering other texts and all the information available as folklore in order to compose 10 couplets on a subject, say on Ignorance. He would then do so for another subject, say on Virtue. Given the fact that there are similarities in ideas between couplets within and between chapters, it would appear as if the poet, while producing the best 10 on a subject, did not show any concern as to what similes and superlatives he used earlier while writing on other subjects. This may perhaps be the reason for some repetitions in ideas and 'contradictions' we find in the Kural. He would write on the evils of drinking in one chapter (Chapter 93), but at the same time elsewhere say that love is sweeter than wine (Chapter 109). To cite another instance, if you ask him "What is wealth of all wealth?", he would say two different things: "the wealth of wealth is the wealth of grace" (couplet 241) and "the wealth of wealth is the wealth of hearing" (couplet 411). Similarly, if you want to know which of the virtues should one follow dearly even at the expense of other virtues, he would say it is speaking truth in couplet 297, it is trespassing the bounds of another's wife in couplet 150 and in couplet 181 say that its the quality of not being called a slanderer! The same Valluvar who says what is natural or inborn in us cannot be ejected (Kural 376 on "Fate") would say while emphasizing the value of "Exertion" that inherent natural flaws can be overcome by getting rid of laziness (Kural 609). For a purist these may appear as contradictions but it is the style Valluvar follows while emphasizing the importance of a particular code of ethic. //

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVK Ashraf

Here Mr. Devapriya declares that Valluvar wrote his couplets under the THREAT of some Jaina terrorists! This is news to me!

---

VaLLuvar wrote under threat? That's interesting. Let's see what Mr Devapriya has to say to Ms Ashraf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NVL Ashraf

]ome 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!

---

Thanks to you Ms Ashraf - you've taken much trouble to explain something which was presented as optional to reply.

But if we take the position of kappalOttiya Thamizan's conclusion or opinion, then we must necessarily conclude that the author of KuRaL did not write the KadavuL vAzththu. With that, your case that the author wrote with Jain overtone also falls flat. My feeling is that you are substantially relying on the lst chapter of kuRaL to bring "home" your case.

Dear Sivamaalaa,

You wrote:
"But if we take the position of kappalOttiya Thamizan's conclusion or opinion, then we must necessarily conclude that the author of KuRaL did not write the KadavuL vAzththu. With that, your case that the author wrote with Jain overtone also falls flat. My feeling is that you are substantially relying on the lst chapter of kuRaL to bring "home" your case."

Almost all the scholars who hold the opinion that the Kural is a Jaina's work, have arrived at their conclusion primarily based on the analysis of Chapter 1. In my posting dated Jul 01, 2006, Post subject: Thirukkural and the Fundamentals Jaina ethics, I had addressed the following three questions to Mr. Devapriya:

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

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

I think the time has come for me to drill the final nail in the coffin.

Greetings Ms Ashraf

would like upload in my next posting the most important reasons for considering the Kural as work based on Jaina ethics.
//

You are raising interesting points. I would like to read from your submissions as to when each important relevant concept surfaced in Jainism, where , how and the circumstances in each case leading up to the surfacing of the concept under consideration. At the same time it is also necessary to prove whether other religions had corresponding or similar concepts issuing forth in their arena, when, how, where and by whom. A further point to consider would the duration of real connection between the concept in question and the religion itself, showing how the concept is bound up with the religion (in each instance and for each relevant religion). Furthermore, at what point of time in history can it be considered for the concepts in question to have been fully developed for presentation to the faithful.
For instance, concept A could have taken shape in 300 BC, but concept B could have come into being only in 300 AD and if you look at the Jain book of today, you will find A, B and a host of other concepts all summarized and presented as one complete document, without regard to the historical background and rise of each concept.

It is to be noted that VaLLuvar had presented his teachings in various ways. For example: “eNNenpa. Enai ezuththepa…” : he is referring to what others say; but in “Avichorinthu aayiram vEttalin…” he presents the teaching as his own. Sometimes he condemns other teacher(s) and gives his own: as “ aRaththiRkE anbu saarbenpa, aRiyaar! MaRaththiRkum aqthE thuNai” . It is clear that in VaLLuvar, each topic or item under a topic receives emphasis as though it is all important; but in another topic, he would also say that that is of chief importance. One may have to explain whether he is referring to the high importance of compliance of that point or requirement or merely talking about doctrinal importance. VaLLuvar is a person of complex mind, though his work and words look simplistic to the ordinary person. I would not easily agree with you that he placed ahimsa above truthfulness. But I am not intending to submit arguments contrary to your submission on the point.

KadavuL vaazththu became a standard practice in medieval times; kuRaL – I consider – was closer to Sangam during which period provision of a KadavuL vaazththu was not a standard practice. Furthermore it is irrelevant to a book on ethics. Hence, one way of looking at kuRaL is to say that the first chapter was later addition. It is nothing surprising. Hence you may be put to strict proof that it was written by VaLLuvar!!

I have no intention to add to your burden you have taken upon yourself. I am also not intending to go for a PhD on this topic, you may ignore what I have written for the load it may place on your shoulders!!

Happy battle with Devapriya! Just ignore what I wrote pl

Dear Sivamala,

You made a very relevant observation. You wrote:

It is to be noted that VaLLuvar had presented his teachings in various ways. For example: “eNNenpa. Enai ezuththepa…” : he is referring to what others say; but in “Avichorinthu aayiram vEttalin…” he presents the teaching as his own. Sometimes he condemns other teacher(s) and gives his own: as “ aRaththiRkE anbu saarbenpa, aRiyaar! MaRaththiRkum aqthE thuNai” . It is clear that in VaLLuvar, each topic or item under a topic receives emphasis as though it is all important; but in another topic, he would also say that that is of chief importance. One may have to explain whether he is referring to the high importance of compliance of that point or requirement or merely talking about doctrinal importance.

I appreciate your understanding of the style of Valluvar's presentation. In fact I would like to categorize the couplets based on the occurrence of such words or phrases like என்ப, எல்லாம் தலை, யாதெனின், etc. The Tirukkural Concordance and Dr. Mohanraj's திருக்குறளில் திருப்புரைகள் should come handy to me while doing this exercise.

You also said: "I would not easily agree with you that he placed ahimsa above truthfulness. But I am not intending to submit arguments contrary to your submission on the point."

When Valluvar himself says so, there is no way you can dismiss it. You will see it for yourself on Monday.

«ÈÅ¢¨É ¡¦¾É¢ý ¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á...!

.........á§Ä¡÷ ¦¾¡Ìò¾ÅüÚû ±øÄ¡õ ¾¨Ä....! (á§Ä¡÷)

....... À¢ýº¡Ãô ¦À¡ö¡¨Á ¿ýÚ.!

........ ¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á ÝúÅ¡ý ¾¨Ä!! etc etc...

but still......!

Let me read what you have to say.