References to Tamil - Dynasties, Countries, in Mahabharatha

[viggop]

Balaji
In Tamil literature section, we had some topics where a poet has praised cheraman ilanchetchenji(forgot his name) as the person who provided food to the Pandavas during the kurukshetra battle.

[Hari Krishnan]

Balaji
In Tamil literature section, we had some topics where a poet has praised cheraman ilanchetchenji(forgot his name) as the person who provided food to the Pandavas during the kurukshetra battle.

Would you be able to handle this posting in TSCII? The posting is in Tamil. References to Ramayana and Mahabaratha in Tamil Sangam Classics are extensive. The particular verse you are speaking about is Verse 2 of puranAnuru. chEraman perum sOtru uthiyanj chEralAthan is the King and muranjiyUr mudinAga-rAyar is the poet. The following are the lines.


«Äį́Çô ÒÃÅ¢ ³ÅÕ¼ý º¢¨Éþ
¿¢Äó¾¨Äì ¦¸¡ñ¼ ¦À¡Äõâó Ðõ¨À
®¨Ãõ À¾¢ýÁÕõ ¦À¡ÕиÇò ¦¾¡Æ¢Âô
¦ÀÕ狀¡üÚ Á¢ÌÀ¾õ ŨÃ¡Р¦¸¡Îò§¾¡ö.

(ÒÈ ¿¡ëÚ)

A discussion on the subject went on in Yahoo group, Marabilakkiam http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marabilakkiyam and Agathiyar http://groups.yahoo.com/group/agathiyar since there was a dispute on the reference 'aiyvar' and 'nUtruvar' may not mean Pandavas and Kauravas. My friend, Madhurabharati, then went extensively into various Sangam Classics and gave a reference of various verses that point to this particular Chera King. I give below the particular references cited by my friend, Madhurabharati.

Quote:
<><><><><><><>

«ýÒûÇ †Ã¢, ÀÍÀ¾¢,

´Õ ºÁÂò¾¢ø þó¾ ÁýɨÉô ÀüÈ¢ Å¢ÅÃÁ¡¸ ¬öóÐ ÌÈ¢ôÒ¸û
±Îò¾ÐñÎ. ¬É¡ø ŢâòÐ ±Ø¾î ºÁÂõ Å¡öì¸Å¢ø¨Ä. þ§¾¡
ÌÈ¢ôÒ¸û ÁðÎõ:

¿¢Äõ ¿£÷ ÅÇ¢ Å¢ÍõÒ ±ýÈ ¿¡ý¸¢ý
«ÇôÒ «Ã¢¨Â§Â
¿¡û §¸¡û ¾¢í¸û »¡Â¢Ú ¸¨É «Æø
³óÐ ´ÕíÌ Ò½÷ó¾ Å¢Çì¸òÐ «¨É¨Â
§À¡÷ ¾¨ÄÁ¢Ìò¾ ®÷ ³õÀ¾¢ýÁ¦Ã¡Î
ÐôÒò ШȧÀ¡¸¢Â н¢×¨¼ ¬ñ¨Á
«ìÌÃý «¨É ¨¸Åñ¨Á¨Â§Â

«ìÌÃý - þ¨¼§ÂØ ÅûÇø¸Ç¢ø ´ÕÅý;

(À¾¢üÚôÀòÐ: À¡¼ø 14)


µ÷ ³Å÷ ®¨ÃõÀ¾¢ýÁ÷ ¯¼ý¦ÈØó¾
§À¡Ã¢ø ¦ÀÕ狀¡Ú §À¡üÈ¡Ð ¾¡ÉÇ¢ò¾
§ºÃý, ¦À¡¨ÈÂý, Á¨ÄÂý ¾¢ÈõÀ¡Êì
¸¡÷¦ºö ÌÆø ¬¼ ¬§¼¡§Á¡ °ºø;
¸¼õÒ ±È¢ó¾Å¡À¡Ê ¬¼¡§Á¡ °ºø!

(º¢ÄôÀ¾¢¸¡Ãõ: Å¡úòÐ측¨¾: 25)

«ùÅ¡ö ÅÇ÷À¢¨È ÝÊî ¦ºùÅ¡ö
«ó¾¢ Å¡ÉòÐ ¬Î Á¨Æ ¸ÎôÀ
¦Åñ §¸¡ðÎ þÕõ À¢½õ ÌÕ¾¢ ®÷ôÀ
®÷ ³õÀ¾¢ýÁÕõ ¦À¡ÕÐ ¸ÇòÐ «Å¢Â 415

§À÷ «Á÷ì¸¼ó¾ ¦¸¡Îﺢ ¦¿Îó§¾÷
¬Ã¡î ¦ºÕÅ¢ý ³Å÷ §À¡Ä
«¼í¸¡ò ¾¡¨É§Â¡Î ¯¼ýÚ §ÁøÅó¾
´ýÉ¡ò ¦¾ùÅ÷ ¯¨ÄÅ¢¼òÐ ¬÷òÐ
¸îº¢§Â¡§É ¨¸Åñ §¾¡ýÈø 420

(¦¿Î¿ø Å¡¨¼)


±Ã¢¸Å÷Ò ¯ñ¼ ¸Ã¢ÒÈô ¦ÀÕ¿¢Äô
À£Î¦¸Ø ÁÕí¸¢ý µÎÁ¨Æ ÐÈó¦¾É
°É¢ø ¡¨É ¯ÂíÌõ §ÅÉ¢ø
ÁÈôÀ¨¼ì ̾¢¨Ã Á¡È¡ ¨Áó¾¢ý
ÐÈì¸õ ±ö¾¢Â ¦¾¡ö¡ ¿øÄ¢¨º
Ó¾¢Â÷ô§À½¢Â ¯¾¢Â狀Ãø
¦ÀÕ狀¡Ú ¦¸¡Îò¾ »¡ý¨È, þÕõÀø
ÜÇ¢î ÍüÈõ ÌÆ£þ¢Õó ¾¡íÌ

(«¸¿¡ëÚ: 233)

¿¡Î¸ñ «¸üȢ ¯¾¢Â狀Ãü
À¡Êî ¦ºýÈ À⺢Ä÷ §À¡Ä
¯Å þÉ¢ Å¡Æ¢! §¾¡Æ¢!

(«¸¿¡ëÚ: 65; Á¡ãÄÉ¡÷)

<><><><><><>
End of quote.

Though the references are extensive, they are not exhaustive. It is to be remembered that these speak about just only one incident, namely, the particular Chera King feeding both Kauravas and Pandavas ( and not to Pandavas alone, Vigopp, please )

Many more incidents of the Mahabaratha and Ramayana are found in ancient Tamil Literature.

[viggop]

Dear hariKrishnan Sir
It is difficult for me to understand Sangam Tamil without urai(as a anglo indian school educated guy,even Bharthi poems might need urai for me!!!).If you have time,please give the urai for your quotes. So, is that confirmed for sure that the 'aivar' is Pandavas and 'nutruvar' are kauravas.We had a discussion about this in Tamil Literature section where another senior hubber Idiappam doubted whether it meant Pandavas and Kauravas.

[viggop]

Please see the Tamil Literature Section. There we have a topic known as "Historical account of Mahabharatham war".We had a discussion on this "aivar" versus "nutravar".Also, some other purananuru poem mentioned Seetha and Rama and it is present in that topic too

[asitaraman]

[20] ".......like one perfectly withdrawn from the world is a real Yogin of the Bhikshu order....."

MAHABHARATHA - UDYOGA PARVA, PAGE 81

Observation:
From the above further indication is given that the Mahabaratha took place after the birth of Buddha.

We cannot associate Bikshu order as "Buddha Bikshu." Remember that translations of language change with times. A Bikshu can mean savant, mendicant, sanyasi, or someone who has renounced the world. Also, Buddha, an avatar of God, expounded a philosophy already in vogue but largely forgotten (as did Mahavira).

The brilliance of Buddha is that he institutionalized service (called Uzhavara Padai in Tamil), and philosophy (as did Adi Shankara later). This strategy was also adopted by Tamil Saints Appar and Sambandar.

[r_kk]

Also, Buddha, an avatar of God, expounded a philosophy already in vogue but largely forgotten (as did Mahavira).

(red marking was done by me)
It is very unfortunate that a great non-believer of God had become avadhar of God. A simple way to reject Buddha's practical philosophies is to idealizehim as God and declare that he can only be praised (as supernatural human or avathar) but can't be followed. Another method is that absorbing the great part of his teachings and declare as part of the belief system which he had opposed. This is what the people of opponent belief system were/are doing!

[asitaraman]

Also, Buddha, an avatar of God, expounded a philosophy already in vogue but largely forgotten (as did Mahavira).

(red marking was done by me)
It is very unfortunate that a great non-believer of God had become avadhar of God. A simple way to reject Buddha's practical philosophies is to idealizehim as God and declare that he can only be praised (as supernatural human or avathar) but can't be followed. Another method is that absorbing the great part of his teachings and declare as part of the belief system which he had opposed. This is what the people of opponent belief system were/are doing!

This is not an attempt to abbrogate or assimilate philosophies into one "religion." Buddha saw the injustice in society at that time and showed a way to ease peoples' suffering. If that is not an avatar/manifestation what else can be?

Would we reject Krishna as an avatar just because he debunked Sankhaya Yoga that was prevalent at that time? We should remember that "Hinduism" as we know it today was an amalgamation of many beliefs, faiths, and philosophies. While Buddhism has unique characteristics, the concept of ahimsa and service was not unknown.

Rgds, Aravind

[pizzalot]

Also, Buddha, an avatar of God, expounded a philosophy already in vogue but largely forgotten (as did Mahavira).

(red marking was done by me)
It is very unfortunate that a great non-believer of God had become avadhar of God. A simple way to reject Buddha's practical philosophies is to idealizehim as God and declare that he can only be praised (as supernatural human or avathar) but can't be followed. Another method is that absorbing the great part of his teachings and declare as part of the belief system which he had opposed. This is what the people of opponent belief system were/are doing!

This is not an attempt to abbrogate or assimilate philosophies into one "religion." Buddha saw the injustice in society at that time and showed a way to ease peoples' suffering. If that is not an avatar/manifestation what else can be?

Would we reject Krishna as an avatar just because he debunked Sankhaya Yoga that was prevalent at that time? We should remember that "Hinduism" as we know it today was an amalgamation of many beliefs, faiths, and philosophies. While Buddhism has unique characteristics, the concept of ahimsa and service was not unknown.

Rgds, Aravind

In essence Buddha was against God. Any association to God and Buddha is an insult for the greatest son of India.

[PARAMASHIVAN]

Excellent Virarajendra sir, I will go through your post and clarify any doubts I may have with you soon, when I get some time.

[virarajendra]

brought forward