புலான்மறுத்தல்

[shridisai]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

புலான்மறுத்தல்

குறள் 260: புலான்மறுத்தல்
"கொல்லான் புலாலை மறுத்தானைக் கைகூப்பி
எல்லா உயிருந் தொழும்".
இக்குறளுக்கு கூறும் பொது விளக்கம்:
ஓருயிரையும் கொல்லாமல் புலால் உண்ணாமல்
வாழ்கின்றவனை உலகத்தில் உள்ள எல்லா உயிர்களும்
கைகூப்பி வணங்கும் என்பதாகும்.
அப்படியாயின் ஷரிடிசாய்பாபா அவர்கள் தாம் வாழ்ந்த
நாட்களில் புலால் உண்பவராகத்தான் இருந்திருக்கிறார்,
ஆனால் இன்று உலகமே அவரை கைகூப்பி தொழுகின்றதே ?
உண்மையில் வள்ளுவர் கூறும் புலான் மறுத்தல் என்பது !
கீதையில் ஸ்ரீகிருஷ்ணர், ஞானவிக்ஞான யோகம் [FONT=Latha, sans-serif] [/FONT],
சுலோகம்-11ல்
"உயிர்களிடத்து தர்மத்துக்கு முரண்படாத காமமாக இருக்கிறேன்.என்று பார்த்தனுக்கு உபதேசிக்கிறார்".
கிருஷ்ணர் சொல்லும் காமம் என்பது உத்தமமான இல்வாழ்க்கை வாழும் தம்பதிகள்,நன்மக்களை பெற்றெடுப்பதிர்க்காக மட்டுமே சங்கமித்துக்கொள்ளும் தாம்பத்தியமேயாகும்.
இது தெய்வ சம்பத்து கொண்டது. அவ்வாறு
நன்மக்களை பெற்றுக்கொண்ட பின் தாம்பத்தியத்திலிருந்து
தங்களை தாங்களே விடுவித்துக்கொள்வர்கள். அதன்பின்
ஒருவர் மற்றொருவருக்கு உறுதுணையாக
"புணர்ச்சி பழகுதல் வேண்டா உணர்ச்சிதான்
நட்பாங் கிழமை தரும்".
என்னும் குறளிற்கேற்ப நட்புக்கு இலக்கணமாகவே வாழ்வர்
இதுவே வள்ளுவர் குறிப்பிடும் புலான் மறுத்தல்,அதாவது .
வெறும் உருவ அமைப்பினால்மட்டுமே ஒருவரால் ஒருவர்
ஈர்க்கப்பட்டு ஒருவர் புலன்களை ஒருவர் புணரும் புலான்
மறுத்தல் என்பதாகும்.அவ்வாறு ஒருவர் புலான் மறுக்கும் போதே
கொல்லாமையும் இயல்பாகவே சேர்ந்துவிடும். எவ்வாறெனின்
"விந்து விட்டவன் நொந்து கெட்டான்" என்னும் பழமொழிக்கேற்ப
வெளிப்படும் ஒவ்வொரு விந்தினின்றும் கோடானுக்கோடி
உயிர் அணுக்களும் அவனின் தேகத்திலிருந்து வெளிப்பட்டு
செத்து மடிவதால், ஒருவர் புலான் மறுக்கும்போது,
கொல்லாமையும் இயல்பாகவே அதில் சேர்ந்து விடுகின்றது.
இத்தகைய வாழ்க்கை வாழ்கின்றவனைத்தான் உலகத்தில்
உள்ள எல்லா உயிர்களும் கைகூப்பி வணங்கும் என்னும்
பொருள் படவே வள்ளுவர் இக்குறளை நமக்கு வழங்கியுள்ளார்.


sairam

 

[tks]

The explanation seems far too convoluted to my limited understanding.

First of all pursuit of Artha and Kama are legitimate pursuits provided they are in alignment with Dharma.

No Dharma I know says men and women can come together only to have children.

For higher pursuits and better control of our vasanas one may seek a life of celibacy even after marriage.

But it will be adharmic if both people in marriage do not feel the same manner.

Also germs in our body gets killed, and sperms get killed on their own regardless of their production because that is how life is. So the reasoning provided to reconcile Thirukkural saying does not make sense.

On the other hand, food created by nature is plant & tree based. Plants takes soil, sun light , carbon-dioxide and water to cook edible items.
Human beings have a choice to eat animals or eat nature cooked food.

If one eats an animal for self survival that is not adharmic. Hence one can understand the meat eating culture during Ramayana days.

In modern days, choice to live well exists without need to kill animals for our food.

Shiradi Sai Baba is known to eat meat. There is no way to reconcile this fact with any explanation.

Many Hindus like to worship iconic figures who seemingly performed miracles. Though it is for wrong reasons, worshipping Sai as a form of Isvara is fine since any form is OK for this purpose.

 

[Raji Ram]

The explanation given in the OP is just to justify Sai Baba eating meat!

This KuraL comes in the adhikAram 'pulAn maRuththal' in aRaththup pAl.

There is the third part kAmaththup pAl which is about wedded life.


Here is the full adhikAram from the source:

Abstinence from Flesh | Thuravaraviyal |

 

[tks]

The explanation given in the OP is just to justify Sai Baba eating meat!

This KuraL comes in the adhikAram 'pulAn maRuththal' in aRaththup pAl.

There is the third part kAmaththup pAl which is about wedded life.


Here is the full adhikAram from the source:

Abstinence from Flesh | Thuravaraviyal |

I am curious

1. How do Shiradi Sai devotees reconcile the meat eating habits of their Godman?
2. Similarly there was a one hour report by BBC about Sathya Sai Baba and his devotees which tried to present a balanced view. Not sure if it got aired in India because it had many shocking interview segments.

I have understood Shiradi Sai as having led a simple life and was a role model for many people. He was a person who united many segments of the population of his time. But then I think of him only as a person who lived in this earth (just like many other figures in our history including Sri Sankara). So I am able to accept his 'flaw' for continuing to consume meat in his life. I do not know how life long devotees reconcile since they view him as God who lived in earth..

I have books attributed to Sathya Sai Baba and having read some of them I have high regard for his teachings. Also he has been instrumental in establishing great institutions like Hospitals etc. However I am not able to accept the attempt to show 'miracles' or reconcile the portrayal by some of his ex-devotees in that BBC report. I do not know how ardent devotees are able to look at truth that is only convenient ..

 

[Iyyarooraan]

It is again. The question is whether one wants an excuse to eat meat. It is time we probed into the past to know whether one will go to HELL if he does not eat meat. In a way a new born cannot suck even its mother's milk; some time it hurts the mother and many times it is a pleasure for her. We do praanaayaamam ​to cleanse ourselves not to commit suicide.

 

[rsnrishi]

Dear Shirdisai,

First of all, the Thirukkural adhikAram is "PulAl" marutthal and "not PulAn" marutthal. So, this cannot be correlated with Pulan (senses). W.r.t. the Bhagavadgita, "dharma aviruddhO bhUteshu kAmOsmi aham". KAma means "desire" which is not limited to "mOha (sensual pleasure)" alone. "I am that desire which is not contradictory to the Virtues". I want to learn well, I want to serve others well, I want to keep my body sound, I want to meditate, ... like this, all these wants are towards enlightening one self and does not fall under non-virtuous desire. If our desires are not selfish, such desires are Godly. Of course, I do understand that with all Service-oriented deeds, comes a little bit of mental satisfaction, which we desire to achieve. But, its limit is negligible.
It is only for the materialistic people like us that veg/non-veg, good/bad, day/night, ... all these dvaita bhAva and their effects exist. Not for Saints. But, we have to learn what we should learn from them. We cannot justify our habit of eating meat by comparing ourselves with Saints.
Thus, I consider that Tiruvalluvar has spoken only of non-vegetarianism and not indriya nigraham (control of senses) in this chapter.

 

[JR]

No Dharma I know says men and women can come together only to have children.

Dear Sir,

Doesn't our dharma proclaim that sex should be limited only for the sake of having children, even for married couples?

I think somewhere it is said, that the 4th varna really means, "those born of people who had sex for pleasure, hence were born out of the feet of the Lord".

If I recall correctly, isn't it said in the book 'Autobiography of a Yogi' that Sri Paramahamsa Yogananda ji's parents abstained from sex except for the reason of bearing children.

 

[Brahmanyan]

புலான்மறுத்தல்

At the outset I wish to say that I am a strict vegetarian by birth and conviction and a teetotaler.

How ever, It is my view that we should not mix-up the type of food one has to take with spirituality. The food one takes depends on the environment in which one is born. Many people who took non-vegetarian food have practiced exemplary spiritual life. Shri Saibaba of Shirdi was one among these great souls. His teachings are simple and easy to follow. He was an epitome of compassion and love. Saibaba of Shirdi lived an extremely simple and austere life and he never kept any thing for himself till the end.

I wish to quote the words of two more Mahatmas on food habit:

Here is what Sri Ramana Maharshi had to say on the subject:

Maharishi: Habit is only adjustment to the environment. It is the mind that matters. The fact is that the mind has been trained to think certain foods tasty and good. The food material is to be had both in vegetarian and non-vegetarian diet equally well. But the mind desires such food as it is accustomed to and considers tasty.

Devotee: Are there restrictions for the realised man in a similar manner?
Maharish: No. He is steady and not influenced by the food he takes.

Enlightened Master Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, says in his famous book “I AM THAT” ,that he had no issue with meat eating or even smoking. Here’s an excerpt from I AM THAT…

Q: My body influences me deeply. In more than one way my body is my destiny. My character, my moods, the nature of my reactions, my desires and fears — inborn or acquired — they are all based on the body. A little alcohol, some drug or other and all changes. Until the drug wears off I become another man.

M: All this happens because you think yourself to be the body. realise your real self and even drugs will have no power over you.

Q: You smoke?
M: My body kept a few habits which may as well continue till it dies. There is no harm in them.

Q: You eat meat?
M: I was born among meat-eating people and my children are eating meat. I eat very little — and make no fuss.

Q: Meat-eating implies killing.
M: Obviously. I make no claims of consistency. You think absolute consistency is possible; prove it by example. Don’t preach what you do not practice.


Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[sangom]

Eating meat, killing animals, etc., was part of most of the vedic sacrifices (Yagas) in hinduism. The only caveat was that such killing ought to be as part of the Yagas and not otherwise. In those Yagas, the sacrificed animal/s were sprinkled with 'holy water' (water consecrated by recital of mantras) and it is this nucleus of idea which possibly has become the "halaal" or "kosher" kinds of meat being considered quite admissible and sinless.

A person's greatness does not depend upon his/her food habits. If Shirdi Saibaba ate meat, we can also eat meat in the same way provided we also are capable of leading an identical lifestyle as he did. There is no need to either justify his meat-eating by convoluted arguments such as in the OP, or, to decry him. Those who want to respect him may do so, others can go their own way.

 

[renuka]

Dear Sir,

Doesn't our dharma proclaim that sex should be limited only for the sake of having children, even for married couples?

I think somewhere it is said, that the 4th varna really means, "those born of people who had sex for pleasure, hence were born out of the feet of the Lord".

If I recall correctly, isn't it said in the book 'Autobiography of a Yogi' that Sri Paramahamsa Yogananda ji's parents abstained from sex except for the reason of bearing children.

Dear Jayshree ji,

I know so far only Manu Smirti says about having sex with same wife caste for the sake of progeny and only the fertile period is recommended..but even then that verse leaves a lot to interpretation becos it does say "same caste wife"...so what does it mean?

That a man should only copulate with his Dharma patni for the sake of progeny and leave her high and dry otherwise and he is free to frolic with wives of other caste?

Elsewhere in Ratirahasya or also known as Koka Shastra....Pandit Koka supposedly a Kashmiri Pandit says that one should not have sex with same caste wife for pleasure but he can take a woman of the lowest caste and have uninhibited sex with her!

He said that with the same caste wife..one is restricted and cant act out his wildest fantasies.

So poor Dharma patni! She gets nothing from marriage!

Men are smart..they have found loopholes everywhere..with the Dharma Patni its not for pleasure but with Adharma Patni they can do anything!LOL

BTW I never heard that those who have sex for pleasure are born from the feet of the Lord.

Yes you are right...Paramahansa said that his parents only used to copulate for progeny.

 

[JR]

Dear Jayshree ji,

I know so far only Manu Smirti says about having sex with same wife caste for the sake of progeny and only the fertile period is recommended..but even then that verse leaves a lot to interpretation becos it does say "same caste wife"...so what does it mean?

That a man should only copulate with his Dharma patni for the sake of progeny and leave her high and dry otherwise and he is free to frolic with wives of other caste?

Elsewhere in Ratirahasya or also known as Koka Shastra....Pandit Koka supposedly a Kashmiri Pandit says that one should not have sex with same caste wife for pleasure but he can take a woman of the lowest caste and have uninhibited sex with her!

He said that with the same caste wife..one is restricted and cant act out his wildest fantasies.

So poor Dharma patni! She gets nothing from marriage!

Men are smart..they have found loopholes everywhere..with the Dharma Patni its not for pleasure but with Adharma Patni they can do anything!LOL

BTW I never heard that those who have sex for pleasure are born from the feet of the Lord.

Yes you are right...Paramahansa said that his parents only used to copulate for progeny.

Namaste,

Many of these texts, including Manu Smriti are not suited for the Kali yuga. They are meant for Satya yuga and as such we don't know about the prevalent social conditions and that of the moral caliber of the people of that age and unfortunately we are limited to being in a position to not comment on works meant for them.

In Kaliyuga, we see that women in history have been able to practice their equal rights with that of a man and also attain liberation with the grace of god. For example, let us take the example of one Thirunilakanta Nayanar -- since he went astray with a prostitute, his wife banishes him from ever touching her for the rest of her (their) life and this corrects the Nayanar. He promises not to touch his own wife and also not even to think of other women in his mind. Eventually, god Shiva sanctions them both mukti, praising them both for keeping their vow.

So women are at a liberty to practice equal rights with women and this is what god prefers.

But that being said, when it comes to the actual question of practicing sex only for the sake of procuring children, it is indeed a valid point to question what happens if one of the wedded partners is feeling otherwise. I only think that, our scriptures do not deny this fact, however, still state that sex is only for the purpose of having children, only because they want people to practice it in moderation -- when young, people are hot, but this feeling subsides within a short time, and at this point, our scriptures want people to start practicing abstinence like practicing upvas for higher goals.

But, it is indeed recognized in scriptures here and there that emotionally and spiritually inferior children are born when people mate at sexually charged moments and their unity thus created children. For example, there is a famous sage (wonder if it is Kashyapa) whose wife wanted to unite with him at a sexually charged moment and at Sandhya kala, and despite sage's initial advice against it, the wife persists and eventually a mighty asura who torments the world for a long time is born to them.

That the 4th varna really means 'children born to those who had sex for pleasure and emerge thus from the feet of the lord' is from some upanyasa.

Best regards,

JR

 

[Vaagmi]

1. It is a well settled fact in Hindu religion that all non-vegetarian and some vegetarian food items are not to be consumed by those who want to remain mostly sAtvik. The two items mentioned above are not conducive to cultivating sAtvik qualities. Moreover non-veg food involves himsa which is not acceptable to mumukshus.

2. Being sAtvik is an essential prerequisite for enquiry about and understanding of God and philosophy.

3. The word mahatma can not be freely used to denote anybody and everybody. Who is a mahatma? Go to Himalayas and you can find any number of yogis in the higher reaches of the Garhwal Himalayas who experiment with their body and mind. You will get yogis who take mind-expanding drugs (psychotropic substances) just to expand the frontiers of their understanding of the self. And you will come across yogis who practice extreme kind of torturing of body parts to explore their sensitivities. These people mostly would have reached the stage where they can reach the samadhi (trance) at will any time. These people are called by various names like mahatma, yogi, swamiji, maharaj, babaji etc., There is no standard available to measure their spiritual advancement and the only achievement they have is the ability to reach samadhi at will by practising yoga. These yogis achieve one or two of the ashtamAsidhdhis too because of their progression in the yogic path. So you have hatha yogis who walk on water surface, yogis who can materialise things from thin air, yogis who can solve your any physical ailment by just touching you, yogis who can travel in the time dimension back and forth (as against the linear arrow of time which is unidirectional) and so can tell you your past and future with startling accuracy etc.,Problems start when these people start advising their followers on subjects which they do not know anything about. You ask them whether meat eating is okay. Without hesitation will come the reply it is ok to eat meat. It is just personal experience speaking out loudly and may not suit the person who asked the question. But he goes with an impression that the Yogi speaks ultimate wisdom and may start eating meat from next day.

4. To me a yogi is just a yogi and not a mahatma. He is just another ordinary atma which has achieved something more than an ordinary atma. I will take his advices with a liberal dose of salt because I know about myself better than any one else and It is I who will decide what is good for me and what is not. Even what is said in Dharma Sastras are not to be blindly accepted without questioning.

5. Coming to the OP issue: meat eating is not conducive to spiritual evolution. meat induces rajasic and tamasic qualities in an individual. There is even a well reasoned theory that meat eaters are poor performers in the bed also.LOL. If a meat eating Baba gives you an advice be sure that he was in his sAtvic best when he gave you that advice. Otherwise take the bypass and smile and get away.

6. Which sastra says that same caste dharma patni is for sex with the aim of getting progeny and other thunaivis are for living out the wildest fantasies? Please quote the source. I would like to take a look and then get back here. LOL.