Politics of Thirukkural

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

KB,

First of all, I am not a mindless worshiper of Thirukkral or Thiruvalluvar. I completely reject his ideas on idealized womanhood. I also reject his phrases like இழிகுலம் and உயர்குலம்.

However, I also feel it is unfair to judge Thiruvalluvar with today's moral norms because Thirukkural also said பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லாவுயிர்க்கும், and never advocated Varna/caste system in any shape or form, and in this sense Thirukkural stands head and shoulders above all other neethi nool India produced. So, my defense of Thirukkural is a nuanced one. With this preamble I will offer my arguments.

The proposition is:

Thirukkural does have several verses upholding caste system that was prevalent in TN at that time.

In support KB first offered this:

பிறப்பின் அடிப்படையில் ஒழுக்கம், அதை கடைபிடிப்பதின் அவசியம், அந்த ஒழுக்கத்தை கடைபிடிக்காவிட்டால் ஏற்படும் பாதகம், உயர்ந்த பிறப்பு, இழி பிறப்பு - இவை பற்றியெல்லாம் திருவள்ளுவர் பல இடங்களில் கூறியிருக்கிறார். Such analyses have been carried out by research scholars at Sishri. Their arguments appear persuasive and I will provide few examples in the next post.

KB, you may find their arguments persuasive, that is fine, but what you have cited is nothing more than an opinion. Even this opinion is only about உயர்ந்த பிறப்பு and இழி பிறப்பு, not உயர்ந்த ஜாதி இழிந்த ஜாதி.

Now, you might say பிறப்பு actually means ஜாதி and anyone who says different is:

"motivated "upper" caste dravidian scholars intent on blaming brahmins and brahmins alone for the caste system. Only then, they 1) can justify racial discrimination against TN brahmins 2) can continue to subjugate "lower' castes while pointing fingers at brahmins. Hence, it is in the interest of these dravidian scholars to whitewash all references to caste/varna system in tamil literature!"

​

Instead of battling out with opinions as arguments, let us look at the text itself and see what kind of interpretations are rational and what are not.

First, the cultural and religious norm of the time of Thiruvalluvar was to look at man's pursuits in four categories, அறம் பொருள் இன்பம் வீடு. Of these, the first three can be religious or secular, but the fourth one is most definitely a religious idea. Many would have already guessed where I am going with this, and Thiruvalluvar, who penned 1330 kurals on அறம் பொருள் and இன்பம், could have easily penned a few more on வீடு, but he didn't. This is a fact.

Further, of the 1330 kurals only the first 10 are about what one can interpret as personal god. Even here, the terms he uses are not exclusively that of personal god. Take a look at them:

[TABLE="class: grid, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]No.
[/TD]
[TD]Name[/TD]
[TD]Interpretation[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1.[/TD]
[TD] ஆதிபகவன்[/TD]
[TD]The first lord, could be the first acharya of a tradition, or it could be the first Jain Thirthankar Rishabha or Adinath aka ஆதிபகவன்
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2.[/TD]
[TD] வாலறிவன்[/TD]
[TD]One with untainted knowledge, this can be anyone, not necessarily god[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3.[/TD]
[TD] மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்[/TD]
[TD]There are many deities that can claim to be this, one of them is Mahaveera. The jain bard Ilango uses the same epithet மலர்மிசை ஏகினான் to refer to Mahaveera, I am looking for the exact quote, will provide it when I locate it.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4.[/TD]
[TD]வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்[/TD]
[TD]This refers to anyone who has forsaken worldly life, most definitely not a god who wishes for his devotees to behave properly to get rewarded, or not get punihsed[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5.[/TD]
[TD]இறைவன்[/TD]
[TD]இறைவன் has several meanings, among them are leader, King, Elder[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6.[/TD]
[TD]ஐந்தவித்தான்[/TD]
[TD]The one who has transcended the five-fold desires arising from five sense organs, same comments as in #4 will apply[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7.[/TD]
[TD]தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்[/TD]
[TD]This simply means unequaled and does not necessarily mean god, it could be one's acharya, given the Jain leanings of Thiruvalluvar, this could refer to Mahaveera[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8.[/TD]
[TD]அறவாழி அந்தணன்[/TD]
[TD]This refers to one one leading a righteous life and marked by cool disposition to all living beings[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9.[/TD]
[TD]எண்குணத்தான்[/TD]
[TD]One with countless virtuous and noble qualities[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10.[/TD]
[TD]இறைவன்[/TD]
[TD]See #5 above[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

In summary, having left out வீடு, and using terminologies that do not necessarily indicate veneration for a personal god, one can forcefully argue, whether Thiruvalluvar was a religious man or not, his Thirukkural is a secular text, or at the very least a non-sectarian text, rising above any particular religious dogma. This is one of the key points to keep in mind when refuting the claim Thirukkural supports caste system.

More later...

Cheers!

p.s.
KB, I can't convince you and I don't intend to. All I want to do is plant a seed of thought in thinking minds and let it take shape, and let the thinking mind come to any rational conclusion.

Sometime back I saw a movie called Force 10 from Navarone, a WWII movie in which a small contingent goes deep into enemy territory to destroy a dam. In the climax scene the explosives set by Edward Fox character goes off without doing any visible damage and Robert Shaw character is distraught. Fox assures him everything is fine and they escape. A small crack that had formed after the explosion, pressured by the enormous body of dammed water, develops into a fissure that ultimately opens up and brings the entire dam crumbling down.

Similarly, my hope is, this seed I am planting now in young and fertile minds will develop into a huge change in thinking by sheer pressure of critical thinking.

 

[nachi naga]

looks covert ops from a overt ops

 

[Raji Ram]

நல்ல வேளை! தியாகராஜரின் பஞ்சரத்னக் கீர்த்தனையை யாரும் வம்புக்கு இழுக்கவில்லை.

இல்லையேல், இரண்டாவது 'ரத்னம்' படாத பாடு பட்டிருக்கும்! ஒரு வாரம் விடுமுறை எனக்கு...

பின் சந்திக்கிறேன்!

 

[Nara]

Further, of the 1330 kurals only the first 10 are about what one can interpret as personal god. Even here, the terms he uses are not exclusively that of personal god. Take a look at them:

[TABLE="class: grid, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]No.
[/TD]
[TD]Name[/TD]
[TD]Interpretation[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3.[/TD]
[TD] மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்[/TD]
[TD]There are many deities that can claim to be this, one of them is Mahaveera. The jain bard Ilango uses the same epithet மலர்மிசை ஏகினான் to refer to Mahaveera, I am looking for the exact quote, will provide it when I locate it.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

In சிலப்பதிகாரம், this மலர்மிசை ஏகினான் appears in காடுகாண் காதை, Chapter 10 of புகார் காண்டம். Kovalan and Kannagi just united with Kavundi adikal and are about to set out to Madurai. At that time a few Jain saints appear. Ilango calls them பெருமகன் அதிசயம் பிறழா வாய்மைத் தருமம் சாற்றும் சாரணர். The பெருமகன் is Mahaveera.

First, these சாரணர் go on a praise of Arukan, i.e. Mahaveera. Then Kavundi adigal, along with Kovalan and Kannagi fall at their feet and Kavundi adigal heaps her share of praise upon Mahaveera. Let me give small sample of the epithets and see the similarities with the first 10 kurals of Thirukuural.

தருமன், அறவோன் (Kural says அறவாழி அந்தணன்)
புனிதன், அறிவு வரம்பு இகந்தோன் (Kural says வாலறிவன்)
பகவன் (The ஆதிபகவன் of kural refers to the first Thirthankar, Mahaveer being the 24th)
இறைவன் (Kural also says இறைவன்)
குறைவில் புகழோன் (Kural says தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்)
எண்குணன் (Kural says எண்குணத்தான்)
மலர்மிசை நடந்தேன் (Kural says மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்)
ஐவரை வென்றோன் (Kural says ஐந்தவித்தான்)

The similarities are so striking that I submit, there is ample evidence to at least consider that Thiruvalluvar's கடவுள் வாழ்த்து is not about any Hindu god, but a Jaina who lived in flesh and blood.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

:rockon: jains with marwari language is ruling in TN,thiru valluvar was Tamizh illiyoh?

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Nara Sir,

Thankyou for the extremely informative posts. The way it is presented makes it so much easier for people like me, handicapped due to sufficient tamil knowledge, understand easily.

Sir, would you know of any possible resemblence or connection of any sangam literature including thirukkural with zoarashtrian concepts ?

Why i ask this is because thiruvalluvar lived in the pandya/pallava reign and am curious to know if there was a pahalava zorashtrian influence in the way society was organised at that time..

Am also highly curious if tehre is mention of God Thiruvenkata in sangam literature or thirukkural. So many kings sought to identify themselves with this deity but who is the original Thiruvenkata is a total mystery to me...i suspect the diety predates Krishna..

Am beginning to suspect Thiruvenkata was a god of the yakshas and possibly known to them as Vehka, at an ancient time when the society was organised as yakshas, rakshas, nagas, etc....possibly much before 300 BC...also possibly, the nature spirit identified with this god was that of a Creator, like the sumerian god Enki.

 

[Nara]

....Sir, would you know of any possible resemblence or connection of any sangam literature including thirukkural with zoarashtrian concepts ?

Dear Happy, I have no idea about this, it never even occurred to me there could be a connection. From what little I understand of Zoroastrianism, I think they reject monastic life, one that Thiruvalluvar hails to the sky in நீத்தார் பெருமை. This is another clue, along with rejection of vELvi, vegetarianism, etc., that Thiruvalluvar was most likely not a "Hindu".

Am also highly curious if tehre is mention of God Thiruvenkata in sangam literature or thirukkural.

I once read a research article that argued based on the iconography that Thirvengadam temple was originally a Jain temple. However, by the time of Ilango, it had become a temple of Nediyon (Thirumaal) -- describing the northern and southern border of Tamil country, Ilango refers to Thiruvengadam -- nediyOn kunRam -- as the northern border, and Kanyakumari -- thodiyAl pouvam -- as the southern border. Now of course there is a free for all, there is probably not a single Hindu deity that is not claimed as the original god of Thiruvengadam !!!

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

I once read a research article that argued based on the iconography that Thirvengadam temple was originally a Jain temple. However, by the time of Ilango, it had become a temple of Nediyon (Thirumaal) -- describing the northern and southern border of Tamil country, Ilango refers to Thiruvengadam -- nediyOn kunRam -- as the northern border, and Kanyakumari -- thodiyAl pouvam -- as the southern border. Now of course there is a free for all, there is probably not a single Hindu deity that is not claimed as the original god of Thiruvengadam !!!

Cheers!

Happy, Nara,

Agnihotram Ramanuja Thathachariar has said very clearly, in his book 'hindu matham engE pOkiRathu?", that thiruvenkadam was an amman temple of the original hill tribes and that he has personally verified the plaits (pinnal) in the rear part of the rock-cut idol. I have no reason to doubt his statement.

It is possible that the present garbhagriham is a vestige of some early buddhist shrine because there is a claim of the place having been a buddhist place of pilgrimage and also historical references of the idol having been considered as Muruga during some period of time. When the dispute arose during the time of Ramanuja, the opposite party is stated to be siva worshippers but I am not sure whether the idol was then considered siva or muruga.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri.Sangom, Greetings.

Agnihotram Ramanuja Thathachariar has said very clearly, in his book 'hindu matham engE pOkiRathu?", that thiruvenkadam was an amman temple of the original hill tribes and that he has personally verified the plaits (pinnal) in the rear part of the rock-cut idol. I have no reason to doubt his statement.

I was told the same thing too; that is, Thiruvenkadam was a Sakthi temple. This was mentined to me by a Gurukkal whose family hailed from Kalahasthi. His ancestors had connection to Kalhasthi temple and other temples in that locality.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

KB's proposition is:

Thirukkural does have several verses upholding caste system that was prevalent in TN at that time.

In my previous posts I presented my reasons why I consider Thirukkural is non-sectarian and does not endorse any particular religion except possibly Jainism that too only in the first 10 kurals. In as much as there is no kural explicitly upholding jAti/Varna system, KB can only offer interpretations for his proposition quoted above. So, my task to rebut his argument is to show why his interpretation is false, untenable, or at least not clear cut.

I must also note that earlier in this forum others cited these very same kurals as KB has done now and we had detailed discussion of them. So, at least some of what I am going to write is a repeat.

மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கங் குன்றக் கெடும்.

வேதத்தை மறந்தாலும் பார்ப்பான் தன் பிறப்புக்குரிய ஒழுக்கத்தை விடக் கூடாது என்கிறார் வள்ளுவர்.

The exact words do not say this at all, it only says what will happen if his conduct falls short, sounds more like a warning -- more about warning below.

To arrive at KB's interpretation the kural must be parsed as:

"பார்ப்பான் + பிறப்பொழுக்கங் குன்ற + கெடும்."

​

This leaves கெடும் hanging. What is Thiruvallar saying would கெடும் if the பார்ப்பான் abandons his birth-based code of conduct? Also, look at the text of this kural, it does not say don't abandon, but it warns what will happen if you abandon, and if the text is parsed in the way to interpret what is abandoned is birth-based code of conduct, then, we run out of text to figure out what the consequence would be if it is abandoned. This is very unsatisfactory.

Instead, if we parse the words as:

"ஒழுக்கம் குன்ற + பார்ப்பான் பிறப்பு + கெடும்."

​

This parsing makes perfect sense without having to resort to questionable interpretations. All this kural says is behave properly, if not, even if you are of பார்ப்பான் birth, you will lose the dignity accorded to you by the fact of your birth.

So, Thiruvalluvar is clearly not acknowledging any birth based ஒழுக்கம், only the common universal ஒழுக்கம் that all must follow.

We must also understand the context. This kural appears in the chapter ஒழுக்கமுடைமை. If Thiruvalluvar's intent was to emphasize Varna Darma, why did he not do so clearly so that there was no debate? How come he did not say anything about Kshatriya, Vaisya or Shudra. Having carefully chosen to remain non-sectarian, why would he suddenly emphasize Varnashrama darma that is the central dogma of a specific religion?

Let me now summarize the salient points I have made above.

• The parsing of the words that makes sense is ஒழுக்கம் குன்ற + பார்ப்பான் பிறப்பு + கெடும்
• In this chapter Thiruvalluvar is describing common, universal code of conduct, not anything specific to varna
• Thiruvalluvar having chosen to remain non-sectarian there is no reason why he would introduce sectarian concept in just this one kural
• If Thiruvalluvar followed any religion at all, it s most likely to be Jainism, which rejects Vedas and Varna vyavasta

Thiruvalluvar is only emphasizing the importance of leading a righteous life. He offers this caution, even if you are born as a பார்ப்பான், at the top of the Varna pyramid, if you slip in your conduct, you would lose that exalted status. This is more a warning to everyone, not just பார்ப்பான், than an endorsement of caste system.

Other kurals of KB later ....

 

[sangom]

KB's proposition is:


In my previous posts I presented my reasons why I consider Thirukkural is non-sectarian and does not endorse any particular religion except possibly Jainism that too only in the first 10 kurals. In as much as there is no kural explicitly upholding jAti/Varna system, KB can only offer interpretations for his proposition quoted above. So, my task to rebut his argument is to show why his interpretation is false, untenable, or at least not clear cut.

I must also note that earlier in this forum others cited these very same kurals as KB has done now and we had detailed discussion of them. So, at least some of what I am going to write is a repeat.

The exact words do not say this at all, it only says what will happen if his conduct falls short, sounds more like a warning -- more about warning below.

To arrive at KB's interpretation the kural must be parsed as:

"பார்ப்பான் + பிறப்பொழுக்கங் குன்ற + கெடும்."

​

This leaves கெடும் hanging. What is Thiruvallar saying would கெடும் if the பார்ப்பான் abandons his birth-based code of conduct? Also, look at the text of this kural, it does not say don't abandon, but it warns what will happen if you abandon, and if the text is parsed in the way to interpret what is abandoned is birth-based code of conduct, then, we run out of text to figure out what the consequence would be if it is abandoned. This is very unsatisfactory.

Instead, if we parse the words as:

"ஒழுக்கம் குன்ற + பார்ப்பான் பிறப்பு + கெடும்."

​

This parsing makes perfect sense without having to resort to questionable interpretations. All this kural says is behave properly, if not, even if you are of பார்ப்பான் birth, you will lose the dignity accorded to you by the fact of your birth.

So, Thiruvalluvar is clearly not acknowledging any birth based ஒழுக்கம், only the common universal ஒழுக்கம் that all must follow.

We must also understand the context. This kural appears in the chapter ஒழுக்கமுடைமை. If Thiruvalluvar's intent was to emphasize Varna Darma, why did he not do so clearly so that there was no debate? How come he did not say anything about Kshatriya, Vaisya or Shudra. Having carefully chosen to remain non-sectarian, why would he suddenly emphasize Varnashrama darma that is the central dogma of a specific religion?

Let me now summarize the salient points I have made above.

• The parsing of the words that makes sense is ஒழுக்கம் குன்ற + பார்ப்பான் பிறப்பு + கெடும்
• In this chapter Thiruvalluvar is describing common, universal code of conduct, not anything specific to varna
• Thiruvalluvar having chosen to remain non-sectarian there is no reason why he would introduce sectarian concept in just this one kural
• If Thiruvalluvar followed any religion at all, it s most likely to be Jainism, which rejects Vedas and Varna vyavasta

Thiruvalluvar is only emphasizing the importance of leading a righteous life. He offers this caution, even if you are born as a பார்ப்பான், at the top of the Varna pyramid, if you slip in your conduct, you would lose that exalted status. This is more a warning to everyone, not just பார்ப்பான், than an endorsement of caste system.

Other kurals of KB later ....

Nara,

Still பார்ப்பான் பிறப்பு might mean that one is பார்ப்பான் by பிறப்பு, birth-based classification. Again, மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் has this மறப்பினும் hanging in mid-air; what is it that is forgotten?

Will you kindly elucidate?

 

[ShivKC]

KB,

First of all, I am not a mindless worshiper of Thirukkral or Thiruvalluvar..

nice topic and indeed interesting..

 

[கால பைரவன்]

I am traveling. Therefore I won't be able to reply in detail for at least a couple of weeks, but I hope to reply after I come back.

Thirukkural separates code of conduct for the first two varnas - the அரசர், அந்த்ணர். The separation of வணிகர், வேளாளர் may not be clear cut (combined into இல்லறத்தான்) possibly because of the happenings in the tamil society during his times. The kshatriyas of the tamil land got defeated and the kalappirars have come to rule in tamil nadu (there are references in tamil literature that this happened thanks to the collusion of vanikars and vELaaLars).

Extracts from பதினெண்கீழ்கணக்கு நூல்கள்:

உடைப்பெருஞ் செல்வரும் சான்றோரும் கெட்டு
புடைப்பெண்டிர் மக்களும் கீழும் பெருகி - கடைத்தலைக்
கண்ணது ஆகி குடைக்கால் போல் கீழ்
மேலாய் நிற்கும் உலகு (நாலடியார்)

உறைசான்ற சான்றோர் ஒடுங்கி உறைய
நிறை உள்ளர் அல்லார் நிமிர்ந்து பெருகல்
வரைதாழ் இலங்கு அருவி வெற்ப -அதுவே
சுரை ஆழ அம்மி மிதப்ப (பழமொழி நானூறு)

These are "நீதி நூல்கள்" that are believed to be written around the same period! These verses characterize the defeat of kshatriyas and the rise of வேளாண் மக்கள் as the world turning upside down.

 

[Nara]

Nara,

Still பார்ப்பான் பிறப்பு might mean that one is பார்ப்பான் by பிறப்பு, birth-based classification. Again, மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் has this மறப்பினும் hanging in mid-air; what is it that is forgotten?

Will you kindly elucidate?

Sir, this is a rebuttal of the claim Thiruvalluvar supported caste system. Some system may have existed that resemble the varna/jAti system of Brahminism and Thiruvalluvar surely used it to make a point about the importance of leading a moral and upright life for all of us.

மறப்பினும் is followed by ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும், which clearly means even if a பார்ப்பான் forgets what is chanted, whether that is traiyee/chatur veda or some other text is not clear, I agree, but whatever the text may be, he can learn it back. But once he falls off good conduct, any birth-based respect accorded to him will be gone. So, I don't think மறப்பினும் is hanging in mid-air.

Cheers!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Nara,

Still பார்ப்பான் பிறப்பு might mean that one is பார்ப்பான் by பிறப்பு, birth-based classification. Again, மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் has this மறப்பினும் hanging in mid-air; what is it that is forgotten?

Will you kindly elucidate?

ஓத்து என்ற சொல்லுக்கு பொருள் வேதம். மறக்கப்படுவதாக சொல்லப்படுவது வேதம்.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

The parsing of the words that makes sense is ஒழுக்கம் குன்ற + பார்ப்பான் பிறப்பு + கெடும்

There is a reason why valluvar does not separate பிறப்பு and ஒழுக்கம் but Nara interprets differently.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

I can't help but cite this kural here:

உலகத்தார் உண்டென்பது இல்லென்பான் வையத்து
அலகையா வைக்கப் படும்.

பொருள்: உலகத்தார் உண்டு என்று சொல்வதை இல்லை என்று கூறுகின்ற ஒருவன், உலகத்தில் காணப்படும் ஒரு பேயாகக் கருதி விலக்கப்படுவான்.

If we rationally apply the meaning of this kural to atheists, they will be reduced to demons

 

[கால பைரவன்]

In my previous posts I presented my reasons why I consider Thirukkural is non-sectarian and does not endorse any particular religion except possibly Jainism that too only in the first 10 kurals. In as much as there is no kural explicitly upholding jAti/Varna system, KB can only offer interpretations for his proposition quoted above. So, my task to rebut his argument is to show why his interpretation is false, untenable, or at least not clear cut.

........................

We must also understand the context. This kural appears in the chapter ஒழுக்கமுடைமை. If Thiruvalluvar's intent was to emphasize Varna Darma, why did he not do so clearly so that there was no debate? How come he did not say anything about Kshatriya, Vaisya or Shudra. Having carefully chosen to remain non-sectarian, why would he suddenly emphasize Varnashrama darma that is the central dogma of a specific religion?

Nara is indulging in circular logic here. Many research scholars have opined that the caste system is a creation of the society. The religions can at best be accused of endorsing it. Hindu religion is not the only religion to ratify it! Therefore it is not necessary at all for Thiruvalluvar to be a hindu to lend support to the caste system. Merely positing that Thiruvalluvar is a Jain or the text is secular does not prove anything.

There are many more kurals, in addition to what I have presented before, that talk about nobility being attached to one's birth. Thiruvalluvar, perhaps, did not find the need to combine them under one particular category, although the chapter "குடிமை" will come close.

For example, the emphasis on குடிப்பிறப்பு shows up even in நட்பு!

குணனும் குடிமையும் குற்றமும் குன்றா
இனனும் அறிந்தியாக்க நட்பு.

பொருள்: குணமென்ன? குடிப்பிறப்பு எத்தகையது? குற்றங்கள் யாவை? குறையாத இயல்புகள் எவை? என்று அனைத்தையும் அறிந்தே ஒருவருடன் நட்புக் கொள்ள வேண்டும்.

குடிப்பிறந்து தன்கண் பழிநாணு வானைக்
கொடுத்தும் கொளல்வேண்டும் நட்பு.

பொருள்: பழிவந்து சேரக் கூடாது என்ற அச்ச உணர்வுடன் நடக்கும் பண்பார்ந்த குடியில் பிறந்தவருடைய நட்பை எந்த வகையிலாவது பெற்றிருப்பது பெரும் சிறப்புக்குரியதாகும்.

Please keep in mind that the word "குடிப்பிறப்பு" itself meant "உயர் குடிப்பிறப்பு" in tamil literature written during those times. This status was given only to the three high varnas in the beginning. The fourth varna was raised to the status later. This resulted in the term "குடியானவன்"

 

[Nara]

I can't help but cite this kural here:

உலகத்தார் உண்டென்பது இல்லென்பான் வையத்து
அலகையா வைக்கப் படும்.

பொருள்: உலகத்தார் உண்டு என்று சொல்வதை இல்லை என்று கூறுகின்ற ஒருவன், உலகத்தில் காணப்படும் ஒரு பேயாகக் கருதி விலக்கப்படுவான்.

If we rationally apply the meaning of this kural to atheists, they will be reduced to demons

This kural comes in புல்லறிவாண்மை chapter which is about foolishness of the ignorant posing themselves as learned. This particular kural says the one who denies a well established fact without offering any evidence will be viewed as a demon. KB says he can't help but cite this kural after reading my posts. The personal insult he intends is unmistakable.

KB, What I am doing is responding to your proposition that Thirukkural supports caste system. I don't expect you to agree with my presentation, but I don't understand why this disagreement must render you so helpless but cite this kural?

When will you guys ever learn to discuss anything without descending into the gutter of personal insults?

This is pitiable indeed!

 

[கால பைரவன்]

This kural comes in புல்லறிவாண்மை chapter which is about foolishness of the ignorant posing themselves as learned. This particular kural says the one who denies a well established fact without offering any evidence will be viewed as a demon. KB says he can't help but cite this kural after reading my posts. The personal insult he intends is unmistakable.

KB, What I am doing is responding to your proposition that Thirukkural supports caste system. I don't expect you to agree with my presentation, but I don't understand why this disagreement must render you so helpless but cite this kural?

When will you guys ever learn to discuss anything without descending into the gutter of personal insults?

This is pitiable indeed!

Nara may not believe me but I did not post it in that meaning at all.

I am not sure whether Nara read the last line of that post.

What I intended to mean is that the atheists who do not accept the claims of believers that god exists may be reduced to a demon as per valluvar.

In this context, I used "உண்டென்பது" to mean "கடவுள் உண்டென்பது" and "இல்லையென்பார்" to mean atheists and "உலகத்தார்" to just mean common people!

The main gripe that I have with some members of this forum, whom I characterize as brabas, is the extreme prejudice they have against brahmins. I am not here to comment about the intellect or erudition of any member here including Nara!

 

[Nara]

...In this context, I used "உண்டென்பது" to mean "கடவுள் உண்டென்பது" and "இல்லையென்பார்" to mean atheists and "உலகத்தார்" to just mean common people!

The context is whether or not Thirukkural supports caste system. This kural, and your interpretation of it, are as relevant as Amavasyai to Abdul Kadar.

Let us stick to the topic, shall we?

 

[sangom]

The main gripe that I have with some members of this forum, whom I characterize as brabas, is the extreme prejudice they have against brahmins. I am not here to comment about the intellect or erudition of any member here including Nara!

Dear Shri KB,

The comments about brahmins which you think is born out of prejudice against brahmins is not a characteristic of the brabas in this forum alone. Even a most revered person like Swami Vivekananda has expressed more or less the same views. Kindly see this thread.

SV compares brahmins to poisonous snakes etc., but will that make him a braba according to you? To me, even though I don't hold any high opinion of SV, he was just fearless to tell what he felt about brahmins as a whole but that will not apply when his relationship with individual brahmins comes.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

தருமன், அறவோன் (Kural says அறவாழி அந்தணன்)
புனிதன், அறிவு வரம்பு இகந்தோன் (Kural says வாலறிவன்)
பகவன் (The ஆதிபகவன் of kural refers to the first Thirthankar, Mahaveer being the 24th)
இறைவன் (Kural also says இறைவன்)
குறைவில் புகழோன் (Kural says தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்)
எண்குணன் (Kural says எண்குணத்தான்)
மலர்மிசை நடந்தேன் (Kural says மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்)
ஐவரை வென்றோன் (Kural says ஐந்தவித்தான்)

The similarities are so striking that I submit, there is ample evidence to at least consider that Thiruvalluvar's கடவுள் வாழ்த்து is not about any Hindu god, but a Jaina who lived in flesh and blood.

அறவாழி அந்தணன், பகவன், இறைவன், எண்குணத்தான் - இந்த சொற்களெல்லாம் திருமூலரின் திருமந்திரத்திலும் சொல்லப் பட்டிருக்கிறது. ஈசன் எண்குணத்தான் என பல சைவ சமய உரைகளில் வருகிறது. இதன் அடிப்படையில் திருவள்ளுவர் சிவபெருமானை தான் கடவுள் வாழ்த்தில் சுட்டுகிறார் என்று கூறலாமா?

பிறவா நெறி தந்த பேரரு ளாளன்
மறவா அருள்தந்த மாதவன் நந்தி
அறவாழி அந்தணன் ஆதிப் பராபரன்
உறவாகி வந்தென் உளம்புகுந் தானே (திருமந்திரம்)

பல்லூழி பண்பன் பகலோன் இறையவன்
நல்லூழி ஐந்தினுள் ளேநின்றவூழிகள்
செல்லூழி யண்டத்துச் சென்றவ் வூழியுள்
அவ்வூழி யுச்சியு ளொன்றிற் பகவனே (திருமந்திரம்)

இயக்கி மார்அறு பத்து நால்வரை
எண்குணம் செய்த ஈசனே (திருவாசகம்)

கருத்துறுங் காலங் கருது மனமுந்
திருத்தி யிருந்தவை சேரு நிலத்து
ஒருத்தியை உன்னி உணர்ந்திடு மண்மேல்
இருத்திடும் எண்குணம் எய்தலும் ஆமே (தேவாரம்)

கொல்லான் பொய்கூறான் களவிலன் எண்குணம்
நல்லான் அடக்கமுடையான் நடுச்செய
வல்லான் பகுத்துண்பான் மாசிலான் கட்காமம்
இல்லான் இயமத்து இடையில் நின்றானே (திருமந்திரம்)

சினமலி யறுபகை மிகுபொறி
சிதைதரு வகைவளி நிறுவிய
மன்னுணர் வொடு மலர்மிசையெழு
தருபொரு ணியதமு முணர்பவர்
தனதெழி லுருவது கொடுவடை
தகுபர னுறைவது நகர்மதிள்
கனமரு வியசிவ புரநினை
பவர்கலை மகள்தர நிகழ்வரே (தேவாரம்)

One can cite any number of instances!

IMO, it may be very difficult to arrive at a conclusion with regards to Thiruvalluvar's religion based on few kurals and word usage in those kurals!

 

[sangom]

I tend to believe that Thiruvalluvar was a jain but probably born in the vaLLuvan (pariah) caste of royal drum beaters. Attached is a page from the book "The Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature (Vol.V) (Sasay to Zorgot) by Mohan Lal".

It expounds more of a secular morality and practical attitude to life and refrains from talking of hopes and promises of the other-worldly life as most religious scriptures do.

It concerns itself with the ways of cultivating one's mind to avhieve the other-worldly bliss in the present worldly life itself. When occasionally Thiruvalluvar refers to bliss beyond, it is only to equate what can be achieved here on earth with what may be attained in the hereafter; kural does not at all highlight the heavenly bliss or moksha.

Read also the other reasons given by the author for his view that Thiruvalluvar must have been a Jain not a brahmin toeing the religious line.

The page can be accessed at-http://books.google.com/books?id=KnPoYxrRfc0C&pg=PA4334#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[கால பைரவன்]

.... and practical attitude to life and refrains from talking of hopes and promises of the other-worldly life as most religious scriptures do.

It concerns itself with the ways of cultivating one's mind to avhieve the other-worldly bliss in the present worldly life itself. When occasionally Thiruvalluvar refers to bliss beyond, it is only to equate what can be achieved here on earth with what may be attained in the hereafter; kural does not at all highlight the heavenly bliss or moksha.

Read also the other reasons given by the author for his view that Thiruvalluvar must have been a Jain

This sounds self-contradictory.

Worldly life and Jain philosophy do not go together!!!

Jain Philosophy [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

Given that the proper goal for a Jain is release from death and rebirth, and rebirth is caused by the accumulation of karma, all Jain ethics aims at purging karma that has been accumulated, and ceasing to accumulate new karma. Like Buddhists and Hindus, Jains believe that good karma leads to better circumstances in the next life, and bad karma to worse. However, since they conceive karma to be a material substance that draws the soul back into the body, all karma, both good and bad, leads to rebirth in the body. No karma can help a person achieve liberation from rebirth. Karma comes in different kinds, according to the kind of actions and intentions that attract it. In particular, it comes from four basic sources: (1) attachment to worldly things, (2) the passions, such as anger, greed, fear, pride, etc., (3) sensual enjoyment, and (4) ignorance, or false belief. Only the first three have a directly ethical or moral upshot, since ignorance is cured by knowledge, not by moral action.The moral life, then, is in part the life devoted to breaking attachments to the world, including attachments to sensual enjoyment. Hence, the moral ideal in Jainism is an ascetic ideal. Monks (who, as in Buddhism, live by stricter rules than laymen) are constrained by five cardinal rules, the “five vows”: (1) ahimsa, frequently translated “non-violence,” or “non-harming,” satya, or truthfulness, asteya, not taking anything that is not given, brahmacharya, chastity, and aparigraha, detachment. This list differs from the rules binding on Buddhists only in that Buddhism requires abstention from intoxicants, and has no separate rule against attachment to the things of the world. The cardinal rule of interaction with other jivas is the rule of ahimsa.This is because harming other jivas is caused by either passions like anger, or ignorance of their nature as living beings. Consequently, Jains are required to be vegetarians. According to the earliest Jain documents, plants both are and contain living beings, although one-sensed beings, so even a vegetarian life does harm. This is why the ideal way to end one’s life, for a Jain, is to sit motionless and starve to death. Mahavira himself, and other great Jain saints, are said to have died this way. That is the only way to be sure you are doing no harm to any living being.While it may seem that this code of behavior is not really moral, since it is aimed at a specific reward for the agent—and is therefore entirely self-interested—it should be noted that the same can be said of any religion-based moral code. Furthermore, like the Hindus and Buddhists, Jains believe that the only reason that personal advantage accrues to moral behavior is that the very structure of the universe, in the form of the law of karma, makes it so.