sangom
0
Shri Nara,... a learned mendicant is received as an honored guest in royal courts.
What has this got to do with "charity" as such? I believe kings or rulers everywhere were obliged to follow certain customs and the mendicants which are referred to might have been, initially, the Jain mendicants which, in course of time, gave place to all mendicants. I am not familiar with the Sangam poetry, but may be you will be able to say authoritatively whether the earlier (older) Sangam works allude to such mendicants and the kings/rulers giving them large charities.
One incidence that is highly celebrated in Tamil is the gift of his chariot for a creeper by Pari.
Such universal feelings are usually not very common in the core Hindu scriptures. (Dadhichi deserves a separate treatment and I will post it.) The story of Parivallal could have been imaginary just as the story of king Uthayan Cheralaathan praises him for his feeding the armies at the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_warMahabharata war—in the same puranaanooru. You may also be aware that based on this one poem, there have been attempts at dating the Purananuru poems to around 1000 BCE or even earlier to the misty past.
You have answered this in the following sentence. What I would like to know is whether the tabra discussions here are based purely and entirely on the Tamil culture or whether we give pride of place to the brahmanic culture. For example, do the Sangam literature describe the four castes?Also, the premier law book for Tamils, Thirukkural, talks of giving without any mention of Brahmins.
You would have already sensed the mischievous intention underlying the OP. I only wanted to emphasize that the theists are induced to be charitable for their own benefits and hence their charitable disposition stems from their essentially selfish considerations. In that respect we agree.So, I would think the Tamil culture valued daana to all the needy, it is the Brahminical puranas and Dharmasashthras that put daana to Brahmin in a higher plane.
BTW, the OP's points about this study and paper give a misleading impression, whether deliberate or not, I don't know.
The study that purports to find theists are more generous is seriously flawed. The cited article from Psychology Today points this out. In this respect, it is relevant to note two points, (i) the two largest philanthropists in human history are non-believers, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, and (ii) in earlier times there were not many openly atheists in society, who knows how many of the generous ones were atheists.
The second point suggested in the OP is about moral relativism. First, we must note that moral absolutism can be quite dangerous, especially ones that are rooted in religion and god. Next, the article points out that even among atheists majority do not subscribe to moral relativism, only that the percentage of people expressing relativism is the highest among the atheists.
At a deeper level, what motivates the so called spiritual people is moksham of one kind or another, a purely selfish goal. To achieve this goal they engage in various actrivities, daanam being one of them. The unbelievers on the other hand hold that this one life is it, there is no heaven or hell or kailasham or Vaikuntam, when we die we are gone forever. Their generosity is motivated by nothing selfish, except at the DNA level, and that I think is worthy.
Cheers!