THIRUKKURALH

The final nail in the coffin

Dear Sivamaalaa,

Here I provide the most important evidence, outside the first chapter on "Praise of God", to show that Valluvar defined the very basis of Kural's ethics, namely கொல்லாமை, இன்னா செய்யாமை and பொய்யாமை, in Jaina terms.

(i) Repeated emphasis on "Not killing" கொல்லாமை

Gopalan (1979), who compared the Kural with Brahminical Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism to determine its affilitation, deals with Jaina claims more elaborately for he himself agrees that stronger claims have come from Jainism than from Buddhism. If ahimsā or no-violence is the foundation of Jainism, then we have many places in Kuŗal that reiterate this principle of non-killing.

Valluvar himself asks the question: What is virtue?
And the reply is "not killing because killing causes every ill" (321)

He asks a different question: “What is grace and disgrace?”.
He gives the same reply: "killing is disgrace and non-killing grace". (254)

To another question, “What is the perfect path”, he says the same:
“It is the path of avoiding killing anything” (324)

If you ask “What is the characteristic of penance”
He says it lies in "harming no life" (261) in "non-killing" (984).

And what is the topmost teaching ever written? Here also the answer is no different:
"It is to share your food and protect all life" (322)

Sutrakritanga of Jainism says "A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated" (1.11.33). In Kuŗal, Valluvar even goes a step higher and says in couplet 327:

தன்னுயிர் நீப்பினும் செய்யற்க தான்பிறிது
இன்னுயிர் நீக்கும் வினை.
Avoid removing the dear life of another
Even when your own life is under threat. NV

(ii) Repeated emphasis on "Not hurting" (இன்னா செய்யாமை)

And not to forget the chapter preceding to Chapter 33. This one on "Not hurting" together with "Not killing" forms the sum and substance of the ahimsā docrtine of "Non Injury". Two couplets from Chapter 32 would suffice here as examples to show Valluvar's resolve on not hurting.

Couplet 317
It is best to refrain from willfully hurting
Anyone, anytime, anyway. PS

Couplet 320
Hurt comes to the hurtful; hence it is those
Who don't want to be hurt cause no hurt. * PS

Like "Not killing", Valluvar has over and over again emphasized "Not hurting" in many places even outside the designated Chapter 32 (see couplets 109, 160, 579, 852, 881, 987) and at times the same idea has been put forward in different contextச். To cite an example, in Chapter 32: இன்னா செய்யாமை, Valluvar says:

இன்னாசெய் தாரை ஒறுத்தல் அவர்நாண
நன்னயஞ் செய்து விடல். (314)
Punish an evil-doer
By shaming him with a good deed.* PS

The same idea is repeated in Chapter 99 on Goodness (சான்றாண்மை):

இன்னாசெய் தார்க்கும் இனியவே செய்யாக்கால்
என்ன பயத்ததோ சால்பு? (987)
What good is that goodness if it does not return good
Even to those who cause evil? * PS

Couplet 579 in Chapter 58 on "Compassion" also recaps the same idea:

ஒறுத்தாற்றும் பண்பினார் கண்ணும் கண்ணோடிப்
பொறுத்தாற்றும் பண்பே தலை.
That quality of forbearance and sympathy is the best,
Even to those who hurt us. NV

Yet again the same idea is repeated, this time in Chapter 86 on Hostility (இகல்):

பகல்கருதிப் பற்றா செயினும் இகல்கருதி
இன்னா செய்யாமை தலை. (852)
Even if disagreeable things are done to cause rift,
Better do nothing painful to avoid conflict. * DL, NV

There is no doubt that the foremost teaching of Valluvar is ahimsā as he has emphasized it not only through chapters like கொல்லாமை, புலால் உண்ணாமை, இன்னா செய்யாமை and இகல் but also through many other couplets in அறத்துப்பால் and பொருட்பால். One may ask if these references to ahimsā are sufficient enough to conclude that only a person of Jaina faith would have written the Kuŗal. Many non-Jaina works also reiterate the concept of ahimsā, but they do not repeatedly emphasize Not-killing as a virtue, grace, as a characteristic of penance, as the perfect path and the topmost code to have been ever written! And not to speak of "Not hurting" which has also been emphasized over and again.

(iii) Placing Ahimsā above Satyā

The characteristic of Jainism is that, of the five vratās or vows (ahimsā, satyā, asteya, brahmāchārya and apārigraha), the second vratā truthfulness is subordinate to the the first vratā of ahimsā (Jain, 2002). Valluvar states this explicitly in Kuŗal in the following words:

Kuŗal 323.
ஒன்றாக நல்லது கொல்லாமை மற்றதன்
பின்சாரப் பொய்யாமை நன்று.
The first and foremost good is ‘Non killing’.
Next to it in rank comes ‘Not lying’. NV

Valluvar places satyā after ahimsā which is in direct contradiction to Harichandra who put satyā above ahimsā (Subramanian and Rajalakshmi, 1984). One wonders what prompted Valluvar to talk about "பொய்யாமை" in the Chapter on "கொல்லாமை" and that too make a specific mention that "Not lying" comes only next to "Not killing" in rank! There can be no better explanation than this: that the author of Thirkkural was consciously defining ethics based on Jaina ideals.

(iv) But Satyā should also be Ahimsic

Interestingly, the Jaina definition of Truthfulness (வாய்மை) or Not speaking falsehood (பொய்யாமை) itself has ahimsā connotation. Says H.R. Jain (2002) in his book on Jaina Tradition in Indian Thought: "It is interesting to note that even speaking truth which results in injury to others should be avoided". Avoiding harsh speech is one of the oft repeated pronouncements of Valluvar. He emphasized it not only under chapter 10 on "Pleasant Speech" (couplets 99, 100) but also in may places outside this chapter (see couplets 35, 386, 566, 567).

Sūtrā 400 under Self-control in Saman Suttam, an anthology of well known Jaina sūtrās, says:

तहेव फरुसा भासा, गुरुभूओवघाइअणी ।
सच्चा-वि सा न वत्तव्वा, जओ पावस्स आगमो ॥१७॥

The monk should not use harsh words
Or speak what is harmful to other living beings;
Even if its true, because it is sinful. (400)

Three points have been brought out in the above Sūtrā:

(i) What is to be avoided? Speaking harsh words.
(ii) What is a harsh word? Any speech harmful to other living beings.
(iii) What to do if truth to be conveyed causes harm? Avoid it, because it is a sin.

The last point is worth taking note of. Anything that harms others should be avoided, even if it is the truth. In other words, better lie than speak the truth in situations that may harm the other. This is exactly what Valluvar says in the very first two couplets in chapter 30 on Truthfulness.

Couplet 291.
வாய்மை எனப்படுவது யாதெனின் யாதொன்றும்
தீமை இலாத சொலல்.
What is truthfulness? It is nothing but
Utterance wholly devoid of ill. VS, PS

Couplet 292.
பொய்மையும் வாய்மை இடத்த புரைதீர்ந்த
நன்மை பயக்கும் எனின்.
Even a lie would take the place of truth,
If it brings blameless benefit. NV, VR

The second couplet is actually a supplement to the first. Valluvar's definition of truthfulness is perhaps the most clinching evidence, if one may say so, to prove his inclination towards Jaina ideals and morality. The Jaina commentator of the 16th century AD Vāmana Munivar (சமய திவாகர வாமன முனிவர்) while commenting on the Jaina work Neelakéci, cites this couplet from Kuŗal and adds the phrase "so says our scripture" (எம் ஒத்து ஆதலின்) (Zvelebil, 1975; Shanmugampillai, 2005). Sabramanyam (1987) reiterates that it is in this chapter that the poet implies the ahimsā doctrine of the Jainas. Interestingly such a definition of truthfulness is not hard to find in other texts as well! In Panchatantra (Book III in 'Crows and Owls'), we see a similar pronouncement: "Even truth should be concealed if causing sorrow when revealed". As I mentioned in one of my earlier postings, it is not a surprise to know that the popular recensions of Panchatantra have been the works of the Jains (Jain, 1999).

(v) From the concluding chapter of my article on "Jaina ideas in Tirukkural":

What makes Kuŗal Jaina in character is the combination of all these:

a) An Invocation in the very beginning that is consistent with the terminologies and beliefs employed for praising of Jaina godheads, Arhat and Siddha

b) Valluvar's repeated emphasize on Not-killing and Not hurting even outside the chapters on Not-killing (கொல்லாமை) and Not-hurting (இன்னா செய்யாமை)

c) Valluvar's frequent reference to Not-killing as virtue (அறம்), grace (அருள்), perfect path (நல்லாறு), characteristic of penance (தவத்திற்கு உரு), and as the topmost code ever written (தொகுத்தவற்றுள் எல்லாம் தலை)

d) The chapter headings in the first division Virtue (அறத்துப்பால்) that are very much in line with the spirit of the Jaina tradition (compared with Jaina anthologies like Saman Suttam and Pearls of Jaina Wisdom)

e) His definition of truthfulness as something that should not cause any harm to others

f) The special mention of Not-killing as a vow above Truthfulness (as I and II vratās respectively)

Therefore there is no doubt that the ethic Valluvar builds in his work is based on Jaina principles. In a state like Tamil Nadu, dominated by the majority Hindus and with a tradition of four of the five great commentators of Kuŗal (Pariperumaal, Parithiar, Parimelazhagar and Kalingar) interpreting the first chapter in Hindu non-Jaina terms, it is nothing but natural that Jaina renderings have taken a back seat. Zvelebil (1975), citing M. Irakava Iyenkar's reference to an inscription of 1272 in Sri Varadaraja Temple in Kanchi that refers to a Jaina commentators, mentions that many of the Jaina commentaries of Kuŗal were suppressed by the commentary of the 13th century Parimelazhagar.

While the majority are ignorant of the Jaina terminologies, the Jains who are supposed to know them are unfortunately a marginal minority. No wonder their voices are never heard. One is left to wonder, what would have been the recognition given to the Kuŗal had the state been a Jaina majority. The Jains have every right to say that Valluvar was a Jain, or at least claim that the author of the Kuŗal was inclined towards Jaina ideals. But they do not have the right to claim the Kuŗal as their scripture for the simple reason that the Kuŗal was not written for any particular sect in mind.

Let us now revisit what Rajaji said: "It is claimed by many that Tiru-Valluvar was a Jain. I do not accept this theory". But Rajaji didn't explain why he denied such claims. He only said "Tiru-Valluvar was one of those rare and great men whose catholic spirit rose above all denominations and whose vision was not clouded by dogma or prejudice of any kind". Even those who claim Valluvar to be a Jain say so! They also declare that in spite of being a Jain, Valluvar's Kuŗal is a non-sectarian composition, with the author making no attempt or whatsoever to impart the doctrines of his own religion on others.

The Deity Valluvar invokes in Chapter is sufficient enough to show that Valluvar must have been a Jain. In spite of all these, Thirukkuŗal is not a book on Jainism or Jaina philosophy but a book written by someone who must have been either a Jain or someone who was impressed by Jaina ideals of life. As Subramaniyam (1987) said, Valluvar made great use of ideas that came his way, be it from Hinduism or Buddhism, but the greater part of his familiarity is with Jainism.

References:

Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith. p. 191

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

Shanmugampillai, M. 2005. Thiruvalluvar a Jain (வள்ளுவர் சைன சமயம் சார்ந்தவர்). Available at http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-IHs9F...Ww--?cq=1&p=13

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

Subramanian, N. and Rajalakshmi, R. 1984. The Concordance of Tirukkural (With Critical Introduction). Ennes Publications, Madurai. 250 pages

Venugopala Pillai, M.V. (undated) Who is Adhibagawan? (English translation of Tamil essay). Available at Ahimsā Foundation.(http://www.jainsamaj.org/literature/...wan/300103.htm)

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

Dear Ms Ashraf!

Still there is no convincing evidence, which can establish beyond reasonable doubt that VaLLuvar is Jain or that he was so deeply impressed by the Jains. Of course Jains can claim anything, as indeed even the Christians are claiming now.

There are similarities between some precepts of Jainism with certain corners of KuRaL. These similarities are insufficient to reach any conclusion.

Buddhism also emphasizes a great deal on non-killing.

VaLLuvar did not approve of shaving off one's head or pulling out of one's hair to become a monk or nun. (as the Jains do). He also says that it is sufficient for a person if goes along with the world. He emphasized family virtues and begetting children. He devoted about one third of his book to love and sex. He preached love: "anpin vaziyathu uyirnilai". He was against begging and certainly is against monks and nuns who do so.

VaLLuvar is a thoroughbred Tamilian in body and mind, who commenced with "a" and ended his KuRaL with "n".

Religious leaders borrowed from the societies in which they rose. Many concepts can be proven to have pre-existed them..

I therefore do not think that you have proven your point.

«Èò¾¡üÈ¢ý þøÅ¡ú쨸 ¬üÈ¢ý ÒÈò¾¡üÈ¢ü
§À¡´öô ¦ÀÚÅÐ ±Åý?

¬üÈ¢ý ´Ø츢 «ÈÉ¢Ø측 þøÅ¡ú쨸
§¿¡üÀ¡Ã¢ý §¿¡ý¨Á Ô¨¼òÐ.

ºÁ½ ÐÈŢ¡¸§Å¡ Òò¾ ÐÈŢ¡¸§Å¡ §À¡Å¾¢ø Òñ½¢ÂÁ¢ø¨Ä ±ý¸¢È¡÷! ¾¢ÕÁ½õ ¦ºöЦ¸¡û¸ ±ý¸¢ýÈ¡÷.

ÁÉòÐì¸ñ Á¡º¢Äý ¬¾ø «¨Éò¾Èý;
¬ÌÄ ¿£Ã À¢È.

Á¡º¢Ä¡¾ ÁÉõ §À¡Ð§Á! «Èõ ±ýÀÐ «ùÅÇ×¾¡ý ±ý¸¢È¡÷.

´Øì¸õ Å¢ØôÀõ ¾ÃÄ¡ý ´Øì¸õ
¯Â¢Ã¢Ûõ µõÀô ÀÎõ.

¾ýÛ¢÷, À¢È ¯Â¢÷ ±É ±ù×¢¨Ã Å¢¼×õ, ´Øì¸ò¨¾§Â ¸¡òÐ즸¡ûǧÅñÎõ. À¢È×¢¨Ãì ¦¸¡ýÚ ¾¢ýÀÅýܼ ´Øì¸Ó¨¼ÂÅɡ¢ý, «Åý º¢ÈôÒ ±öи¢È¡ý. ¯Â¢Ã¢Ûõ ±ýÈ ¦º¡øÖìÌ "¾ý" "À¢È" ±ýÈ «¨¼¦Á¡Æ¢¸û þø¨Ä!!

//Sutrakritanga of Jainism says "A man should wander about treating all creatures
as he himself would be treated" (1.11.33).
In Kuŗal, Valluvar even goes a step higher and says in couplet 327:
¾ýÛ¢÷ ¿£ôÀ¢Ûõ ¦ºöÂü¸ ¾¡ýÀ¢È¢Ð
þýÛ¢÷ ¿£ìÌõ Å¢¨É.

Avoid removing the dear life of another
Even when your own life is under threat. NV//


If a teacher went beyond what has been pronounced in an established religion, then he qualified or modified that teaching, assuming that the teacher was at the time having in his mind that religious teaching. Then it is very clear that he was not an adherent of that religion.

There is no evidence that VaLLuvar was looking at or considering Jain teachings when he wrote the kuRaL.

NVK Ashraf wrote:
iv) But Satyā should also be Ahimsic

Interestingly, the Jaina definition of Truthfulness (வாய்மை) or Not speaking falsehood (பொய்யாமை) itself has ahimsā connotation. Says H.R. Jain (2002) in his book on Jaina Tradition in Indian Thought: "It is interesting to note that even speaking truth which results in injury to others should be avoided". Avoiding harsh speech is one of the oft repeated pronouncements of Valluvar. He emphasized it not only under chapter 10 on "Pleasant Speech" (couplets 99, 100) but also in may places outside this chapter (see couplets 35, 386, 566, 567).

Sūtrā 400 under Self-control in Saman Suttam, an anthology of well known Jaina sūtrās, says:


iii) Placing Ahimsā above Satyā

The characteristic of Jainism is that, of the five vratās or vows (ahimsā, satyā, asteya, brahmāchārya and apārigraha), the second vratā truthfulness is subordinate to the the first vratā of ahimsā (Jain, 2002). Valluvar states this explicitly in Kuŗal in the following words:

Kuŗal 323.
ஒன்றாக நல்லது கொல்லாமை மற்றதன்
பின்சாரப் பொய்யாமை நன்று.
The first and foremost good is ‘Non killing’.
Next to it in rank comes ‘Not lying’. NV

Ms Ashraf,

இதை ஒரு கதைபுனைந்து விளக்குகிறேன்.

ஓர் அரசன், மரண தண்டனை விதிக்கப் பட்ட கைதியைச் சிறைக் காவலனிடம் ஒப்படைத்து, தண்டனையை நிறைவேற்றும்படிப் பணிக்கின்றான். சிறைக் காவலனோ கொல்லாமை போற்றுபவன். கைதியைக் காட்டிற்குக் கொண்டுசென்று தப்புவித்துவிடுகின்றான். ( அதாவது, வள்ளுவன் சொன்ன கொல்லாமையை அவன் கடைப் பிடித்து வெற்றிகண்டுவிட்டான்).

அடுத்து அவன் அரசனிடம் வருகின்றான். "எப்படி? என்னவாயிற்று?" என்றரசன் கேட்க, இங்கு: பொய்யைச் சொல்வதா? தப்புவித்துவிட்ட உண்மையைச் சொல்வதா? என்ற போராட்டம் எழுகின்றது. வள்ளுவர் கருத்துப்படி, காவலன் உண்மை பேசினால், "நன்று" என்கிறார். காவலனுக்கு 100/100 கொடுக்கவேண்டியதுதான்!! உண்மை பேசி உயிரை மாய்த்துக் கோண்டான் என்று காவியங்கள் புகழட்டும்.

" தன்டனை நிறைவேற்றப்பட்டது" என்று பொய பேசினால் - பாவம், தானும் பிழைத்து, குடும்பத்தையும் காக்கவேண்டிய பொறுப்பு உள்ளவன் அவன். போகட்டும் என்று வள்ளுவன் விட்டுவிடுகிறான்.

உயிர்க் கொலையினால், நன்மை இல்லை.
ஆனால் பொய்யாமையினால் நன்மை - தீமை இரண்டுமுண்டு.

அதனால்தான், பொய்யாமை பின்பு வைக்கப் பட்டது. இதைப் போன்ற நிகழ்வுகளை வள்ளுவன் எத்தனையோ கேள்விப் பட்டிருப்பான். இதற்குச் சமணனிடம் போய்க் கேட்கவேண்டியதில்லை.

கொல்லாமையைப் பின்பற்றிக் காவலனைபோல் மாட்டிகொள்ளக் கூடாது என்றுதான், அதைத் துறவிகளுக்கு மட்டும்் ஓதினார் வள்ளுவர். "கொல்லா நலத்தது நோன்மை" என்றார்!! காவலனைப் பொறுத்தவரை அவன் தன் அலுவலுக்குரிய கடமையைத்தானே் செய்யவேண்டும்?

A contrast or comparison between two items is grossly insufficient to conclude one way or the other. If anyone doubts it, just give it to your class of 40 students and ask them to rank the two items. You will be surprised. Some will rank 1,2 and the rest 2,1. If it is a ranking of 10 items and the ranking is identical, then we can talk. I am surprised how authors like Jain can misdirect themselves in this manner.

(a) Brahmins in Tirukkural

I still have few points to cover in my reply to Mr. Devapriya's latest posting. At one place, he has spent considerable time on the occurrence of "Brahmins" in Tirukkural. This subject has already been discussed in detail but still he is continuing to raise the issue. He cited the following couplets from Tirukkural:

அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர்மற் றெவ்வுயிர்க்கும்
செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுக லான். 30
அந்தணர் நூற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் தியாய்
நின்றது மன்னவன் கோல். 543
பயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர்
காவலன் காவான் எனின். 560
மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கங் குன்றக் கெடும். 134

and said: "The author of the book (I presume Devapriya is here referring to Kamatchi Srinivasan) analyses the Religious situation in Tholkappiyam and takes all references of every song in Sangam Literature, Tholkappiyam, Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai and confirms the research view".

My reply:
One of the single most arguments of Mr. Devapriya has been that the Kural shows influence of Sangam literary tradition, including the religious ideas mentioned in Sangam literature. This is true in the case of காமத்துப்பால் which is undoubtedly styled on the அகம் poetry of the Sangam period. But பொருட்பால், as scholars have repeatedly emphasized, shows considerable affinity to works like Arthashāstra, Nitishāstra and the like. P.S. Sundaram (1989) writes. "There is evidence in the Kural of Valluvar's indebtdeness to Manu's Dharmasastra, Kamandaka's Nitisara, Kautilya's Arthasastra and certain Ayurvedic treatises all written in Sanskrit. ....... His delineation of the romantic pangs of a lover, he is more influenced by the earlier Tamil conventions than by anything he may have found in Sanskrit literature".

Citing the above couplets referring to Brahmins, Mr. Devapriya quoted the following observations (of Kamatchi Srinivasan?):

(i) "அந்தணர் என்னும் சொற்கு எவ்வுயிர்கும் செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுகுவோர் என வள்ளுவர் கூறினாராயினும் இங்கு அச்சொல் பிரமாணரைக் குறிப்பதாகக் கொள்வதெ பொருந்தும்".

My comment: "இருக்கட்டுமே! அதனால் என்ன?"

(ii) "அந்தணர் நூல் என்பதும் வேதம் முதலிய சமயனூல்களையே எனலாம். இவ்வாறே பழைய உரையாசிரியர்கள் அனைவரும் பொருள் கொண்டனர்"

My comment: We all think that the words ""anthañar nūŗkum" (அந்தணர் நூற்கும்) in the couplet 543 is usually translated as "scriptures of Brahmins". Not necessarily. Reproduced below are 13 translations I have access to:

J. Narayanaswamy: "Scriptures"
S. Maharajan: "Scriptures"
PS Sundaram: "Scripture"

VVS Ayyar: "Science of the Brahmans"
Drew/Lazarus: "Vedas of the Brahmins"
G. Vanmikanathan: "Brahmin's Vedas"
SM Diaz: "Vedas of sages"

Satguru Subramaniaswamy: "Priests' Scriptures"
Suddhanata Bharati: "Sage's scripture"
K. Kannan: "Scriptures preached by priests"
K. Krishnaswamy & Vijaya Ramkumar: "Scriptures of Seers"
Swami Iraianban: "Person helping in religious worship"
GU Pope: "Learning of the sages"

Why only three of the 13 translators have taken the word "அந்தணர்" here to mean "Brahmins"? No doubt that the word "anthañan" standing on its own mean "Brahmin", but in the Kural the meaning differs according to the context (like in any other text for that matter). Valluvar never seemed to have used the word "anthañan" to mean "Brahmin" in Tirukkural. It is only when Valluvar employs the word pārppān (பார்ப்பான்) and probably also "அறுதொழிலோர்" does he refer to the Vedic Brahmin. The phrase "அந்தணர் நூற்கும்" in couplet 543 should actually mean the "scriptures of the great" since Valluvar himself in couplet 28 says "மறைமொழி" (scriptures) are filled with the great words of people "மாந்தர்" (couplet 28). Anyway, even if this is taken as a reference to "Brahmins", how does it weaken the claims of Valluvar's familiarity to Jaina ideas and deities?

(iii) "அறுதொழிலோர் என சிரியர் குறிபிட்டதும் பிரமாணர்களையே யாதால் வேண்டும். ஓதல், ஓதுவித்தல், வேட்டல், வேட்பித்தல், ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்னும் தொழில்கள் அவர்க்குரிய என்பது சங்க காலத்தில் முன்பெ வகுக்கப்பட்டது. இவ்வாறு தொழில்கள் பதிற்றுபத்தினுள்ளும் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ளன".

My comment: There is no argument against this statement. I can easily be taken as a reference to Brahmins. சரி அதனான் என்ன? "பிராமணர்" என்ற வார்த்தையும், பிராமணரின் தொழிலும் திருக்குறளில் இடம்பெற்றுள்ளதால் அது இந்து மதத்தின் அடிப்படையான நூல் ஆகிவிடுமா? அப்படியானால் பௌத்த மத நூலான "தம்மபாதா"-வில் "Brahamin" என்ற தலைப்பில் ஒரு முழு அதிகாரமே உள்ளதால் அதை "இந்து" மத நூல் என்று கொள்ளலாகுமா?

(iv) "இக்குறள் (134) பார்ப்பாரையும் அவர் ஓதும் வேதத்தையுமே குறிக்கிறதென்பது தெளிவு. "மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும்" என்ற தொடரும் பார்ப்பான் ஓத்தை (வேதம் ஓதக்கற்றதை) மறத்தலாகாது. ஒருகால் மறப்பினும் விரைவில் திரும்ப ஓதிக் கற்றுக் கொள்ளல் வேண்டும் என்ற கருத்தைத் தரும்"

My comment: Of course it is a reference to Brahmin. (I have reproduced below, selections from my article "Jaina ideas in Tirukkural" which will be uploaded at http://nvkashraf.myweb.io/valluvar/jaina.htm)

//
Though Valluvar said in couplet 972 that men are all equal by birth and distinction arises only because of their deeds, he was aware of the prevailing custom of Brahmins reciting the Vedas and they being considered men of noble birth. Says Valluvar in couplet 134:

Scriptures forgot can be recapitulated.
Bad conduct debases a Brahmin and his birth. * PS, JN

In this couplet, Valluvar's intention is to say what happens to a person of good birth if his conduct is bad. The emphasis is on the morality and not on who is qualified to recite scriptures. Chakravarti (1953) writes that the honour and respect that a Brahmin can expect from society must be based on excellence and not upon cultivation of memory. The Jaina anthology Saman Suttam (340) says a person does not become a Brahmin by repeating the Ōmkāra mantra. Similarly Valluvar also says in couplet 134 that it is by conduct that a person becomes a Brahmin and not by his ability to recapitulate scriptures.
//

In the end Mr. Devapriya quotes these two major conclusions (of Kamatchi Srinivasan?):

(a) வேதம் முதலிய சமயநூல்களைக் கற்பது சிறப்பாக அந்தணர் (பிரமாணர்) கடமை என அக்காலத்து நிலவிய கருத்தை வள்ளுவரும் ஏற்றுக் கொண்டார் போலும்.

My answer: I disagree. For instance Buddha says in Dhammapada: "One should reverently pay homage to the man from whom one has learned the Truth, taught by the True Buddha, like a brahmin does to the sacrificial fire." (verse 392). This does not mean Buddha accepted or promoted the practice of sacrificial fire. He has only made a mention of it.

(b) காவலன் காவானெனின் அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர் என எச்சரிக்கப் படுவதும் சமய நூல்கள் மறக்கப் படுதல் சமுதாயத்திற்கு கேடு எனக் கருதப் படுவதனாலேயே.

My reply: Devapriya's aim seems to be to somehow show that Valluvar is in support of reciting religious scriptures. There is no need to try so hard because இது உண்மையாக இருக்கலாம். ஆனால் வள்ளுவர் "சமய நூல்கள் மறக்கப் படுதல் சமுதாயத்திற்கு கேடு" எனக்கருதினார் என்பதற்கு குறள் 560-ல் (see below) ஆதாரமிருப்பதாக எனக்குத் தெரியவில்லை.

பயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர்
காவலன் காவான் எனின். 560
Cows yield less and priests forget their hymns
If the protector fails to protect. * PS

In the ancient Tamil country, many of the religious establishments and religious practices survived only under the patronage of the Kings. Religio-philosophical history of Tamil Nadu is studded with the conversion and re-conversions of Kings from Jainism to Saivism and vice versa. One of the reasons, we know, for the disappearance of Jainism from Tamil Nadu is the failure on the part of Jains to get the Royal patronage. It is quite natural that Valluvar thought Royal patronage has lot to do in the preservation of scriptural knowledge.

(b) Offerings and Vegetarianism

Devapriya cites what the Peedam Author mentions about verse 259 on

அவிசொரிந்து ஆயிரம் வேட்டலின் ஒன்றன்
உயிர்செகுத்து உண்ணாமை நன்று. (259)

"...... அவிப்பொருள்களை நெருப்பில் சொரிந்து யிரம் வேள்வி செய்வதை விட ஒன்றின் உயிர் செகுத்து அதன் ஊனை உண்ணாமை நன்று என வள்ளுவர் இங்கு கூறினார். இதனால் வேள்வி தீயது என வள்ளுவர் கருதினார் எனல் ஆகுமா? வேள்வியையும் நல்லதாகக் கருதித்தானே வேள்வி செய்தலை விடக் கொல்லாமை நன்று என்றார். .. .. ரிய வேள்விக்களத்திலுமே உயிர்க்கொலையும் விலங்குபலியும் இல்லை. பசுயாகம் எனப்படும் சில வேள்விகளில் மட்டுமே விலங்குபலியளிப்பர். நெய், பால், தானியங்கள் தானியங்களினால் செய்யப்பட்ட உணவுப் பொருட்கள் கியவற்றை நெருப்பிலிட்டும் வேள்விகள் செய்வர் (Author quotes this from "INDIA OF THE AGE OF THE BRAMANAS" book-iii, CHAP-2, The forms of Sacrifice- by Basu, Dr. Jogiraj). எனவே உயிர்க் கொலையின்றி இவ்வாறு செய்யப்படும் வேள்விகள் வள்ளுவர்க்கு உடன்பாடு என்றே கொள்ளலாம். பக்கம் - 192,193. "

My reply:
வேள்வி தீயது என்று வள்ளுவர் இக்குறளின் (259) மூலம் கூறவில்லை என்பது சரியே. ஆனால், கொலையின்றி செய்யப்படும் வேள்விகளுடன் வள்ளுவருக்கு "உடன்பாடு" என்பதைவிட, அக்காலத்தில் மக்களிடம் காணப்பட்ட வழிபாட்டு முறைகளை வள்ளுவர் அறிந்திருந்தார் என்பதையுன், அதை இக்குறளில் ஒரு விலங்கைக் கொன்று அதை உண்பதைவிட கொலையின்றி ஆயிரம் வேள்விகள் செய்வதே மேல் என்று குறிப்பிடுவதாக பொருள் கொள்வதே சரியாகத்தோன்றுகிறது. Being such a staunch promoter of vegetarianism and not-killing, it is quite natural that Valluvar would have opposed the Vedic practice of sacrifice with animal offerings.

In this context, it is pertinent to refer to Parithiyar's commentary on this verse here because it differs from that of others: "நெய் முதலானவற்றை ஓமத்திலே சொரிந்து ஆயிரம் யாகம் செய்வதில், ஓர் உயிரைக் கொன்று புலால் தின்னாமை நன்று என்றவாறு." I not surprised to see this daring interpretation by Parithiyar! Though, this may not be what Valluvar actually meant in this couplet.

While discussing about "திருக்குறளில் வழிபாட்டு முறைகள்", Mohanraj (1983) says:

"திருக்குறளில் பூசனை (16), தென்புலத்தார் ஓம்பல் (43), வேள்வி (259), அவியுணவு (413) ஆகியன பற்றிய - வழிபாட்டு முறைகளை உணர்த்தும் குறிப்புகளைக் காண முடிகின்றது. இவற்றால், தமிழரிடமும் ஆரியரிடமும் காணப்பட்ட நடைமுறை வழிபாட்டு நெறிகளை வள்ளுவர் அறிந்திருந்தார் என்பது தெளிவு. ஆனால், இக்குறிப்புகளில் ஒன்ருகூட - சொல் தொடர் அளவிலும்கூட - கடவுள் வாழ்த்து அதிகாரத்தில் இடம்பெறவில்லை என்பது கருத்தில் கொள்ளத்தக்க ஒன்றாகும்".

References:

Mohanraj, K. 1983. சமயப் பொதுமை. In: Idealism and Universalism of Tiruvalluvar. திருவள்ளுவரின் குறிக்கோளியலும் உலகப் பொதுமையியலும். University of Madras. pp 315-370

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

சிவமாலா அவர்களே,

You have been posting some "interesting" replies. This is posting of mine is for your observations made on the 8th.

(அ) You said:
(i) Still, there is no convincing evidence, which can establish beyond reasonable doubt that VaLLuvar is Jain or that he was so deeply impressed by the Jains.

என்ன சார் இது? விடிய விடிய என் கதையை கேட்டுவிட்டு, நான் கூறிய கருத்துகளுக்கு இடையில் ஒரு எதிர்ப்பும் தெரிவிக்காமல், கடைசியில் மொட்டையாக "Still there is no convincing evidence" என்று சோன்னால் எப்படி? I would appreciate if you can tell me where I have gone wrong in my presentation all these days and which of my arguments are unreasonable. That would help in either restructuring my presentation or even reconsider my view.


(ஆ) You wrote:
(ii) Of course Jains can claim anything, as indeed even the Christians are claiming now.

We all know, Jains (even non-Jains!) have claimed the Kural to be a work of a Jaina.
We all know, Saivites have claimed the Kural to be a work of Saiva devotee.
We also know that there is no dearth of similar claims from the Vaishnavite sect.
We also know that there are scholars who consider the Kural to be a Buddhist one.
We also know that there are Christians who claim the Kural to be a work based on the Bible.

Sivamaala, are you are willing rank these claims, based on a simple criteria of reasonability of such claims! i.e. எது மிகவும் நியாயமான முறையீடு என்று?

If you take the first chapter கடவுள் வாழ்த்து, the suitability ranking for all the 10 names and attributes of the deity comes to the following figures for Jesus, Shiva, Vishnu, Buddha, Jain God and Noble man, in that order.

Ranking:
0 means "not appropriate"
1 means "can be considered with reluctance"
2 means "appropriate" and
3 means "very appropriate"

J S V B JG N
1 ஆதி பகவன் 0 2 2 0 3 0
2 வாலறிவன் 1 2 2 1 2 3
3 ம. ஏகினான் 0 0 1 2 3 0
4 வே. வே. இலான் 1 1 1 3 3 2
5 இறைவன் 3 3 3 2 2 1
6 ஐந்தவித்தான் 1 0 0 3 3 0
7 தன. இல்லாதான் 2 3 3 3 2 1
8 அற. அந்தனன் 1 2 2 3 3 2
9 எண் குணத்தான் 1 2 1 2 3 2
10 இறைவன் 3 3 3 2 2 1

Marks out of 30: 13 18 18 21 26 12

You will appreciate that the contents of the first chapter are more relevant to describe a Jaina deity than deities of other faiths. Buddhism comes close second.

(இ) You also wrote:
There are similarities between some percepts of Jainism with certain corners of KuRal.

But do you at least agree that the similarity is more with Jainism than with Buddhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism or Christianity for that matter? If not, then please prove me otherwise.

(ஈ) You wrote:
He emphasized family virtues and begetting children. He devoted about one third of his book to love and sex.

So what? Do you mean to say Jains and Buddhists never indulged in procreation? Do you mean to say there were no Buddhist and Jaina householders during the time of Valluvar? I will agree with your argument if Tirukkural had been a religious work. It is not. It contains religious ideas, but is not a book on religious philosophy or doctrines. வள்ளுவர் காமத்துப்பாலை எழுதினாராம், அதனால் அவர் சமண மதத்தைச் சார்ந்தவரில்லையாம்! Wonder when people are going to shed this line of argument. My dear sir, Valluvar's Tirukkural is not based on Jaina religious philosophy but Jaina ethics. He cannot be a Jaina Acharya (like Sri Kundakunda as Jains claim) but a householder.

(உ) You made an interesting comment:
He preached love: "anpin vaziyathu uyirnilai"

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

(ஊ) You also wrote:
VaLLuvar is a thoroughbred Tamilian in body and mind, who commence with "a" and ended hi KuRal with "n".

Again I could not understand the implication of the statement here. Do you meant to say Jains and Buddhists were not Tamilians? What this has to do with Valluvar being a Hindu or a believer in Creator God or whatever it is? Or, are you implying that only a believer in Creator God would have written a book beginning with "அ" and endinக் with "ன்"?.

(எ) You cited these two couplets......

அறத்து ஆற்றின் இல் வாழ்க்கை ஆற்றின்
புறத்து ஆற்றில் போய்ப் பெறுவது எவன்.

ஆற்றின் ஒழுக்கி அறன் இழுக்கா இல் வாழ்க்கை
நோற்பாரின் நோன்மை உடைத்து.

.... and said: "சமண துறவியாகவோ போவதில் புண்ணியமில்லை என்கிறார்"

I have three questions. Hope you will answer these.

(i) Where does Valluvar say it is useless to become Jaina and Buddhist renunciates?

(ii) How did the same Valluvar exalted Ascetic life in the following verse?

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)

(iii) If he had denounced "Asceticism" and Ascetic practice, please tell me why he wrote a special chapter on "Ascetics greatness" and placed it before "Domestic life"? And also wrote chapters on "Renunciation", "Penance", "Imposture", "Impermanence" and "Desirelessness" which all have something to do with Ascetic life, in some way or the other ?

(ஏ) You cited this couplet:

ஒழுக்கம் விழுப்பம் தரலான் ஒழுக்கம்
உயிரினும் ஓம்பப் படும். 131.
Discipline is more precious than life itself,
For it is discipline that confers eminence. * (CR, GV)

The commentary you have given for this couplet is very interesting! "தன்னுயிர், பிற உயிர் என எவ்வுயிரைவிடவும், ஒழுக்கத்தையே காத்துக்கொள்ளவேண்டும். பிறவுயிரைக் கொன்று தின்பவன்கூட ஒழுக்கமுடையவனாயின், அவன் சிறப்பு எய்துகிறான்"

Do you really think Valluvar, a resolute opponent of killing animal life, would have said so? I am shocked to see your interpretation, to say the least. Reproduced below are translations of the phrase "ஒழுக்கம் உயிரினும் ஓம்பப் படும்" by different translators:

decorum more than life guards its purity - Suddhanta Bharathi
conduct should be guarded as more precious than life itself. - Satguru Subramaniswamy
conduct is precious than life itself - K. Kannan and C. Rajagopalachari
conduct should be preserved more carefully than life - Drew/Lazarus
conduct is prized even above life - VVS Aiyar
decorum men should guard than life, which all men share - GU Pope
conduct should be cherished as more precious than life itself - SM Diaz
conduct must be guarded above life - PS Sundaram
discipline is like life to the body to protect - J Narayanaswamy

None of these translators even remotely imply what you said. That "தன்னுயிர், பிற உயிர் என எவ்வுயிரைவிடவும், ஒழுக்கத்தையே காத்துக்கொள்ளவேண்டும்" என்று! What Valluvar says here is this. Since it is conduct that makes our life precious, conduct is more precious than life/soul. In other words, men caught in the net of misconduct or dishonour would prefer death than saving their life! Well, Valluvar mentions this in other places:

மயிர் நீப்பின் வாழாக் கவரிமா அன்னார்
உயிர் நீப்பர் மானம் வரின். (969)
The yak, sheared of its hair, does not survive.
The noble, stripped of their honour, prefer death. (NV)

The same idea is repeated in these following couplets (968 and 970):

Is body as precious as ambrosia that men desire to save it
Even at the cost of honour? (MS, VS)
The world will admire and worship the glory of men
Who prefer death to dishonour. * (CR)

Ms Ashraf,

ஒழுக்கம் விழுப்பம் தரலான் ஒழுக்கம்
உயிரினும் ஓம்பப் படும் ---

என்ற குறளுக்கு நான் கூறிய விளக்கம் சரியானதுதான். இக்குறளுக்கு "தன்" என்ற சொல்லைப் பெய்து பொருளுரைத்தவர்கள் தம்மை அறியாமலேயே
அதன் முழுப்பொருளையும் குறுக்கிவிட்டனர் என்றுதான் கொள்ளவேண்டும்.

பிற உயிரினால் தம் ஒழுக்கத்திற்குக் கேடு வருமுன் அவ்வுயிரை அழித்துவிடுதல் வள்ளுவரால் தடுக்கப் படவில்லை. ஒழுக்கத்தைக் காத்துக்கொள்ள கொல்வது ஒரு மனித உயிராகவோ அல்லது விலங்கின் உயிராகவோ இருக்கலாம். மேலும் கொல்லாமை என்பது துறவிகளுக்கே அவர்கள் மேற்கொள்ளுவதற்குரிய நோன்பாக எடுத்துரைக்கப் பட்டுள்ளது. இதில் சமண க் கருத்து ஏதுமில்லை.

இந்தியாவில் பழம்பெரு நாகரிகமும் பண்பாடும் உடையோர் தமிழர். அவர்கள் கொல்லாமை, பொய்யாமை முதலியவற்றை அறியாமல் இருந்து, வட மானிலத்துத் தோன்றிய சமணரிடமிருந்து உணர்ந்துகொண்டனர் என்பது ஒத்துக் கொள்ளமுடியாத கருத்து.

I agree you have taken great pains to convince us, but nothing is so unusually convincing in your submissions. Even your submissions on the lst chapter of kuRaL are also not convincing.

Ms Ashraf,

´Øì¸õ Å¢ØôÀõ ¾ÃÄ¡ý ´Øì¸õ
¯Â¢Ã¢Ûõ µõÀô ÀÎõ ---

±ýÈ ÌÈÙìÌ ¿¡ý ÜȢ ŢÇì¸õ ºÃ¢Â¡Éо¡ý. þìÌÈÙìÌ "¾ý" ±ýÈ ¦º¡ø¨Äô ¦ÀöÐ ¦À¡ÕÙ¨Ãò¾Å÷¸û ¾õ¨Á «È¢Â¡Á§Ä§Â
«¾ý ÓØô¦À¡Õ¨ÇÔõ ÌÚ츢Ţð¼É÷ ±ýÚ¾¡ý ¦¸¡ûǧÅñÎõ.

À¢È ¯Â¢Ã¢É¡ø ¾õ ´Øì¸ò¾¢üÌì §¸Î ÅÕÓý «ù×¢¨Ã «Æ¢òÐŢξø ÅûÙÅáø ¾Îì¸ô À¼Å¢ø¨Ä. ´Øì¸ò¨¾ì ¸¡òÐ즸¡ûÇ, ¦¸¡øÅÐ ´Õ ÁÉ¢¾ ¯Â¢Ã¡¸§Å¡ «øÄРŢÄí¸¢ý ¯Â¢Ã¡¸§Å¡ þÕì¸Ä¡õ. §ÁÖõ ¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á ±ýÀÐ ÐÈÅ¢¸Ù째 «Å÷¸û §Áü¦¸¡ûÙžüÌâ §¿¡ýÀ¡¸ ±ÎòШÃì¸ô ÀðÎûÇÐ. þ¾¢ø ºÁ½ ì ¸ÕòÐ ²ÐÁ¢ø¨Ä.

þó¾¢Â¡Å¢ø ÀÆõ¦ÀÕ ¿¡¸Ã¢¸Óõ ÀñÀ¡Îõ ¯¨¼§Â¡÷ ¾Á¢Æ÷. «Å÷¸û ¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á, ¦À¡ö¡¨Á ӾĢÂÅü¨È «È¢Â¡Áø þÕóÐ, ż Á¡É¢ÄòÐò §¾¡ýȢ ºÁ½Ã¢¼Á¢ÕóÐ ¯½÷óЦ¸¡ñ¼É÷ ±ýÀÐ ´òÐì ¦¸¡ûÇÓÊ¡¾ ¸ÕòÐ.

I agree you have taken great pains to convince us, but nothing is so unusually convincing in your submissions. Even your submissions on the lst chapter of kuRaL are also not convincing.

One point agenda:

Dear Sivamaalaa,

You seem to have only ONE point agenda. To show that Tirukkural has nothing to do with Jainism. Well, what I am saying is nothing new but something that has been emphasized my many renowned scholars, many of whom were not even Jains! Most of the evidences I have produced for Jaina influence, are not products of Ashraf's wishful thinking. They have been emphasized by many others many times. I am have only reproduced them with a different approach and greater objectivity.

This is what I wrote, citing couplet 327. One person says a man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. Another person says avoid removing the dear life of another even when your own life is under threat. To this you went on and said,

"If a teacher went beyond what has been pronounced in an established religion, then he qualified or modified that teaching, assuming that the teacher was at the time having in his mind that religious teaching. Then it is very clear that he was not an adherent of that religion"

What are you saying, Mr. Sivamaalaa? I didn't expect you to write such inane stuff! How does it become modification of another's "pronouncement" or "teaching"? For instance, to say "Not to kill other beings" is a PRONOUNCEMENT (often found in CANONICAL scriptures) and for acharyas, poets and sages to write slokas, couplets and verses with similes and real life examples of their own choice is for PROPAGATION of this pronouncement of non-violence. Such works or compilations of their sayings are sometimes called quazi-canonical texts. Obviously there will be differences in style and emphasis between these writings. Because of this, how can you say one author has deviated from the religion? Coming to the above instance where I had cited verses from Saman Suttam and Tirukkural, the authors had only emphasized the PRONOUNCEMENT of non-violence through their quazi-canonial texts!

Another example to explain this point better. Do you mean to say none of the four great Saiva Nayanmars (namely Appar, Sundarar, Jnanasambandar and Manikyavachagar) differed in their teachings and like what you say "modified" their pronouncements? I would like to know from you. Waiting for a reply on this.

Quote:

---

You seem to have only ONE point agenda. To show that Tirukkural has nothing to do with Jainism.

---

You appear to have been troubled by what I wrote in my postings. Since you have your agenda and you would accuse any other who would share her thoughts on the subject as having a (counter)-agenda, I would leave you to carry on with your submissions.

Quote:

---

You wrote:
In Kuŗal, Valluvar even goes a step higher and says in couplet 327:

---

You in your own words said that VaLLuvar had gone a step higher. Well, if someone goes a step higher, then he was not following the religious text in question strictly. All these come from what you wrote and there is nothing inane about it. A person who goes a step higher is modifying or qualifying the principle. Going higher is a change as well as cutting short is also a change.

What you have tried to say is that: VaLLuvar, having the Jain text in his presence and having read from there, had gone a step higher! (or having known of the existence of such religious principle) . You are now refusing to admit that “going a step higher” is a modification when I put that issue back to you.

Whether it is an ordinary text or a canonical text or quasi-canonical text, going a step higher is a modification, provided the whole exercise proceeded from the original setting of a given text (which of course have yet to prove: that is, you have not proven that the “going higher was from a Jain text.). An enhancement is also a modification.

To deny that going a step higher is a modification is quite absurd. I did not expect a denial of this sort. In any case, please carry on with your agenda!! Bye Ms Ashraf.

சிவமாலாவின் கதை!

I had written how Valluvar defines Truthfulness (Satya) in Ahimsic terms and how Valluvar places Ahimsa above Satya. I had also pointed out parallels from Jaina religion and said Valluvar's definition of வாய்மை and prioritization of கொல்லாமை is based on Jaina principles. ஆனால் சிவாமாலாவோ, இதையெல்லாம் சமணனிடம் போய்க் கேட்டுத் தெரிந்துகொள்ள வேண்டியதில்லை, வள்ளுவருடைய வாழ்க்கையில் நடந்த நிகழ்ச்சிகளை வைத்தே அவரால் அவ்வாறு எழுதியிருக்கமுடியும் என்று சொல்லுகிறார். இதை ஒரு கதைசொல்லி விளக்குவதற்காக இறங்கியிருக்கிறார் சிவமாலா. இனி அவர் சொல்லவரும் கதையைப் பார்ப்போம்.

Ms Ashraf,
இதை ஒரு கதைபுனைந்து விளக்குகிறேன்.
ஓர் அரசன், மரண தண்டனை விதிக்கப் பட்ட கைதியைச் சிறைக் காவலனிடம் ஒப்படைத்து, தண்டனையை நிறைவேற்றும்படிப் பணிக்கின்றான். சிறைக் காவலனோ கொல்லாமை போற்றுபவன். கைதியைக் காட்டிற்குக் கொண்டுசென்று தப்புவித்துவிடுகின்றான். (அதாவது, வள்ளுவன் சொன்ன கொல்லாமையை அவன் கடைப் பிடித்து வெற்றிகண்டுவிட்டான்).

அகா! என்ன ஒரு அற்புதமான விளக்கம்! நன்பர் சிவமாலா அவர்களே, கொலைத் தண்டனையிலிருந்து ஒருவனை தப்பிக்கவிடுவது எவ்வாறு "கொல்லாமை" ஆகும்? கீழ்க்கண்ட குறளைப் படியுங்கள்!

கொலையின் கொடியாரை வேந்து ஒறுத்தல் பைங்கூழ்
களை கட்டதனொடு நேர். (550)
A king punishing criminals by execution is like a farmer
Removing weeds from his fields.* (SS)

Valluvar says eliminating murderers from the society is the duty of the king. How can the jailer allow the criminal escape under the pretext of கொல்லாமை? அவ்வாறு இருக்கும்போது, எப்படி நீங்கள் சிறைக்காவலன் வள்ளுவரின் "கொல்லாமை"- யைக் கடைப்பிடித்தான் என்று சொல்லமுடியும்? உங்களுடைய கதையின் அடிப்படைக் கருத்தே தவறு! எனவே மெற்கொண்டு இதைப்பற்றி எழுதுவதற்கு ஒன்றும் இல்லை.

Sivamaalaa writes in the end:

"A contrast or comparison between two items is grossly insufficient to conclude one way or the other. If anyone doubts it, just give it to your class of 40 students and ask them to rank the two items. You will be surprised. Some will rank 1,2 and the rest 2,1. If it is a ranking of 10 items and the ranking is identical, then we can talk. I am surprised how authors like Jain can misdirect themselves in this manner"

What are these two items? Not-killing and Truthfulness? And rank according to what? I am unable to understand the second half of this paragraph. What is this ranking of 10 items? Is Sivamaalaa referring to the 10 couplets in chapter 1? If so, please say "couplets" and not "items"! (இப்பொழுதெல்லாம் தமிழில் "ITEM" என்றாலே பொருள் வேறு!). And what mis-directions have the Jains given? Which Jains do you mean? In a nutshell, this paragraph is not clear.

Vegetarianism and Not killing only for Ascetics?

சிவமாலா எழுதுகிறார். . . .

ஒழுக்கம் விழுப்பம் தரலான் ஒழுக்கம்
உயிரினும் ஓம்பப் படும் ---

என்ற குறளுக்கு நான் கூறிய விளக்கம் சரியானதுதான். இக்குறளுக்கு "தன்" என்ற சொல்லைப் பெய்து பொருளுரைத்தவர்கள் தம்மை அறியாமலேயே அதன் முழுப்பொருளையும் குறுக்கிவிட்டனர் என்றுதான் கொள்ளவேண்டும்.

.... என்று தாங்கள் கூறினால் சரிதான்! P.S. Sundaram, Suddhananta Bharathi, C. Rajagopalachari, G.U. Pope, VVS Aiyar, Drew/Lazarus, S.M. Diaz ஆகியோரை ஒரே அடியில் ஒதுக்கிவிட்டீர்கள் போங்கள்! Keep it up.

Sivamaala said:
மேலும் கொல்லாமை என்பது துறவிகளுக்கே அவர்கள் மேற்கொள்ளுவதற்குரிய நோன்பாக எடுத்துரைக்கப் பட்டுள்ளது. இதில் சமணக் கருத்து ஏதுமில்லை.

எப்படிச்சொல்லுகிறீர், சிவமாலா அவர்களே? Is it because chapter "Not Killing" has been placed under "Ascetic Virtue"? இதே கதையைத்தான் தேவப்ரியாவும் கூறினார்.

(a) Chapters on "Thieving" and "Covetousness"
Chapter 29 (Thieving: கள்ளாமை) has been placed under "Ascetic virtue" and couplet 283 says "Stolen wealth may seem to swell but in the end will burst" (PS). First of all ascetics are not supposed to even have a desire for wealth, leave alone accumulating wealth, or for that matter indulge in thieving! In fact most of the couplets in this chapter talk about evils of thieving, therefore more relevant for householders who are occupied in social life and therefore have opportunities to indulge in thieving, corruption and the like! Let us look at the other chapter 18 (Covetousness: கயவாமை) placed under "Domestic virtue" and these two couplets ("They will not sin for fleeting pleasures who seek eternal joy"-173; "Their senses conquered, the clear-eyed cite not their poverty to covet" -174). Clearly these couplets are more appropriate for placing under "Ascetic virtue". Mr. Sivamaalaa, can you explain why this discrepancy?

(b) Chapters on "Self control" and "Forbearance"
These chapters (13: அடக்கமுடைமை and 16: பொறையுடைமை) are placed under "Domestic virtue". Do you mean to say those who follow the ascetic path need not show "self control" and "forbearance"?

(c) Chapters on "Truthfulness and "Kindliness"
These chapters (30: வாய்மை and 25: அருளுடைமை) are placed under "Ascetic virtue". Do you mean to say householders need not be truthful and compassionate?

(d) Prostitution, Alcoholism and Gambling
And what about these two chapters (92: வரைவின் மகளிர், 93: கள்ளுண்ணாமை, 94: சூது) which are neither in "Ascetic virtue" nor in "Domestic virtue". Does it mean householders and ascetics can make merry with மது, மாது and சூது?

I have explained all these things in great detail in my posting on "Arrangement of chapters in Tirukkural" (dated Aug 01, 2006). சிவமாலா இதையெல்லாம் படிப்பதில்லை போலும். மலையாளத்தில் உள்ள ஒரு பழமொழி எனக்கு ஞாபகத்திற்கு வருகிறது: "போத்தினோடு வேதம் ஓதி எந்து காரியம்?"

Sivamaalaa said:
இந்தியாவில் பழம்பெரு நாகரிகமும் பண்பாடும் உடையோர் தமிழர். அவர்கள் கொல்லாமை, பொய்யாமை முதலியவற்றை அறியாமல் இருந்து, வட மானிலத்துத் தோன்றிய சமணரிடமிருந்து உணர்ந்துகொண்டனர் என்பது ஒத்துக் கொள்ளமுடியாத கருத்து.

Here comes the real reason why Sivamaalaa is not ready to accept Jaina influence on Tirukkural! He does not want to show that Valluvar got his ideas from others! There we go. தமிழ்ப்பாசம் தேவைதான், அதற்காக இப்படியா? On the contrary, we all know that Valluvar's work, like any other work in general, is a conglomeration of ideas he acquired from various sources (both written and oral) that were available to him during his lifetime. That is why Tirukkural, like any other ethical work, shows resemblance to many Indian works written on Polity, Economics, Dharma, Ahimsa, Medicine and Love. அவையேல்லாம் கவிதை வடிவில் வகுத்தார் என்பதே உண்மை. Of course, there are plenty of couplets for which we cannot see parallels in other sources. These bear the stamp of originality of the poet.

There are Muslims who refuse to accept the fact that the Qur'an is based on Christian and Jewish ideas! Of course it has the status of a revelation amongst Muslims and they cannot accept the proposition that prophet Muhammad was influenced by the Jewish and Christian ideas of his time. இதை ஒப்புக்கொள்வதால் திருக்குரானின் மதிப்பு ஒன்றும் குறையப் போவதில்லை. In fact, all revelations have been in the native tongue based on the native religious beliefs and customs. History has not seen a Semitic Prophet who spoke about "karmā" and "samsārā" and an Indian Avatār who recapitulated the struggle of prophets of the Semitic world.

Going higher means "Excommunication"?

Dear Sivamaalaa,

How come, you never agreed to ANY OF MY presentations of Jaina ideas in Tirukkural (literally whatever I said), but at the same time readily accepted to this statement of mine (that Valluvar even goes a step higher and says in couplet 327)? Is it because it simply suits your argument? Given below are the two verses I cited:

A man should wander about treating all creatures
As he himself would be treated. (Saman Suttam 1.11.33)
Avoid removing the dear life of another
Even when your own life is under threat. (Tirukkural Kural 327)

If you were an unbiased scholar, you should have taken up these two verses and reflected on them, instead of focusing on the words I used to express what I meant. Still, your argument looks very absurd to me. You say "Well, if someone goes a step higher, then he was not following the religious text in question strictly". "Then it is very clear that he was not an adherent of that religion".

Going by this logic of yours....
Should a Sikh who says one should not even get involved in trading cigarettes would cease to be a Sikh, just because he went a step higher. Or a Muslim who refuses to eat any food in a hotel where pork is also served?

Wonder if there is any point in providing such examples to either illustrate a point or point out the lacunae in your argument. I have been doing it consistently throughout my discussion in this forum, but to no avail. I have addressed a series of questions to you in my last 2 or 3 postings which were all in response to the statements you made. I had to ask those questions because some of the statements you made looked incorrect and strange to me (I hope you know what I am talking about).
The problem with you and Sivamaalaa is that you all do not pinpoint the place I have gone wrong in my presentation. Just like how I do while replying to your postings.. ஏதோ கடலில் காயம் கலக்கிய மாதிரி பதில் எழுதுவது சரியில்லை. இடம் சுட்டி பொருள் விளக்கம் தர வேண்டும். The problem with such replies is that many of the questions I raise go unanswered. And by employing such "கூட்டத்தில கோவிந்தா" strategy, people believe they can get away from answering such tricky questions. Let me reproduce them here.

I had asked ......

(i) But do you at least agree that the similarity is more with Jainism than with Buddhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism or Christianity for that matter? If not, then please prove me otherwise.
(ii) So what? Do you mean to say Jains and Buddhists never indulged in procreation? Do you mean to say there were no Buddhist and Jaina householders during the time of Valluvar?
(iii) Don't they (Jains) believe in the existence of Soul? Or, do you mean to say Jain and Buddhist religions has nothing to do with LOVE?
(iv) Do you meant to say Jains and Buddhists were not Tamilians? What this has to do with Valluvar being a Hindu or a believer in Creator God or whatever it is? Or, are you implying that only a believer in Creator God would have written a book beginning with "அ" and end with "ன்"?.
(v) If he had denounced "Asceticism" and Ascetic practice, please tell me why he wrote a special chapter on "Ascetics greatness" and placed it before "Domestic life"? And also wrote chapters on "Renunciation", "Penance", "Imposture", "Impermanence" and "Desirelessness" which all have something to do with Ascetic life, in some way or the other ?

I am waiting for answers for these.

(4) //The God beyond compare Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 2:22 am

You wrote:
¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý- The attribute of this couplet "thanakkuvamai illāthān" (தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்), meaning "the one beyond compare" could perfectly suit any deity, be it of Brahmana, Śramana or Semitic origin. This attribute of being not equal to others or being unique is easily the commonest quality attributed to God in most religious scriptures.

"No one can compare to You, Lord" (ਤੁਮ ਸਰਿ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਲਾਗੇ) says Guru Grant Sahib (p. 688).

"There is none like unto the Lord our God" (אֵין כַּיהוָה אֱלֹהֵינו), says the Bible (Exodus 8:6).

"There is none comparable unto Him" (وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ) says the Qur'an (Qur’an 112:3-4).

"There is none here below to equal Shiva" (அவனொடு ஒப்பார் இங்கு யாவரும் இல்லை) says the principal text of Saiva Siddhānta, Tirumandiram (verse 5).

"ஒப்பில்லா ஒருவன் றன்னை" (6.26.4), "மற்றாருந் தன்னொப்பார் இல்லாதான் காண்" (6.24.10), "தன்னொப்பு இலானை" (7.68.1) says Thévāram of Thirumurai.

Baghvad Gita says "There exists none who is equal to You" (न त्वत्समः) (Gita, 11:43).

FROM THE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES CITED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS ATTRIBUTE IS COMMONLY USED FOR A CREATOR GOD. //

Have you not demolished your own case? Is there anything left?

I do not therefore feel the urgency to reply to your questions above.

//The problem with you and Sivamaalaa is that you all do not pinpoint the place I have gone wrong in my presentation. Just like how I do while replying to your postings.. ஏதோ கடலில் காயம் கலக்கிய மாதிரி பதில் எழுதுவது சரியில்லை. இடம் சுட்டி பொருள் விளக்கம் தர வேண்டும். The problem with such replies is that many of the questions I raise go unanswered. And by employing such "கூட்டத்தில கோவிந்தா" strategy, people believe they can get away from answering such tricky questions. Let me reproduce them here.//

Miss Ashraff! This is the most inane outpouring I have ever come across in these threads.
You must remember that it is you who wanted to prove to the world at large the connection between VaLLuvar and Jainism. Others and I here are just innocent browsers more like passers-by on the road coming across a snake charmer doing some show along the pavement. If you have problems handling your snake, would you scold the passers-by for your inadequacy? If your snake turns against you or it starts running haywire and we run after it and catch it for you, it is just a bonus for you. If no one around comes forward to help, would you leave the snake to run zig zag on the public thoroughfare and go after us for no fault of ours for failing to catch it for you? We are not the ones who came with the idea of snake show in the first place. So what is our obligation??

Why do you say that we are trying to avoid tricky questions? Is it part and parcel of your scholarship to pose tricky questions to us? What are the tricks you have in your questions anyway that we are running away from? Can you compose yourself and address your issues correctly and methodically?

Dear Sivamaalaa,

You have proudly proclaimed to have found something in my posting that would demolish my case of Jaina ideas/influence in Tirukkural.

//
FROM THE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES CITED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS ATTRIBUTE IS COMMONLY USED FOR A CREATOR GOD.
Have you not demolished your own case? Is there anything left?
//

Hello, sir! I beg your pardon! I only said this attribute is COMMONLY used for a Creator God. I never said that it is ONLY used for Creator God. The attribute has also been used to describe a Jaina deity. In fact I cited the following sloka from Samaya sara also, which you conveniently omitted from your list. Can you tell me why you did that?

Here is that sloka from the Jaina scripture:
In Samaya-sāra, the Jaina āchāryā Kundakunda describes Jaina God as the one without compare (anovamam)
वन्दित्तु सव्वा सिद्धे धुवम् अचलम् अणोवमं गदिं पत्ते
वोच्चामि समया पाहुडम् इनामो सुय केवली भणियं॥

It is only because such an attribute is not commonly mentioned in Jaina scriptures (as far as I am aware), that I gave only 2 marks for the Jaina Deity for this attribute, as opposed to 3 marks form many others (see that part alone reproduced below)

J S V B JG N 7. தன. இல்லாதான் 2 3 3 3 2 1

In fact at the end of the section on "The God Beyond Compare", I wrote:

//The only religion missing from the list is Buddhism (of course Zoroastrianism and Bahai). I am sure there must be a reference somewhere, either in Theravādā or Mahāyānā tradition, that refers Lord Buddha as "Incomparable". //

Sivamaalaa, unlike you I don't want to hide anything. I want to make an impartial inquiry into the claims and counter claims. It is my duty to study all scriptures to do my analysis. Unlike you, I will not reject or hide claims that come from outside the Jaina faith.

You also wrote:
I do not therefore feel the urgency to reply to your questions above.

No hurry. You can take some time. I will wait.

You also wrote:
"You must remember that it is you who wanted to prove to the world at large the connection between VaLLuvar and Jainism. Others and I here are just innocent browsers more like passers-by on the road coming across a snake charmer doing some show along the pavement. If you have problems handling your snake, would you scold the passers-by for your inadequacy?"

This is a discussion forum and every one has the right to do their own "snake charming". You have voluntarily come forward to take part in the show. No body put a gun to your head asking you to comment. You have held on to the snake and you should be ready to face the bites if you are not smart enough or trained enough to avoid them. Do not say you were only a passerby. Next to Devapriya, you have made most of the replies.

The prevailing beliefs and religious practices of Valluvar’s time was Hinduism., and for this purpose, we may disregard differences between current practices and the practices then. There is no reason to deny that vegitarianism was the prevailing practice among the people at the time. Until Śramana practices grew to become a distinct belief group, it grew within Hinduism. It cannot be otherwise. Buddhist scholar G.C. Pande (1995) has been quoted: "The immediate context of the emergence of Buddhism in India in the 5th century B.C. is the Śramana movement, in which independent ascetics freed themselves from Vedic authority, Brahminic ritualism and conservative social tradition, and established communities for the purpose of exploring new paths to spiritual liberation". To the question where did the Jains get their philosophy and ethics, the answer is that they got it from Hinduism of the day, regardless of the fact Hinduism did not exist under that name then!! To the question: where did Hinduism get its philosophy and ethics, the answer should be: from Dravidians, who were the then inhabitants of the entire subcontinent, who spread all over from ancient Tamiz KuuRum Nallulakam.

VaLLuvar, if at all he had to take anything from anywhere, took his materials from “ Hinduism” of the day, practiced by the Dravidians then. In any discussion, we should not forget this history.

The alleged Jain connection to kuRaL should therefore be discarded.

Quote:

---

Sivamaalaa, unlike you I don't want to hide anything. I want to make an impartial inquiry into the claims and counter claims. It is my duty to study all scriptures to do my analysis. Unlike you, I will not reject or hide claims that come from outside the Jaina faith.

---

I cited from a post of yours which is still there. I also gave the date of the post. I reproduced as is so far relevant to my argument.

Why do you use the word "hide" in connection with what I wrote? Is the word "hide" proper in the circumstances, miss Ashraff? Please explain!

Dear Sivamaalaa,

You said:
I cited from a post of yours which is still there. I also gave the date of the post. I reproduced as is so far relevant to my argument.

I do not understand what you mean here. Absolutely no idea! Which post of mine did you cite? Which one did you reproduce which was "RELEVANT" to your argument? Is that the one cited under the subject "Broken Down" on the 10th of August?

If so, did I reply to you on the very same day and said in clear terms that the attribute தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான் is COMMONLY used one for Creator God and not ONLY used for Creator God. I also mentioned that the attribute has also been used to describe a Jaina deity. I pointed to you that I had also cited the sloka from Samaya Sara (Jaina scritpure) which you conveniently omitted from your list.

I am reproducing that sloka again, for the third time:
In Samaya-sāra, the Jaina āchāryā Kundakunda describes Jaina God as the one without compare (anovamam)
वन्दित्तु सव्वा सिद्धे धुवम् अचलम् अणोवमं गदिं पत्ते
वोच्चामि समया पाहुडम् इनामो सुय केवली भणियं॥

You have to still tell me why you did not bother to reproduce this verse, while at the same time produce those from Quran, Gita, Bible and Tirumurai? Mr. சிவமாலா அவர்களே, இப்படியெல்லாம் செய்யலாமா? இது உங்களுக்கும் எனக்கும் இடையே Email மூலமாக நடக்கும் வாதமல்ல.! It is happening in a discussion forum and all your omissions and commissions will be read by everyone! Please have some shame.

You said:
Why do you use the word "hide" in connection with what I wrote? Is the word "hide" proper in the circumstances, miss Ashraff? Please explain!

என்ன ஒன்றும் தெரியாத மாதிரி நடிக்கிரீர்கள்? You only hid the citation from Jaina scripture aboute தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்? Why Jaina citations alone does not strike your eyes?
By the by, please don't call me Miss Ashraf. Say Mr. Ashraf or simply Ashraf.

Quote:

---

You have to still tell me why you did not bother to reproduce this verse, while at the same time produce those from Quran, Gita, Bible and Tirumurai? Mr. சிவமாலா அவர்களே, இப்படியெல்லாம் செய்யலாமா? இது உங்களுக்கும் எனக்கும் இடையே Email மூலமாக நடக்கும் வாதமல்ல.! It is happening in a discussion forum and all your omissions and commissions will be read by everyone! Please have some shame.

---

Simply, I am writing my post and I decide how much to quote from a previous post. You cannot excercise control over what I write. The purpose is to call attention to those parts on which I am basing my post. I am not obliged to please you. I am also not obliged to reproduce for you parts which are useless for my purpose of the post but you would prefer to hear. You can go and reproduce those parts which you like any number of times for your own consumption. I am not interested.
In any case, the previous post I referred to is still available at the time of my posting and even now. There is nothing to hide. You have used the wrong word against a fellow hubber: the word hide. You are shamelessly refusing to admit your mistake now.

Stop addressing me as Mr.
Use proper address as in my signature.

Do not use the word hide again.

ÅûÙÅò¾¢üÌõ ºÁ½ ¦Àªò¾ ºÁÂí¸Ç¢ý ¦¸¡û¨¸¸ÙìÌõ ÀÄ ¦Àâ §ÅÚÀ¡Î¸û ¯ûÇÉ. ºÁ½Óõ ¦Àªò¾Óõ ÐÈÅÈò¾¢üÌ Ó¾ý¨Á ¾óÐ þøÄÈò¨¾î º¢Ú¨Áô ÀÎò¾¢Â Á¾í¸û. ÅûÙÅõ þøÄÈò¾¢üÌ Ó¾Ä¢¼õ ¾Õ¸¢ýÈÐ. ºÁ½õ ¦Àñ¸¨Çî º¢Ú¨ÁôÀÎò¾¢Â Á¾õ. ¬É¡ø ÅûÙŧÁ¡, ¦Àñ ¸üÀ¢É¡ø ¯Â÷ó¾Å¦ÇýÚõ «Åû ¦Àö ±ýÈ¡ø Á¨ÆÔõ ¦ÀöÔõ ±ýÚ ¦Àñ¨Á¨Â ¯Â÷×ÀÎò¾¢ì ¸¡ðÎÅмý, ¦Àñ§À¡ø ¸üÒ¨¼Â ¬¼ÅÕõ «Åû§À¡ø ¦ÀÕ¨Á ±öÐÅ÷ ±ý¸¢ÈÐ.

¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á, ÒÄ¡ø ¯ñ½¡¨Á ӾĢÂÅü¨È ÅûÙÅõ ÜȢ¢ÕôÀ¢Ûõ, «Åü¨Èò ÐÈÅ¢¸ÙìÌ ±ÎòШÃ츢ÈÐ. þ¾¢ø ºÁ½ò¾¢ÈÌõ ÅûÙÅò¾¢üÌõ §ÅÚÀ¡ÎñÎ.

þÅüÚìÌ Á¡È¡¸, ÅûÙÅõ ºÁ½ò¨¾ ´ðÊø¸¢ÈÐ ±ýÛõ ¦¸¡û¨¸, ´Õ §¸¡½ø¦¸¡û¨¸Â¡Ìõ. ºÁñò ¦¾¡¼÷Ò ¸üÀ¢ìÌõ ¦¸¡û¨¸¨Âì Ìô¨Àò ¦¾¡ðÊ¢ø þÎŧ¾ «È¢×¨¼¨Á¡Ìõ.

º¢Å¨Éì ÌÈ¢ìÌõ ¦º¡ü¸û ÌÈÇ¢ø ¯ÇÅ¡¨¸Â¡ø, ÅûÙÅ÷ ´Õ ¨ºÅô ¦ÀÕÁ¸É¡÷ ±ýÀÐ ¦¾Ç¢×.

Jainism during the time of Valluvar?

Dear Sivamaalaa,

I forgot to comment on your following views (Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 , Post subject: to keep in the background) . I don't want to leave any of your points unaddressed (unlike you).

You wrote:
The prevailing beliefs and religious practices of Valluvar’s time was Hinduism., and for this purpose, we may disregard differences between current practices and the practices then.

For this to be true, you should place Valluvar before 2nd Century B.C. I don't think any one has dated Valluvar that early! Hope you understand what I mean. If you can't, please let me know.

You also said:
There is no reason to deny that vegitarianism was the prevailing practice among the people at the time. Until Śramana practices grew to become a distinct belief group, it grew within Hinduism. It cannot be otherwise. Buddhist scholar G.C. Pande (1995) has been quoted: "The immediate context of the emergence of Buddhism in India in the 5th century B.C. is the Śramana movement, in which independent ascetics freed themselves from Vedic authority, Brahminic ritualism and conservative social tradition, and established communities for the purpose of exploring new paths to spiritual liberation".

Whether Sramana movement emerged from Hinduism or whether it existed before is immaterial to our discussion. Jaina scholars may say many things, but at least everyone agrees that Jainism began with Mahavira (unlike you disagree with this also!!). This is 5th or 6th century BC. The period of Valluvar is at least half a millennium later! Remember there are scholars who place Valluvar as late as 6th century A.D. Nevertheless, the point I am trying to make is that Jaina ideas must have been prevalent during the time of Valluvar. Well, once again, as I reiterated again and again in my postings, let me tell you that these are NOT MY views or something that has been DISCOVERED BY ASHRAF, but something ALL scholars have agreed upon. That is, Jainism and Buddhism were prevalent during the time of Valluvar. If YOU want to be different, by all means, please EXPOSE YOUR IGNORANCE to everyone in this forum.

You also said:
To the question where did the Jains get their philosophy and ethics, the answer is that they got it from Hinduism of the day, regardless of the fact Hinduism did not exist under that name then!!

Well, if Buddhism had managed to hold on to its dominance it had during the 6th and 7th centuries, I am sure the majority Buddhists in this country would have said that Hinduism got its ideas from Buddhism of the day, regarding of the fact Buddhism did not exist by that name then!!! There are scholars (including Dr. Radhakrishnan) who hold the view that one of ways Hinduism eliminated Buddhism from India is by assimilating many of the Buddhist ideas into its fold!

To the question: where did Hinduism get its philosophy and ethics, the answer should be: from Dravidians, who were the then inhabitants of the entire subcontinent, who spread all over from ancient Tamiz KuuRum Nallulakam.

I am not surprised to hear this from you. It does not take much courage to make this statement for some one who considers that Jaina beliefs were not in vogue during the time of Valluvar!

You said:
Simply, I am writing my post and I decide how much to quote from a previous post. You cannot excercise control over what I write. The purpose is to call attention to those parts on which I am basing my post. I am not obliged to please you. I am also not obliged to reproduce for you parts which are useless for my purpose of the post but you would prefer to hear. You can go and reproduce those parts which you like any number of times for your own consumption. I am not interested.

I am not a person who would like to hear the arguments from only one side of the coin. And that is why true to my nature, I cited more than 5 verses from non-Jaina scritpures and only one from a Jaina source. If you were like you ("I am also not obliged to reproduce for you parts which are useless for my purpose"), I would not have cited them simply under the same "logic" of yours! (i.e. because they are useless to serve my purpose. That is partiality. Anyway you have proved to everyone in this forum that you would not heed to anything contrary to your Hindu and Tamil

சமன்செய்து சீர்தூக்குங் கோல்போல் அமைந்தொருபால்
கோடாமை சான்றோர்க் கணி. (118)
To be unbiased like an unswerving weighing scale
Is an ornament for the great. * PS, SI


You said:
In any case, the previous post I referred to is still available at the time of my posting and even now. There is nothing to hide. You have used the wrong word against a fellow hubber: the word hide. You are shamelessly refusing to admit your mistake now.

You have already stated that you are biased in reproducing citations and you will do so because they do not serve your purpose. If the word "hide" is improper, then please let me know how I should call someone who crops parts a group citations and present only those that support his argument.

You said:
Stop addressing me as Mr.
Use proper address as in my signature.

Sorry, Ms. Sivamaalaa. The confusion came because of the other person "Devapriya" who happened to be a male unlike what the name would suggest.

¡÷ ±ó¾ì ¸¡Äò¾¢ø Å¡úó¾¡ø ±ýÉ? «ó¾ò ¸¡Äò¾¢ø Ó¨Çò¾ ¸¡Ç¡ý¸¨Ç «ôÀʧ º¡ôÀ¢ðÎÅ¢ÎÅ¡÷¸û ±ýÀÐ ¯ÁÐ Å¡¾Á¡?

Ìñ¼Ìñ¼ý ¦º¡øÉ¡ø ±ýÉ? Òò¾Û¨¼Â À¡ð¼ý ÅóÐ ¦º¡ýÉ¡ø¾¡ý ±ýÉ? §ÅÚ ¦¸¡õÀý¸û ÅóÐ ¦º¡ýÉ¡ø ±ýÉ? ã¨Ç¨Â «¼Ì¨ÅòÐÅ¢ðÎ Á¾¦ÁýÈ ¦ÀÂáø Ìô¨À¸¨Ç ²üÚ즸¡ûÀÅÉøÄý ÅûÙÅý!! Á¾ò¨¾ì ¸Õò¾¢ø ¦¸¡ñÎ À¡ÊÉ¡ý ±ýÀÐ ¦ÅÚíÜÇõ.

ºÁÂõ, ºÁÂ츽ìÌ, Á¾õ ±ýÈ ¦º¡ü¸¨Çò ¾õÁ¸òÐûÇ / ¦¸¡ñÊÕìÌõ ÌÈðÀ¡ì¸¨Ç ±ÎòÐÅ¢ÇìÌõ À¡÷ì¸Ä¡õ!!

þó¾¢Â¡Å¢ø §¾¡ýȢ ±øÄ¡ Á¾í¸Ùõ þóÐÁ¾ò¾¢ý ¾¢Ã¢ó¾¨Á׸§Ç. Á¾ò¾¨ÄÅý, Áì¸Ç¢¼õ ¦¾¡ýÚ¦¾¡ðÎ ÅÆí¸¢Â ÀÆì¸ ÅÆì¸ ¦¿È¢¸Ç¢ø º¢ÄÅü¨È ²üÚ즸¡ñÎ º¢ÄÅü¨È ²üÚ즸¡ûÇÁÚòÐô Ò¨ÉÂôÀð¼¨Å§Â Á¾í¸û.

´Ø츦¿È¢Ó¨È¸û Á¾í¸Ù째 ¦º¡ó¾Á¡É¨Å ±ýÀÐ ÌÕðÎì ¸øÅ¢Á¡ý¸Ç¢ý ´Õ ¸Õò¾¡Ìõ.

¿£÷ ¦º¡øŨ¾¦ÂøÄ¡õ ÅâìÌÅâ «ÊòÐ ¯¨¼òÐ즸¡ñÊÕì¸Ä¡õ. ¯ÕôÀ¼¡¾ Å¡¾ò¾¢üÌ þùÅÇ× ¸¡Äò¨¾ Å¢ÃÂõ ¦ºöÅРţñ§Å¨Ä.

Quote:

---

You have already stated that you are biased in reproducing citations and you will do so because they do not serve your purpose.

---

Right and freedom to select what is relevant is different from being biased..

Can you tell me why you did not reproduce everything that kundakunda said on earth and only selected some lines for your posts? Same principle applies.

You have also omitted to quote some parts of my posts and cited other parts. Well, I am not accusing you of anything yet. Why? That is the norm and your right. freedom or preference. I am not holding you by your collar for that. You follow??

Is Valluvar a Saivite?

Sivamaalaa wrote:
குண்டகுண்டன் சொல்னால் என்ன? புத்தனுடைய பாட்டன் வந்து சொன்னால்தான் என்ன? வேறு கொம்பன்கள் வந்து சொன்னால் என்ன? மூளையை அடகுவைத்துவிட்டு மதமென்ற பெயரால் குப்பைகளை ஏற்றுக்கொள்பவனல்லன் வள்ளுவன்!! மதத்தைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டு பாடினான் என்பது வெறுங்கூளம்.

மதத்தைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டு பாடவில்லை என்றால், எப்படி சிவனைக் குறிக்கும் சொற்கள் திருக்குறளில் உள்ளதாகக் கூறுகிறீர்கள்?

This is what you wrote in your earlier posting:
"சிவனைக் குறிக்கும் சொற்கள் குறளில் உளவாகையால், வள்ளுவர் ஒரு சைவப் பெருமகனார் என்பது தெளிவு."

Sivamaalaa considers Tiruvalluvar to be a Saivite. I would appreciate her views on the following statements found in Dr. K Moharaj’s (1983) seminal research work “Idealism and Universalism of Tiruvalluvar” (University of Madras). Pages 343-345.

உலகம் தோன்றிய முறையைப் பற்றித் தெளிவாகத் திருவள்ளுவர் ஏதும் கூறாததால் திருக்குறள் சைவ நூலாக இருத்ததற்கு இயலாது எனக் கருதுகின்றனர் உருத்திர கோடீசுவரர் அவர்கள் (Ref 1).

மெய்ப்பொருள் முப்பத்தாறு என்பதையும், உருவ வழிபாடு, சைவர்களின் ஆரியச் சார்பு ஆகியனவற்றையும் வள்ளுவர் ஏற்றுக்கோள்ளாததால் திருக்குறள் சைவ நூல் அன்று என்கிறார் வீ. அரங்கனாதன் அவர்கள் (Ref 2).

செல்வி காமாட்சி சீனிவாசன் அவர்கள் பின்வரும் காரணங்கள் கூறித் திருக்குறள் சைவ நூல் அன்று எனக் கருதுகின்றார் (Ref 3). திருக்குறளில்,

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

திருவள்ளுவர் திருவுருவம் சைவக் கோயில்களில் வைக்கப்படாமையாலும், அடியவர் வாழ்த்தில் அவர் சேர்க்கப்படாமையாலும், வழிபாட்டுக் காலங்களில் வள்ளுவரின் நூல் ஓதப்படாமையாலும் திருவள்ளுவர் சைவர் அல்லர் என வேறொரு கோணத்தில் நின்று மறுப்புரை தருகின்றார் திரு. வி.க. அகர்கள் (Ref 4).

(Though I personally do not agree with this method of approaching the Kural to determine the religious affiliation of the author, I leave this matter to Sivamaalaa to counter these views)

References:

1. உருத்திர கோடீசுவரர். “திருவள்ளுவர் சமயம் யாது?”. மறைமலை அடிகள் நூலகம், எண் 01C5: 999. பக்கம் 8.
2. வீ. அரங்கநாதன், 1978. “நுழைவாயில்” திருக்குறளும் இறையருளும். அருளமுது வெளியீடு, South Arcot District. பக்கம் 26
3. காமாட்சி சீனிவாசன், 1979. குறள் கூறும் சமயம். மதுரை காமராசர் பல்கலைக்கழகம், மதுரை. பக்கம்210-211
4. திரு. வி.க. மேற்கோள்: எஸ். இராமகிருஷ்ணன். திருக்குறள்: ஒரு சமுதாயப் பார்வை. பக்கம் 18-19. (Citation not in full).

When I said "You have already stated that you are biased in reproducing citations and you will do so because they do not serve your purpose.", Sivamaalaa wrote:

Can you tell me why you did not reproduce everthing that kundakunda said on earth and only selected some lines for your posts? Same principle applies.

No.. No... they are not the same! Much of Kundakunda's writing in Samaya Sara are on Atma vidya which has no relevance to the topic we are discussing here. Your point would have made sense had I not cited a verse from Samayasara which is contrary to what I was trying to point out.

Sivamaalaa:
You have also omitted to quote some parts of my posts and cited other parts. Well, I am not accusing you of anything yet. Why? That is the norm and your right. freedom or preference. I am not holding you by your collar for that. You follow??

As long as I have not omitted anything important, it is fine. But you can point out if I have left out anything critical as you did in the case of தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்!

Anway, I am still waiting for your answers to the following questions. They all have a direct relevance to the topic of discussion here:

I had asked.....

(i) But do you at least agree that the similarity is more with Jainism than with Buddhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism or Christianity for that matter? If not, then please prove me otherwise.
(ii) Do you mean to say Jains and Buddhists never indulged in procreation? Do you mean to say there were no Buddhist and Jaina householders during the time of Valluvar?
(iii) Don't they (Jains) believe in the existence of Soul? Or, do you mean to say Jain and Buddhist religions has nothing to do with LOVE?
(iv) Do you meant to say Jains and Buddhists were not Tamilians? What this has to do with Valluvar being a Hindu or a believer in Creator God or whatever it is? Or, are you implying that only a believer in Creator God would have written a book beginning with "அ" and end with "ன்"?.
(v) If he had denounced "Asceticism" and Ascetic practice, please tell me why he wrote a special chapter on "Ascetics greatness" and placed it before "Domestic life"? And also wrote chapters on "Renunciation", "Penance", "Imposture", "Impermanence" and "Desirelessness" which all have something to do with Ascetic life, in some way or the other ?

Quote:

---

You wrote:
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 12:51 am It is therefore not a book that Jains can claim to be theirs!
Interestingly, when people take the Kural as a Hindu work, there are no disagreements.

---

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

Quote:

---

You wrote Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:18 am

It is only in Vedic or Brahminical Hinduism that Animal sacrifice is practiced to please gods existed.

---

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

Sivamaalaa,

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

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

(i) The first issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ii) Second issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Unanswered questions

To Sivamaalaa,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) When you said: "There are similarities between some percepts of Jainism with certain corners of KuRal" I replied: "But do you at least agree that the similarity is more with Jainism than with Buddhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism or Christianity for that matter? If not, then please prove me otherwise". No comments from your side on this also!

(4) When you provided this famous oft repeated evidence to show Valluvar as a non-Jaina, you said: "He emphasized family virtues and begetting children. He devoted about one third of his book to love and sex". To this I replied saying: "So what? Do you mean to say Jains and Buddhists never indulged in procreation? Do you mean to say there were no Buddhist and Jaina householders during the time of Valluvar? I will agree with your argument if Tirukkural....." இதற்கும் இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

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

(6) When you wrote: "VaLLuvar is a thoroughbred Tamilian in body and mind, who commence with "a" and ended hi KuRal with "n". I asked: "Do you meant to say Jains and Buddhists were not Tamilians? What this has to do with Valluvar being a Hindu or a believer in Creator God or whatever it is? Or, are you implying that only a believer in Creator God would have written a book beginning with "அ" and end with "ன்"?." இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

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

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

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

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

* Chapters on "Self control" and "Forbearance"
These chapters (13: அடக்கமுடைமை and 16: பொறையுடைமை) are placed under "Domestic virtue". Do you mean to say those who follow the ascetic path need not show "self control" and "forbearance"?

* Chapters on "Truthfulness and "Kindliness"
These chapters (30: வாய்மை and 25: அருளுடைமை) are placed under "Ascetic virtue". Do you mean to say householders need not be truthful and compassionate?

* Prostitution, Alcoholism and Gambling
And what about these two chapters (92: வரைவின் மகளிர், 93: கள்ளுண்ணாமை, 94: சூது) which are neither in "Ascetic virtue" nor in "Domestic virtue". Does it mean householders and ascetics can make merry with மது, மாது and சூது?

These are very relevant questions. இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

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

(9) When you wrote: "The prevailing beliefs and religious practices of Valluvar’s time was Hinduism., and for this purpose, we may disregard differences between current practices and the practices then", I had stated "For this to be true, you should place Valluvar before 2nd Century B.C. I don't think any one has dated Valluvar that early! Hope you understand what I mean. If you can't, please let me know."
No explanation given so far from your side!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

//Here you were contradicting yourself!//

---

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

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

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

சிவமாலா எழுதியது....

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

இப்படி ஏதாவது எழுதிக்கொண்டு மனதைத் தேர்த்துக்கொள்வதைவிட வேறு வழியில்லை சிவமாலாவிற்கு!

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

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