THIRUKKURALH

[NVK Ashraf]

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

[bis_mala]

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.

[bis_mala]

«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!!

[bis_mala]

//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.

[bis_mala]

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.

[NVK Ashraf]

(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.

[NVK Ashraf]

(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

[NVK Ashraf]

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)

[bis_mala]

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.

[bis_mala]

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.