Enge Brahmanana?

[saidevo]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

namaste Nara and others.

When I said in post 108 that the period of the Kalabhras dynasty is "generally considered to be dark age--an interregnum", that ended the earlier Chera-Chozha-PANDya rule, "disturbed the prevailing order, and created a situation of unrestrained morality and lawlessness in society", Nara accused me of making outlandish claims and then running away.

Now, what sort of claim is the following that Nara makes, in reply to my post 122?

The similarities found between Artha Shashthra etc., could be because the Sanskrit authors copied from Thiruvalluvar, or these concepts were prevailing wisdom independently recorded. Please give some evidence to show on what basis these scholars claim it was Thiruvalluvar who copied from the Sanskrit authors?

I won't say that this claim of Nara is outlandish. It is more than that: he is trying to show us a unicorn which is visible only to his eyes.

In post 122, I quoted from the Website of shrI S.N.Sriramadesikan wherein he says that Sri V.R.Ramachandra Dikshitar "has set out the Line-to-line correspondence between Tirukkural and Sanskrit works", which includes the RgVeda, RAmAyaNa, and the MahAbhArata.

Would Nara say that these texts also copied from the KuRaL and that he included them in his 'etc.' in the above quote?

The strange thing is that it is Nara who makes such a claim and yet he wants me to "give some evidence to show on what basis these scholars claim it was Thiruvalluvar who copied from the Sanskrit authors".

Since you make a strange claim, Nara, the onus of proof is on you: you need to prove that authors like ChANakya and Manu knew Tamizh, studied TirukkuRaL and copied its contents in their works. Even the non-traditional scholars have not made such a claim (so far as I know), because everyone generally believes that VaLLuvar was a scholar in Sanskrit and Hindu texts, so he had occasion to use the material in the texts in his work, which is not to say that his work identical to the texts he used.

I am very intimately aware -- first hand knowledge -- how NBs are treated in Brahmnical matams even today, i.e. literally today.

It is a common and well-known fact that politicians, VIPs and celebrities, whatever their caste, creed or religion, will receive preferential treatment in any MaTham or temple, whether it is managed by brahmins or non-brahmins. As for oridinary people, just as non-brahmins enjoy preferential treatment in non-brahmin MaThams and temples, there is nothing wrong in brahmins receiving preferential treatment in brahmin MaThams and temples.

 

[SwamiTaBra]

Could any of enlighten me the distinction between a "sandroor" and an "andhanar" ?

 

[happyhindu]

Am sorry but am not able to understand how post # 126 is a reply for post # 125.

Also, am confused -- this website says Thiruvalluvar was a weaver. Was weaving occupation allowed for a brahmin in the past?

 

[saidevo]

namaste Swami.

The term 'chAnROr' is from the root chAl--abundance, fullness, be great, noble; the root chARu--essence, is also connected with it (eg. chAnRANmai = chARu + ANmai). Thus, a chAnROn is one who is full of greatness and nobility, which may also be related to valor shown in a battle. The term 'chAnRon' as used in the following PuRanAnURu verse includes the meaning of a brave and noble warrior who would not show his back to the enemy:

ஈன்று புறந்தருதல் என்தலைக் கடனே;
சான்றோன் ஆக்குதல் தந்தைக்குக் கடனே;
வேல் வடித்துக் கொடுத்தல் கொல்லற்குக் கடனே;
நன்னடை நல்கல் வேந்தர்க்குக் கடனே.

InRu puRa~ntarudal entalaik kaDanE;
sAnROn Akkudal ta~ndaikkuk kaDanE;
vEl vaDitthuk koDutthal kollaRkuk kaDanE;
~nannaDai ~nalkal vE~ndarkkuk kaDanE.

[A mother teaches her son]
"My duty is to bear and get you out;
the father's duty is to make you learned;
the blacksmith's duty is to shape you a vEl--spear;
and the king's duty is to give you good conduct."

TiruvaLLuvar perhaps includes this meaning in his kuRaL too:

InRa pozhidin periduvakkum tan-maganaich
chAnRon enak kETTa thAi--69

When a mother hears about his son as a nobleman,
she will be happier than when she gave him birth.

*****

The term andhaNan, on the other hand, as I have collected in post 96, is exclusively related to dharmic people who mean no harm to any living being.

For the use of the term 'chAnROn' in Tamizh classics, check:
Tamil lexicon

 

[SwamiTaBra]

namaste Swami.

The term 'chAnROr' is from the root chAl--abundance, fullness, be great, noble; the root chARu--essence, is also connected with it (eg. chAnRANmai = chARu + ANmai). Thus, a chAnROn is one who is full of greatness and nobility, which may also be related to valor shown in a battle. The term 'chAnRon' as used in the following PuRanAnURu verse includes the meaning of a brave and noble warrior who would not show his back to the enemy:

ஈன்று புறந்தருதல் என்தலைக் கடனே;
சான்றோன் ஆக்குதல் தந்தைக்குக் கடனே;
வேல் வடித்துக் கொடுத்தல் கொல்லற்குக் கடனே;
நன்னடை நல்கல் வேந்தர்க்குக் கடனே.

InRu puRa~ntarudal entalaik kaDanE;
sAnROn Akkudal ta~ndaikkuk kaDanE;
vEl vaDitthuk koDutthal kollaRkuk kaDanE;
~nannaDai ~nalkal vE~ndarkkuk kaDanE.

[A mother teaches her son]
"My duty is to bear and get you out;
the father's duty is to make you learned;
the blacksmith's duty is to shape you a vEl--spear;
and the king's duty is to give you good conduct."

TiruvaLLuvar perhaps includes this meaning in his kuRaL too:

InRa pozhidin periduvakkum tan-maganaich
chAnRon enak kETTa thAi--69

When a mother hears about his son as a nobleman,
she will be happier than when she gave him birth.

*****

The term andhaNan, on the other hand, as I have collected in post 96, is exclusively related to dharmic people who mean no harm to any living being.

For the use of the term 'chAnROn' in Tamizh classics, check:
Tamil lexicon

Thank you.

Are you also saying (implcitly) that some of the virtues could be common to both "sandroor" and "andhanar"?

Rgds.,

 

[saidevo]

Swami, the answer to your question is to be found in the following:
adhikAram 99 on chAnRANmai of TirukkuRaL

 

[pannvalan]

Swami,

The definition given by Valluvar for 'Sandror' is as follows.


அன்புநாண் ஒப்புரவு கண்ணோட்டம் வாய்மையோடு
ஐந்துசால்பு ஊன்றிய தூண்.

அதாவது, அன்பு (love), நாணம் (வெட்க வேண்டியவற்றுக்கு வெட்கப்படுதல்), பிறருக்கு உதவி செய்தல், மற்றவரைப்
பொறுத்துக் கொள்ளுதல், உண்மையே பேசுதல் ஆகிய ஐந்து சிறந்த பண்புகளும் தூண்களாகக் கொண்டது சான்றாண்மை
ஆகும்.

இத்தகைய பண்புநலன்களைத் தம்மிடத்தே கொண்டவர் சான்றோர் ஆவர்.

அந்தணர் என்போர் எல்லோரிடத்தும் நேர்மையோடும், கனிவோடும் நடப்பவர் ஆவர்.

So, the former is being virtuous and the latter is being righteous. This is the broader distinction. It may be noted that being righteous
itself is a virtue,

 

[Nara]

.....
When I said in post 108 that the period of the Kalabhras dynasty is "generally considered to be dark age--an interregnum", that ended the earlier Chera-Chozha-PANDya rule, "disturbed the prevailing order, and created a situation of unrestrained morality and lawlessness in society", Nara accused me of making outlandish claims and then running away.

Saidevo, thank you for bringing this back again and reminding all of us that you have not given an answer to my question and you did runaway. You made the statement Kalabharas "created a situation of unrestrained morality and lawlessness in society". Now tell us on what you base this statement. If all you have is so-and-so said it, then my accusation stands.

Now, what sort of claim is the following that Nara makes, in reply to my post 122?

[..]

Since you make a strange claim, Nara, the onus of proof is on you.....

Sorry Saidevo, you are just mistaken. I did not make any claim, I was only responding to your claim that Thirukkural borrowed from such and such Sanskrit texts. I was only pointing out the two other possibilities, namely, (i) Sanskrit authors copying from Thirukkural and (ii) both independently recording prevailing wisdom. This was to show that your claim is not self-evident. Since you are the one making a claim -- I was only showing alternative possibilities -- it is up to you to provide convincing evidence. Don't simply say this author said, or that author showed it, for every Brahminist author making these claims there are scores of others making the opposite claim. You make a claim, then you show the evidence, that is how debates work.

It is a common and well-known fact that politicians, VIPs and celebrities, whatever their caste, creed or religion, will receive preferential treatment in any MaTham or temple, whether it is managed by brahmins or non-brahmins. As for oridinary people, just as non-brahmins enjoy preferential treatment in non-brahmin MaThams and temples, there is nothing wrong in brahmins receiving preferential treatment in brahmin MaThams and temples.

Ok, fair enough, but then why did you say this:

but I am sufficiently aware that these days ...... most orthodox brahmins do not entertain any caste differences.

What is it Saiedo, (a) the orthodox brahminis do not entertain any caste differences, or (b) there is nothing wrong in brahmins receiving preferential treatment in brahmin MaThams and temples? Both can't be true, make up your mind!


Well, Saidevo, all this is extraneous to the issue of அந்தணர் and அறுதொழில். This particular branch of this thread is about அறுதொழில். Let us refocus on this for a moment. Please remember, it was you who cited Kamakoti.org to bolster your argument about what is அறுதொழில், I didn't. Now, I am asking you whether you are willing to standby the commentary Sankarachariyar Swamigal has given for this அறுதொழில் in which he classifies a group of human beings to dogs.

In response you said:

I am not qualified to judge a person like KAnchi ParamAchArya.

Saidevo, I am not asking you to judge the Sankarachariyar. Just say whether you agree with him when he included the above clearly offensive comment as part of the அறுதொழில்.

You also said:

When I have not felt the necessity to read either the Manu SmRti or TirukkuRaL completely and ponder over any similarities and differences between them, how can I offer an opinion?

This is also, I am sorry to be blunt, dishonest. In this very thread you have provided a lot of analysis and opinion. Now, suddenly, when asked to defend a clearly unacceptable statement from Sankarachariyar, you have become very coy.

I understand your reluctance to disagree with someone you revere. That is the crux of the issue. You are too wedded to this idea of inerrancy of passed down and received wisdom, you want to just take all of it, uncritically, lock, stock and barrel. This by definition means you are not open to new ideas that can be more reasonable or rational. This is why your arguments cannot be relied upon by people who wish to think about these things, by people for whom that Rg Vedic line "Let noble thoughts come to us from all directions" is not merely a tag line, by people unafraid of rationality.

Thank you ...

 

[pannvalan]

It is observed that one can interpret any kural in Thirukkural as per one's own whims and fancies.

பொருள் இலக்கணத்தில் 'பொருள் கோள்' என்று ஒன்று உண்டு. அதன்படி, ஒரு செய்யுளின் சரியான பொருளை அறிவதற்கு
அச்செய்யுளில் உள்ள சொற்களைப் பிரித்து அவற்றின் வரிசையைச் சரியான முறையில் மாற்றி வாசித்தால், நமது எண்ணம் ஈடேறும் என்பர்.

ஒரு செய்யுளுக்கு ஒரு பொருளே உண்டு. அதிலும் முரண்பட்ட இருவேறு பொருள்களை நாம் ஒரே செய்யுளில் காண முடியாது.

ஆனால், இங்கே என்ன நடக்கிறது? ஒரே குறள் வெவ்வேறு வகையிலே பொருள் கொள்ளப்பட்டிருக்கிறது.

அப்படிப் பார்க்கையில், இக்குறளுக்கு இப்படியும் ஒரு பொருள் உண்டல்லவா?

மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கம் குன்றக் கெடும்

பார்ப்பான் மறப்பினும், கற்றுக் கொள்ளலாம். ஆனால் அவன் ஒழுக்கம் குன்றினால், இந்தப் பூமியில் பிறப்பு என்னும் தொழிலே நடக்காமல் கெட்டுப் போகும்.

நான் இந்த அர்த்தத்தை ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளவில்லை என்றாலும், ஒரு வாதத்திற்காக இப்படியும் சொல்லலாம் என்று தெரிவித்துக் கொள்கிறேன்.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

I said in post 108 that the period of the Kalabhras dynasty is "generally considered to be dark age--an interregnum", that ended the earlier Chera-Chozha-PANDya rule, "disturbed the prevailing order, and created a situation of unrestrained morality and lawlessness in society". Here is some information which help us to infer the nature of the people and rule of the Kalabhras.

KaLappirar--Kalabhras in Sangham literature
Paraphrased from the book 'Some Contributions of South India to Indian Culture'
by S.Krishnaswami Aiyangar, published in 1923

It is not as if the Kalabhras invaded the Tamizh lands overnight, defeated the mUvendars--three kings, Chera, Chozha, and PANDya and established their rule. The Kalabhras clan included several hills-and-forest tribes residing in the borderlands of the then Tamizhagam, making frequent incursions and finally establishing their rule in Tamizhagam for around 300 years.

It was the time when Emperor Ashoka was keen on expanding his kingdom southwards, which resulted in persistent Maurva invasions through the hills that formed the borderlands of TamizhnADu, by breaking the hills and creating roads through them. Uprooted from their habitat by this activity of the Mauryas, the tribes in the hills and forests lands who formed the Kalabhras clan made repeated incursions into the Tamizh lands, and finally succeeded in establishing their rule for around 300 years.

Sangham classics, especially Aha-nAnURu, has many verses that speak about the tribal chieftains, specifically these groups: KOchar/KOsar, VaDugar/VaDukar, Mazhavar and PuLLi. Subdued by the Mauryas, these groups either invaded the Tamizh lands on their own or assisted the Mauryan armies by serving as mercenaries.

The scenario portrayed by Aha-nAnURu is an interesting one: Thalaivan--lover/husband, separates from his Thalaivi--love, and goes away in search of Diraviyam--money and riches, in far away lands, often crossing the hills that bordered the Tamizh lands. He is driven northward by the stories he had heard of the treasures the Nandas accumulated in PATali(putra) being then buried under the waters of the GangA (Aham.264). Days and months pass by, with no sight of the Thalivan; and the Thalaivi laments her state, with her Thozhi--friend, consoling her. The history of the times is weaved in the text of their conversation, admist beautiful descriptions of nature and people.

• VaDugars/VaDukars are described as a class of hunters. Their chief occupation was cattle-raiding and they are always said to be accompanied by cruel dogs (Aham.213,381).

• Their language (which was researched to be Telugu) was considered by the Tamils as unlearned in character (Aham. 295,107).

• NakkIrar, in Aham.253, speaks of Erumai of KuDanADu as the cattle-lifting tribe of VaDugar. Another poet, IDaiyan Chendang-koTRanAr, in Aham.375, speaks of the victory of the Chozha king ILam-perum-chenni over the VaDugars at PAzhi.

• Mazhavars, who suffered a defeat at the hands of NeDuvEl Avi at Podini (Aham.1), were habitually residents in forests and lived by way-laying travellers. They worshipped NaDukal (Aham.35, KuraL 771)--stones planted in honour of warriors who fell in battles), and offered sacrifices to them. PuLLi of VengaDam, subjugated the Mazhavars (Aham.61).

• KOchars/KOsars entered the country of TuLu by defeating Nannan and killing his state elephant (ParaNar in Kuruntogai 73). Nannan's territory included both TuLu and KonkANam (NatRiNai 491).

• Aham.196 speaks of the KOchars as having violently blinded (அருளின்றிக் கண்களைந்து--AruLinRik kaN kaLaindhu) the father of a woman called Anni Mijnili. At her instance, their two chieftains KuRumbiyan and Tidhiyan avenged this act by killing the KOchars at AzhundUr.

• SillapadhikAram speaks of them as 'kongilam kOchar', and the poet MAmUlanAr in Aham.251 describes Kochar winning against their enemies at Podiyil hill, but MOhUr declined to submit to them, which resulted in the Mauryas advancing South.

• Since the KOchars settled in four places they were known as NAlUr kOchar. Poet KAri-kaNNan of KAvEripUmpaTTinam refers to the practice of the younger members of this tribe learning the use of weapons by hurling them against a pillar made of the wood of Murungai maram.

*****

From the book Temples of KRShNa in South India: history, art and traditions in Tamilnadu by T.Padmaja

• We get clear references to the hostile activities of the Kalabhras against the Vedic religion and Vedic establishments in the contemporary literature and also inscriptions. The VELvikuDi grant of the PANDyas (8th centure CE) describes how KaDungOn PANDyan liberated the PANDya country from the clutches of the Kalabhras and emerged as a resplendent sun from the dark clouds of the Kalabhras.

• There is still dispute among the scholars as to the identification of the Kalabhras. But recent researches, based on epigraphical and literary evidences, tend to identify them as a fanatical jain group, very hostile to the Vedic institutions and rituals which entrenched itself strongly in some places in Tamilnadu. The Kalabhras took away the grant of brahmadeyam lands (as gifts to brahmins), which were restored to them only after the PANDyas defeated the Kalabhras.

• The activities of the Kalabhras provoked a strong reaction which was given expression in the hymns of AzhvArs and NAyanmArs. We see in their works repeated condemnation of the Jainas and the Buddhists. In the works of JnAnasambandhar in particular, we get vivid descriptions of Jainas wandering about naked with their dishevelled hair which, according to him, was revolting.

*****

Thus, we have groups of people who were tribes, capable of unrestrained violence, did not speak Tamizh, were not Hindus, made their living by cattle-raiding and robbery, acting as mercenaries, and injuring innocent citizens--by plucking out their eyes as in one instance. What sort of morality and law and order could have prevailed during the rule of these Kalabhras? This was the reason, as I said earlier, that so many nIti-shAstras were written in Tamizh, headed by TirukkuRaL, by the brave native poets who had lost their Sangham kings who afforded protection and yet would not fail in their duty to attempt at restoration of order by the might of their ezhuththANi--stylus.

*****

I do NOT agree with Nara saying in post 133 that he only spoke of the 'possibilities' of the Sanskrit texts copying from TirukkuRaL or 'independent wisdoms' prevailing. These are Nara's opinions which he expressed to counter the several instances of many authors showing lines of texts that are similar between TirukkuRaL and Sanskrit works.

Since for the Sanskrit texts to TirukkuRaL assertion, several examples are shown in the works of authors I have referred to, Nara cannot escape simply by saying that he hinted at the possibility of a unicorn which he believes in and most others don't. Therefore, I urge Nara to provide some examples for the two other possibilities he has stated above.

 

[Nara]

......Thus, we have groups of people who were tribes, capable of unrestrained violence, did not speak Tamizh, were not Hindus, made their living by cattle-raiding and robbery, acting as mercenaries, and injuring innocent citizens--by plucking out their eyes as in one instance.

Saidevo, this is really pathetic. If you don't have any answers for my questions, it is enough to simply say so, I won't insist. There is no need to kick up a dust storm. Let me remind you once again of the two most recent questions you are carefully avoiding:

• What is it Saiedo, (a) the orthodox brahminis do not entertain any caste differences, or (b) there is nothing wrong in brahmins receiving preferential treatment in brahmin MaThams and temples? Both can't be true, make up your mind!
• In this very thread you have provided a lot of analysis and opinion. Now, suddenly, when asked to defend a clearly unacceptable statement from Sankarachariyar, you have become very coy.

IMO, an honest interlocutor will address the important questions before branching off.

Kalabharas
Whether Kalabharas were good or bad, I really don't care. My objection was only to your sweeping statement that they "disturbed the prevailing order, and created a situation of unrestrained morality and lawlessness in society". Instead of tackling the question head-on, you have done a cut-and-paste snow job.

I wonder whether you even read some of the cut-and-paste text. Why would being a hunter or having a cruel-looking dog make them bad people. They conquered Tulu country and killed an elephant, and therefore what? I am sure they were not the first to invade another country or kill an elephant. They worshiped nadukal to honor their fallen warriors, so that makes them lawless and immoral? They spoke Telugu, oh, that surely means they are monsters!!! It is just inconceivable for me that you read all this and still felt they offered support for your case.

Gouging out opponent's eyes is cruel, but was routinely done by the powerful establishment, whoever they may be. At least the Kalabhars did it to their political opponents, Kulothunga Cholan is supposed to have gouged out the eyes of elderly SV leaders for no greater crime than refusing to declare sivat parataram naasti.

Saidevo, you say Kalabharas lived by way-laying travelers. Did they do this during the 300 years they ruled all of Tamil country? You know, Thirumangai Azhvar was supposed to have done the exact same thing, way-laying people. But, why would Kalabharas have to live by way-laying anybody if they were ruling the entire country? Does this make any sense at all?

Taking land away from Brahmins or being anti-Vedic does not necessarily make them immoral. Being fanatical Jain is no more a sin than being a fanatical Hindu. I don't know much about Nayanmargal, but I know many Azhvar pasurams reek with absolute hatred for Buddhits and Jains, would that not make them fanatical SVs? The official hagiography account of Bhagavat Ramanuja, who is feted as காரேய் கருணை இராமானுசா, says he put thousands of Jains whom he defeated in debates to death by grinding them to pulp in காற்கடை (செக்கு). Nice ha?

Why Jains and Buddhists, some Azhvar pasurams are hostile towards Saivas as well. Here is one by திருவரங்கத்து அமுதனார், not an Azhvar, but this prabhandham has equal reverential status as that of Azhvar prabhandhams.

இராமநுச நூற்றந்தாதி #99:
தற்கச் சமணரும், சாக்கியப் பேய்களும், தாழ்சடையோன்
சொற்கற்ற சோம்பரும், சூனிய வாதரும், நான்மறையும்
நிற்கக் குறும்புசெய் நீசரும் மாண்டனர் நீள்நிலத்தே
பொற்கற்பகம் எம்இராமாநுச முனி போந்தபின்னே.
​

Would all this make SVs murderous hordes?

Finally, here is a nugget that Saidevo very deftly inserted in his arguments:

There is still dispute among the scholars as to the identification of the Kalabhras.
​

So, Saidevo says the very identity of Kalabhras is in dispute, but that did not stop him from making the grand conclusion:

Thus, we have groups of people who were tribes, capable of unrestrained violence, did not speak Tamizh, were not Hindus, made their living by cattle-raiding and robbery, acting as mercenaries, and injuring innocent citizens--by plucking out their eyes as in one instance. What sort of morality and law and order could have prevailed during the rule of these Kalabhras?

Once again I repeat, I really don't care how good or bad Kalabharas were, my objection was only about your sweeping statement as though it is well established fact. Tamil kings were no greater angels nor any less of demons. Wielding state power makes them all demons sooner or later. All said and done, if you think most of Kalabharas created unrestrained morality (whatever that means) and lawlessness in society, I will let you have it, if only you will stick to the questions:

• Do orthodox brahminis really not entertain any caste differences, or entertaining caste differences is alright?
• Do you agree with Sankarachariyar that some human beings belong to the same group as dogs for the purpose fulfilling what he sees as the அறுதொழில் six fold duties of Brahmins?

Thirukkural and Sanskrit texts

I do NOT agree with Nara saying in post 133 that he only spoke of the 'possibilities' of the Sanskrit texts copying from TirukkuRaL or 'independent wisdoms' prevailing. These are Nara's opinions which he expressed to counter the several instances of many authors showing lines of texts that are similar between TirukkuRaL and Sanskrit works.

Since for the Sanskrit texts to TirukkuRaL assertion, several examples are shown in the works of authors I have referred to, Nara cannot escape simply by saying that he hinted at the possibility of a unicorn which he believes in and most others don't. Therefore, I urge Nara to provide some examples for the two other possibilities he has stated above.

Here is what I said about the two other possibilities to Thiruvalluvar borrowing from Sanskrit texts in post #123.

The similarities found between Artha Shashthra etc., could be because the Sanskrit authors copied from Thiruvalluvar, or these concepts were prevailing wisdom independently recorded. Please give some evidence to show on what basis these scholars claim it was Thiruvalluvar who copied from the Sanskrit authors?
​

Saidevo, I have highlighted the key phrase for your convenience. I hope I don't have to explain to you what "could be" means. Saidevo, you are the one who made the claim and it is you who must provide evidence. All the authors you quoted assume that if Tamil text A is similar to Sanskrit text B, then, Tamil text borrowed from Sanskrit text. This is Brahminist thinking.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara and others.

Actually what you say is pathetic, Nara. You have nothing to offer except vitaNDAvAdam--cavil/ perverse or frivolous argument, when confronted with questions of proof for your opinions. You have no answer for my observation as to why, unlike in the Sangham age, when even small kings were celebrated in poetry, no poet has sung about the kings of the Kalabhra period and why were there as many as twelve nIti-nUlgaL--ethical texts, written during this period, as never before or after.

All I have done is to point out the opinions of the scholars as to the similarities between Sanskrit texts and TirukkuRaL. I told you I have not studied Manu SmRti or other Sanskrit texts and TirukkuRaL deeply, to make any claim that VaLLuvar copied from the Sanskrit texts.

On the other hand, you used the phrase 'could be' to speak about two other possibilities, and now in post 136, you fortify your opinion by saying, "All the authors you quoted assume that if Tamil text A is similar to Sanskrit text B, then, Tamil text borrowed from Sanskrit text. This is Brahminist thinking."

Since your thinking is against Brahminist thinking, it is incumbent upon you to show that the Brahminist thinking is wrong, by giving proof for the other two posibilities and make your unicorn come alive with life.

Nara, I cannot care less for what you think about my credentials from my posts. I have said all that I have wanted, so, I am not going to indulge in replying to your vitaNDAvAdam any further.

 

[sarma-61]

namaste Nara and others.

...You have no answer for my observation as to why, unlike in the Sangham age, when even small kings were celebrated in poetry, no poet has sung about the kings of the Kalabhra period and why were there as many as twelve nIti-nUlgaL--ethical texts, written during this period, as never before or after.

I am reading the discussions in this thread with interest, though i am just a layman.
But on reading the above portion, with what little i know of history, it looks to me that the kalabhras ought to have been a people of ascetic disposition basically, not interested in recording their doings or achievements, not entertaining court poets who will sing praises by imagined and invented greatnesses for money, etc., but that the kalabhras were as just and efficient as other rulers of those times and at least did not discourage (if not actively encourage) neetinuls being written, preserved and passed on to next generations.

If these neetinuls were written as protests against kalabhra rule of neetikedu, it must have been easy for the rulers to completely destroy any evidence of such writings, is it not? and just publicly gouge out the eyes of one such author of neetinul, and nobody will dare to do it again, am i not right?

There seems to be some evidence for the presence of ajivikas in the south

Jainism Articles and Essays: The Ajivika Sect of Ancient India

There is also a possibility that -

1. There is no evidence to support anybody named kalabhras existed.
2. Pallavas were in south, chalukya in north and Gangas in the middle, so there is no evidence to show anybody else existed.
3. Looting was a common practice to refer others as thieves. So this must be just that.
4. This is just an attempt to advance tamil antiquity. It advances the sangam works age to before christ. The legend just gives some three hundred years of history in between that advances the tamil antiquity.

Controversies in History: Kalabhras Interruption Tamil Myth

 

[happyhindu]

In addition to what Sarma Sir says, i also wish to add a few notes, which may perhaps add an other perspective.

1) According to AK Aiyangar in the book "Ancient India and South Indian history & culture", the Kalabhras were the Kalavar or the Kallars.

2) According to MD Raghavan in the book "India in Ceylonese history, society, and culture", the Buddhist monk-scholar Buddhadutta Thera was patronised by the Kalabhra Chieftain, Acutavikkanta (aka Acutavikkanta Kalambakulanandana / Acyuta vikranta).

3) According to the book "Encyclopaedia of Hindu Iconography: Śiva", the Kalabhras were of Jain-Buddhist lineage.

Generally praises have been sung of hindu kings by brahmins. If the kings were Jain/Buddhist there is no necessity to expect praises to be sung of them, esp if they were the austere sort of Jains and Buddhists who did not engage the brahmin class.

4) According to the book "History of ancient India" by Arun Bhattacharjee, the Andhras entered into the current Andhra regions and pushed the Kalabhras out of Andhra. Due to this, the Kalabhras had to move into present Tamilnadu region. However, came across a few books on google-books that mention the Kalabhras as Jains from the present Karnataka regions.

Regards.

 

[Haridasa Siva]

This is why your arguments cannot be relied upon by people who wish to think about these things, by people for whom that Rg Vedic line "Let noble thoughts come to us from all directions" is not merely a tag line, by people unafraid of rationality.

Thank you ...

I condemn such an indirect reference to me. I mean what my tag line says. Good thoughts are totally different from "empty arguments".

 

[Nara]

I condemn such an indirect reference to me. I mean what my tag line says. Good thoughts are totally different from "empty arguments".

Siva, I did not even know you had changed your tag line when I wrote this. I had an old nemesis in mind -- he used this tag line even though, IMO, he had an airtight mind. He is no longer participating, but may be browsing. So, honestly, I didn't have you in my mind when I wrote this comment.

Your second line is certainly true. It seems your "empty argument" comment is directed at my arguments. When people run out of reasonable counter arguments they start throwing accusations like this -- empty arguments, vidandavadam, etc. I am used to this.

Siva, I don't want to be on your enemies list.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

....You have nothing to offer except vitaNDAvAdam

Saidevo, this seems to be the favorite response when people are unable to present a cogent and concise rebuttal.

[..]

Nara, I cannot care less for what you think about my credentials from my posts. I have said all that I have wanted, so, I am not going to indulge in replying to your vitaNDAvAdam any further.

Of course that is alright, but let everyone note, Saidevo is once again only commenting on side issues and not answering the basic question about Sankarachariyar's comment on அறுதொழில்.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sarma and others.

Here is my take on the informative points you have made in post 138:

• The article on the Ajivika Sect makes interesting reading, but I don't think the rulers of the KaLapirar/Kalabhras age would have been Ajivikas for the simple reason that for the practitioners of this sect 'strict nakedness' was required!

• According to most scholars, the Kalabhras were a clan of many tribal groups as I have already pointed out. Many scholars are also of the opinion that it was during their period that the Jaina-Bauddha religions took root in Tamizhagam. Among the authors of the 18 texts composed during this period, many are Jain poets.

• It seems that the culture of these poets, which probably influenced their Kalabhra rulers as you said, was in many ways different from the Tamizh culture of the Sangham period.

VidvAn M.NArAyaNa VeluppiLLai, in his brief work of introducing these 18 texts says that practices such as eating the flesh of animals, consumption of toddy, and enjoying the company of prostitutes, which are abundantly talked about in the Sangham literature, are criticised in the nIti-nUlgaL, which is obvious, so, there is the possiblity that these dharma texts were written to influence the people towards the Jaina religion.

• As for the probability that the period of the Kalabhras described as the dark age is only a ploy to advance 'the Tamil antiquity', I think this may not be the case, mainly because the Sangham period is generally accepted to be much earlier to the age of Christ, whereas the Kalabhras period is only between 300 CE and 600 CE or so.

*****

Here are some points to ponder as to the time of the Sangham and post Sangham literature:

• BrahmashrI GaNeshaiyar, whose commentary on TolkAppiyam is based on NachchinArkkiniyar's commentary, was published by shrI NA.Ponnaiah in 1952. In that work he says, showing literary evidences, that TolkAppiyam was written at KapATapuram during the time of the IDaichchangam, which would advance TolkAppiyar's time well before the time of the MahAbhArata, at least by 12,000 years from now (*1).

• I said earlier that of the 18 post Sangham texts, 12 were nIti-nULgaL, following Mu.Va.'s statement in his book on the History of Tamizh literature. A glance at VeluppiLLai's brief work mentioned above, however, shows that only 11 were dharma texts and the remaining seven were exposition of the aham-puRam life after the style of the Sangham literature, albeit in shorter verses.

• Unlike many of the Sangham texts, however, only two of these seven texts give some hints at kings who ruled during that time: KaLavazhi nARpadu speaks about the victory of Chozhan ChenkaNAn over the Chera king KaNaikkAl IrumpoRai. Pazhamozhi nAnURu is said to have references about the kings KarikAl chozhan, Chembian, KezhukuTTuvan, Manu-nIti chozhan, PAri, Beghan, and the ItihAsa/PurANa personalities BalarAman, PANDavas, Dharman, KaNNapirAn, MahAbali, and the god Shiva.

• The historical periods of these two kings are (*2): Chozhan ChenkaNAn (150-180 CE), ChEramAn KaNaikkAl IrumpoRai (160-180 CE). This means that the text KaLavazhi nARpadu by poet PoigaiyAr should have been written during this time.

As an aside, I remember having read in my school days that when this Chera king IrumpoRai was in the Chozha prison, he wanted to drink some water one day. The guard brought water in a kuvaLai--tumbler, and kept it near the king noisily, some water spilling onto the floor. The King being a mAnasthan--a man of dignity, did not drink the water offered to him with disrespect, and gave up his life.

• The author of Pazhamozhi nAnURu, named MunRuRai AraiyanAr, is himself believed to be a king or atleast a chieftain (and believed by some scholars to be a Jain). In verse 21, he refers to how the ancient Chozha king KarikAl PeruvaLatthAn (450-380 BCE) disguised, who ascended to the throne in young age, disguised himself as an old man to give verdict to a dispute.

In this verse, the author highlights the proverb: "குலவிச்சை கல்லாமல் பாகம் படும்--kulavichchai kallAmal bhAgam paDum--the family occupation is sure to come naturally to a member of the family".

• The chieftains adored in Sangham classics--PAri known for donating his chariot to a creeper and Bhegan known for covering a dancing peacock with his shawl are referred to in the verse 361:

"முல்லைக்குத்தேரும் மயிலுக்குப் போர்வையும் ... அறிமடமும் சான்றோர்க்கு அணி--mullaikkutthErum mayilukkup pOrvaiyum ... aRimaDamum chAnROrkku aNi".

• The king PoRkai PANDiyan (between 300-475 CE) is referred to in verse 102 by the epithet "தவற்றை நினைத்துத்தன் கைகுறைத்தான் தென்னவன்--tavaRRai ~ninaitthutthan kaikuRaitthAn tennavan".

This righteous king was in habit of going round disguised in the streets of his city at night-time. One day, he heard a a man and woman talking in a low tone inside a closed door. He knew that the man of the house was away, so on suspicion he knocked the door. When the male voice from within called, "Who's that?", the king understood that it was after all the husband, so he knocked the door of all houses in the street and ran away.

The next morning, people of the street complained to him in his court that a thief had knocked the door of their houses the previous night. When the King asked them about the punishment that could be given if the thief was caught, they said the right hand of the thief that knocked the doors should be severed. Forthwith the King drew his sword and severed his right hand, to the shock of the people, and explained the incident. The people arranged for a golden hand to be fixed to the stump of the right hand, and thus the King came to be known as 'Porkai PANDiyan'.

• Chozha king Chembian or Sibi chakravarti is referred to in verse 49 as "வீங்குதொள் செம்பியன்--vI~gguthoL chembiyan". This King is referred to BrahmANDa PurANam as having campaigned against RAvaNa to help the Devas.

• The legendary king Manu-nIti chozhan (2nd century BCE) is referred to in verse 93 in the words "கறவைக்கன்று ஊர்ந்தானைத் தன்தையும் ஊர்ந்தான்--kaRavaikkanRu Ur~ndAnait thandaiyum Ur~ndAn".

• Verse 316 in the words, "தொடுத்த பெரும்புலவன் சொற்குறை தீர--toDuttha perumpulavan choRkuRai thIra", refers to the Chera King Chelkezhu kuTTuvan (270-245 BCE), who fulfilled the wish of his poet PAlai GautamanAr to perform a Veda yajna which would fetch suvargam--heavens, for him and his relatives, after death.

All such historical references must be researched properly to arrive at the correct period of the Sangham and post Sangham literature.

Ref:
1. Tholkappiam - Ezhuthathikaram
2. List of Tamil kings
List of Tamil kings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Haridasa Siva]

Siva, I did not even know you had changed your tag line when I wrote this. I had an old nemesis in mind -- he used this tag line even though, IMO, he had an airtight mind. He is no longer participating, but may be browsing. So, honestly, I didn't have you in my mind when I wrote this comment.

Your second line is certainly true. It seems your "empty argument" comment is directed at my arguments. When people run out of reasonable counter arguments they start throwing accusations like this -- empty arguments, vidandavadam, etc. I am used to this.

Siva, I don't want to be on your enemies list.

Cheers!

Thanks for the clarification. I am glad you don't want to be on my enemy list. I intrepret it as "I want to be in your friends' list". Then as a friend, I would like to suggest two things. 1. Please don't keep on harping on any issue to the point that the other person finds you adamant/vidandaavaatham. 2. Please do not think that the reason for people making such a statement is becasue they don't have valid counter-arguments. They perhaps feel it is better to ignore the original arguments for they do not see any substance in it and at the same time are convinced that you would not accept whatever explanation they give.

I would be glad if you just note my suggestions. It is up to you to follow it or ignore it.

 

[Nara]

Thanks for the clarification. I am glad you don't want to be on my enemy list. I intrepret it as "I want to be in your friends' list".

This is even better, I welcome it.

Then as a friend, I would like to suggest two things.

Ah, so soon we dish out our wisdom , but, I welcome this too as it is given as a friend.

1. Please don't keep on harping on any issue to the point that the other person finds you adamant/vidandaavaatham.

I get this only from people who just can't bring themselves to answer the questions posed, but kick up a great big dust storm. Accusing the other side of vidandavadam may feel nice, but it does not do anything else.

2. Please do not think that the reason for people making such a statement is becasue they don't have valid counter-arguments. They perhaps feel it is better to ignore the original arguments for they do not see any substance in it and at the same time are convinced that you would not accept whatever explanation they give.

This is a cop out. I expect people to present their arguments if they have any. If holes in the explanation are pointed out one must address them. If not, one must have the intellectual honesty to concede. Not doing either and smearing me with "vidandavadam" complaint is childish.

Here is what I would suggest, when you say something, be ready to defend what you say if challenged. Do not expect your explanations to be accepted just because they were given. If an argument is found wanting, there is no shame in conceding.

Cheers!

 

[kkumar29]

This is a cop out. I expect people to present their arguments if they have any. If holes in the explanation are pointed out one must address them. If not, one must have the intellectual honesty to concede. Not doing either and smearing me with "vidandavadam" complaint is childish.

Here is what I would suggest, when you say something, be ready to defend what you say if challenged. Do not expect your explanations to be accepted just because they were given. If an argument is found wanting, there is no shame in conceding.

Cheers!

Sri Nara,

I am a relatively new comer to this forum but have been around newsgroups and discussion forums since its inception.

I enjoy your postings and the logical development of your arguments. However I would like to make an observation.

It is generally accepted that when people post an opinion it is just that. They don't have to explain their opinions or answer/justify or do anything at all. If I state that it is my opinion that eating garlic is distasteful, I don't have to justify this statement to you or to anyone else. If you keep demanding that I explain myself in every post, question my intellectual integrity/intellectual honesty then the discussion turns emotional and argumentative. It is my experience most people participate to exchange information, get exposed to other points of views and form their own opinions. I don't really think people participate in forums to win a debate.

Now please don't ask to me justify my post:bounce:

K. Kumar

 

[Nara]

... They don't have to explain their opinions or answer/justify or do anything at all.

Thanks K. Kumar for your observation.

I agree, everyone has the right for their own opinion, but they don't have the right to their own facts. The only opinions I challenge are ones that are blatantly Brahmin supremacist and laced with hypocrisy. Even in these cases I have never insisted that they be justified, I am content with exposing the hypocrisy.

I really don't know why others participate in this forum, I can only speak about myself. I do as a time pass.

BTW, why all this meta analysis, let us stick to the topic.

Cheers!

 

[kkumar29]

Shri Nara,

Thanks for your candid post. I agree that there is ample evidence in history and a number of posts in this forum that reek of Brahmin superiority and hypocrisy.

You had quoted in earlier posts a number of kurals that described who should be called an andaNar. My question is, in your view, can a person born as Brahmin ever become an andanar because of this hypocrisy even if that person possesses all the qualities prescribed in those kurals.

Regards,
K. Kumar.

 

[ShivKC]

. If I state that it is my opinion that eating garlic is distasteful, I don't have to justify this statement to you or to anyone else. If you keep demanding that I explain myself in every post, question my intellectual integrity/intellectual honesty then the discussion turns emotional and argumentative.

It is my experience most people participate to exchange information, get exposed to other points of views and form their own opinions. I don't really think people participate in forums to win a debate.

Now please don't ask to me justify my post:bounce:

K. Kumar

sh.kumar, look at the contradictions between your own statements underlined above . one hand u want no one to question, and another hand u want others point of view also.

there is a difference between blog & forum. Blog is you post on the wall, and every one read it. but in forum, every one discusses,critics, dissects your point. if you dont want some one to question/criticise you, then, taken this eg. tomorrow someone write here, saying, ' All tamil brahmins are cheats', will you just read it and go silently, or question him to prove his point.

note;, being a new member , thought of sharing this info to you. sh.nara is a very learned and esteemed member.

 

[Nara]

.....You had quoted in earlier posts a number of kurals that described who should be called an andaNar. My question is, in your view, can a person born as Brahmin ever become an andanar because of this hypocrisy even if that person possesses all the qualities prescribed in those kurals.

Dear kkumar29, the term அந்தணர் has long been used as a proper noun to mean people born to Brahmin parents. But, IMO, when Thiruvalluvar defined this term, he did not have Brahmins in mind at all.

Your question is, can a person born to Brahmin parents have qualities consistent with Thiruvalluvar's anthaNar? Why not? Of course he/she can. The ideology that prescribes what one can be or can't be, based on birth parents, is Brahminism, and Thiruvalluvam is the complete antithesis of Brahminism.

Cheers!