THIRUKKURALH

[NVK Ashraf]

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.

[bis_mala]

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.

[bis_mala]

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¢×.

[NVK Ashraf]

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.

[bis_mala]

¡÷ ±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.

[bis_mala]

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??

[NVK Ashraf]

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).

[NVK Ashraf]

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 ?

[bis_mala]

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.

[bis_mala]

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.