THIRUKKURALH

[bis_mala]

Thiru NVK Ashraf, Kindly proceed; I am happy to note that you are being as objective as possible in assessing all data. Wish you all the best. I have to thank you, as indeed all other forum friends will do, for your great effort in producing an additional material for us to read and enjoy.

[great]

TO ALL interested in knowing the Meaning of Thirukural. Pls download the PDF file attached in my signature . The document contains translated version it really worth downloading.

[devapriya]

[tscii:d43458cebf]Dear Friends,

When we have something we need to look on what it says, but searching on what is hidden comes when you are sure what is said in the front have been verified completely.

NVKji says,

//The very fact that Vedic religion says there is a Superior God, goes on to show there are inferior gods as well! Forget about why MaxMuller was commissioned, but the word he coined "Henotheism" is correct. It is only because in Hinduism the presence of other gods is accepted that one particular god had to be considered the Supreme. Monotheism is a word coined by the West and let us not be mislead to believe that is the best and correct. Judaic monotheism is based on a belief in a God with the exclusion of all other gods (relevant text to read is Karen Amstrong's History of God) and Vedic 'monotheism' is the belief in a Superior god with the inclusion of all other gods.//

I feel complete Prejudice here. Judaism as a Religion was never Practiced at all. It Acknowledges several gods when looking for Superior Creator. The lord or “YHWH” commonly called yahweh or jehowah is not the ultimate God, but a smaller One or a god for the territory of the Landmass- Israel, and Bible tells many such smaller Dieties. Archealogy shows that Idol worship continued even upto Roman days, and even Idols for jehwah . The real meaning of the Divine names are not known- “El”, “Elohim”. “ ElShaddai” and “yhwh”are unknown. Ellohim went to Arab and became Allahudum or Allah. Now Scholors see that El is from the Tamil word “எல்” and Ellohim- where Hi is Femnine Pludral and virtually an equivalent of Tamil Ammaiappan. Shaddai- a common word to refer God Shiva. As per various Theosophical Society revelations the writing of yhwh in Hebrew represent the Vedic God ShivaLinga. I can show several proofs for acknowledgement of smaller gods and lord or jehovah is a smaller deity with in the Jewish Beliefs.

Let us Concentrate on KURAL:

"ஆதி பகவன் முதற்றே உலகு", AS I have explained Chief Minister is translated as முதல் அமைச்சர், so here it is Suprme GOD, Now on your question why Vlluvar uses ஆதி and not Other words, the first thing is He must follow all the Rules for Venba, that he should not miss Thalai etc., and Tamil rules. For Eg. TholKappiyam is clear that “sa, sai, sow” cannot be start of Tamil words, and Valluvar had hardly Used them. So Grammer Rules is important. You go away from Kural with assumptions that Valluvar missed end, why you search for Interpretations you want. In first Couplet Ellam covers all- and if applied to Ulagu, then Advaitic All are made by God and He is in all comes. The Word உலகு is certainly referring to the Universe can be confirmed with various Other Kurals, details in other Posts.

Further as I had mentioned earlier The Timing of Valluvar 250-300CE, had given him no Freedom under Kalapira rule, so He used terms uncommon and looks like they can be linked to Jains/ Buddhists. The Concept of Creator God is revealed by Valluvar.

Now the question is

§Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É - Now Jainism denies Women of Salvation Completely; they have to reborn as Male to get Salvation. Valluvar’s God does not have male or female preference- and He is §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É. Here Judaism’s Prayer for every Male is - lord, I thank you for your have not made born me as Female or Dog ( means Non-Jews); this Prayer is practised from at least BCE 350 When Judaism Historically was born to till date. Secondly Bible and Quran tells of Chosen People and that israel’s small god converting the River Nile to Blood and Killing of all First Infants of Human and Animals of Egyptians, and certainly this god is not §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É or even the Suprme God.

¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý- Now Mahavira, Buddha, Valluvar, Rishaba Deva, Jesus or Mohammed all are Mortal Souls and Never Valluvar would have referred this to any Man and this has been the interpretation of morethan 95% of Commentators, who looked at them Impartially.

«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý- Referring God by the term ” «ó¾½ý” is a Practice to Shiva, Brahma etc., In Sangam Literature itself and never to Jainistic Rishba till atleast next 800 years after Valluvar. «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ is Secular word.

«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ¾¡û§º÷ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø
À¢ÈÅ¡Æ¢ ¿£ó¾ø «¡¢Ð.
À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£óÐÅ÷ ¿£ó¾¡÷
þ¨ÈÅý «Ê§ºÃ¡ ¾¡÷. - In both this Kurals Valluvar cannot refer to Deadmen feat, but to the Supreme God, even Diehard Jain or Buddha believer would ask us to follow their Teachings and not on holding feet, Valluvar is very Clear, He refers to Supreme God, and Valluvar when names at 25 Different Kurals various Hindu Deity names, follows Henotheism.

Now Secondly Both Jainism and Buddhism and even Christinity follow Negative Ethics- Be Disciplined, are else You would Perish; No Enjoyment at all (LIFE NEGATION). Tirukural is more a Postivie Life Oriented Ethics i.e., “World and Life affirmation as Hinduism”. This basic trait completely takes Valluvar away from Jainism. Due to this Jainish ethics say- “must not drink Honey, Do not take Bath, do not Wash Tooth etc., Valluvar is clear on bathing, drinking Honey etc.,

Secondly the thoughts such as Vegetarianism and other ethics are the Continuation of Vedic Tradition, Pythogorous who spent 9 years in India, and was the Father of Greek Philosophy, suggests Vegetarianism, no doubt He got from India in 8th Cen BCE, much before Mahaveera founded Jainism. Only that Mahavira emphasised more on this. Due to the Highly Volatile situation in TN/India, by Preaching of Missionaries and later the Thani-Tamil and Dravidian movements- to look for the real Interpretations of Vedas itself is rarely been done.

Tho.Po.Me. who wrote the Book “SAMANA TAMIL ILAKIYA VARALARU” - on Thiru Valluvar his opinion is Kural does not confirm that Valluvar was Jain after a detailed Analyses on KURAL, because Valluvar goes many ways against Jain Ethics.


þÕû§º÷ þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡ þ¨ÈÅý
¦À¡Õû§º÷ Ò¸úÒ¡¢ó¾¡÷ Á¡Ðî
The twin deeds of dark illusion do not affect those
Who delight meaningfully in Lord's praise. -----from NVK website.
Here again It is on God’s Praise,and if we say on Dead Great men- I feel a great disservice to Valluvar. And þ¨ÈÅý ¦À¡Õû§º÷- He directs things - is against Jainism.

Buddishism and Jainism, for that reason every Man made religions absorbed from the Older existing religions and changed and claimed as its own. Buddhism and Jainism took Ramayan and Mahabaratha and wrote to suit their beliefs. Judaism took from Zoroastrianism. Christianity took from Judaism, Mithraism. Manichism took from Zorashraism , Christianity and Buddhism and claimed Manes as the Last Prophet for all of these. Islam’s Prophet took from Manes and Christianity and made similar claims.

First if we Understand that Valluvar’s Period and His Compulsions with Alien Rulers then we can understand He Used Secular words specifically to thwart the Kalapira rulers and he used the names of God an indirectly refered Vedas etc.,

Devapriya.

[/tscii:d43458cebf]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:70972ae3bc]Dear Devapriya,

I have read your long reply. It seems you are convinced that the Deity Valluvar is praising in chapter 1 is nothing but an Omnipresent Creator God. When I read most of your observations, I get the feeling that you have no idea about the concept of God in Jainism or deitification in Buddhism. But before I go into this, I would like to respond first to your obsevations on Allah and Elohim.

I mentioned that Monotheism in Semitic faith has come by exclusion of all other gods and in Hinduism by the inclusion of all gods by recognizing one as Supreme. To this you replied:

I feel complete Prejudice here. Judaism as a Religion was never Practiced at all. It Acknowledges several gods when looking for Superior Creator. The lord or “YHWH” commonly called yahweh or jehowah is not the ultimate God, but a smaller One or a god for the territory of the Landmass- Israel, and Bible tells many such smaller Dieties. Archealogy shows that Idol worship continued even upto Roman days, and even Idols for jehwah . The real meaning of the Divine names are not known- “El”, “Elohim”. “ ElShaddai” and “yhwh”are unknown. Ellohim went to Arab and became Allahudum or Allah. Now Scholors see that El is from the Tamil word “எல்” and Ellohim- where Hi is Femnine Pludral and virtually an equivalent of Tamil Ammaiappan. Shaddai- a common word to refer God Shiva. As per various Theosophical Society revelations the writing of yhwh in Hebrew represent the Vedic God ShivaLinga. I can show several proofs for acknowledgement of smaller gods and lord or jehovah is a smaller deity with in the Jewish Beliefs.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Either you have to agree with what I said or disagree and produce explanations to the contrary. You have done neither. Are you saying all these because it is incorrect to believe in a Supreme God and at the same time believe in other gods as well? Well, I don't think so. As a scholar, I don't question religious beliefs of different communities and my job is only to compare and present the findings as it reveals itself.

Since you made some remarks, I would like to respond as it is also of interest to me (though they have little to do with my postings).

You said:
I feel complete Prejudice here. Judaism as a Religion was never Practiced at all.

What! Then what are those Ten commandments in Torah and what that Temple Mount in Jerusalem known for? They have a scripture, a sacred place for directing their worship, their own Rabbis, rituals and festivals! How can you say they never practiced

You also said: It Acknowledges several gods when looking for Superior Creator. The lord or “YHWH” commonly called yahweh or jehowah is not the ultimate God, but a smaller One or a god for the territory of the Landmass- Israel, and Bible tells many such smaller Dieties.

Did I say "YHWH" was ever considered a Superior God? The concept of a Supreme God exists only in Hinduism, not in Semitic tradition. That is why I said, the Judaic monotheism developed by the Jews, by excluding all other deities and exalting theirs.

You also said: Archealogy shows that Idol worship continued even upto Roman days, and even Idols for jehwah.

Indeed yes.

The real meaning of the Divine names are not known- “El”, “Elohim”. “ ElShaddai” and “yhwh”are unknown. Ellohim went to Arab and became Allahudum or Allah.

Both Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages. "Ilaah" in Arabic is "Lord or God". With the prefix "Al" (The), it becomes "Al-Lah" meaning "The God". Lord in Hebrew is "Eloh", sounding very similar to the Arabic "Ilaah". Quite naturally because both belong to the same Semitic family. Just "Padaiththavan" in Tamil and "Padachchon" in Malayalam because both belong to the Dravidian group. Elohim did not go to Arabs! Allah existed as a Deity amongst several other deities in Ka'ba before the advent of Islam.

Now Scholors see that El is from the Tamil word “எல்” and Ellohim- where Hi is Femnine Pludral and virtually an equivalent of Tamil Ammaiappan. Shaddai- a common word to refer God Shiva. As per various Theosophical Society revelations the writing of yhwh in Hebrew represent the Vedic God ShivaLinga.

Hard to believe. There is tendency to show that Saivism was prevalent even before the advent of Islam in pre-Islamic Arabia. I didn't know YHWH is also being considered a Shiv Linga! It is also news to me that Elohim has come from Tamil! Please read this article. "Is the word Allah similar to Elohim?" at http://www.plim.org/1Allah.html

I can show several proofs for acknowledgement of smaller gods and lord or jehovah is a smaller deity with in the Jewish Beliefs.

May be. So what? Did I say Jehovah is a Large Deity? Or a Supreme Deity? Please correct me if I had made such a statement.]

Earlier you said YHWH was nothing but Shiv Linga and now you say YHWH or Jehovah was a smaller deity. Was Shiv Linga a smaller deity?
[/tscii:70972ae3bc]

[Sudhaama]

Thiru NVK Ashraf, Kindly proceed; I am happy to note that you are being as objective as possible in assessing all data. Wish you all the best. I have to thank you, as indeed all other forum friends will do, for your great effort in producing an additional material for us to read and enjoy.

Yes... Splendid.!.. Rich Analytical presentation by Mr. Ashraf.!! Hats off.!!!

But I strongly differ on his stand of ...

...Giving a JAINIC COLOUR to Thirukkuralh.

May be Valhlhuvar was a Jain... or May not be too... On which personal aspects, we are NOT INTERESTED...

...especially under this Thread on Thirukkuralh...

... The Moral- Literature... of Tamil pride... and UNIVERSAL APPLICATION

[bis_mala]

Thiru NVK Ashraf, Kindly proceed; I am happy to note that you are being as objective as possible in assessing all data. Wish you all the best. I have to thank you, as indeed all other forum friends will do, for your great effort in producing an additional material for us to read and enjoy.

Yes... Splendid.!.. Rich Analytical presentation by Mr. Ashraf.!! Hats off.!!!

But I strongly differ on his stand of ...

...Giving a JAINIC COLOUR to Thirukkuralh.

May be Valhlhuvar was a Jain... or May not be too... On which personal aspects, we are NOT INTERESTED...

...especially under this Thread on Thirukkuralh...

... The Moral- Literature... of Tamil pride... and UNIVERSAL APPLICATION

I have wished Mr Ashrof well. However, my preliminary view was that VaLLuvar was not a Jain and he did not write kuRaL to promote or explain Jain ideals. I brought up some kuRaLs to thiru Ashroff but I found that these kuRaLs would not cause him to modify his views. I then decided not to write anymore but to let him complete his thesis. I think I should read his entire work and read more on Jainism before I comment again. There are also other views: vaLLuvar is atheist; vaLLuvar is Buddhist; vaLLuvar is Christian; vaLLuvar is vedic and so forth. Recently too I read a book on Gita and kuRaL and the points at which they converge' I also had some time back listened to a swamiji on the same subject - kuRaL and Gita. The "kuRaL - Jain proposition " is not new anyway. There is no harm . This does not mean I had supported the view. I am happy that Tamil Lit is being studied allbeit for various purposes.

[Sudhaama]

All such varied outlook... based on different Religious Doctrines..

...such as Budhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam and Vedic-Religion...

...have already been analysed indepth....by various Scholars of Combined Knowledge on Religions and Literature

... who have put forth... comparative evaluation... with their relevant Religious Gospels.

And finally concluded upon UNANIMOUSLY that Thirukkuralh is...

... No doubt a... PODHU-MARHAI.... Common-Religious-Code... relevant to each and every Religion... on their RUDIMENTARY FACTORS...

... as well as ... UNCONTRADICTORY to any individual faith...

....palpable enough either to oppose or omit partly even... as irrelevant for any segment of World-society.

.... Since it is the Mosaic pattern of all the Religions-Basis as its Foundation....

...More on the HUMAN-VALUES... emphasising more on EARTHL;Y LIFE...

... in Contrast to any and all the Religious Scriptures... which as a matter of Principle...

...stresses more on God as well as on the After Life of Mankind.

Especially I am of still of FIRM-IMPRESSION... that Thirukkuralh... can least be related Jainism ...

...which does not speak much of Earthly-life...

...other than the EFFICACY OF FATE and Value of every Living-beings at par with Humanity.

I can quote just three examples... which sense quite far from Jainic colour.

(1) Oozhaiyum uppakkam Kaanhbar
Ulaivinrhi thaazhaadhu ungjantrubavar..

(2) Mazhiththalum neettalum Vaendaa

(2) Even though Jainism does not discourage married life... it highly emphasises on the values of Brahmacharyam... rather celebacy... before and after marriage too.

Hence, Kaamathuppaal... in Thirukkuralh...HIGHLIGHTING ROMANCE... does not match with the BASIC CONCEPT of Jainism...

I eagerly look forward towards the descriptive meanings in the Jainic angle... from Mr. Ashraf.

In brief... I do not want to throw Cold-water on the enthusiasm of our friend Mr. Ashraf.

And I am with an open-mind... conforming to Thirukkuralh Gospel...

Yepporulh Yaar Yaar Vaay kaetpinum
Apporulh Mey-Porulh kaanhbadhu Arhivu.

With Best Wishes for the Success of Mr. Ashraf,
Anban... Sudhaama

[NVK Ashraf]

Dear Sudhaama and Sivamaalaa,

I understand your predicaments in accepting the dominating Jaina ideas in Kural. I repeat once again. The Kural is not a work on Jainism. It is therefore not a book that Jains can claim to be theirs!

Interestingly, when people take the Kural as a Hindu work, there are no disagreements. The moment some one says Jaina, Buddhist or Christian ideas dominate the Kural, there is a hue and cry and they even drop their claims of Hindu authorship and start proclaiming it as a work of a person who did not belong to any religious sect! This has been the tradition, so to say.

I hope you all will be understand and appreciate my point some my following postings.

Let me now concentrate on my reply to Devapriya's last posting.

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:c35dafaadd]
(2) More on the first couplet

To Devapriya:

You wrote:
Let us Concentrate on KURAL:
"ஆதி பகவன் முதற்றே உலகு", AS I have explained Chief Minister is translated as முதல் அமைச்சர், so here it is Suprme GOD, Now on your question why Vlluvar uses ஆதி and not Other words, the first thing is He must follow all the Rules for Venba, that he should not miss Thalai etc., and Tamil rules. For Eg. TholKappiyam is clear that “sa, sai, sow” cannot be start of Tamil words, and Valluvar had hardly Used them. So Grammer Rules is important.

Ok. I understand grammar rules are important. But I am not suggesting that he should have included "அந்தம்" also in the couplet in the present form! Writers first conceive the idea in mind before putting them in writing. If Valluvar's idea was to include "அந்தம்" also, he would have obviously composed the couplet in a different style, as per the conventional rules of Tamil grammar. The key twin-words Valluvar had in his mind were the Sanskrit words "ஆதி" and "பகவன்" and these must have been his first choice. In spite of so many other terms available for God, he has deliberately chosen them.

You go away from Kural with assumptions that Valluvar missed end, why you search for Interpretations you want. In first Couplet Ellam covers all- and if applied to Ulagu, then Advaitic All are made by God and He is in all comes.

Sorry, I am not saying that Valluvar "missed" the "End". Neither am I looking for interpretations I want. I am not suggesting that the first couplet is not applicable to a Creator God! In fact many of the couplets in Chapter 1 are perfectly suitable to describe a Creator God. My contention is that all the first 10 couplets suit well for Jaina god as well. And I agree with your Advaitic interpretation of the first couplet. It lends to that interpretation. I don't have any objection. I mentioned about "ஆதி முதல்வன்" in Mañimékalai and the word “ஆதி பிரான்” in Tirumandiram in my last posting. We may all have a disagreement with Kural, but we know for sure that Mañimékalai is a Buddhist work. Can you please tell what this "ஆதி முதல்வன்" is.

The Word உலகு is certainly referring to the Universe can be confirmed with various Other Kurals, details in other Posts.
I disagree. The word உலகு, depending on the context, can mean either the physical world or the people of the world. Please read couplet 256. "தினல் பொருட்டால் கொல்லாது உலகு எனின் யாரும் விலைப் பொருட்டால் ஊன் தருவார் இல்". Here it refers to the people of the world. Any doubt? Here is the translation:

"The world may say: “Meat we eat, but don’t kill’.
But no one will sell if there is none to buy. * (Kasthuri Srinivasan)
[/tscii:c35dafaadd]

[NVK Ashraf]

(3) God, beyond likes and dislikes

To Devapriya:

You wrote:
Now the question is [tscii:a5053d2368]§Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É[/tscii:a5053d2368] - Now Jainism denies Women of Salvation Completely; they have to reborn as Male to get Salvation.

Yes I agree. The great Jaina āchārya Kundakunda says in his Ashta Pahuda: "Has any one seen dogs, donkeys, cows and other cattle or women attain Nirvana?" (AP, 8:29). In fact Jaina religion has many such teachings (need for ascetics to be naked "naked") but the Kural is based on Jaina ethics and not on Jaina philosophy.

Valluvar’s God does not have male or female preference- and He is [tscii:a5053d2368]§Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É.[/tscii:a5053d2368]

'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்' means "The One beyond likes and dislikes" which has a wider connotation and I am sorry you cannot take it specifically to mean that Valluvar's god has no bias towards men and women.

Here Judaism’s Prayer for every Male is - lord, I thank you for your have not made born me as Female or Dog (means Non-Jews); this Prayer is practised from at least BCE 350 When Judaism Historically was born to till date. Secondly Bible and Quran tells of Chosen People and that israel’s small god converting the River Nile to Blood and Killing of all First Infants of Human and Animals of Egyptians, and certainly this god is not [tscii:a5053d2368]§Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É[/tscii:a5053d2368] or even the Suprme God.

Very good! I appreciate your 'extension' of the definition of "Beyond likes and Dislikes' to juddge God of the Semitic World. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the Qur'an and Torah, cannot have the previlege of being called 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்'. But I am going to tell you more on this. Since you are so inclined with the concept of a Creator God, let me reproduce below what I have written in my article on "Jaina Ideas in Kural": (Will be uploaded soon at this link: http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvkashraf/valluvar/jaina.htm

The phrase "வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்" which means "He who has neither desire nor aversion" has a strong ascetic flavour and would therefore be more relevant to a Jaina or Buddhist ascetic than to a Creator God. In Bhagvad Gita, we see Krishna telling Arjuna that all living entities are born into delusion, overcome by the dualities of desire and hate (7:27). Remember here Lord Krishna is telling about mortals like us. A creator God is not born into delusion for him to be overcome by the dualities of love and hate.

Once again verses of similar import from some Tamil Jaina works like Thirukkampakam (வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமையில்லாத வீரன், 58) and Thiru Nūtranthāthi (ஆர்வமும் செற்றமும் நீக்கிய அச்சுதனே, செய்யுள், 20). However, we also see Appar attributing this quality to Lord Shiva as well: "வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இல்லான் றன்னை" (Tirumurai, 6.46.9). [You will see Appar being different from other Saiva saints in Thirumuŗai, often describing Shiva in Jaina terms! Effect of a hang-over of being a Jaina in the past?]

[NVK Ashraf]

(4) The God beyond compare

To Devapriya:

You wrote:
[tscii:587a1597e1]¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý-[/tscii:587a1597e1] Now Mahavira, Buddha, Valluvar, Rishaba Deva, Jesus or Mohammed all are Mortal Souls and Never Valluvar would have referred this to any Man and this has been the interpretation of morethan 95% of Commentators, who looked at them Impartially.

Once again, I reproduce here from what I have written in my article to be uploaded soon at http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvkashraf/valluvar/jaina.htm

The attribute of this couplet "thanakkuvamai illāthān" (தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்), meaning "the one beyond compare" could perfectly suit any deity, be it of Brahmana, Śramana or Semitic origin. This attribute of being not equal to others or being unique is easily the commonest quality attributed to God in most religious scriptures.

"No one can compare to You, Lord" (ਤੁਮ ਸਰਿ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਲਾਗੇ) says Guru Grant Sahib (p. 688).

"There is none like unto the Lord our God" (אֵין כַּיהוָה אֱלֹהֵינו), says the Bible (Exodus 8:6).

"There is none comparable unto Him" (وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ) says the Qur'an (Qur’an 112:3-4).

"There is none here below to equal Shiva" (அவனொடு ஒப்பார் இங்கு யாவரும் இல்லை) says the principal text of Saiva Siddhānta, Tirumandiram (verse 5).

"ஒப்பில்லா ஒருவன் றன்னை" (6.26.4), "மற்றாருந் தன்னொப்பார் இல்லாதான் காண்" (6.24.10), "தன்னொப்பு இலானை" (7.68.1) says Thévāram of Thirumurai.

Baghvad Gita says "There exists none who is equal to You" (न त्वत्समः) (Gita, 11:43).

In Samaya-sāra, the Jaina āchāryā Kundakunda describes Jaina God as the one without compare (anovamam)
वन्दित्तु सव्वा सिद्धे धुवम् अचलम् अणोवमं गदिं पत्ते
वोच्चामि समया पाहुडम् इनामो सुय केवली भणियं॥

From the numerous examples cited above, it is evident that this attribute is commonly used for a Creator God. The only religion missing from the list is Buddhism (of course Zoroastrianism and Bahai). I am sure there must be a reference somewhere, either in Theravādā or Mahāyānā tradition, that refers Lord Buddha as "Incomparable".

[NVK Ashraf]

(5) Sea of Virtue and Wheel of Virtue

Dear Devapriya:

You said:
[tscii:fd62117a45]«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý[/tscii:fd62117a45]- Referring God by the term [tscii:fd62117a45]”«ó¾½ý”[/tscii:fd62117a45] is a Practice to Shiva, Brahma etc., In Sangam Literature itself and never to Jainistic Rishba till atleast next 800 years after Valluvar. «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ is Secular word.

However, Chakravarti (1953), Subramanyam (1983) and Sundaram (1990) mention that F.W. Ellis, who translated the Kuŗal into English in 1812, found the word "anthañan" in the then dictionaries meant only two gods, namely the Brahminical Brahma and Jaina Arugan. The use of the word "anthañan" (அந்தணன்) in the chapter on "Praise of God" is rather surprising, especially when the literal import of this word is "Brahmin". Since it comes under the Chapter 1, it has to be taken as a reference to a godhead.

[tscii:fd62117a45]«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ¾¡û§º÷ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø
À¢ÈÅ¡Æ¢ ¿£ó¾ø «¡¢Ð.
À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£óÐÅ÷ ¿£ó¾¡÷
þ¨ÈÅý «Ê§ºÃ¡ ¾¡÷. [/tscii:fd62117a45]

- In both this Kurals Valluvar cannot refer to Deadmen feat, but to the Supreme God, even Diehard Jain or Buddha believer would ask us to follow their Teachings and not on holding feet, Valluvar is very Clear, He refers to Supreme God, and Valluvar when names at 25 Different Kurals various Hindu Deity names, follows Henotheism.

Once again I reproduce here from my article to appear at: http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvkashraf/valluvar/jaina.htm

With the word "அழி" meaning both "circle" as well as "sea", the phrase aŗavāzhi (அறவாழி) can be taken to mean, either "sea of virtue" or "wheel of the virtue”. Both the meanings appear to be correct. Similarly the word "பிறவாழி" in the second line could either mean "ocean of births" or "other oceans". As far the common English rendering of couplet eight is concerned, the rendering by Drew and Lazarus has been presented here as an example:

None can swim the sea of births, but those united
To the feet of that Being, a sea of virtue. DL

However, depending on the combination of these meanings chosen, the couplet can also be translated in the following ways:

[i] "Only those who reach the feet of the lord, the ocean of virtue, can cross those other oceans" - * NC. (The other two oceans could be oceans of Wealth and Pleasure)
[ii] "Only by clinging to the feet of the Lord of the wheel of virtue, that one can swim the ocean of this life" * - SG.

But it is the Jaina God Aruhan who is the benevolent Lord with the wheel of Dharma (Chakravarti, 1953) and thus "caused and possesses the circle of virtue" (Sundaram, 1990). Jains believe that human beings are subjected to a continuous cycle of time represented by upward and downward turning of a wheel. The 24th and the last Fordmaker or Tirthankara of the present turning wheel (ஆழி) was Mahavira. Buddhists also believe in cyclical time period. Thus the phrase "அறவாழி அந்தணன்" could also mean Lord Buddha for he is said to have set in motion the wheel of dharma (Dharmachakra), the popular symbol of the Buddhist universal law (Gour, 2001). There is indeed a reference to this effect in Mañimékalai "ஆதி முதல்வன் அறஆழி ஆள்வோன்" (Mañimékalai 6.7)! To make matters worse, even Vishnu, one of the gods of Hindu trinity, has wheel of Vishnu (Vishnuchakra) but there is evidence to show that it can also be called as "Wheel of Dharma". Interestingly in Tiruvāimozhi (திருவாய்மொழி) we find the statement "அறவனை அழிப்படை அந்தணை" referring to "the one of aŗam, the anthañan who has the wheel/disc weapon". Even though saint Nammāzhvār refers to Vishnu here, the use of the three words aŗam, āzhi, and anthañan strongly suggest he has modeled this on the usage in Kuŗal (Palaniappan, undated).

Interestingly many literary works that came after Kuŗal also contain this phrase. I had earlier cited this verse from Kayādara Nigañdu, a Jaina work:

கோதிலருகன் திகம்பரன் எண்குணன் முக்குடையோன்,
ஆதிபகவன் அசோகமர்ந்தோன் அறவாழி அண்ணல்

Emphasizing that the aŗavāzhi anthañan of ThirukKuŗal is none other than Arhat, Venkataramaiyah (2001) cites the following references from several Jaina works in Tamil:

Ceevacintāmañi (1611) "அறவாழியண்ணல் இவன் என்பார்"
Ceevacintāmañi (செய்யுள் 7) "அருளோடெழும் அறவாழியப்பா"
Annūl (செய்யுள் 27) "அறவாழி கொண்டே வென்ற அந்தணனே"

And what about Saiva works? They also contain numerous references to Shiva as "அந்தணன்"

Thirumurai (1.107.1) "அந்தணனைத் தொழுவார் அவலம் அறுப்பாரே"
Thirumurai (2.110.7) "அறவனாகிய கூற்றினைச் சாடிய அந்தணன்"
Thirumurai (6.33.4) "இமையோர் போற்றும் அந்தணனை"

Therefore we have enough evidences in Tamil literature to show that both Jaina, Buddhist, Saiva and Vaishnava deities being called "அந்தணன்". What about "அறவாழி அந்தணன்"? Only in Mañimékalai and many Jaina treatises like Ceevacintāmañi, Ceevacintāmañi etc.

References:

Chakravarti, A. 1953. Kuŗal. Deccan Press, Vepery, Madras. 648 pages

Gour, H.S. 2001. The Spirit of Buddhism. Rupa and Co. pp 590

Palaniappan, S. (undated). The couplet showing Buddhist influence. indology@liverpool.ac.uk

Sundaram, P.S. 1990. Introduction. In: Tiruvalluvar: The Kuŗal. Penguin Books. pp 7-16

Venkataramaiah, K.M. 2001. திருக்குறளும் சமண சமயமும். In: வள்ளுவம்: Valluvam. Editors: Palladam Manickam and E. Sundaramurthy. திருக்குறள் பண்பாட்டு ஆய்வு மையம், விருத்தாச்சலம். Tiruvalluvar Year 2032. Issue No. 14. Pp 14-24.

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:5a86780b76]
(6) Life denial and Life affirming

To Devapriya:

You wrote:
Now Secondly Both Jainism and Buddhism and even Christinity follow Negative Ethics- Be Disciplined, are else You would Perish; No Enjoyment at all (LIFE NEGATION). Tirukural is more a Postivie Life Oriented Ethics i.e., “World and Life affirmation as Hinduism”. This basic trait completely takes Valluvar away from Jainism. Due to this Jainish ethics say- “must not drink Honey, Do not take Bath, do not Wash Tooth etc., Valluvar is clear on bathing, drinking Honey etc.,

Of course, yes (but why include Christianity here?). The Kural life affirming and it is only because it does not endorse Jaina religious teachings of this type, that it is not considered a work on Jaina philosophy. While Kuŗal is life-affirming, Nāladiyār like any other Jaina work is life-denying. Unlike typical Jaina works, Tirukuŗal does not harp on the transitory nature of life. Valluvar does talk about "Impermanence" (நிலையாமை) and at one place (Kuŗal 345) even asks why carry other attachments when the very body itself is a burden on the way to liberation [PS], but he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are typical of a Jaina work. Emphasizing on the transient nature of youth, Nāladiyār asks not to cherish the love for woman whose beauty will soon disappear when she is old (Nāladiyār 17). But Valluvar on the contrary, in the third division "Love" (காமத்துப்பால்), wondered if heaven can be sweeter than slumbering on the soft shoulders of the women you love (Kuŗal 1103). To cite more examples, Valluvar describes soul as something distinct from the body (Kuŗal 338, 340) but does not go into details of the nature of soul. Being a Jaina ethico-metaphysical anthology, Saman Suttam (Jinendra Varni, 1993) describes soul as consciousness, something eternal, formless and enjoyer of Karmas (23:592). It also differentiates Soul as ajiva and jiva (593, 594) but the Kuŗal makes no such distinctions. I am only saying that Valluvar's ethics has its basis in Jainism and the deity invoked in first chapter suits perfectly for Jaina godhead(s).

Secondly the thoughts such as Vegetarianism and other ethics are the Continuation of Vedic Tradition, Pythogorous who spent 9 years in India, and was the Father of Greek Philosophy, suggests Vegetarianism, no doubt He got from India in 8th Cen BCE, much before Mahaveera founded Jainism. Only that Mahavira emphasised more on this.

I am sorry to say that I disagree with you on this. Studies have shown that the doctrine of ahimsa practices by the Śramanās existed even before the Aryan's came! Many Western scholars like Jacobi, Vincent Smith, Furlong and Zimmer have accepted the Pre-Aryan prevalence of Jainism (Kalghatgi, 1984). I think you need to update your understanding on the history and antiquity of Jainism. In fact I also used to be under the impression that Jainism is an offshoot of Aryan Brahminical 'Hindiusm' but it is not.

What we call "Hinduism" today existed as "Brahmana" sect in the past, and what we call "Jainism" now existed as "Sramana" sect before.

References:

Kalghatgi, T.G. 1984. Jaina View of Life. Lalchand Hirachand Doshi, Jaina Samskrti Samraksaka Sangha, Sholapur. 233 pages

Jinendra Varni (Compiler), 1993. Saman Suttam. Edited by: Sagarmal Jain. Translated by T.K. Tukol and K.K. Dixit. Bhagwan Mahavir Memorial Samiti, New Delhi. pages 290.[/tscii:5a86780b76]

[NVK Ashraf]

(7) Twin deeds of dark illusion

To Devapriya:

You wrote:
[tscii:19f340dab8]þÕû§º÷ þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡ þ¨ÈÅý
¦À¡Õû§º÷ Ò¸úÒ¡¢ó¾¡÷ Á¡Ðî [/tscii:19f340dab8]
The twin deeds of dark illusion do not affect those
Who delight meaningfully in Lord's praise. -----from NVK website.
Here again It is on God’s Praise, and if we say on Dead Great men- I feel a great disservice to Valluvar. And þ¨ÈÅý ¦À¡Õû§º÷- He directs things - is against Jainism.

How do you say Valluvar is praising a creator God here? I think you are being mislead by the word "இறைவன்" here which for most of us, due to years of indoctrination and habituation, regard it as a reference to a creator God. How do you say "இறைவன் பொருள் சேர்" means God directing things? Reproduced below are 10 different translations of the fifth couplet. Will you please browse through them and tell me one translator rendering "இறைவன் பொருள் சேர்" as "God directing things" which you believe is against Jainism?

1) Good and bad, delusion's dual deeds, do not disturb those who delight in praising the immutable, worshipful One (SS)
2) The twin deeds of dark illusion do not affect those who delight meaningfully in Lord's praise (SM Diaz)
3) God's praise who tell, are free from right and wrong, the twins of dreaming night (Suddhananta Bharati)
4) Those lost in the Lord are free from the stain of two-fold human actions (Srinivasa Iyengar)
5) Results of good or bad actions springing from ignorance will not affect those devoted to the true greatness of God (K. Krishnaswamy & Vijaya Ramkumar)
6) The men, who on the 'King's' true praised delight to dwell, affects not them the fruit of deeds done ill or well. (G.U. Pope)
7) The two-fold deeds that spring from darkness shall not adhere to those who delight in the true praise of God. (Drew and Lazarus)
8) The delusions caused by good deeds and bad shall never be theirs who seek God's praises (P.S. Sundaram)
The twin deeds affiliated to darkness of ignorance will not affect those who ever sing the true glory of God (G. Vanmikanathan)
9) They who take delight in praising the real Great will be free from the baneful effects both good and evil actions. (Poornalingam Pillai)
10) The two kinds of dark karmas will never approach those that sing the praise of the Lord (A. Chakravarti)

Now let me come to my understanding of the couplet. Reproduced from my article I am writing:

"இருள்சேர் இருவினையும் சேரா" (The twin deeds of dark illusion) here refers to the fruits of good and evil deeds. Using the word "இருவினை", Rajasingham (1987) interprets this to mean the inseparable dualities in union of the opposites, a characteristic feature of Saiva Siddhānta (eg. Shiva and Sakti as fire and heat, flower and fragrance etc. Tirumandiram 2341, 1137). According to Chakravarti (1953), these twin deeds of dark illusion refer to the two groups of four Destructive Karmās and four harmless Karmās of Jaina philosophy. In Jainism, like in Hinduism and Buddhism, life in this world of Samsārā is associated with Karmic Bondage. Since Jainism does not believe in a Creator God, this effect of Karma on the quality of life has its great emphasis in Jainism.

Uthayakumar (2004) who claims Kuŗal to be a work of a Buddhist, provides an interesting interpretation for "இருள்சேர் இருவினையும் சேரா இறைவன்". According to him the word "இருவினை" refers to the extremes of "self-mortification" and "self-indulgence" and therefore the god (இறைவன்) to be praised here is the One who has avoided these extremes! If we are to go by this interpretation, then the couplet be only translated like this: "Find delight in the meaningful praise of the Lord Who has avoided the twin deeds of darkness". This does not read well simply because the word by used Valluvar is "சேரா", meaning "will not reach or affect" and therefore refers to the devotee than as an attribute of the deity (in this case Lord Buddha). or Vedic deity. However, there is no need to contort the translation like this, since the usual translation itself can mean Lord Buddha. By translating the word "iŗaivan" as Lord, the rendering could be made equally valid for Jaina, Buddhist or Vedic deity.


References:

Chakravarti, A. 1953. Kuŗal. Deccan Press, Vepery, Madras. 648 pages

Rajasingham, C. 1987. Thiruk-Kuŗal: The Daylight of the Psyche. International Institute of Tamil Studies, Madras. p

Uthayakumar, A.S. 2004. இந்திய அரசியல் உதைபந்தாடலில் சிக்கியுள்ள திருக்குறள் பெருநூல்! தமிழ்ப்பௌத்தம்-3. Available at Sooriyan.com. (http://sooriyan.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=705&Itemid=32)

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:9bca4e7cb3]
(8) Antiquity of Jainism

[This is the last posting of the series of responses to Devapriya's last posting]

To Devapriya:

You wrote:
Tho.Po.Me. who wrote the Book “SAMANA TAMIL ILAKIYA VARALARU” - on Thiru Valluvar his opinion is Kural does not confirm that Valluvar was Jain after a detailed Analyses on KURAL, because Valluvar goes many ways against Jain Ethics.

Please explain me how. I am keen to know and even ready to revert my opinions on my Jaina foundation of Tirukkural if the explanations given are found satisfactory. After all, in the past, I also used to deny the claims of Kural's Jaina affinity! Whether Valluvar was a Jain or not, his work is dominated by Jaina ideas! By the by who is Tho Po Me? Anyway, reproduced below are some of the statements made by great Tamil scholars (once again from my article on Jaina ideas in Tirukkural (http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvkashraf/valluvar/jaina.htm)

"There is no doubt that the author of Kuŗal fully accepted the Jaina teaching on ahimsā"
H.A. Popley, 1931

"The book Kuŗal is an exposition of the fundamental principles of Jainism"
A. Chakravarti, 1953

"Descriptions of God found in chapter 'Praise of God' lead one to conclude that Valluvar must have been a Jain"
Prof. Vaiyapuri Pillai (1956)

"According to my modest capacity of research and the establishment of truth, Valluvar's work has as its basis the Dharma of Jainism"
V. Kalyanasundaranar (cited by Kulandai Swamy, 2000)

"The ethics of Kuŗal are rather a reflective of the Jaina moral code"
K.V. Zvelebil, 1975

"Though the Kuŗal contains ideas cherished by the Jainas, it is not probably a Jaina work"
S. Gopalan, 1979

"None of the positions that the poet advocates in his verses are inconsistent with Jaina practice"
K.N. Subramanyam, 1987

"There are some indications in the Kuŗal of Valluvar having being a Jain"
P.S. Sundaram, 1990

"One can see the touch of Jain philosophy in the aphorisms of Kuŗal"
Shanker Dayal Sharma, 2000

"He most likely was a Jain ascetic of humble origin who worked as a weaver"
Webster's Encyclopedia on Literature

You also wrote:
Buddishism and Jainism, for that reason every Man made religions absorbed from the Older existing religions and changed and claimed as its own. Buddhism and Jainism took Ramayan and Mahabaratha and wrote to suit their beliefs. Judaism took from Zoroastrianism. Christianity took from Judaism, Mithraism. Manichism took from Zorashraism , Christianity and Buddhism and claimed Manes as the Last Prophet for all of these. Islam’s Prophet took from Manes and Christianity and made similar claims.

You are giving the impression that only Hinduism I mentioned earlier about the pre-Aryan existence of Jainism. Well, it didn't exist as "Jainism" like what we call now, just like what we Hinduism today did not exist as Hinduism in the past! Jains were called "Śramanās" (Strivers or Equals) in the past and Buddhist texts have numerous reference to them as naked ascetics. The historicity of the 23th Tirthankara 'Parsva' of Jains has been established and is accepted by most Scholars. Writes I.C. Sharma (1991) in his book on Ethical philosophies of India (on page 121, Johnsen Publishing Company, New York) "There is no doubt that Mahavira cannot be considered the founder of Jaina religion, for he was only a reformer or rejuvenator of Jainism".

History has shown that every religion has taken and given ideas to other religions. I agree that Islam was an offshoot of Judaism and Christianity, and Judaism itself owes a lot to Zoroastrianism. You may say Buddhism evolved from Brahiminical 'Hinduism', but not Jainism. Ninian Smart (1964. In: Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy, Allen and Unwin, p 163), one of the greatest of religious scholars known in the West, mentions that the Indian view of Karma was doubtless of non-Aryan provenance and it was a kind of natural law.

References:

Ellis, F.W. 1812. Kuŗal on Virtue with commentary. II Edition in 1955 by University of Madras

Gopalan, S. 1979. Kuŗal and Indian traditions. In: The Social Philosophy of Kuŗal. Affiliated East-West Press Pvt Ltd. pp 41-74

Chakravarti, A. 1953. Kuŗal. Deccan Press, Vepery, Madras. 648 pages

Kulandai Swamy, V.C. 2000. Foreword. In: Kuŗal. Translation by S.M. Diaz. General Editor: N. Mahalingam. Ramanandha Adigalar Foundation, Coimbatore. pp 9-30.

Popley, H.A. 1931. The Sacred Kuŗal or the Tamil Veda of Tiruvalluvar. The Heritage of India Press, Calcutta.

Sharma, S.D. 2000 (b). Foreword. In: Kuŗal. Translated by S.M. Diaz. General Editor: N. Mahalingam. Ramanandha Adigalar Foundation. pp 5-8

Subramanyam, Ka. Naa. 1987. Tiruvalluvar and His Kuŗal. Bharatiya Jnanpith Publication. 220 pages

Sundaram, P.S. 1990. Introduction. In: Tiruvalluvar: The Kuŗal. Penguin Books. pp 7-16

Venugopala Pillai, M.V. (undated) Who is Adhibagawan? (English translation of Tamil essay). Available at Ahimsā Foundation.

Zvelebil, K.V. 1975. Tamil Literature. E.J. Brill. p. 125-26[/tscii:9bca4e7cb3]

[NVK Ashraf]

Dear Sivamaalaa,

You had pointed out to the occurrence of the following statements in the Kural . . . . . .

[tscii:1bd33af4ef]"¦¾öÅõ ¦¾¡Æ¡«û"
"¦¾öÅò¾¡ø ¸¡ ¦¾É¢Ûõ"
"Å¡Û¨ÈÔõ ¦¾öÅòÐû ¨Åì¸ôÀÎõ".[/tscii:1bd33af4ef]

. . . . and wondered how Valluvar mentioned these in a Jaina work.

I had produced my explanation for the first two and not for the last one. Please read through the following paragraphs, you will understand everything on god, gods, celestials in Kural better.

The Kuŗal has many references to celestials (இந்திரன், அமரர், தேவர், புத்தேளிர், வானத்தவர், வானோர்), female deities (செய்யவள், செய்யாள், தவ்வை, தாமரையினாள், திரு, முகடி), manes, ghosts and evil spirits (அணங்கு, அலகை, தென்புலத்தார், பேய்). There is a tendency amongst scholars to nail the Kuŗal as Hindu work because these words exist. Apart from worship of Tirthankaras, Jainism also has a large pantheon of gods, godlings, celestials or angels who are divine beings but not divinities or deities (Kalghatgi, 1984; Jain, 1999). Sharma (1989) in his work "Jaina Yakshas" mentions about the tradition of even Yakshini worship prevalent in many Jaina communities. Kalghatgi (1984) believes that such forms of worship, though foreign to Jainism, have been absorbed and assimilated, in the struggle for survival amongst other religions. One of the daily Jaina recitations that fall under the 32 "Pious Aspirations" (Bhāvanā-dvā-trimśikā) composed by Acharya Amita-gati, goes like this:

O' Sarasvati (goddess of learning), pray, forgive me for the mistake I may have committed inadvertently, in pronouncing, spelling, uttering, putting, explaining or understanding, grammatically or otherwise, and grant me the boon of 'knowledge absolute' (Recitation No. 10) (Jain, 1999)

Therefore goddesses like Sarasvati and Lakśmi , dévās like Indra and many celestials like angels, yakshās and demons fall under the scheme of Jainism. Sri Kundakunda, a well known Jaina Āchārya, in his work Ashta Pahuda says "Good people adorned with virtue are dear to the gods" (AP, VIII: 17). Valluvar also says in couplet 388: "A just king, who guards over his subjects, will be deemed god by them" NV. Therefore gods and goddesses very well fall into the scheme of Jaina beliefs though they do not believe in an outside creator God (Mathews, 1995). Moreover, a reference to a god or goddess of other faith cannot be taken as an indication to show Valluvar's inclination towards that faith, for the simple reason that the author seem to have had no hesitation in using the prevailing beliefs amongst the people of his time and use them often as similes to emphasize his message. Some of these words like செய்யவள் and முகடி are found in many established Jaina literary works as well. செய்யவள் is found in Cilappadikāram (2.12.69) and முகடி is Cūdāmañi Nigañdu (Verse 145).

References

Diaz, S.M., 2000. Tirukkural. Tirukkural. General Editor: N. Mahalingam. Ramanandha Adigalar Foundation, Coimbatore. India.

Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith, New Delhi. 234 pages

Kalghatgi, T.G. 1984. Jaina View of Life. Lalchand Hirachand Doshi, Jaina Samskrti Samraksaka Sangha, Sholapur. 233 pages

Mathews, W. 1991. Buddhism. In: World Religions. II Edition. West Publishing Company. pp 128-177

Sharma, J.P. 1989. Jaina Yakshas. (Kusumanjali Indian art and culture series). Kusumanjali Prakashan. 128 pages

[NVK Ashraf]

Hi to everyone,

I am proceeding on a week long tour. I don't think I will get access to emails.

See you guys after a week.

[bis_mala]

Thiru Ashraf, thanks for your painstaking explanation. I can see that you have amassed a great deal of lmowledge in your selected field. Best regards.

[NVK Ashraf]

Dear Sivamaalaa,

Thanks for the appreciation, but you have not said anything on the correctness of my line of presentation. Am I correct in saying that all the couplets in Chapter 1 could easily be attributed to Jaina deities like Arhats and Siddhas? And that some of the couplets are more relevant for a Jaina deity than a Creator God? And that some of the attributes used by Valluvar are not suitable for a Creator god?

While I wait for Devapriya's reply, I would like to get your comments on this as well.

I think we have not discussed two couplets (No. 3 and 6) so far. I necessary, we can take them also for discussion.

[Uppuma]

Dear Friends,

Mr. NVK said first that many feel that Valluvar was UNorthodox Hindu.

Can he please say why he does not support.

If Valluvar is agianst negative ethics of Jainsism, then how is Valluvar is Jain.

Has NVK read TiruvalluvaMalai and what is his opinion.

How does NVK feel Valluvar is not Hindu, when his Web site clearly gives meanings chosen closer to Hindu etics.

Devapriya- Please give proofs that El- of Bible which forms basis for Quran's Allah as Tamil. I have read many Articles that Allah is just one of the Moon gods of Pre Muhammed Arabia.

I also remember a Tamil Muslim Scholar confirming Allah is from Tamil El in AnanthaVikatan or so. Please give proofs.

Instead of looking at forced interpretation of First Chapter- nvk see in totality of Kurals.

Devapriya respond quicer.

uppuma.

[NVK Ashraf]

Uppuma said:

Mr. NVK said first that many feel that Valluvar was UNorthodox Hindu. Can he please say why he does not support.

Support what? Please be clear. Are you asking me why I do not support others' argument that Valluvar was an unorthodox Hindu? Have I not given detailed explanations? Please respond to them, point to point, if you think otherwise, instead of making general statements.

Mr. Uppuma says:
If Valluvar is agianst negative ethics of Jainsism, then how is Valluvar is Jain.

Please tell me which ethic of Jainism is Valluvar against. Moreover, I am not saying he was a Jain! I am only stating that his work is based on Jaina ethics, throbs on Jaina principles and the Deity he invokes in Chapter 1 suits well for the Jaina ones. In other words, his work shows considerable Jaina inclinations than any other faith. The author is probably a Jain or some one who had strong likings for Jaina ideals in life.

I have a counter question. Is not Valluvar against the negative ethics of Vedic Hinduism (like animal sacrifice)? Then how do you consider him to be a Hindu? Oh, yes! .... you consider him to an unorthodox or uncoventional Hindu!. Well, in the same manner, what is the problem in calling him an "unorthodox" Jain?

Uppuma also said:
Has NVK read TiruvalluvaMalai and what is his opinion.

Yes I have. Many scholars consider that most of the stuff in Tiruvalluvamalai are spurious stuff! I can produce with citations from different scholars if you want.

How does NVK feel Valluvar is not Hindu, when his Web site clearly gives meanings chosen closer to Hindu etics.

I didn't understand this point. Would be nice if you can indicate the verses that seem to be a Hindu rendering. I can correct them, if I have gone wrong.

Again I am travelling next week. Will be back only by the 23rd. Might get some access to internet in between.

[bis_mala]

There are roughly about 511 or more kuRaLs which can be compared or contrasted in substance and meaning between ThirukkuraL and Bagwat Gita.

The Gita was composed after RaamayaNa. There are references to Rama in Gita. "bavana bawathamasmi raama" says Gita.

Gita was also composed after the era of sangap pulavar Kapilar, "sitaanaam kapilO muni" says Gita, a clear reference to kapilar, the sangam Tamil poet.

Some kuRaL concepts found their way into Gita and this much is clear.
Is there anyone who has more informtion of this subject? Please comment.

There are no references to KrishNa in kuRaL. None on Rama, as far as it is known. But there is reference to Indra in kuRaL.

Please feel free to comment on the above preliminary view.

Thiru Ashroff, Please also look into these similarities between kuRaL and Gita. If someone claims kuRaL was written to promote some vedic related concepts, you may have to undertake intensive studies to exclude that possibility. Otherwise you may not reckon yourself as being successful in establishing your kuRaL <> Jainism theory.

I shall return to discuss with you the other points you have raised.

[bis_mala]

Thiru Ashroff,

I am not quite convinced that the mention of Indra, amarar, thEvar and puththELir would be conclusive enough to relegate vaLLuvar to Jain ideals. Indra exists in the Vedas as well. ThEvar and puththElLr can be considered common terms, having no religious affinity. Some commentators have said thEvar referred to the Aryans who were new immigrants to TN at the time. PuththELir has been said to be the corrupted plural form of puththaaL (puthu+ aaL).(=new persons/immigrants) . Ghosts etc are not peculiar to Jainism. Even Malays (Muslims) and Chinese (various religions) believe in them (in the country where I live).

Of course, I am not commenting on your earlier posts. This is for your last post addressed to me (only).

[devapriya]

[tscii:846865f200]Freiends,

NVKji’s Painful effort and his sincere desire to Probagate Tirukural to Non-Tamils
is a great wprk. NVK’s dating of Kural and Sangam etc are all in line with Up to date
researches. NVK’s Selection of Appropriate meanings for Kural is much acceptable than, Thani-Tamil movement Pavanar and others who virtually Killed what actually Valluvar meant, as we saw FSG/Bismala arguments in this basis.

NVK’S site selection of Translation when I say is acceptable, Nvk’s arguments in this thread are not really so. After seeing his level of research I see His arguments really is totally wanting, and stops short of looking a Wholistic View of entire 1330 Kurals.

When we compare two items, we cannot just see the out seen similarities, but see the Fundamentals of both and then Decide.

þÃóÐõ ¯Â¢÷Å¡ú¾ø §ÅñÊý ÀÃóÐ
¦¸Î¸ ¯Ä¸¢ÂüÈ¢ ¡ý.

Couplet: 1062
If some must beg and live, let the Creator of the world
Himself roam and perish! PS, SI
This couplet is totally against Jainism which recommends Begging as the way of Life for Sanyasi’s.

Jainism is a Reformist movement of Vedic Hinduism from same Tradition, however with more Agnostic Views, going close to Atheism, I Shall touch about God names later.

Jainism says for all men- Sanyasi life is the best way for reaching Birthless postion and this is difficult for Family life. Tiruvalluvar never says that. Jainism says for a Female there is no way Attaining Birthless state- they have to meditate to be born as Male in next birth, so that they can attempt in next birth.

Valluvar says Sanyasis are dependant of Family Men.

Jainism always wants Sanyasi Life- Tirukural has just 15 Chapters for Thuravu, against entire balance is for Family Life. Even out of 150 Couplets in this Thuraviyal many are for Family Men.

Jainism in Sanyasi Dharma- comples 7 rituals. They are ULOSAM, THIHAMBARAM, NIIRADAMAI, THARAIYIL URANGUTHAL, PAL THEIKAMAI, NINDRU UNNAL AND EKA PUKTHAM. Valluvar virtually is against all of this.

1. Ulosam- While Taking Sanyasam- They need to pull all hairs individually and become Bare headed. Valluvar is against bare head and Too much growth.(Kural -280)
2. Thihambaram- Walking Nakedly. KURAL-1012 & 788 tells us the importance of Dressing.
3. NIRADAMAI- Valluvar even for Thurviyal says in Kural 298 the importance of bathing, and that Sanyasis taking bath in Kural 278.
4. THARAIYIL URANGUTHAL- Valluvar never says about sleeping in Floor, atleast he refers soft bed in Kural 1191.
5. PAL THEIKAMAI- in Kural 1121, when Valluvar refers clean Mouth- certainly He is for Brushing Teeths regularly.
6. NINDRU UNNAL – We don’t find this in any of the Kurals at all.
7. EKA PUKTHAM- Eating only once a Day- Valluvar has not said this anywhere, where as he says Eat again after the earlier food has been Digested i.e., within 6 hours.


Valluvar is totally against is Jainism can be explained in more depth, by his saying in Kural 1033- Farmer’s importance. Jainism bans farming by Jains- as below earth worms might be killed during farming.

Valluvar says about drinking Honey in Kural 1121( referred above) and this is against Jainism.

On Fradulant dating of Hinduism, That Christianity is Negative Oriented, Allah is just a Moon God, Ellohim-Allah are Tamil words- My detailed post shortly.

Valluvar has not in a Single Kural says any word against Vedic Life, and as per it He says for a Positive Life Orientation. Where as Jainism and Buddhism are Negative Ethics.

Details in my next post.

Devapriya.

[/tscii:846865f200]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:0ba64f748b]Kural and Gita

Dear Sivamaalaa,

You wrote:
Thiru Ashroff, Please also look into these similarities between kuRaL and Gita. If someone claims kuRaL was written to promote some vedic related concepts, you may have to undertake intensive studies to exclude that possibility. Otherwise you may not reckon yourself as being successful in establishing your kuRaL <> Jainism theory

Many authors have compared the Kural with Gita simply because the latter one is the most popular of all Hindu scriptures. Thanks for your suggestion to include the Gita also into consideration for my investigation. In fact section 2 in my article is “Comparing the Kural with Jaina, Buddhist and Hindu classics” wherein I have taken the Gita and Manu Smriti as examples from Hinduism to compare with. Since the Kural is an ethical work, I have in this section dwelt on the ethical values alone for comparison. Another section (section 1: Kuŗal's affiliation to various Indian philosophical traditions) deals with Brahminic, Buddhist and Jaina religious tradition in general.

You also said:
There are roughly about 511 or more kuRaLs which can be compared or contrasted in substance and meaning between ThirukkuraL and Bagwat Gita.

I am surprised to know that there are more than 500 couplets that can be compared with the Kural! The Kural and Gita, I believe, are considerably different, with the former being an ethical treatise and the latter being a ethico-metaphysical work. The Kural is a comglomeratin of aphorisms while the Gita is a dialogue of sayings. While the Kural is an exposition of all prevailing wisdoms and traditions in verse form, the Gita is an exposition of Upanishadic treatment of ātmajnānā in the context of an episode in Mahabharata. Quite naturally, Subramanian and Rajalakshmi (1984) maintained that the content of the two works clearly rule out even a comparison! But still I have taken up comparing the Gita with Kural to look for similarities. Following are some of the few verses that look strikingly similar:

1 I am the letter A among alphabet, the dual among compounds. (10:33)
With alpha begins all alphabets; And the world with the first Bagavan. KN, SI (1)

2 For one who worships Me, ...... I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death. (12: 6-7)
The ocean of births can be crossed by none other than those who reach the feet of the Lord. PS (10)

3 You are the greatest Guru, (for) there exists none who is equal to You. (11:43)
They alone escape from sorrows who take refuge in the feet of Him beyond compare. * VS (7)

4 One who draws away the senses from the objects of sense, as the tortoise draws his limbs into the shell, his intelligence is firm in its seat. (2:58)
Like a tortoise, withdraw your five senses in one birth, to protect you in the next seven. NV (126)

5 Those who are self-controlled, striving earnestly through the right means, will attain the goal. Those who lack it will find it difficult to progress. (6:36)
Self-control takes one to the gods. Want of it will push one into utter darkness. CR (121)

6 Triple is this gate of hell, destructive of the self: lust, anger and greed. (16:21)
Lust, wrath and delusion: Where these three are unknown, sorrows shall not be. * PS (360)

7 One is considered the best yogi who regards every being like oneself, and who can feel the pain and pleasures of others as one's own, O Arjuna. (6:32)
Ascetics are called men of virtue for they assume the role of mercy for all that live. NV (30)

8 (One who is) ...... free from (the notion of) "I" and "my", .......... such a devotee is dear to Me". (12.13)
His is the world beyond heaven who is free of the delusion of "I" and "Mine". PS (346)

9 Your duty is to work, not to reap the fruits of work. (2:47)
Duty is not for reward. Does the world recompense the rain-cloud? PS (211)

10 That gift which is given, knowing it to be a duty, in a fit time and place, to a worthy person, from whom we expect nothing in return, is held to be sattwic. (17:20) To give to the needy alone is charity. All the rest is investment for a return. SM (221)

11 Evil are they who cook (the food) for their own sake, they verily eat sin. (3:13)
To eat alone what one has hoarded is worse than begging. PS (229)

12 Tamas, the deluder of Jeeva, is born of inertia. It binds by ignorance, laziness, and sleep. (14.08)
The pleasure-junks of destruction are four: Procrastination, forgetfulness, sloth and sleep. PS (605)

13 Serenity of mind, kindliness, silence, self-control, honesty of motive - this is called the mental austerity. (17:16)
The pillars of excellence are five: love, modesty, altruism, compassion, truthfulness. PS (983)

14 Men will recount thy perpetual dishoner, and to one in noble station, dishonour is worse than death. (2:34)
The world will admire and worship the glory of men who prefer death to dishonour. * CR (970)

But remember such similarities, even more in number, could be found between the Kural and other works as well (eg. Dhammapada, Analects, Hitopadesa, Panchatantra, Arthasastra etc.)

You wanted to know:
Some kuRaL concepts found their way into Gita and this much is clear. Is there anyone who has more informtion of this subject? Please comment.

I am not sure if this is considered to be the case. The Kural shows considerable similarity to the Dhammapada than Gita. Yet, we do not say that the Kural shows influence of the Buddhist text.


References:

Subramanian and Rajalakshmi, 1984. Concordance of Tirukkural with a Critical Introduction.
[/tscii:0ba64f748b]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:68a98e28ea]
Thiru Ashroff,

I am not quite convinced that the mention of Indra, amarar, thEvar and puththELir would be conclusive enough to relegate vaLLuvar to Jain ideals. Indra exists in the Vedas as well.

Dear Sivamaalaa,

I never said that India, amarar and thévar as something unique to Jainism!! Please read my posting correctly. I am reproducing that again here:
There is a tendency amongst scholars to nail the Kuŗal as Hindu work because these words exist (in the Kural). Apart from worship of Tirthankaras, Jainism also has a large pantheon of gods, godlings, celestials or angels who are divine beings but not divinities or deities (Kalghatgi, 1984; Jain, 1999).

No doubt Indra is a Vedic god, often projected as the King of celestials. [/tscii:68a98e28ea]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:59bec641a0]Dear Devapriya,

All my mails, from 1 to 8, were addressed to you and I would appreciate if you could answer or refute them point by point before posting fresh evidences to show that the Kural is against Jainism.

Before I post my replies to some of your points, I would like to reiterate my stand that the Kural is a work based on on Jaina ethics and not a work on Jainism. I have mentioned that again and again and many people in this forum have not understood this. All your points in your last posting are reflection of this misunderstanding.

Citing Couplet: 1062 (If some must beg and live, let the Creator of the world Himself roam and perish! PS, SI) , you said:
This couplet is totally against Jainism which recommends Begging as the way of Life for Sanyasi’s.

It is news to me that ascetics in Hinduism and Buddism do not beg! Wonder how they manage to live without seeking food from Householders!

Moreover, how do you say that chapters 106 and 107 in Kural (Begging and Dreads of Begging), that too appearing in Porutpaal, are something to do with begging of sanyaasis and not begging in general?

[/tscii:59bec641a0]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:d6b0e8fa82]Kural is not a book on Jainism.......

Devapriya wrote:
Jainism says for all men- Sanyasi life is the best way for reaching Birthless postion and this is difficult for Family life. Tiruvalluvar never says that. Jainism says for a Female there is no way Attaining Birthless state- they have to meditate to be born as Male in next birth, so that they can attempt in next birth.

Of course, you are correct. But didn't I reiterate again and again that Valluvar's work is not an exposition of Jaina philosophy but Jaina ideas, particularly ethics?

You also said:
Jainism always wants Sanyasi Life- Tirukural has just 15 Chapters for Thuravu, against entire balance is for Family Life. Even out of 150 Couplets in this Thuraviyal many are for Family Men.

My answer to this question is the same as above.

You mentioned about 7 rituals in Sanyasa dharma of Jainism:
Jainism in Sanyasi Dharma- comples 7 rituals. They are ULOSAM, THIHAMBARAM, NIIRADAMAI, THARAIYIL URANGUTHAL, PAL THEIKAMAI, NINDRU UNNAL AND EKA PUKTHAM. Valluvar virtually is against all of this.

1. Ulosam- While Taking Sanyasam- They need to pull all hairs individually and become Bare headed. Valluvar is against bare head and Too much growth.(Kural -280)
2. Thihambaram- Walking Nakedly. KURAL-1012 & 788 tells us the importance of Dressing.
3. NIRADAMAI- Valluvar even for Thurviyal says in Kural 298 the importance of bathing, and that Sanyasis taking bath in Kural 278.
4. THARAIYIL URANGUTHAL- Valluvar never says about sleeping in Floor, atleast he refers soft bed in Kural 1191.
5. PAL THEIKAMAI- in Kural 1121, when Valluvar refers clean Mouth- certainly He is for Brushing Teeths regularly.
6. NINDRU UNNAL – We don’t find this in any of the Kurals at all.
7. EKA PUKTHAM- Eating only once a Day- Valluvar has not said this anywhere, where as he says Eat again after the earlier food has been Digested i.e., within 6 hours.

Devapriya, again you are taking Kural as a work on Jainsim and more so as a work against the practices of Jaina ascetics! You have picked up verses from here and there and produced them to show that they are against these Jaina monk's practices. Everyone agrees that the Kural extols householdership more than sanyaasa. Be it Hinduims, Buddhism or Jainism. You will never find a mention or refutation of the common ritualistic Jaina or even Hindu or Buddhist practices in the Kural. Because the Kural is not that kind of a work.

You mentioned about the seven Jaina monk rituals, but I hope you are aware fo the six daily duties for a Jaina householder.

Social service is a prominent part of Jaina ethics, and therefore Jainism prescribes six daily duties for every householder (Jain, 1999), some of which are astonishingly similar to what Valluvar said above!

Deva-puja gurupastih svdhyayah samyamas-tapah,
Danam cheti grhasthnam sat karmani dine dine

Mentioned below are the six duties and within brackets the terms used by Valluvar in Kural 43:

தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
God, guests, kindred, ancestors and himself. * SS

(i) Adoration of deity (தெய்வம்),
(ii) Veneration of gurus or ancestors (தென்புலத்தார்),
(iii) Study of scriptures (not mentioned in the couplet)
(iv) Practice of self discipline (தான்),
(v) Penance or austerities (not in this couplet)
(vi) Charity (விருந்தோக்கல்).

Of course penance and study of scriptures are emphasized by Valluvar in other places.

References:
Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith, New Delhi. 234 [/tscii:d6b0e8fa82]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:57b33ba63b] (A) Agriculture in Jainism

Devapriya wrote:
Valluvar is totally against is Jainism can be explained in more depth, by his saying in Kural 1033- Farmer's importance. Jainism bans farming by Jains- as below earth worms might be killed during farming.

I am aware that Jains are not supposed to eat meat, but it is news to me that they cannot even plough the fields for cultivation! I am aware of the Buddhist dictum that they can eat meat as long they do not kill them. Similarly, do you mean to say that Jain can eat vegetables as long as they do not cultivate them? I browsed the net and found that agriculture had been one of the prime occupations of Jains in the past.

(i) Information LIFESTYLE of Tamil Jains from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Jain The occupation of the majority of the Tamil jain families is agriculture. A small number settled in urban areas are employed in public and private sectors. Many are teachers.

(ii) Information on VEGETARIANISM IN INDIA: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Culture/Cuisine/vegetar.html The Buddha’s slightly older contemporary, Mahavira, the founder of the religion that would come to be known as Jainism, took the precepts of ahimsa much further, and it is the complete reverence for all forms of life that made it impossible for those who embraced Jainism to practice agriculture.

(iii) Jaina Economic Life : Ancient and Medieval India/edited by K.L. Chanchreek and Mahesh Jain. New Delhi, Shree Pub., 2004, ix, 187 p., ISBN 81-88658-61-8. https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no37967.htm
According to Jain Katha texts next to agriculture, spinning and weaving was the most important industry in ancient and medieval times. Cloth was manufactured throughout the country.

(B) Jainism and drinking honey

Devapriya wrote:
Valluvar says about drinking honey in Kural 1121(referred above) and this is against Jainism.

The honey issue has been raised again and again in this thread. I have been wondering what this is all about. Let us look at couplet 1121:

Like a mixture of milk and honey,
Is the drool that drips through her pearly teeth - NV

Your argument is that Valluvar mentions about drinking honey and therefore it is against Jainism. Do you know that Valluvar mentions about fishing using metal hooks (தூண்டிற்பொண்) in couplet 931? Would you then conclude that Valluvar is promoting fishing? Are you aware that Valluvar in couplets 1090 and 1201 mentions that love is sweeter than wine. Would you then conclude that the author of the Kural is asking his readers to drink wine so that they can differentiate the kind of intoxication it can offer when compared to love?

Valluvar has only used “milk and honey” as similes to compare with the dripping drool of one’s love. The emphasize is on the drool and teeth and not on “milk and honey” which are examples. It doesn’t mean Valluvar is promoting drinking honey. If it is so, Valluvar’s work is not an exposition of Jaina rituals or sundry laws! It is a work founded on ethics that more closely resemble the Jaina one. It is a work prefaced by an Invocation (கடவுள் வாழ்த்து) that fits in perfectly for the description of Jaina deities like Arhat and Siddha. (Yet, it is not a work in Jainism: read my last posting of this series).

Obviously, you have not been reading my postings in this thread. Please refer to my reply to Sivamaalaa, posted: Sat May 27, 2006 on page 17 of this thread:

"The focus should be on what Valluvar tries to emphasize and not what similes Valluvar employs to drive home the message. To cite another instance, Valluvar says in Kural 931 "Don’t gamble even if you win for it draws you in like fishes drawn to shining baits". You may ask how Valluvar, a staunch promoter of ahimsā and vegetarianism, can even mention about fishing. Well, the emphasis here is not on promoting fishing, but only use that as a simile to highlight the importance of the dangers in gambling. In the third division on "Love", Valluvar says in couplets 1090 and 1201 that love is sweeter than wine. Here too, one may ask how Valluvar who wrote a chapter exclusively on "Abstinence from alcohol" could have compared love with wine and even suggesting that wine does delight and intoxicate when consumed! Once again, the the author here is not upholding the habit of drinking wine but only uses it as a simile to emphasis on the unique qualities of love".
[/tscii:57b33ba63b]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:bf1b0553a1]COUPLETS AGAINST VEDIC PRACTICE

Devapriya wrote:
Valluvar has not a single Kural says any word against Vedic Life, as per it He says a Positive Life Orientation. Where as Jainism and Buddhism are Negative Ethics.

The answer to the second part of this statement of yours, will be provided in my next posting. You said “Where as Jainism and Buddhism are Negative Ethics”. Well, no religion would teach “negative ethics”. I think this sentence of yours should read “Where as Jainism and Buddhism are life negating”. I presume this is what you meant. Please tell me if it is otherwise.

Now coming to the first part of your statement “Valluvar has not a single Kural says any word against Vedic Life”. I am surprised to know this. Only a person who has not read the Kural properly can make a statement like this.

It is not Valluvar’s intention to criticize any particular faith by name, but he has done so in one or two places against some particular practices that was prevalent during his time. Let me again reproduce the following paragraphs from section 1 “Kuŗal's affiliation to various Indian philosophical traditions” of my article which will appear soon at http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvkashraf/valluvar/jaina.htm. Here I have compared the Kural with Manu Smriti. Hope you aware that Manu supports varnāshrama dharma. Varnāshrama is one of single most characteristic feature of Hinduism that differentiates between the sramana systems like Buddhism and Jainism.

Here is the part of my article …..

“But the most important reason for considering Manu Smriti as a Vedic text stems from the frequent references Manu makes on the four varnās - the caste system, giving special preference and exceptions to Brahmins. Manu says a Brahmana retains his divinity whether he is learned or ignorant (IX: 317). But Valluvar would say "The ignorant, however high-born, is lower than the low-born learned" PS (409). Thus Manu Smriti abhors varnā system, the Kuŗal has not a word about it. Valluvar, in the following couplet, said inequality arises not by birth but by one's deeds:

Kuŗal 972:
By birth all men are equal. The differences in their action
Render their worth unequal. SM

With respect to the varņā concept, the Gita is also no different from Manu Smriti for it also sanctions the division amongst men. Says Lord Krishna that the four divisions of human society were created by him (Gita 14:13). By highlighting the absence of clear cut references to the āśrama scheme (i.e. stages of Student, Householder, Retirement, Renunciation) and the absence of delineation of duties as per the Vedic varņā concept found in Dharma Śāstras like Manu Smriti, Gopalan (1979) concluded that the Kuŗal does not wholly accept all the major ideas of Brahminical Hinduism.

….. We see Manu condemning meat eating, that too in Valluvar's own terms (Manu 5:52 is just like Kuŗal 251!), which makes us believe that Manu promoted vegetarianism. In X:63, Manu declares that abstention from injuring creatures and unlawful appropriation others' goods, veracity, purity, and self control form the summary of the law for all the four castes. Though this sounds very similar to the ethics of Tiruvalluvar, Manu does not consider animal sacrifice as himsa!

Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices;
Sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world);
Hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering. (Manu 5:39)

But the following couplet from Tirukkural condemns animal sacrifice, an age old Vedic practice.

Kuŗal 259:
Better than a thousand burnt offerings
Is one life un-killed, un-eaten. PS

……”

Mr. Devpapryia. You said: “Valluvar has not a single Kural says any word against Vedic Life”. Are these couplets not against Vedic practices? Please remember that it is only for these reasons that Hindu scholars on Tirukkural call Valluvar a “radical” or “unconventional” Hindu! One way of getting out of the troubles like this.

References:
Gopalan, S. 1979. Kuŗal and Indian traditions. In: The Social Philosophy of Kuŗal. Affiliated East-West Press Pvt Ltd. pp 41-74
[/tscii:bf1b0553a1]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:4b93e87491]Mr. Devpapriya,

I have been reiterating in this thread that the Kural is not a work on Jaina philosophy or sundry laws and therefore its affiliation to Jainism or any other faith cannot be established by looking for the presence or absence of philosophical or metaphysical statements of that particular faith. Any such attempts will prove futile considering the fact that the Kural is an ethical treatise. One has to look at the ethical teachings embedded in the Kural and look for their similarity with Brahmana, Buddhist or Jaina ethics.

Now let me reproduce what I have written in my article in the last section: “Kuŗal not a work on Jaina philosophy”

“……. The author of Kuŗal might have built his moral percepts based on Jaina ethics, but was careful enough to avoid his work being categorized as a work on Jainism. He seem to have deliberately avoided typical Jaina terms that would have forced modern scholars to list the Kuŗal also along with many other Jaina works like Nāladiyār, Cívakacintāmani, Nílakéci and other works.

Let us also compare the Kuŗal with the Jaina classic Nāladiyār which is often considered an amplified version of Kuŗal (Ramachandran, 2000). No other work than Nāladiyār in Tamil comes so close to Kuŗal in similarity. The quatrains in Nāladiyār are strikingly similar in content and style to the Kuŗal, besides being organized the same way as the Kuŗal. In spite of such similarities, the Kuŗal is not considered a work on Jainism because it differs from Nāladiyār in many respects.

While Kuŗal is life-affirming, Nāladiyār like any other Jaina work is life-denying. Unlike typical Jaina works, TiruKuŗal does not harp on the transitory nature of life. Valluvar does talk about "Impermanence" (நிலையாமை) and at one place (Kuŗal 345) even asks why carry other attachments when the very body itself is a burden on the way to liberation [PS], but he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are typical of a Jaina work. Emphasizing on the transient nature of youth, Nāladiyār asks not to cherish the love for woman whose beauty will soon disappear when she is old (Nāladiyār 17). But Valluvar on the contrary, in the third division "Love" (காமத்துப்பால்), wondered if heaven can be sweeter than slumbering on the soft shoulders of the women you love (Kuŗal 1103).

At another place Nāladiyār says: "See how they remove the corpse while kinsfolk gather around and carry it to crematory. Yet he marries and fondly imagines there is happiness in this world". But Valluvar said in couplet 61 that there is nothing worth than begetting intelligent children. Nāladiyār repeatedly despises the body throughout the work. He calls the body unstable (29), impure (43) and valueless (120). And not surprisingly, like in Kundakunda's Ashta Pahuda (AP, 5:42), Nāladiyār also states that the entrails of the body are nothing but marrow, blood, bone, tendons, flesh and fat (46). One would never see such statements in the Kuŗal. While the Kuŗal has an entire chapter on "Cherishing the Kindred" (Chapter 53), Nāladiyār would state that only fools forget the aims of life and continue to live because of the joy they find in domestic relations (182)!

Let us this time take the popular collection of Jaina teachings, Saman Suttam for comparison. Chapter 29 Saman Suttam is about percepts of Meditation but Valluvar never indulged in technicalities of pathways to liberation. Valluvar has only dealt with Realization of Truth (மெய்யுணர்தல்) which is unfalteringly applicable to all faiths. Unlike we see in Saman Suttam, Valluvar has not devoted any chapter to describe the fundamental truths of Jaina philosophy. For instance, Valluvar describes soul as something distinct from the body (Kuŗal 338, 340) but does not go into details of the nature of soul. Being a Jaina ethico-metaphysical anthology, Saman Suttam describes soul as consciousness, something eternal, formless and enjoyer of Karmas (592). It also differentiates Soul as ajiva and jiva (593, 594) but the Kuŗal makes no such distinctions. Saman Suttam says "Birth is painful, old ages is painful, disease and death are painful, worldly existence where living beings suffer afflictions is also painful" (55).

While Valluvar would emphasize only on moderate eating (couplet 942), a Jaina eithico-philosophical treatise Saman Suttam would state that taking delicious dishes in excessive quantity would simulate lust in a person (293). Valluvar asks in couplet 327 not to remove the dear life of any being even when your own life is under threat. But he does not mention, like Saman Suttam (391-292)t is only these differences that prove to be a decisive factor in categorizing the Kuŗal as non-sectarian work, preventing scholars from regarding it a classic on Janism. Still Valluvar's morals are based on the foundation of Jaina ideas as we have seen in sections 1 and 2 of this article. Even though the very foundation of Valluvar's moral prescriptions is Jaina-based, he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are life negating.

To conclude, let us revert back to Nílakési's Jaina commentator Vamana Munivar's reference to the Kuŗal as the scripture of Jains. This cannot be the case for two reasons. Firstly, the Kuŗal is not a scripture and is very unlike like some works such as Tirumandiram or even Nāladiyār in that respect. Secondly, there is no evidence to show that the Kuŗal was written for any particular community. The author addresses humanity at large, his sole objective being to raise every man to the level sānrõr and live with fame. …..”

Reference:
Ramachandran, T.N. 2000. A note on the significance and the history of editions as well as translations of the Nāladiyār. In: The Nāladiyār. Translation by S. Anavaratavinayakam Pillai. International Institute of Tamil Studies, Chennai. pp 1-10. [/tscii:4b93e87491]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:8c669a4f35]Thiru Ashroff

VaNakkam.

I have to thank you for your replies.

Like a Sangappulavar, you are prepared to place yourself in a forum to answer queries. I have to commend you for the adoption of this method, unlike other ordinary authors (regardless of whatever degrees they may have to decorate their names ) who prefer to work in academic isolation to avoid questions. The fact that you are ready to place yourself in the forefront for public scrutiny of your research material is proof of your scholarship in your research area.

I do not know whether I should trouble you with this:


I have one question. Hinduism pre-existed Jainism,( though Jain history may dispute this. I won’t be surprised).
If the former is true, then it can be expected that some of the Hindu precepts, customs, deities, etc ., would have found their way into KuraL either directly or via Jainism. Just like if a Hindu were to write presently on Hinduism, some Christian or Islamic ideas may find their way into her work without the writer even knowing it. Are you able to say to what extent Jainism was unaffected/affected by Hinduism? You get this formula:

Hinduism > Jainism
Hinduism > KuRaL
Therefore: (it appears) Jainism > KuRaL.

Rather taxing for you to delve into this, when I am asking in the abstract without real examples. If too troublesome, you may just ignore this question.
[/tscii:8c669a4f35]

[devapriya]

[tscii:edd0ad2bba]
Dear Friends,

NVKji wants to search to derive what he wants from Kural than what is directly Said.

The Problem is while you agree with most of the points raised, and

//I am not suggesting that the first couplet is not applicable to a Creator God! In fact many of the couplets in Chapter 1 are perfectly suitable to describe a Creator God. My contention is that all the first 10 couplets suit well for Jaina god as well. And I agree with your Advaitic interpretation of the first couplet. It lends to that interpretation. I don't have any objection.//

Biased against WOMEN
//Yes I agree. The great Jaina āchārya Kundakunda says in his Ashta Pahuda: "Has any one seen dogs, donkeys, cows and other cattle or women attain Nirvana?" (AP, 8:29)

I appreciate your 'extension' of the definition of "Beyond likes and Dislikes' to juddge God of the Semitic World. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the Qur'an and Torah, cannot have the previlege of being called 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்'.//


On Negative Trait of Jainism
The attribute of this couplet "thanakkuvamai illāthān" (தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்), meaning "the one beyond compare" could perfectly suit any deity, be it of Brahmana, Śramana or Semitic origin. This attribute of being not equal to others or being unique is easily the commonest quality attributed to God in most religious scriptures.

Of course, yes (but why include Christianity here?). The Kural life affirming and it is only because it does not endorse Jaina religious teachings of this type, that it is not considered a work on Jaina philosophy. While Kuŗal is life-affirming, Nāladiyār like any other Jaina work is life-denying. Unlike typical Jaina works, Tirukuŗal does not harp on the transitory nature of life. Valluvar does talk about "Impermanence" (நிலையாமை) and at one place (Kuŗal 345) even asks why carry other attachments when the very body itself is a burden on the way to liberation [PS], but he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are typical of a Jaina work.//

Assumptions on Early Jainism
//Secondly the thoughts such as Vegetarianism and other ethics are the Continuation of Vedic Tradition, Pythogorous who spent 9 years in India, and was the Father of Greek Philosophy, suggests Vegetarianism, no doubt He got from India in 8th Cen BCE, much before Mahaveera founded Jainism. Only that Mahavira emphasised more on this.

I am sorry to say that I disagree with you on this. Studies have shown that the doctrine of ahimsa practices by the Śramanās existed even before the Aryan's came! Many Western scholars like Jacobi, Vincent Smith, Furlong and Zimmer have accepted the Pre-Aryan prevalence of Jainism (Kalghatgi, 1984). I think you need to update your understanding on the history and antiquity of Jainism. In fact I also used to be under the impression that Jainism is an offshoot of Aryan Brahminical 'Hindiusm' but it is not.

What we call "Hinduism" today existed as "Brahmana" sect in the past, and what we call "Jainism" now existed as "Sramana" sect before.//

Why Bring the Artificial Aryan Nonsense Here- and I have to bring VIVEKANANDA’S VIEW HERE -
//In India we have fallen during the last few centuries into a fixed habit of unquestioning deference to Authority. .. We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Henotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainty with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.
So Great is the force of Generalisation and widely popularised errors that all the world goes on Perpetuating the blunder talking of the Indo-European Races claiming or disclaiming Aryan Kinship and building on that basis of falsehood the most far-reaching Political, social or Pseudo Scientific Conclusion.’// -Swami Vivekananda

The Missionary minded Indologists who found that Sanskrit was Mother of Greek and Latin- which in turn were the Eldest of Most European Languages, and the amount of Depth and Knowledge in it brought the “Aryan” Invasion Myths- i.e., Indians are not capable of such a Wealth Language and Civilisation. It is a continual attack to run down India's great accomplishments and Civilisation...

Proper Study of Harappah and Mohanjadero now confirms that most of its Contents are Aryan, And the Speculation of the Seals being Proto Dravidian is weakening. Even the Die-hard Aryan Incoming Supporters put that from BCE7000- 1500. Linguists who worked with Tamil, popularly Identified as Dravidianists from Caldwell, Burrows etc., – All say Dravidians came around 3000 BCE and later to India from Outside.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA : “There is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans ever came from anywhere outside India.... The whole of India is Aryan, nothing else.”

U.S. archaeologist Jim Shaffer puts it : “Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from prehistoric to historic periods”

Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, biological anthropologist at Cornell University, U.S.A., who has worked extensively on Harappan sites to study human skeletal remains, concludes unambiguously: “Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity.... What the biological data demonstrate is that no exotic races are apparent from laboratory studies of human remains excavated from any archaeological sites, including those accorded Aryan status . All prehistoric human remains recovered thus far from the Indian subcontinent are phenotypically identifiable as ancient South Asians.... In short, there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture.”

J. M. Kenoyer, who is still pursuing excavations at Harappa, is even more categorical :There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC.

NVK in reply to Uppuma Said
//Yes I have. Many scholars consider that most of the stuff in Tiruvalluvamalai are spurious stuff! I can produce with citations from different scholars if you want.//

Now we can See What is Dubious-See Bismala’s Nonsense-//Gita was also composed after the era of sangap pulavar Kapilar, "sitaanaam kapilO muni" says Gita, a clear reference to kapilar, the sangam Tamil poet//-

Puram166. ¡Óõ ¦ºø§Å¡õ! À¡ÊÂÅ÷: ç÷ ãÄí ¸¢Æ¡÷.
À¡¼ôÀ𧼡ý : §º¡½¡ðÎô âﺡüê÷ô À¡÷ôÀ¡ý ¦¸ª½¢Âý Å¢ñ½ó¾¡Âý. ¾¢¨½: Å¡¨¸. ШÈ: À¡÷ÀÀÉ Å¡¨¸.

¿ý È¡öó¾ ¿£û ¿¢Á¢÷º¨¼
ÓÐ Ó¾øÅý Å¡ö §À¡¸¡Ð,
´ýÚ ÒÃ¢ó¾ ®Ã¢ ÃñÊý,
Ú½÷ó¾ ´Õ ÓÐáø this Song, in subsequent line refers the Presence of different belief groups. Now Painkat Parppan(Brahahmin- Siva continuously says- ®Ã¢ÃñÊý- 2 x 2 = 4Vedas, which has 6 Braches and are 1.Siksha, 2. Chandas 3. Viyakarnam 4. Niruktham 5. Jothisham and 6. Kalpam. Are perfectly referred in the above song and these names are given in detail in Mankmekhalai
'¸üÀõ ¨¸ ºó¾õ ¸¡ø ±ñ ¸ñ ,
¦¾ü¦Èý ¿¢Õò¾õ ¦ºÅ¢ º¢ì¨¸ ãìÌ
¯üÈ Å¢Â¡¸Ã½õ Ó¸õ ¦ÀüÚî
º¡÷À¢ý §¾¡ýÈ¡ ý §Å¾ìÌ
¾¢ «ó¾õ þø¨Ä «Ð ¦¿È¢' ±Ûõ
§Å¾¢Âý ¯¨Ã¢ý Å¢¾¢Ôõ §¸ðÎ

Now Vedics are split as 6 Philosophies-
1. Vaiseshikam - Ganathar(Author)
2. Niyayam - Gouthamar
3. Sankiyam - Kapilar
4. Yogam - Pathanjali
5. Mimamsaa - jaimini
6. Vethantham - Vetha Viyasa now all these have been referred with few author names in Manimekhalai.
À¢È÷ ¦º¡Äì ¸Õ¾ø þô ¦ÀüȢ «Ç¨Å¸û
À¡íÌÚõ ¯§Ä¡¸¡Â¾§Á ¦Àªò¾õ
º¡í¸¢Âõ ¨¿Â¡Â¢¸õ ¨Å§ºÊ¸õ
Á£Á¡ïº¸õ õ ºÁ º¢Ã¢Â÷ , 27-080
¾¡õ À¢Õ¸üÀ¾¢ º¢É§É ¸À¢Äý
«ì¸À¡¾ý ¸½¡¾ý ¨ºÁ¢É¢
¦ÁöôÀ¢Ãò¾¢Âõ «ÛÁ¡Éõ º¡ò¾õ
¯ÅÁ¡Éõ «Õò¾¡Àò¾¢ «À¡Åõ
þ¨Å§Â þô§À¡Ð þÂýÚ ¯Ç «Ç¨Å¸û'
±ýÈÅý ¾ý¨É Å¢ðÎ 'þ¨ÈÅý ®ºý' ±É
¿¢ýÈ ¨ºÅ Å¡¾¢ §¿÷ÀξÖõ

See what earlier Bismala’s Blabber, and now another would quote Bismala and that becomes a Proven- one(Nonsense). GITA REFERS SANKIYAM AUTHOR KAPILA. THESE TYPE OF HALF BAKED NONSENSE ONLY PUTS TIURVALLUVAMALAI AS DUBIOUS.

One can easily say the Manuscripts we have both KURAL and ValluvaMalai are of equal dating and for any body to say one Is OK and Other is not Spurious, and Authors like Maraimalai Aadigal, Pavanar, Appadurai Ka.Su.Pillai etc., etc., stands discredited for their highly Partial and Unwarranted way of Research and Quiet a few Voices against this Fraudulent Thani-Tamil movement has been already been given in the earlier Pages of same Thread.

Because in the name of Indology, the Missionaries made such a Fraud and spread Hatred against Vedas and the Design of This is confirmed by Maxmuller in letter to HIS WIFE, OXFORD, December 9, 1867.
“…I feel convinced, though I shall not live to see it, that this edition of mine and the translation of THE VEDA will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the ROOT OF THEIR RELIGION, and to show them what that root is, I feel sure, the ONLY WAY OF UPROOTING all that has sprung from it during the last 3,000 years.”

Now I suggest every one should read Swami.Dayanand Saraswathi on the Fradulant Translations of Maxmuller, and much more easily by Dr.B.R.Bharti- “Maxmuller a Masquerade”, After the English Church sent Highly Knowledgeable Rev. Adams to Convert Sir.Rajaram Mohanrai and his Brahma Samaj as Christians- Mohanrai who is Scholar of Greek, Hebrew,Perrsian and Arabi along with Sanskrit proved Adams that Vedas are Monotheistic where as Semitic Religions are Polytheistic and Rev.Adams was converted to Brahmos. Oxford University which had a Chair for Sanskrit – setup by an Officer of British served in India Colonel Boden – to read Sanskrit for Conversion Purposes was used and Maxmuller was appointed to do this Job. Now Dr.B.R.Bharti’s book has Copies of the Colonel Boden of early 19th Cen. Will of that Sanskrit Chair Creation and various letters of Maxmuller, and on Maxmuller’s Hynotheism, and How He Continued to Work for Missionary works.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA //”We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Hynotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainity with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.”//

Many authors have speculated Kural with Samana and Buddha ideologies simply
`because of the Hatred run on Vedas by Missionaries to Pavanar with highly Tendentious Conversion morives. So to say Valluvamalai is dubious itself is dubious, but I still do not need VALLUVAMALAI alone to analyse KURAL.

Kural is one of the most popular of all Tamil scriptures, why?- Because of its method of not putting Religious motive over Ethics. More than that From Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam we have about Tamil Society- Tamil Society is filled with Vedas, (Though Valluvar has accepted Caste by indirect references, but he has not touched in depth.) along with its good culture it also tells us that Polygamy and Polyandry was prevalent, Prostitution was available, Premarital Sex, Drinking of Wine was done by all including Women, Killing of Animals and eating in God worship are present. Where as Kural is against all this. Certainly Valluvar shows his lwanings to Hinduism and says much against Jainism.

These Dubious Thani Tamil Scholars took few odd verses positive only about Tamil Civilisation and extensively used Kural for their Highly Partial works.
I give-Historian M. G. S. Narayanan, who finds in Sangam literature –
“no trace of another, indigenous, culture other than what may be designated as tribal and primitive.” And concludes :
“The Aryan-Dravidian or Aryan-Tamil dichotomy envisaged by some scholars may have to be given up since we are unable to come across anything which could be designated as purely Aryan or purely Dravidian in the character of South India of the Sangam Age. In view of this, the Sangam culture has to be looked upon as expressing in a local idiom all the essential features of classical “Hindu” culture. M. G. S. Narayanan, “The Vedic-Puranic-Shastraic Element in Tamil Sangam Society and Culture,” in Essays in Indian Art, Religion and Society, p. 128.

Nilakanta Sastri goes a step further and opines,
“There does not exist a single line of Tamil literature written before the Tamils came into contact with, and let us add accepted with genuine appreciation, the Indo-Aryan culture of North Indian origin.”

Previous Researchers and Conclusions
//Please explain me how. I am keen to know and even ready to revert my opinions on my Jaina foundation of Tirukkural if the explanations given are found satisfactory. After all, in the past, I also used to deny the claims of Kural's Jaina affinity! Whether Valluvar was a Jain or not, his work is dominated by Jaina ideas! By the by who is Tho Po Me?//

//You also wrote:
Buddishism and Jainism, for that reason every Man made religions absorbed from the Older existing religions and changed and claimed as its own. Buddhism and Jainism took Ramayan and Mahabaratha and wrote to suit their beliefs. Judaism took from Zoroastrianism. Christianity took from Judaism, Mithraism. Manichism took from Zorashraism , Christianity and Buddhism and claimed Manes as the Last Prophet for all of these. Islam’s Prophet took from Manes and Christianity and made similar claims.

You are giving the impression that only Hinduism I mentioned earlier about the pre-Aryan existence of Jainism. Well, it didn't exist as "Jainism" like what we call now, just like what we Hinduism today did not exist as Hinduism in the past! Jains were called "Śramanās" (Strivers or Equals) in the past and Buddhist texts have numerous reference to them as naked ascetics. The historicity of the 23th Tirthankara 'Parsva' of Jains has been established and is accepted by most Scholars. Writes I.C. Sharma (1991) in his book on Ethical philosophies of India (on page 121, Johnsen Publishing Company, New York) "There is no doubt that Mahavira cannot be considered the founder of Jaina religion, for he was only a reformer or rejuvenator of Jainism".

History has shown that every religion has taken and given ideas to other religions. I agree that Islam was an offshoot of Judaism and Christianity, and Judaism itself owes a lot to Zoroastrianism. You may say Buddhism evolved from Brahiminical 'Hinduism', but not Jainism. Ninian Smart (1964. In: Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy, Allen and Unwin, p 163), one of the greatest of religious scholars known in the West, mentions that the Indian view of Karma was doubtless of non-Aryan provenance and it was a kind of natural law.//

I am Sorry again, Unless Some Scholar tells me where from they found what is Aryan and what is Non Aryan and what was their Source, from which Century these material belong and Allen is not the first on all this meaningless speculations, Albert Schweitzer had said this also, but which Old Literature tells this. As I said Allen quote Schweitzer and another quotes both, but what was the Source for this Speculation? And I can only Point out that Earlier the Fraudulent claims of Archaeology proves Aryan Invasion and that Lord Shiva being Dravidian God. The Very Noun Siva or Lingam Worship does not appear in Sangam- TholKappiyam- Kural- Mainmekhalai Period, and Silapathikaram explains temples only using Perishable items for Idols, and no mention of Stone Idols. Where as Siva, Lingam worship all are there in Rig, and Lord Muruga worship is there in Rig as in the name of Marutham.

No Jainism work is dated earlier than middle of 3rd Century BCE, and its Linguistic research confirms it has developed from Vedic Hinduism. All Western Scholars and Tamil Chauvinists wants to give of any Speculative claim of not Veda but else, gave rise to the Pavanar Group and Church to claim that Tirukural was a Christian work and Valluvar was converted to Christianity by Apostle Saint.Thomas personally, and the books written in the name of Dr.M.Deivanayagam had foreword from M.Karunanithi and others, whereas Today the Church researchers doubt an existence of such Thomas at all. But Deivanayagam’s work and ArchBishop Aruallappa trying to fabricate OLD PALM LEAF MANSUCRIPTS to prove Valluvar as Christian all ended as a shame- and details on these can be seen from www.hamsa.org articles on ArchBishop Aruallappa, Deivanayagam and Acharya Paul.

NVKji’s following sentence is really surprising-
//I have a counter question. Is not Valluvar against the negative ethics of Vedic Hinduism (like animal sacrifice)?//

Is Hinduism means Animal Sacrifice only- why this much Hate on Hinduism?

Now Old Testament’s Torah-first Five Book- called as Towrath in Islam Tradition- the laws given by the local god yhwh or moon god allah and dated to 350-250BCE was summarised by a Christian Convert African Maths Professor- “that local god wanted The Jerusalem Temple’s Priest must eat 88 Pigeons every day and that god wanted killing of 400- 1600 Goats every minute every day.”

The Missionaries and Thani Tamil Scholars have been picking up few odd verses from here and there and produced them to spread Falsehood against Hinduism. I am giving a small collection of Verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice.

Vedas and agamas, Hinduism's Scriptures
LET YOUR AIMS BE COMMON, and your hearts be of one accord, and all of you be of one mind, so you may live well together. Rig Veda Samhita 10.191
Protect both our species, two-legged and four-legged. Both food and water for their needs supply. May they with us increase in stature and strength. Save us from hurt all our days, O Powers! Rig Veda Samhita 10.37.11. VE, 319
One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to cut off his head.
Rig Veda Samhita, 10.87.16, FS 90
Peaceful be the earth, peaceful the ether, peaceful heaven, peaceful the waters, peaceful the herbs, peaceful the trees. May all Gods bring me peace. May there be peace through these invocations of peace. With these invocations of peace which appease everything, I render peaceful whatever here is terrible, whatever here is cruel, whatever here is sinful. Let it become auspicious, let everything be beneficial to us. Atharva Veda Samhita 10. 191. 4
Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices. Atharva Veda Samhita 19.48.5. FS, 90
If we have injured space, the earth or heaven, or if we have offended mother or father, from that may Agni, fire of the house, absolve us and guide us safely to the world of goodness. Atharva Veda Samhita 6.120.1. VE, 636
You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32. FS, 90
May all beings look at me with a friendly eye. May I do likewise, and may we all look on each other with the eyes of a friend. Yajur Veda 36.18.
Nonviolence is all the offerings. Renunciation is the priestly honorarium. The final purification is death. Thus all the Divinities are established in this body.
Krishna Yajur Veda, Prana Upanishad 46-8. VE, 413-14
To the heavens be peace, to the sky and the earth; to the waters be peace, to plants and all trees; to the Gods be peace, to Brahman be peace, to all men be peace, again and again-peace also to me! O earthen vessel, strengthen me. May all beings regard me with friendly eyes! May I look upon all creatures with friendly eyes! With a friend's eye may we regard each other! Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita 36.17-18. VE, 306; 342
No pain should be caused to any created being or thing.
Devikalottara agama, JAV 69-79. RM, 116
The Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, Epic History
The very name of the cows is aghnya, indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who, then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a bull commits the most heinous crime. Mahabharata, Shantiparva 262.47. FS,pg. 94
The purchaser of flesh performs himsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells or cooks flesh and eats it -all of these are to be considered meat-eaters.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.40. FS, pg 90
He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth.
Mahabharata, Anu. 115.47. FS, pg. 90
One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Yielding to desire and acting differently, one becomes guilty of adharma. Mahabharata 18.113.8.
Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of injury. Mahabharata 18.115.8.
Ahimsa is the highest dharma. Ahimsa is the best tapas. Ahimsa is the greatest gift. Ahimsa is the highest self-control. Ahimsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahimsa is the highest power. Ahimsa is the highest friend. Ahimsa is the highest truth. Ahimsa is the highest teaching.
Mahabharata 18.116.37-41.
He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same in all that is-immortal in the field of mortality-he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the highest path. Bhagavad Gita 13. 27-28. BgM, pg. 101
Nonviolence, truth, freedom from anger, renunciation, serenity, aversion to fault-finding, sympathy for all beings, peace from greedy cravings, gentleness, modesty, steadiness, energy, forgiveness, fortitude, purity, a good will, freedom from pride-these belong to a man who is born for heaven. Bhagavad Gita 16.2-3. BGM, pg. 109
AHIMSA IS NOT CAUSING pain to any living being at any time through the actions of one's mind, speech or body. Sandilya UpanishadWhen mindstuff is firmly based in waves of ahimsa, all living beings cease their enmity in the presence of such a person. Yoga Sutras 2.35. YP, pg. 205
Those who are ignorant of real dharma and, though wicked and haughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment. Further, in their next lives, such sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this world. Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.5.4. FS, pg, 90 .
Vedas now with the Archeological support of River Saraswathi which started drying up by 2200 BCE, and completely dried by 1900 BCE, has to be dated to earlier than 2000 BCE, and we see many voices in Upasnishads itself against Sacrifics and Karmas. Upanishads are traditionally dated to 1000BCE to 600BCE, by Western Indologists who want to fit TORAH- World CREAtion myths by lord Chronology- in 4004 BCE, and Vedas to 2000-1000BCE. But with ..

I would like to reiterate my stand that the Kural is a work based on on Jaina ethics and not a work on Jainism. I have mentioned that again and again and many people in this forum have not understood this. All your points in your last posting are reflection of this misunderstanding.

Devapriya wrote:
Jainism says for all men- Sanyasi life is the best way for reaching Birthless postion and this is difficult for Family life. Tiruvalluvar never says that. Jainism says for a Female there is no way Attaining Birthless state- they have to meditate to be born as Male in next birth, so that they can attempt in next birth.

Of course, you are correct. But didn't I reiterate again and again that Valluvar's work is not an exposition of Jaina philosophy but Jaina ideas, particularly ethics?

You also said:
Jainism always wants Sanyasi Life- Tirukural has just 15 Chapters for Thuravu, against entire balance is for Family Life. Even out of 150 Couplets in this Thuraviyal many are for Family Men.

My answer to this question is the same as above.

Devapriya, again you are taking Kural as a work on Jainsim and more so as a work against the practices of Jaina ascetics! You have picked up verses from here and there and produced them to show that they are against these Jaina monk's practices. Everyone agrees that the Kural extols householdership more than sanyaasa


//The attribute of this couplet "thanakkuvamai illāthān" (தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்), meaning "the one beyond compare" could perfectly suit any deity, be it of Brahmana, Śramana or Semitic origin. This attribute of being not equal to others or being unique is easily the commonest quality attributed to God in most religious scriptures.//

The Question is not All followers of their Respective Religions had called or not the Question is Valluvar who specifically Avoided Naming God would have used it for a mortal Man- either Rishaba – or Mahavira. My Answer is Not Possible.

Now the question is §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É - Now Jainism denies Women of Salvation Completely; they have to reborn as Male to get Salvation.

Yes I agree. The great Jaina āchārya Kundakunda says in his Ashta Pahuda: "Has any one seen dogs, donkeys, cows and other cattle or women attain Nirvana?" (AP, 8:29). In fact Jaina religion has many such teachings (need for ascetics to be naked "naked") but the Kural is based on Jaina ethics and not on Jaina philosophy.

Valluvar’s God does not have male or female preference- and He is §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É.

'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்' means "The One beyond likes and dislikes" which has a wider connotation and I am sorry you cannot take it specifically to mean that Valluvar's god has no bias towards men and women.

Here Judaism’s Prayer for every Male is - lord, I thank you for your have not made born me as Female or Dog (means Non-Jews); this Prayer is practised from at least BCE 350 When Judaism Historically was born to till date. Secondly Bible and Quran tells of Chosen People and that israel’s small god converting the River Nile to Blood and Killing of all First Infants of Human and Animals of Egyptians, and certainly this god is not §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡É or even the Suprme God.

Very good! I appreciate your 'extension' of the definition of "Beyond likes and Dislikes' to juddge God of the Semitic World. The Judeo-Christian God, as described in the Qur'an and Torah, cannot have the previlege of being called 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்'

- Again No doubt Every Religious follower would call its founder or their Deity as 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்' means "The One beyond likes and dislikes- but Would Valluvar give it to a Sect’s (founder) who denies Moksha to One half of the Population. My Answer is know.

You said:
«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý- Referring God by the term ”«ó¾½ý” is a Practice to Shiva, Brahma etc., In Sangam Literature itself and never to Jainistic Rishba till atleast next 800 years after Valluvar. «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ is Secular word.

However, Chakravarti (1953), Subramanyam (1983) and Sundaram (1990) mention that F.W. Ellis, who translated the Kuŗal into English in 1812, found the word "anthañan" in the then dictionaries meant only two gods, namely the Brahminical Brahma and Jaina Arugan. The use of the word "anthañan" (அந்தணன்) in the chapter on "Praise of God" is rather surprising, especially when the literal import of this word is "Brahmin". Since it comes under the Chapter 1, it has to be taken as a reference to a godhead.

BOTH Siva and Brahma is called Brahmin as bewlow
¾¢ «ó¾½ý «È¢óÐ Àâ ¦¸¡ÙÅ,
§Å¾ Á¡ âñ ¨ÅÂò §¾÷ °÷óÐ,
¿¡¸õ ¿¡½¡, Á¨Ä Å¢øÄ¡¸,
ãŨ¸ ÷ ±Â¢ø µ÷ «Æø-«õÀ¢ý ÓÇ¢Â, 25

Á¡¾¢Ãõ «ÆÄ, ±öÐ «ÁÃ÷ §ÅûÅ¢ô
À¡¸õ ¯ñ¼ ¨Àí ¸[b]ð À¡÷ôÀ¡ý
¯¨Á¦Â¡Î Paaaripadal

The Calling of God as Brahmin – Anthanan was never done in Jain Tamil Literature for atlease 500 years after Valluvar, where as it is existing in Hinduism even before Valluvar.


«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ¾¡û§º÷ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø
À¢ÈÅ¡Æ¢ ¿£ó¾ø «¡¢Ð.
À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£óÐÅ÷ ¿£ó¾¡÷
þ¨ÈÅý «Ê§ºÃ¡ ¾¡÷.

- In both this Kurals Valluvar cannot refer to Deadmen feat, but to the Supreme God, even Diehard Jain or Buddha believer would ask us to follow their Teachings and not on holding feet, Valluvar is very Clear, He refers to Supreme God, and Valluvar when names at 25 Different Kurals various Hindu Deity names, follows Henotheism.//

Now Again Valluvar who is from Indic Tradition and not a Political type of Semitic Religion where Accept my god and get Moksha and do these rituals or else You are God’s Enemy- Indic Tradition always allows that a mountain can be claimed from several Sides, and All rivers join same Ocean- so to say This is The Way- could only be applied to Supreme God- In both the above Kural Valluvar is clear that is the Only way. No doubt that during Valluvar days –all Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism where there- AND Valluvar by calling Supreme God’s feet very clearly rejects the Agnostic Religions. To Aravazi Viran or Aravazi Arasan could bring the meaning Jainists extract, but the term Valluvar used is One Clearly confirms his Leanings. Jaina Mortal Deities being called Brahmin is much later than Valluvar to site them as examples, where as I Quote Prior to it and as you also agreed.

//Of course I agree with your observation that we should not depend on works that came after Tirukkural as proofs because the later authors have only employed phrases from a work that must have been very popular during their times.//

¸¼×û Å¡úòÐ Paripadal 8. ¦ºù§Åû
À¡ÊÂÅ÷ :: ¿øÄóÐÅÉ¡÷ ¨ºÂ¨Áò¾Å÷ :: ÁÕòÐÅý ¿øÄî;ɡ÷
Àñ :: À¡¨Ä¡ú -¾¢ÕôÀÃíÌýÈò¾¢ý «¨ÁôÒõ º¢ÈôÒõ

ÁñÁ¢¨º---«Å¢úÐÆ¡ö ÁÄ÷¾Õ ¦ºøÅòÐô
ÒûÁ¢¨ºì ¦¸¡Ê§Â¡Ûõ, Òí¸Åõ °÷§Å¡Ûõ,
ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º Ó¾øÅÛõ, ÁüÚ «ÅÉ¢¨¼ò §¾¡ýÈ¢
¯ÄÌ Õû «¸üȢ À¾¢ýÁÕõ, ÕÅÕõ,
ÁÕóÐ ¯¨Ã ÕÅÕõ, ¾¢ÕóÐ áø ±ñÁÕõ

So Anthanan, MalarMisai are more in vogue for Hindus much prior toValluvar, where as Jainism used it much later.
Now I just show that most of the titles used by Valluvar is more better suited to Hinduism(- the following in Baamini Script) and Siva here..

jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk;>
'Mjp ghjNk Xjp ca;k;kpNd"
'gukd; gftd; guNkr;Rtud; godefuhNu" (1:67:4)

,iwtid 'thywptd;" (flTs; tho;j;J> 2) vdf; Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh;.
thywptd; vd;why; Jha mwptpdd;> epiwe;j QhdKilatd; vdg; nghUs;.
jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk;> 'Qhdj;jpusha; epd;w ngUkhd;" (1:69:3) vd ,iwtidg;
Nghw;Wfpd;whh;.

jpUts;St; ,iwtd; md;gh;fspd; neQ;rkhfpa jhkiukyhpy; tPw;wpUg;gtd; vd
'kyh;kpir Vfpdhd;" (Fws;> 3) vd Fwpg;gpLtJk;> jpUQhdrk;ge;jh; 'kyh;kpir
naOjU nghUs;" (1:21:5) vd;W ,iwtdg; Nghw;WtJk; xg;Gnehf;fj;jf;fJ.

,iwtd; mwf;flyhf tpsq;Ftij ts;Sth; 'mwthop" ((Fws;> 8) vd;fpd;whh;.
jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk; ,iwtd; mwtbtpdd; vd;gij mwpTWj;Jfpd;whh; (1:9:2> 2:199:11).

,iwtdpd ; Fzqf;fs;:;: ,iwtid 'vz;Fzj;jhd;" (Fws;> 9) vd ts;Sth;
Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh;. jd;taj;jdhjy; (Rje;juKilatd;) Jhaclk;gpddhjy;>
,ay;ghfNt ghrq;fis ePf;fpatd;> ,aw;if czh;tpdd;> Kw;Wzh;tpdd;>
NguUSilatd;> Kbtpyhw;wYilatd;> tuk;gpypd;gKilatd; vd vz;Fzq;fisg; ghpNkyofh; Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh;. jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk; ,iwtd; vz;Fzj;jpdd; vdf; Fwpg;gpLfpd;whh; (1:131:1)

Now NVKji says-
//Mentioned below are the six duties and within brackets the terms used by Valluvar in Kural 43:

தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
God, guests, kindred, ancestors and himself. * SS
Social service is a prominent part of Jaina ethics, and therefore Jainism prescribes six daily duties for every householder (Jain, 1999), some of which are astonishingly similar to what Valluvar said above!

Deva-puja gurupastih svdhyayah samyamas-tapah,
Danam cheti grhasthnam sat karmani dine dine

(i) Adoration of deity (தெய்வம்),
(ii) Veneration of gurus or ancestors (தென்புலத்தார்),
(iii) Study of scriptures (not mentioned in the couplet)
(iv) Practice of self discipline (தான்),
(v) Penance or austerities (not in this couplet)
(vi) Charity (விருந்தோக்கல்).//

I AM really feeling that NVKji is tended to carry on with misinterpretation of Kural, by picking A Kural and searching something similar in Jainism, (probably some Book has already done that) and somehow suit it (wrongly) and I quote his interpretation in previous post for the same Kural-

//The word "theyvam" here can easily be taken to mean a Creator God. Social service is a prominent part of Jaina ethics, and therefore Jainism prescribes six daily duties for every householder: Adoration of deity, veneration of gurus (ancestors), study of scriptures, practice of self discipline, observance of fasts and charity. Thus the word "theyvam" could well mean the adoration of a Jaina god, be it a Tirthankara, Arhat or Siddha.//

The Orthodox Hindu Tradition- gives much more importance to Pithuru KARMAS-
“Then Pulathar” over even Worship of God- i.e., When A Family Person Dies, all his Blood Relatives need to carry rituals for One year and During that One year They do not visit Temples, or do Fesitival Worships in Home, and even not put Kolam outside their home, and also every month’s New Moon Day- The same, then comes Mahalaya New Moon day etc., ie., Pithru Karma over God worship, and this Kural confirms the order very clearly of that, and as Hindu Tradition with this five duties- Sixth comes Paying Taxes for the country. Veneration of Guru is not certainly ThenPulathar- as Sangam and SILApathikaram uses this term only for your Direct Blood Relations.

Purananuru says that - For a War- Young men Who has not got sons to do Thenpulathar Kadamai should not be taken for fighting, and this has gone to Jews, and till date Israel gives concession to Young First Sons - need not be in frontal positions.


So this Kural is more of confirming to Orthodox Hinduism.
தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
Ancestors God, guests, kindred, and himself. * SS

Jainism that being Born as Human is an Unwanted act and that We need to be doing Penance, always and Fasting is advised to all for most of the Occasions and this is not a Philosophy but the Fundamental Root of Jainism and Jains are referred in AkaNanuru as உண்ணாமையின் உயங்கிய மருங்கின்
ஆடாப் படிவத்து ஆன்றோர் போல, - Valluvar never gives importance for Fasting.

And on use of God names- NVKji says // செய்யவள் is found in Cilappadikāram (2.12.69)//

The Unwanted elements of Scholarship made Tamil research as meaningless, there is a famous quote from abroad- “Politics is the Last refuge of Unwanted Elements”. The Kannadiga- E.V.Ramasamy Naicker said “ Tamil and Tamil Chavunism is the Last refuge of Unwanted Elements” and
EVR further said said -
“ ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âý ஆâÂì ÜÄ¢. ஆâ ¾÷Áò¨¾§Â ¾Á¢ú þÄ츽Á¡¸î ¦ºöРŢð¼ Á¡¦ÀÕõ ЧḢ.
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅý «ì¸¡Äò¾¢üÌ ²üÈ Å¨¸Â¢ø ஆâ ¸ÕòÐìÌ ஆ¾Ã× ¦¸¡ÎìÌõ «ÇÅ¢ø ÀÌò¾È¢¨Åô ôüÈ¢ ¸Å¨Äô À¼¡Áø ¿£¾£ ÜÚõ ӨȢø ¾ÉÐ Á¾ ¯½÷§Â¡Î ²§¾¡ ÜÈ¢î ¦ºýÈ¡÷. ôì¸õ 7 ¾Á¢Øõ ¾Á¢ÆÕõ. I just want to bring this to the notice of all.

Now Can Silapathikaram can fully be ascribed as Jainistic- much doubtful- and I Quote “Viththuvan
“கோவலன் கண்ணகியர் இன்ன சமயத்தைச் சேர்ந்தவர் என்று சிலபதிகாரத்தில் குறிப்பிடப் படவில்லை. சமணத்துறவி கவுந்தியடிகள் அவ்விருவர்க்கும் வழித் துணையாகிறார். வைணவ மாதரி அவ்விருவரை விருந்தோம்புகின்றாள். சைவ செங்குட்டுவன் தெய்வக் கல் எடுக்கின்றான். எந்த் மதத்தையும் தழுவாமல் கடவுள் பற்றுடைய இள்ங்கோ அடிகள் இவ்விருவரையும் பாடுகின்றார்.
மதுரை செல்ல நினைத்த கோவலன் கண்ணகியர், வீட்டைக் கடந்து, திருமால் கோட்டத்தையும் இந்திர விகாரத்தையும், சாரணர் சிலாதலத்தயும் தொழுது சென்று காவிரிக் கரையை அடைகின்றனர். சிலப்பதிகாரத்தில் இப்பகுதியை படிக்கும் போது காவியத் தலைமக்களின் மதச்சார்பு ந்மக்கு புலப்படவில்லை. ஆனால் மணிமேகலை பௌத்த மதத்தைச் சார்ந்தவல் என்று இந்நூலில் தெளிவாய்த் தெரிகிறது.//

Silapathikaram and even Manimekhalai gives such a wide information on Tamil Society during Sangam Period and high details on Vedas, Of course always Maimekhalai uses better words for Buddhism and Anti- Hinduism - which is absent in Silapathikaram. Silapathikaram, Author puts much in Praise of Samanam in One Character KavunthiAdigal. But majority supports Vedic Hinduism, which I shall put here or in other Appropriate thread.

Where as Thani- Tamil Scholars went on to go by the Jainistic Probaganda- that Silapathikaram and Kural are Jainistic, with very flimsy few picked verses. Even few went on to say that Marai or Vetham or Ooththu in Tholkappiyam, Sangam-Kural – Manimekhalai could be some Non Existent Tamil Vedams etc., and The Missionary Motived Pavanar had to himself has to admit-

// " Nalvetham or Nanmarai, Arangam Agamam enbana ellam Arya Noolkale enbathum, Thirukural thavira ippothulla Pandai Noolkalellam Anthanar enbathum Brahmararie Kurikkum Enpathu Sariye. Page- 102 Tamilar Matham.//


As for as Vedic Sects itself- Sankiyam Philosophy authored by KapilaMuni was against Sacrifices and Practised Ahimsa. (Dr.S.Radakrishnan, Indian Philosophy Vol-2, P.307) and also Dr.S.Radakrishnan in Vol-1, Pages 148-149 shows that during Upanishad times itself Animal Sacrifices have lost its importance.

Indian Culture and Civilisation is the Oldest and If Foreigners wrote meaninglessly, then the Indian by Birth, but Christian Fathers- and writers did it, and MahaKavi Bharati condemns it in his Short ARTICLE called Á¾¢ôÒ

þó¾¢Â¡¨Å ¦ÅÇ¢Ôĸò¾¡÷ À¡Á羺õ ±ýÚ ¿¢¨ÉìÌõÀÊ ¦ºö¾ Ó¾ü ÌüÈõ ¿õÓ¨¼ÂÐ. ÒÈì¸ÕÅ¢¸û ÀÄ. ӾġÅÐ, ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢. «¦Áâ측ŢÖõ ³§Ã¡ôÀ¡Å¢Öõ º¢Ä ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸û, ¾í¸û Á¾ Å¢„ÂÁ¡É À¢Ãº¡Ãò¨¾ ¯ò§¾º¢òÐ ¿õ¨Áì ÌÈ¢òÐô ¦Àâ ¦Àâ ¦À¡ö¸û ¦º¡øÄ¢, þôÀÊ𠾡úóÐ §À¡ö Á¸ð¾¡É «¿¡¸Ã¢¸ ¿¢¨Ä¢ø þÕìÌõ ƒÉí¸¨Çì ¸¢È¢ŠÐ Á¼ò¾¢§Ä §º÷òÐ §Áý¨ÁôÀÎòÐõ Òñ½¢Âò¨¼î ¦ºöž¡¸î ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¸û. þóÐì¸û ÌÆ󨾸¨Ç ¿¾¢Â¢§Ä §À¡Î¸¢È¡÷¸û ±ýÚõ, Šòâ¸¨Ç (Ó츢ÂÁ¡¸, «¿¡¨¾¸Ç¡öô ÒÕ„÷¸¨Ç þÆóÐ ¸¾¢Â¢øÄ¡Áø þÕìÌõ ¨¸õ¦Àñ¸¨Ç) ¿¡ö¸¨Çô §À¡Ä ¿¼òи¢È÷¸û ±ýÚõ ÀÄÅ¢¾Á¡É «ÀÅ¡¾í¸û ¦º¡øÖ¸¢È¡÷¸û. ¿õÓ¨¼Â ƒ¡¾¢ô À¢Ã¢×¸Ç¢¦Ä þÕìÌõ ÌüÈí¸¨Ç¦ÂøÄ¡õ â¾ì¸ñ½¡Ê ¨ÅòÐì ¸¡ðθ¢È¡÷¸û. þó¾ì ¸¢È¢ŠÐÅô À¡¾¢Ã¢¸Ç¡§Ä ¿ÁìÌ §¿÷ó¾ «ÅÁ¡Éõ «ÇÅ¢ø¨Ä. Barathiyar, ¸ðΨÃ- Á¾¢ôÒ

Another example- The Unwanted item in India - the Caste system is put as Vedic -the Truth is the Opposite- as I QUOTE I put these from Dravidian protogonist Gilbert Slater
- who gives from Maxmuller, and I Quote from Tamil Translation by PanmozhiPulavar Appadurai.
ÁÛÅ¢ø ÌÈ¢ì¸ôÀðÎ þýÚ ÅÆ츢ÖûÇ º¡¾¢ Ó¨È §Å¾í¸Ç¢ý Á¢¸ô ÀƨÁÂ¡É ºÁÂò ¾òÐÅí¸Ç¢ø þ¼õ ¦ÀÚ¸¢È¾¡? "þø¨Ä" ±ýÈ ´§Ã¦º¡øÄ¢ø ¿¡õ «¨¾ «Øò¾Á¡¸ ÁÚðÐÅ¢¼Ä¡õ. ¦ÀÕﺢì¸ø Å¡öó¾ º¡¾¢ «¨ÁôÒ Ó¨Èò ¾¢ð¼òÐìÌ §Å¾ Ýì¾í¸Ç¢ø ±ò¾¨¸Â ¾ÃÓõ þø¨Ä. «Ð §À¡Ä§Å Ýò¾¢Ãâý þÆ¢¾¨¸ ¿¢¨Ä¨ÁìÌ ¾¡Ã§Á¡; Àø§ÅÚ ÅÌôÀ¢É÷ ´Õí§¸ ÌØÁ¢ Å¡Æ, ´Õí§¸ ¯ñ½ô ÀÕ¸ò ¾¨¼ Å¢¾¢ìÌõ ±ó¾î ºð¼§Á¡; Àø§ÅÚ º¡¾¢Â¢É÷ ¾õÓû ´ÕÅÕ즸¡ÕÅ÷ Á½ ¯È× ¦¸¡ûŨ¾ò ¾ÎìÌõ ӨȨÁ§Â¡; «ò¾¨¸Â Á½ ¯ÈÅ¡ø ÅÕõ À¢û¨Ç¸ÙìÌ Å¢Äì¸ ÓÊ¡¾ ¾£ìÌȢ¢ðÎð ¾£ñøò¾¸¡¾ÅḠ´Ð츢 ¨ÅìÌõ ¸ðÎôÀ¡§¼¡; ±Ð×õ «ÅüÈ¢ø þø¨Ä. «òмý º¢Åý, ¸¡Ç¢ ¸¢ÂÅ÷¸Ç¢ý «îºó ¾Õõ ¦ºÂø Өȸ¨Çô ÀüÈ£§Â¡; ¸ñ½É¢ý º¢üÈ¢ýÀì ¸Ç¢Â¡ð¼õ ÀüÈ¢§Â¡; .. ... §Åòò¾¢ø ´Õ ÍÅÎ Ü¼ì ¸¢¨¼Â¡Ð. ¸¼×ÙìÌâ Á¾¢ô¨Àò ¾¦Á¦¾Éì ¦¸¡ñÎ ÀÆ¢ÝØõ ´Õ ÌÕÁ¡÷ ÌØÅ¢ý Å£õÒâ¨Á¸û, ÁÉ¢¾ þÉò¾¢ý þøÄí¸¨Ç Å¢Äí¸¢Éí¸Ç¢Ûõ ¸¢Æ¡¸ þÆ¢× ÀÎòÐõ Ó¨È ¸¢ÂÅü¨È ¾Ã¢ìÌõ ±ó¾î ºð¼Óõ «ÅüÈ¢ø þø¨Ä. ÌÆó¨¾ Á½ò¾¢üÌ ¾Ã§Å¡, ÌÆó¨¾ Å¢¾¨Å¸û Á½ò¨¾ò ¾¨¼¦ºö§š ¸½Åý À¢½òмý ¯Â¢ÕûÇ ¨¸õ¦Àñ½¢ý ¯¼¨ÄÔõ ¨Åò¦¾Ã¢ìÌõ ¦À¡øÄ¡ô ÀÆì¸ò¨¾ ¾Ã¢Å¢ì¸§Å¡ «¾¢ø ´Õ Å¡º¸í Ü¼ì ¸¢¨¼Â¡Ð. þ¨Å ¡×õ §Å¾ò¾¢ý ¦º¡øÖìÌõ ¦À¡ÕÙì̧Á Á¡ÚÀð¼¨Å." Quote frm Maxmuler “þó¾¢Â ¿¡¸Ã¢¸ò¾¢ø ¾¢Ã¡Å¢¼ô ÀñÒ”- ¸¢øÀ÷𠺢§Äð¼÷, ¾Á¢ú ¸¡.«ôÀ¡Ð¨Ã. Àì¸õ 40,41.

But Tons and Tons of Articles are there against this Truth, and still being advertised with Foreign funds. The Truth is the opposite.

Vedas cannot be dated later than 1900BCE, by which time entire Saraswathi River has Dried up. John Marshall remarked in 1931, -
“THE HARAPPAN] RELIGION IS SO CHARACTERISTICALLY INDIAN AS HARDLY TO BE DISTINGUISHED FROM STILL LIVING HINDUISM.”

Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology at Cambridge, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, Cambridge University Press, 1988,
“IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE WHAT IS PARTICULARLY NON-ARYAN ABOUT THE INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION.”

Kenoyer, Jonathan Mark, Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization (Karachi & Islamabad : Oxford University Press & American Institute of Pakistan Studies, 1998) -“MANY SCHOLARS HAVE TRIED TO CORRECT THIS ABSURD THEORY [OF AN ARYAN INVASION], BY POINTING OUT MISINTERPRETED BASIC FACTS, INAPPROPRIATE MODELS AND AN UNCRITICAL READING OF VEDIC TEXTS. HOWEVER, UNTIL RECENTLY, THESE SCIENTIFIC AND WELL-REASONED ARGUMENTS WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN ROOTING OUT THE MISINTERPRETATIONS ENTRENCHED IN THE POPULAR LITERATURE.”

So now Valluvar was Opposed to Fundamentals of the roots of Jainism, and even does not support the minimum Compulsory ethical rituals of Jainism. And basic ethics remain same for all Religions. And no particular ethic can be said as special to Jainism at all unless you Discredit all the available information on Vedas and Upanishads, against all Scientific Evidences as Saraswathi River and other Proofs, I shall give links in my next Thread. The Majority of Independent Scholars put dating of Vedas to 5000-2000BCE, and I am against saying Vedas or Hinduism as “Brahmanism” this is a Fraud my Missionaries, even today Many Church Apologist use Mohammedans and not Muslim or Islam.

Please throw away the Glasses you hold- against Hinduism, and it would be more appropriate to say- Jainism is like Protestant to Christianity - a Reformist movement from Hinduism and took from the then developments within Hinduism against Sacrifices and took that as One of its main Plank. No Ethics of Indian Civilisation can be attributed from any Other Tradition than Vedic as the Oldest of Jaina Lit. is from 300BCE

Now to bring Aryan Myths- in to a Literature as Kural of 250-300 CE, is meaningless.
Can we look at the amount of Words for Vedas - referred in Sangam Literature- மறை,
நான்மறை, நால்வேதம், ஓத்து , ஆகமம் , அறம், ஆறங்கம் etc., where as the word Samana is just the Tamilised form of Shramana-the Sanskrit word.

For Jains, the path to moksa begins with ahimsa or non-harming. This means for the layity, not harming any two to five sensed beings and for the ascetics, complete ahimsa for all creatures. And this has made Their Fundamental Ethics against Family Way, Banning of works such as Carpentry and Farming for Jains.

The only way to obtain moksa is to live a life of complete asceticism. This means renouncing all worldly things. In fact, monastics do not participate in temple worship because it focuses on worldly things but they do participate in Pilgrimages. This means is worshipping of Supreme God is not real part, but to accommodate Converts Hindu Gods were absorbed as below Rishaba- the mortal man. This is Blasphemy, and this is what is done by Christianity to Judaism and Islam to Judaism-Christianity and Manichaeism.

The Problem is not with Valluvam but misinterpretations and False assumptions of Aryan and Dravidian etc., for which no Literary support OR Archaeological support exists.

If you could be more specific to any or few of the Kurals which you feel Valluvar is against Orthodox Hinduism, I Want them to be discussed threadbare with more agreeable Scholarly views, please.

Let us look Valluvam as it is.

DevaPriya.


[/tscii:edd0ad2bba]

[NVK Ashraf]

Dear Devapriya,

You wrote:
So Anthanan, MalarMisai are more in vogue for Hindus much prior toValluvar, where as Jainism used it much later.
Now I just show that most of the titles used by Valluvar is more better suited to Hinduism(- the following in Baamini Script) and Siva here..

jpUQhdrk;ge;jUk;>
'Mjp ghjNk Xjp ca;k;kpNd"
'gukd; gftd; guNkr;Rtud; godefuhNu" (1:67:4)

Can you please tell me the source of this Brahmi script work? Is it Tamil?

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:8cb51eb90b]Brahminism and Mohammedanism

Dear Mr. Devapriya,

For the first time, your reply has given some food for thought. Some of the points you made on the Kural are worth taking note of (I will come to this later). However, bulk of your last posting contains copy paste of my previous replies and a substantial part on Aryan invasion and Christian or Western ‘misinterpretation’ against Hinduism. Since all your postings were in “black” I found it very difficult to differentiate between my statements and your replies. The marking “//” did not help either, as there was no consistency. I would appreciate if you could use a different colour to differentiate what you say from mine.

Obviously you seem to be very passionate towards Hinduism and do not appreciate anything being pointed out about Hinduism. You also have a tendency, for no rhyme or reason, to immediately point your figures at Christianity and the West, often forgetting the fact that we are discussing Tirukkural. We are looking at Kural’s affiliation to the then prevailing religious traditions like Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism and while doing so, obviously I will highlight the practices that differentiate these traditions. There is no need to get emotional about it.

You wrote:
“I am against saying Vedas or Hinduism as “Brahmanism” this is a Fraud my Missionaries, even today Many Church Apologist use Mohammedans and not Muslim or Islam.”

Well, I don’t know why you seem to be disappointed with this. It is quite natural that the West called “Hinduism” as Brahminism and Islam as Mohammedanism. After all Islam was founded by Mohammed and Hinduism is dominated by rituals primaritly instituted by Brahmins.

If Muslims have an objection to calling Islam as Mohammedanism, there is some reason. The Quran has many references to Islam as the religion of Muslims. Where is the word “Hinduism” in Upanishads, Gita and Vedas? Please tell me.

“Hinduism refers not to an entity; it is a name that the West has given to a prodigiously variegated series of facts” (C.W. Smith, 1964. The Meaning and Ed of religions. Mentor Religious Classics). The same Westerners who called it Brahminism, have coined the word “Hinduism”. We have to use a word to coin the religion that existed during the time of Valluvar and there is nothing wrong in calling it Brahminism.

You said:
“Please throw away the Glasses you hold- against Hinduism, . . . .”

I am sorry Mr. Devapriya, my objective here is to find the religious inclination of the Kural and while doing so, I will be producing every now and then verses in support of certain practices prevalent in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism (Brahminism to put it rightly). You cannot be sentimental about it Mr. Devapriya.

And also, when I said Valluvar is against animal sacrifice which is an age-old Vedic practice, you responded saying: “Is Hinduism means Animal Sacrifice only- why this much Hate on Hinduism?”

Did I say Hinduism means only Animal Sacrifice? Please tell me where. இடம் சுட்டி பொருள் விளக்கம் தருக.

How can you say that I hate Hinduism simply because I mentioned a practice that was prevalent during the time of Valluvar? Many of Muslim friends have called me anti-Islamic simply because I point out to certain inadequacies in their religion. Please don’t take that stance. I am a scholar and a scholar’s objective is to inform the beliefs, practices and facts as it is. There is no room for emotional attachments, aversions and pre-conceived notions. Hope you are aware that there is Animal Sacrifice in Islam also. Doesn’t mean I hate Islam! For that matter Judaism! [/tscii:8cb51eb90b]

[devapriya]

Dear Friends,

NVKji wants my Opinion on Origin of Brahmi Scripts.

Brahmi Tamil Scripts have gone to 3 Stages.

Brahmi-1, The writing in Tamil but Grammer and ending are closer to Praaakrit BCE 250- bCE100
Brahmi-2 More Tamil wrods Upto CE100
Brahmi Pulli- Using Dots CE 100 - 300
TholKapapaaaiyam belong to Brahmi-Pulli.

The Vowels of Sanskrit is differs from Tamil and Prakrit.
Both Tamil Brahmi, and the present writing system till 1825 followed the Sanskrit Vowel Pattern. Hence it is more likely that Brahmi was developed for Sanskrit, but for some reason used for Prakarit earlier. Vedic Literature clearly refers scripts towards the middle itself.

Sorry for Confusions, As I depend on NetCafes for Posting and there Tamil Fonts absence Troubles. Let me try to be more clear from next post.

The name Hindu is existent atleast at the time Old Testament Book Esther was written, which refers India as Hodu, in a twisted form, natural for its distance.

I have quiet a lot of Muslim Friends who are Vegetarians and also Brahmins who eat all type of Non-Vegetarian.

I am equally attacked for veing too Agnostic, but here due to too many Tamil Chavunists spreading wrong Venomic views, I am forced to take on Indian Heritage.

Sorry, if you are Hurt, when we take on Religions, as a Student of Comparitive Relistions I look evenly of all till its root.

Devapriya

[NVK Ashraf]

Dear Friends,

NVKji wants my Opinion on Origin of Brahmi Scripts.
Brahmi Tamil Scripts have gone to 3 Stages.
................. ..........
Devapriya

I am sorry I didn't ask about the devopment and history of Brahmi script! I wanted to know the source of the citation. From which text? Tamil? If so, why not reproduce the same in the present Tamil alphabet, please?

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:2258e50863]Animal Sacrifice in Brahminical Hinduism

Continuing from where I left in my last posting on 28th June.

Mr. Devapriya said:
The Missionaries and Thani Tamil Scholars have been picking up few odd verses from here and there and produced them to spread Falsehood against Hinduism. I am giving a small collection of Verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice.

And you produced a few verses from Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Prasna Upanishad, Gita and a few others like Bhagavatam that speak about Non-violence or Ahimsa and said they are “a small collection of verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice” (your own words).

Let us look at them one by one and see what they say:
1) Rig Veda 10.37.11 - protecting species, two legged and four legged
2) Rig Veda 10.87.16 – one who partakes of human, horse or any animal flesh
3) Atharva Veda 10.191.4 – Peaceful be the earth, ether, heaven, waters . . . . .
4) Atharva Veda 19.48.5 – Those who protect all animals . . . . . .
5) Atharva Veda 6.120.1 – We have injured space, earth or heaven . . . .
6) Yajur Veda 12.32 – Must not use your body for killing gods creatures . .l . .
7) Yajur Veda 36.18 – May all beings look at me with friendly eye . . . . .
8) Prasna Upanishad 46.8 – Non violence is all the offerings . . . .
9) Yajur Veda 36.17-18 – May I look at all creatures with friendly eyes. . . .
10) Agama – No pain should be caused to any created being
11) Many verses from Mahabharata – Cows should never be slaughtered - purchaser of flesh performs himsa - he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its taste - He who eats the flesh of other creatures lives in misery - one should never do another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self, one should abstain from injury - Ahimsa is the highest dharma, friend, self control, tapas, power, friend, truth and highest teaching.
12) Bhagavad Gita – Not to hurt others, non-violence belong to men born of heaven
13) Yoga Sutras – Ahimsa is not causing pain to any living being
14) Bhagavatam – Those ignorant of real dharma only kill animals without any fear and they will be eaten in their next life by the same animals

Let me repeat what you said in the beginning of these citations: “I am giving a small collection of verses on Hinduism against Animal Sacrifice” (your own words).

Tell me Mr. Devapriya. Which of these 14 verses you reproduced above talk against Animal Sacrifice? None. They only talk about Ahimsa which is an ethical teaching common to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

(i) It is only in Jainism that any kind of slaughter and meat consumption is consistently prohibited. (duly emphasized by Valluvar).

Kural 254:
What is grace? It is not killing. To kill, disgrace.
And senseless to eat that meat. * PS

(ii) In Buddhism slaughter is not permitted but consumption is. Valluvar promptly disapproves such practice.

Kuŗal 256:
The world may say: “Meat we eat, but don’t kill’.
But no one will sell if there is none to buy. * KS

(iii) In Hinduism, meat eating is prohibited in some scriptures (Thirumandiram). I mentioned in my previous posting about Manu condemning meat eating, that too in Valluvar's own terms (Manu 5:52 is just like Kuŗal 251!). In some scriptures only cow slaughter is forbidden (you cited this one from Mahabharata – “Cows should never be slaughtered” – it obviously means others can be slaughtered?). But the same scriptures that proclaim ahimsa, permit animal sacrifice. I cited this verse from Manu Smriti which does not consider animal sacrifice as himsa!

Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices;
Sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world);
Hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering. (Manu 5:39)

But the following couplet from Tirukkural condemns animal sacrifice, an age old Vedic practice.

Kuŗal 259:
Better than a thousand burnt offerings
Is one life un-killed, un-eaten. PS

Mr. Devapriya. I am surprised why you remained silent on this Manu dictum and instead posted a series of verses from other Hindu Scriptures that talk about meat eating and killing.

K.N. Subramanyam (1987) writes: "When there is such an open condemnation of animal sacrifice which is sanctioned by Vedic ritualism and the Buddhist practice of eating meat by a convenient interpretation of Ahimsa doctrine, it is clear, by a process of elimination, that the only religion that conforms to the principles enunciated in the book is the religion of Ahimsa upheld by the Jainas".

But you said: “. . . . . Polygamy and Polyandry was prevalent, Prostitution was available, Premarital Sex, Drinking of Wine was done by all including Women, Killing of Animals and eating in God worship are present. Where as Kural is against all this. Certainly Valluvar shows his leanings to Hinduism and says much against Jainism.”

You said killing of Animals and eating its meat in God worship was present during the time of Valluvar. I agree. You said Kural is against all these. I agree with this also. But you say this only shows his leanings towards Hinduim and against Jainism! I disagree! Your conclusion is not logical. It is only in Vedic or Brahminical Hinduism that Animal sacrifice is practiced to please gods existed. Jains and Buddhists don't. How can you then say Valluvar is against Jainism? In fact Valluvar is not against any religious tradition by name. He is only against some religious practices of his time.

Surprisingly, the very same Devapriya began his last posting with this statement:

“NVKji wants to search to derive what he wants from Kural than what is directly Said”

Let the readers decide who is trying to derive the stuff they want from the Kural.

Reference:
Subramanyam, K. N. 1987. Tiruvalluvar and His Kuŗal. Bharatiya Jnanpith Publication. 220 pages[/tscii:2258e50863]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:b32c3ead03]Ahimsa dharma in Brahminism, Jainism and Buddhism

Mr. Devapriya,

I am aware that Ahimsa is an ethical teaching common to Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism and in fact I have included this feature in my article.

Five virtues (dakshinās) in Brahminism (Chāndogya Upanishad: 3.17.4)
(i) Penance
(ii) Charity
(iii) Right conduct
(iv) Non-injury (கொல்லாமை)
(v) Speaking truth (பொய்யாமை, வாய்மை)

Five moral percepts (pañca-sila) in Buddhism (Mahāvagga 1:56)
(i) To abstain from killing (கொல்லாமை)
(ii) Avoid what has not been given
(iii) Avoid sexual misconduct
(iv) Avoid false speech (பொய்யாமை, வாய்மை)
(v) Avoid intoxicants

Five minor vows (anuvratās) of a householder (Saman Suttam, Sūtrā 309)
(i) Avoid injury to living beings (கொல்லாமை)
(ii) Avoid speaking falsehood (பொய்யாமை, வாய்மை)
(iii) Avoid things not given
(iv) Avoid sexual misconduct
(v) Avoid undue desire for possessions

Therefore, it is not because of Ahimsa teaching in Tirukkural that I consider it as a work based on Jaina ethics; because other faiths have also emphasized it. A combination various factors all put together that makes me to conclude that the Kural’s basis is Jaina ethics and ideals. But remember it is not a work that extols the doctrines and sundry laws in Jainism. Thus the Kural has very little to do with the religious philosophy of Jainism. It is futile to look for sundry religious laws in Kural to judge the author's religious inclination.
[/tscii:b32c3ead03]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:1fd41af69e]Dear Devapriya,

In my discussion about Brahminism and Hinduism, I had pointed out the absence of the word "Hinduism" in Sacred texts of Hinduism. I also mentioned that the term was given by the West. But you made an interesting statement in your last posting:

"The name Hindu is existent atleast at the time Old Testament Book Esther was written, which refers India as Hodu, in a twisted form, natural for its distance"

Come on, Mr. Devapriya. Do you really believe this? Are you not reading your ideas into strange words that appear in other scriptures? It is unfortunate that you have to look for the word "Hodu or Hindu" from a Scripture of Semitic origin! Please refrain from such acts. It is not a disgrace for any religion, not to have its name in its sacred text. Many religions don't have. You accused me of reading my ideas into the Kural. This is what you said: “NVKji wants to search to derive what he wants from Kural than what is directly Said”

The same person who said this is now looking for "Hodu" from Old Testament! Please don't employ double standards.

If you want to know more about the origin of Hinduism, please read the following paragraphs reproduced from two links. Anyone will say that the word "Hinduism" is a recently coined word. It came from Arabs/Persians and the British referred to religion of India as "Hinduism".

Interestingly enough, the word "Hindu" is not actually found anywhere in Vedic scriptures. The term "Hindu" is vague, and even a misnomer. The term was introduced by Muslims from neighboring countries who referred to people living across the River Sindhu, a people who actually held a vast array of religious beliefs. There is no one "Hindu religion."
From: Hinduism and Vegetarianism By Paul Turnerhttp://www.ivu.org/news/march2000/hinduism.html

Here is another citation:

In fact the word Hindu has no link whatsoever with the subsequently developed creed, ‘Hinduism’. Because emerge of the word ‘Hindu’ was far more ancient than the surge of the creed, ‘Hinduism’. And as a matter of fact the word ‘Hinduism’ have been coined far more later (i.e. round about after 2000 years) for the creed of the ‘caste-rule’ (i.e. Vern Ashram) by the western orientalists - and thus the word ‘Hindu’ had not been derived from Hinduism, for that could have not been done. The word Hindu is admittedly a corruption of ‘Sindhu’ - a native of ‘Sindh - Valley’ (i.e. Indus - Valley).
From: Islami Jumhoria Hind by Aftab Alam Khan http://www.storyofpakistan.com/contribute.asp?artid=C068&Pg=2 [/tscii:1fd41af69e]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:e9f245d613]Discrepancies in citation of verses

To Devapriya:

Some of the verses on “ahimsa” you quoted from Vedas and Upanishads do not match, either in translation of the contents or in reference number:

(a) Problem in Atharva Veda:

You cited the verse no 10.191.4. Atharva Veda has 20 Books or Kandas. I have Devi Chand’s translation of Atharva Veda. Division or Book 10 has only 10 hymns. Where did this 191 come from?

I think the verse number you gave is wrong.

(b) Problem in verses from Yajur Veda:

You cited this one:
You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32. FS, 90

But the translation by Devi Chand of the same verse (12:32) goes like this:
“O King, the preacher of knowledge, just as the sun, resplendent with its auspicious flames of fire, and shining with mighty beams of light, works in the universe, so attain to happiness, and destroy not the bodies of the subjects deserving protection.”

I think the number you gave is wrong.

(c) Problem in citation from Prasna Upanishad:

“Nonviolence is all the offerings. Renunciation is the priestly honorarium. The final purification is death. Thus all the Divinities are established in this body" Yajur Veda, Prana Upanishad 46-8. VE, 413-14

There is no section 46 in Prasna Upanishad. This Upanishad is based on the six questions or prasnas and therefore has 6 sections. It is a small work and I didn’t see any verse speaking about non-violence. Please mention the correct reference.

Here also, I believe, you have gone wrong in the numbering.

Please produce the correct verse numbers. [/tscii:e9f245d613]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:8f52dc57bc]Is Caste system Non-Vedic?

Mr. Devichand proclaims:

“. . . . . the Caste system is put as Vedic -the Truth is the Opposite- . . . . . But Tons and Tons of Articles are there against this Truth, and still being advertised with Foreign funds. The Truth is the opposite.”

Let us now see first if Caste or Varna system is Vedic or not. Pratima Bowes (1976) on page 7 of his book “The Hindu Religious Tradition” (Allied Publishers) writes: “In the earlier literature the Vedas and Upanishads, the system does not appear to have been finally fixed, the varna idea, as distinct from caste, still retaining some applicability”. Let us see the following Vedic verses which I managed to trace from the net:

The first indication of the caste system is outlined in the hymn to Purusha in Rig Veda, the embodied human spirit who is one-fourth creature and three-fourths eternal life in heaven.

The Brahman was his mouth,
of both his arms was the Rajanya made.
His thighs became the Vaisya,
from his feet the Sudra was produced. (Rig Veda 10.90.12)

According to the Atharva Veda (5:17:8-9), a Brahman could take a wife from the husband of any other caste simply by seizing her hand. Here are those two verses, translated by Devi Chand:

Even if ten former guardians, none of whom is a Brahmin, espouse the cause of Vedic knowledge, they are no match for a Brahman, who takes into his hand the task of propagating her. He alone is her true guardian. (1087)

Not Vaisya, not Rajanya, nor the Brahman alone is needed her guardian. God, in His dispensation proclaim this to the five races * of mankind. (1088)

Translator Devi Chand’s footnotes for the verse 5.17.9 reads like this.
* "Five races: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Shudra, Nishada".

Now, tell me Mr. Devapriya. You cited a Tamil translation of Maxmuller’s write up. “வேத்த்தில் ஒரு சுவடுகூடக் கிடையாது”. Are these references I cited from Rig and Atharva Veda not from Vedas? However, I agree that the system was not well developed during the Vedic times. But it existed, that is for sure.

You are also giving the impression that Manu Smriti alone talks about castiesm (glad to know that you agree with this at least). I did mention in one of my earlier postings (posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006, subject: Couplets against Vedic practice) the following:

With respect to the varņā concept, the Gita is also no different from Manu Smriti for it also sanctions the division amongst men. Says Lord Krishna that the four divisions of human society were created by him (Gita 14:13).

You have not said anything on this. Whether Vedic or not, caste system would have been prevalent during Valluvar’s time. We all agree that Buddha came before Valluvar. Buddha’s Dhammapada contains a full chapter 26 “Brahmin” where he says:

393. One is not a brahmin by virtue of matted hair, lineage or caste. When a man possesses both Truth and truthfulness, then he is pure, then he is a brahmin.

396. I do not call him a brahmin who is so by natural birth from his mother. He is just a supercilious person if he still has possessions of his own. He who owns nothing of his own, and is without attachment - that is what I call a brahmin.

Whether Vedic, or post-Vedic, all these goes on to show that the varna system (sometimes confused with caste system) existed during the time Buddha and Valluvar. When Valluvar says ……

பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும் சிறப்பொக்கும்
செய்தொழில் வேற்றுமை யான். (972)

……. it obviously refers to the fact that all equal at birth. You yourself said in your last posting that Valluvar himself accepted caste by indirect references:

“More than that From Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam we have about Tamil Society- Tamil Society is filled with Vedas, (Though Valluvar has accepted Caste by indirect references, but he has not touched in depth.) along with its good culture”

By trying to emphasize that Caste system was not Vedic, you have kept away form answering the relevant question. Whether Vedic or post Vedic is not the question here! You have unnecessarily wasted time writing about this. You should instead concentrate on the Kural 972 and say if this couplet is against the division of men according to birth. Just answer to the point, please (instead of trying to deny the Vedic origin of caste system about which we are not concerned here).[/tscii:8f52dc57bc]

[Sudhaama]

[tscii:519912a32a]Is Caste system Non-Vedic?

Mr. Devichand proclaims:

“. . . . . the Caste system is put as Vedic -the Truth is the Opposite- . . . . . But Tons and Tons of Articles are there against this Truth, and still being advertised with Foreign funds. The Truth is the opposite.”

Let us now see first if Caste or Varna system is Vedic or not. Pratima Bowes (1976) on page 7 of his book “The Hindu Religious Tradition” (Allied Publishers) writes: “In the earlier literature the Vedas and Upanishads, the system does not appear to have been finally fixed, the varna idea, as distinct from caste, still retaining some applicability”. Let us see the following Vedic verses which I managed to trace from the net:

The first indication of the caste system is outlined in the hymn to Purusha in Rig Veda, the embodied human spirit who is one-fourth creature and three-fourths eternal life in heaven.

The Brahman was his mouth,
of both his arms was the Rajanya made.
His thighs became the Vaisya,
from his feet the Sudra was produced. (Rig Veda 10.90.12)

According to the Atharva Veda (5:17:8-9), a Brahman could take a wife from the husband of any other caste simply by seizing her hand. Here are those two verses, translated by Devi Chand:

Even if ten former guardians, none of whom is a Brahmin, espouse the cause of Vedic knowledge, they are no match for a Brahman, who takes into his hand the task of propagating her. He alone is her true guardian. (1087)

Not Vaisya, not Rajanya, nor the Brahman alone is needed her guardian. God, in His dispensation proclaim this to the five races * of mankind. (1088)

Translator Devi Chand’s footnotes for the verse 5.17.9 reads like this.
* "Five races: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaisya, Shudra, Nishada".

Now, tell me Mr. Devapriya. You cited a Tamil translation of Maxmuller’s write up. “வேத்த்தில் ஒரு சுவடுகூடக் கிடையாது”. Are these references I cited from Rig and Atharva Veda not from Vedas? However, I agree that the system was not well developed during the Vedic times. But it existed, that is for sure.

You are also giving the impression that Manu Smriti alone talks about castiesm (glad to know that you agree with this at least). I did mention in one of my earlier postings (posted: Sat Jun 24, 2006, subject: Couplets against Vedic practice) the following:

With respect to the varņā concept, the Gita is also no different from Manu Smriti for it also sanctions the division amongst men. Says Lord Krishna that the four divisions of human society were created by him (Gita 14:13).

You have not said anything on this. Whether Vedic or not, caste system would have been prevalent during Valluvar’s time. We all agree that Buddha came before Valluvar. Buddha’s Dhammapada contains a full chapter 26 “Brahmin” where he says:

393. One is not a brahmin by virtue of matted hair, lineage or caste. When a man possesses both Truth and truthfulness, then he is pure, then he is a brahmin.

396. I do not call him a brahmin who is so by natural birth from his mother. He is just a supercilious person if he still has possessions of his own. He who owns nothing of his own, and is without attachment - that is what I call a brahmin.

Whether Vedic, or post-Vedic, all these goes on to show that the varna system (sometimes confused with caste system) existed during the time Buddha and Valluvar. When Valluvar says ……

பிறப்பொக்கும் எல்லா உயிர்க்கும் சிறப்பொக்கும்
செய்தொழில் வேற்றுமை யான். (972)

……. it obviously refers to the fact that all equal at birth. You yourself said in your last posting that Valluvar himself accepted caste by indirect references:

“More than that From Sangam Literature and Tholkappiyam we have about Tamil Society- Tamil Society is filled with Vedas, (Though Valluvar has accepted Caste by indirect references, but he has not touched in depth.) along with its good culture”

By trying to emphasize that Caste system was not Vedic, you have kept away form answering the relevant question. Whether Vedic or post Vedic is not the question here! You have unnecessarily wasted time writing about this. You should instead concentrate on the Kural 972 and say if this couplet is against the division of men according to birth. Just answer to the point, please (instead of trying to deny the Vedic origin of caste system about which we are not concerned here).[/tscii:519912a32a]

Caste-divisions was the King-made... Code of DOMINATION over the people..

..and has nothing to do with any of te holy Scriptures like Vedas and Geetha.

The name "Indian" is adopted and used for various Tribals of world countries... as Australian-Indians... Red-Indians...American-ancient-Indians... and so on...

...which has no relation to an Indian born in a country named India.

On this point of PERVERTED SENSE...taking a False-shelter under the alleged justification by Veda and Geetha...

...vide my postings under...RAMANUJACHARYA... analytically

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.phpp=637179#63719

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:efcd34ae06] Sudaamaa wrote:
Caste-divisions was the King-made... Code of DOMINATION over the people.. ..and has nothing to do with any of te holy Scriptures like Vedas and Geetha.

If so, then how come those references to division of men in Vedas and Gita I cited. Didn’t Lord Krishna himself state that the four divisions of human society were created by him (Gita 14:13)?

And the link you gave is not working.
http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.phpp=637179#63719[/tscii:efcd34ae06]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:8ebc51657a]
Three bombs from Devapriya: Now coming to Cilappathikaram!

Devapriya posted three bombs. The first one was that Hinduism is against animal sacrifice and to ‘support’ that he produced verses from various Hindu scriptures which all talked about “ahimsa” (non-injury) and not against animal sacrifice. I also cited a verse from Manu Smriti which does not call animal sacrifice as “himsa”.

The second bomb was that the Caste system is not Vedic. I have also replied to this in my last posting stating that it (varna system) actually began during the Vedic period though it became rigorous only subsequently.

In both the above cases (animal sacrifice and varna system), I wanted Devapriya only to comment on my observation on the two couplets Tirukkural namely 259 and 972 which are against such practices of oblations using animal sacrifice and differentiating people by birth. Instead Mr. Devapriya dwelt on non-Vedic origin of varna system (or casteism if I may call so) and tried to project verses on “ahimsa” in Hindu scriptures to support his observation (but in vain) that Hinduism is also against animals sacrifice.

Now coming the latest bomb in the series. Devpariya believes Cilappathikaram is a non-Jaina work. If it is not a Jaina work, why then scholars irrespective of their religious affiliation regard it as work by Jaina?

There are people who affiliate Tirukkural with Christianity and by citing what they have said, the Kural does not become a Christian work. Mr. Devapriya has also done the same.

Mr. Devapriya says Vedic Hindu ideas dominate Cilappathikaram as opposed to Jaina ideas. I my reply to Sivamaalaa to his question on the occurrence of "தெய்வம் தொழாஅள்", "தெய்வத்தால் கா தெனினும்" and "வானுறையும் தெய்வத்துள் வைக்கப்படும்" in Tirrukkural, I had mentioned that gods and goddesses very well fall into the scheme of Jaina beliefs and that a reference to a god or goddess of other faith cannot be taken as an indication to show Valluvar's inclination towards that faith, for the simple reason that the author seem to have had no hesitation in using the prevailing beliefs amongst the people of his time and use them often as similes to emphasize his message. I had also mentioned some of these words like செய்யவள் and முகடி are found in many established Jaina literary works as well. I cited the presence of செய்யவள் in Cilappadikāram (2.12.69) and முகடி is Cūdāmañi Nigañdu (Verse 145), both written by Jaina authors.

Mr. Devapriya’s reply to this is that Cilappathikaram is not a Jaina work. Wondering why he didn’t have anything to say about Cūdāmañi Nigañdu!

Devpariya wrote:
“Silapathikaram and even Manimekhalai gives such a wide information on Tamil Society during Sangam Period and high details on Vedas, Of course always Maimekhalai uses better words for Buddhism and Anti- Hinduism - which is absent in Silapathikaram. Silapathikaram, Author puts much in Praise of Samanam in One Character KavunthiAdigal. But majority supports Vedic Hinduism, which I shall put here or in other Appropriate thread.”

Of course I agree. But the author of the work Ilangoadigal was a Jain. I don’t know whether you agree with this or not, but scholars agree. Page 187 on Sahitya Akademi’s Anthology on Ancient Indian Literature says: “Tamil tradition ascribes the composition to the Jaina monk Ilanko Atigal”. Chakravarti on page 50 of his work “Jaina literature in Tamil” says: “Its author is the Cera Prince, who became a Jaina ascetic, by name Ilangovadigal”. Mu. Varadarajan in his work on the History of Tamil Literature says “He (Ilango Adigal) showed great eagerness in portraying the best of human virtues in life,. . . . despite being a Jaina by birth” on page 86 of the chapter on “The Twin Epics”.

Devapriya wrote:
"Where as Thani- Tamil Scholars went on to go by the Jainistic Probaganda- that Silapathikaram and Kural are Jainistic, with very flimsy few picked verses."

I have a simple question. Does Devapriya agree that Ilangovadigal was a Jaina? If so, then he has to agree to the fact that Jaina scholars have also produced non-sectarian works like Cilappathikaram (so also Tirukkural). Simply because it is unlike Manimekalai which was written with a religious motive and thus Buddhist propaganda predominates over literary features (Varadarajan, 1988). In spite of all this, Seshadri (2000) writes in the Chapter on Cilappathikaram, “Given its Jaina bias, it is throughout informed by the idea of nonviolence, as the nun Kavunti never fails to emphasize. The Mahabharata and Iliad, on the other hand, revel in violence”.

Thus, Cilappathikaram is written by a Jaina monk and that is why it is called a Jaina work.

Reference:

Seshadri, C.K. 2000. Executive Editors in the Volume III Tamil and Kannada. Cilappathikaram. In: Ancient Indian Literature: An Anthology. Sahitya Akademi. Page 187.

Varadarajan, Mu.Va. 1988. A History of Tamil Literature. Translated from Tamil by E. Sa. Visswanathan. Sahitya Akademi. Page 93.[/tscii:8ebc51657a]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:3423b669b8]Thirukkural and the Fundamentals Jaina ethics

Devapriya proclaims without any evidence:
“So now Valluvar was Opposed to Fundamentals of the roots of Jainism, and even does not support the minimum Compulsory ethical rituals of Jainism”

The fundamentals of Jainism are Non-injury (ahimsa) and truthfulness (satya). These form the first two vratā’s (vows) in Jainism. Interestingly, the Jaina definition of Truthfulness or Not speaking falsehood itself has ahimsā connotation. Says H.L. Jain (2002) in his book on Jaina Tradition: "It is interesting to note that even speaking truth which results in injury to others should be avoided". Wondering if Mr. Devapriya is aware of the fact that two of most important ethical teachings of Valluvar are Non-Lying and Not-Killing (பொய்யாமை, கொல்லாமை). It is an utter lie to say that Valluvar was opposed to the Fundamental roots of Jainism. On the contrary this is what scholars had to say about this:

"The ethics of Kuŗal are rather reflective of the Jaina moral code"
K.V. Zvelebil, 1975
"The book Kuŗal is an exposition of the fundamental principles of Jainism"
A. Chakravarti, 1953
"Valluvar’s work has as its basis the Dharma of Jainism”
V. Kalyanasundaranar

I have three questions to Mr. Devapriya:
* Does he know that Non-killing and Not-hurting (through deeds and words) are two of the most important ethical teachings of Valluvar?
* Is he aware of Valluvar’s definition of truthfulness? (வாய்மை எனப்படுவது யாதெனின். . . . .?)
* Is he aware that Valluvar places ahima above satya which is quite opposite to that of Arichandra? (ஒன்றாக நல்லது கொல்லாமை. . . . .)

If he is not aware of these things, then I would like upload in my next posting the most important reasons for considering the Kural as work based on Jaina ethics.

Mr. Devapriya says Valluvar did not support the minimum compulsory ethical rituals of Jainism. Wondering what he is talking about? What is this “ethical ritual”? Rituals are often different from ethics and I have not heard of anything called an “ethical ritual”! If he is referring to Jaina rituals like plucking hair, walking naked, not drinking honey etc? If so, I am afraid Tirukkural is not the work to look for such things. Let me reproduce here what I said before in this thread:

“I have been reiterating in this thread that the Kural is not a work on Jaina philosophy or sundry laws and therefore its affiliation to Jainism or any other faith cannot be established by looking for the presence or absence of philosophical or metaphysical statements of that particular faith. Any such attempts will prove futile considering the fact that the Kural is an ethical treatise. One has to look at the ethical teachings embedded in the Kural and look for their similarity with Brahmana, Buddhist or Jaina ethics”

But Mr. Devapriya refuses to understand. I wonder how many more time will I have to emphasize this point to him. Valluvar had only this to say about rituals:

Kural 18.
சிறப்பொடு பூசனை செல்லாது வானம்
வறக்குமேல் வானோர்க்கும் ஈண்டு.
If the heavens dry up, the very gods will lack
Festival and worship. PS

The word “பூசனை” obviously refers to the rituals, but Valluvar hardly mentioned, denied or supported any ritual by name. The only ritual he was against was the practice of animal sacrifice. I repeat that particular couplet again:

Kuŗal 259:
அவி சொரிந்து ஆயிரம் வேட்டலின் ஒன்றன்
உயிர்செகுத்து உண்ணாமை நன்று.
Better than a thousand burnt offerings
Is one life un-killed, un-eaten. PS

Well, Buddhists and Jains definitely do not indulge in this practice. In spite of such an open condemnation against this practice which was followed only in Hinduism, Mr. Devapriya refuses to accept. But instead proclaims without any basis "Valluvar was Opposed to Fundamentals of the roots of Jainism". As I said before in one of my posts, Valluvar does not refer to any faith by name! That being the case, wondering how Devapriya can conclude that the Kural is against the fundamentals of Jainism!

Devapriya continues. . . . .
“And basic ethics remain same for all Religions. And no particular ethic can be said as special to Jainism at all unless you Discredit all the available information on Vedas and Upanishads, against all Scientific Evidences as Saraswathi River and other Proofs, I shall give links in my next Thread”

Yes, there are some basic ethics that remain the same for all the three Indic religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism). I had mentioned about Five virtues (dakshinās) in Brahminism, five moral percepts (pañca-sila) in Buddhism and five minor vows (anuvratās) of a householder in Jainism. In such cases, how do we go about to find out the religious inclination of the author of Kural? Only by looking at the work holistically.

Reference:

Jain, H.R. 2002. Jaina Tradition in Indian thought. Editor: D.C. Jain. Sharada Publishing House, Delhi. pp 273-289[/tscii:3423b669b8]

[Sudhaama]

[tscii:63c4839f6e] Sudaamaa wrote:
Caste-divisions was the King-made... Code of DOMINATION over the people.. ..and has nothing to do with any of te holy Scriptures like Vedas and Geetha.

If so, then how come those references to division of men in Vedas and Gita I cited. Didn’t Lord Krishna himself state that the four divisions of human society were created by him (Gita 14:13)?

And the link you gave is not working.
http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.phpp=637179#63719[/tscii:63c4839f6e]

All such PERVERTED NOTIONS were raised to Ramanujacharya by the Vedic-pundits...

... who claimed that the Communal discrimination...by birth and PARENTAGE is authenticated by the so called Hindu Holy Scriptures...

...quoting from Geetha, Vedas and Vishnu-Sahasranama.

Refuting analytically Ramanuja thwarted out all such MISCONCEPTIONS ...

... defending on its TRUE SENSE of such Gospels propogating to Global Mankind ...

... the Large- hearted Philosophical sense of Universal Human- Equanimity ...

...far Contrary to the "Man-made" PAROCHIAL OUTLOOK of Social-Discrimination by Parentage... ETERNALLY.!!

...by means of TWISTING the Healthy Terminologies of such Holy Scriptures... conveying HIGH CONCEPT .

My recent postings in detail, REPUDIATING your False-claim, can be found under the Thread :--

... RAMANUJACHARYA...even more than what you have asked for.

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=4854&postdays=0
&postorder=asc&start=45

..under the HEADINGS :---

Page: 4 - Ramanuja Acharya preached SOCIAL EQUANIMITY.
... - Discriminatory MANU- "DHARMA-SASTHRAM(?) ...Genuine ?
... - Vedas & Geetha stipulate COMMUNAL DIVISIONS ?
... - Geetha stipulates CASTE-DIVISIONS as God-made ?

Page: 5 - Geetha authorises SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION ?
... - Vedas authorise CASTE DIVISIONS of Society ?
... - High and Low Castes ...GOD-MADE SOCIAL-STRATA?
... - To Continue.

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:108323daf2] To Devapriya:

As a reply to your posting "TIRU KURAL IS NOT OF JAINISM" (Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2006), I had so far posted my replies under the following headings.

1. Brahminism and Mohammedanism
2. Animal Sacrifice in Brahminical Hinduism
3. Ahimsa dharma in Brahminism
4. Jainism and Buddhism
5. Origin of the word Hinduism
6. Discrepancies in citation of verses
7. Is Caste system Non-Vedic?
8. Three bombs from Devapriya: Now coming to Cilappathikaram!
9. Thirukkural and the Fundamentals of Jaina ethics

Except for the last topic, none of the other topics have any direct relevance to the topic of our discussion "Tirukkural". I have been forced to comment on them as you deviated considerably from the topic and wrote extensively about Aryan invasion, the design of missionaries Max Muller to spread hatred against Vedas, about Dubious Tamil scholars like Sastri and passing unfair judgments on Jaina beliefs. All these were only side attractions and had very little to do with our subject of discussion.

Now let me come to the subject proper. You wrote about the following attributes in Chapter 1.

(i) வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான் (Kural 4)
(ii) அறவாழி அந்தணன் (Kural 8)
(iii) மலர்மிசை ஏகினான் (Kural 3)

I will now look at your comments on these, one by one.

(i) வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான் (One without any likes and aversions)

You wrote:
"- Again No doubt Every Religious follower would call its founder or their Deity as 'வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்' means "The One beyond likes and dislikes- but Would Valluvar give it to a Sect’s (founder) who denies Moksha to One half of the Population. My Answer is know"

I mentioned in my posting on "(3) God, beyond likes and dislikes" (Posted: Tue May 30, 2006) that only humans are born into delusion and get overcome by the dualities of desire and hate. I cite a reference from Gita but you refuse to acknowledge. Here is the citation in full from Baghavad Gita, the quintessence of Hindu scriptures:

O scion of Bharata [Arjuna], O conqueror of the foe,
All living entities are born into delusion,
Overcome by the dualities of desire and hate. (Gita 7:27)

I also mentioned that Lord Krishna is telling about mortals like us who are born with likes (desire) and dislikes (hate). The phrase "வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்" thus has a strong ascetic flavour and would therefore be more relevant to one who has become a Veetaraga, the desireless self. A creator God is not born into delusion for him to be overcome by the dualities of love and hate. I did not say this, Mr. Devapriya. A Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita says this!

You didn't express any opinion on this observation of mine! And instead you have reemphasized the usual point that Valluvar wouldn't have called a Jaina deity who denies moksha to half the population (obviously referring to women) as the one without like and dislikes. Mr. Devapriya, your knowledge about Jainism is still rudimentary to say the least. Jaina deities do not have the power of bestowing or withdrawing moksha to anyone. They are nothing but freed souls that are divine in nature as they are perfect and omniscient (Kalghatgi, 1984). The deity in Jainism is, by its very nature, is absolutely devoid of love and hatred, attachment and aversion (Jain, 1993). This love and hatred has nothing to do with rewards or punishments. The worship of Tirthankaras (Arhats) is only to remind the Jains that they are to be kept as ideals in their journey to self-realization and to emulate the worship of such perfect beings (Kalghatgi, 1984).

References:

Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith, New Delhi. 234 pages

Kalghatgi, T.G. 1984. Jaina View of Life. Lalchand Hirachand Doshi, Jaina Samskrti Samraksaka Sangha, Sholapur. 233 pages [/tscii:108323daf2]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:196e0cf354](ii) அறவாழி அந்தணன்

I mentioned in posting "(5) Sea of Virtue and Wheel of Virtue" (Posted: Tue May 30, 2006) that the word "அழி" can mean both "circle" as well as "sea", and therefore the phrase aŗavāzhi (அறவாழி) can be taken to mean, either "sea of virtue" or "wheel of the virtue”. I also mentioned that if we take the phrase அறவாழி as "wheel of virtue", then it may either refer to the Jaina Arhat, or Buddha. Even to Lord Vishnu with some push.

You had nothing to comment on these observations of many scholars. Instead you have reiterated the same point that the word "அந்தணன்" occurred in Sangam literature to describe Hindu God, much before it was used to denote Jaina deities. And you produced the following verse from Paripādal to justify the same:

ஆதி அந்தணன் அறிந்து பரி கொளுவ,
வேத மா பூண் வையத் தேர் ஊர்ந்து,
நாகம் நாணா, மலை வில்லாக,
மூவகை ர் எயில் ஓர் அழல்-அம்பின் முளிய, - 25

மாதிரம் அழல, எய்து அமரர் வேள்விப்
பாகம் உண்ட பைங் கட் பார்ப்பான்
உமையொடு புணர்ந்து, காம வதுவையுள்,
அமையாப் புணர்ச்சி அமைய, நெற்றி
இமையா நாட்டத்து ஒரு வரம் கொண்டு - 30
(Paaaripādal, Chapter 5)

I had already mentioned in my last posting "(5) Sea of Virtue and Wheel of Virtue" (Posted on Tue May 30, 2006) that we have enough evidences in Tamil literature to show that deities of Jaina, Buddhist, Saiva and Vaishnava being called "அந்தணன்". Thanks for pointing out to the practice of calling both Siva or Brahma as "அந்தணன்". I will include this reference also in my article at the appropriate place. I had also mentioned in that posting about the numerous references to Shiva as "அந்தணன்" in Thirumurai.

Citing this verse from Paripādal, you said:
"The Calling of God as Brahmin – Anthanan was never done in Jain Tamil Literature for at least 500 years after Valluvar, where as it is existing in Hinduism even before Valluvar."

Obviously because much of the Jaina literatures came later during the post-Sangam period. N. Subramaniam (1966) says "During the period lighted by the Sangam literarure, we see as much of Jainism as of Buddhism but both are clearly subordinate to the indigenous practices of the Brahminical Vedic region". But to say that "அந்தணன்" in this particular couplet in Tirukkural refers to a Creator God simply because it was in vogue to describe a Hindu god much earlier does not argue well with me. Thirukkural is also post-Sangam anyway! Going by this argument of yours, we will have to say that all those references to a deity as "அந்தணன்" in all literatures (listed below) that came after Paripādal has to be taken as a reference to Brahma or Shiva simply because the word "அந்தணன்" in Paripādal meant Hindu deities!

1. Mañimékalai 6.7: "ஆதி முதல்வன் அறஆழி ஆள்வோன்"
2. Thiruvaimozhi: "அறவனை அழிப்படை அந்தணை"
3. Kayādara Nigañdu: "ஆதிபகவன் அசோகமர்ந்தோன் அறவாழி அண்ணல்"
4. Ceevacintāmañi (1611) "அறவாழியண்ணல் இவன் என்பார்"
5. Ceevacintāmañi (செய்யுள் 7) "அருளோடெழும் அறவாழியப்பா"
6. Annūl (செய்யுள் 27) "அறவாழி கொண்டே வென்ற அந்தணனே"
7. Thirumurai (1.107.1) "அந்தணனைத் தொழுவார் அவலம் அறுப்பாரே"
8. Thirumurai (2.110.7) "அறவனாகிய கூற்றினைச் சாடிய அந்தணன்"
9. Thirumurai (6.33.4) "இமையோர் போற்றும் அந்தணனை"

Mr. Devpriya, I am not referring to the usage of the word "அந்தணன்" alone but the combination of the words "அறவாழி and அந்தணன்"? As I said before "அறவாழி" (Sea of Virtue) is mentioned only in Mañimékalai, Ceevacintāmañi, Ceevacintāmañi and of course in Tirukkural and it refers to either Arhat or Buddha.

You made an interesting conclusion:
"No doubt that during Valluvar days –all Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism where there- AND Valluvar by calling Supreme God’s feet very clearly rejects the Agnostic Religions".

No where is there any evidence in the Kural to say that Valluvar rejects Agnostic religions. It is your wishful conclusion. Like you, I will not say that Valluvar rejects Theistic religions! Because there is no evidence in Tirukkural to conclude so. Thirukkural only refers to different beliefs and practices, and on most occasions Valluvar uses them only as similes to emphasize a different point. "அறவாழி அந்தணன் தாள்" means either "the feet of the lord, the ocean of virtue," or "the feet of the Lord of the wheel of virtue". If taken as "ocean of virtue" it can refer of any deity. If taken as "wheel of virtue" it is applicable to either Buddha or Arhat. As simple as that.

References:

Subramaniam, N. 1966. Sangam Polity. p. 367. Cited by A. Chakravarti in "Jaina literature in Tamil" on page ix (Bhāratiya Jnānapita Publication).[/tscii:196e0cf354]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:19cf6b17c3](iii) மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்

I have never posted anything on the third couplet in Chapter 1. I have been thinking of posting it at an appropriate time and the moment has come now. You cited the following poem from Paripadal and said "So Anthanan, MalarMisai are more in vogue for Hindus much prior toValluvar, where as Jainism used it much later." Here is that poem:

மண்மிசை---அவிழ்துழாய் மலர்தரு செல்வத்துப்
புள்மிசைக் கொடியோனும், புங்கவம் ஊர்வோனும்,
மலர்மிசை முதல்வனும், மற்று அவனிடைத் தோன்றி
உலகு இருள் அகற்றிய பதின்மரும், இருவரும்,
மருந்து உரை இருவரும், திருந்து நூல் எண்மரும் (Paripādal 8:1-5)

Once again let me ask you the same question, as in the case of "அறவாழி அந்தணன்", why you did not consider the both words "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்" (actually three words மலர், மிசை and ஏகினான்) together, but only bothered to cite a reference containing only one phrase "மலர்மிசை". Between "மலர்மிசை" and "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்", there is lot of difference Mr. Devapriya.

Nevertheless, your observation from Paripādal is indeed worth taking note of and I will duly consider it for inclusion in my article. It is a new information for me. The interpretation of "மலர்மிசை முதல்வனும்" is "தாமரை மலரின்மேல் (அமர்ந்த) பிரமனும்" (Subramanian et. al., 2004). What does "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்" mean? தாமரை மலரின்மேல் நடந்தவன். Who is the one who walked on flowers? Now let me reproduce here from the article which will soon appear here: http://free.hostdepartment.com/n/nvkashraf/valluvar/jaina.htm

// This couplet has been given two different renderings, one the Jaina way and the other Hindu way. We will soon realize that it can easily be given a Buddhist interpretation as well. Jaina claims include that the one who walked over the lotus flowers placed for him by the gods is none other than the Tirthankara or Arhat (arugan in Tamil). This Jain deity is depicted as standing on a lotus flower (Pope, 1886). The feet of arugan are always supported by this divine lotus and hence addressed as one who walked on lotus flower (Chakravarti, 1953) or his feet referred as "மலர்மிசை நடந்த மலரடி" (Zvelebil, 1975). We see Kavunthiyadigal praising Jaina god Arugan in Cilappathikāram:

மலர்மிசை நடந்தோன் மலர்அடி அல்லதென்
தலைமிசை உச்சி தான்அணிப் பொறாஅது
(1: புகார்க் காண்டம், 10: நாடுகாண் காதை, Lines 204-205)

The Jaina claim is further reinforced by similar references to the Jaina deity in Ceevakacintāmañi (பூந்தாமரை மேல் சென்ற திருவாரடி, 2814), Mérumandira Purāñam (கமல மீதுலவும் உனை, செய்யுள் 66), Cūlāmañi (தாமரைப் பூவின்மேல் சென்றான் புகழ் அடி, துறவு 71) and Neelakési (தண் தாமரை மலரின் மேல் நடந்தாய், 33).

The only other person two whom malarmisai ékinān could refer to is Lord Buddha. I am not aware of Buddha being called as "மலர்மிசை நடந்தோன்" or "பூமேல் நடந்தான்" in Tamil literature.

Parimélazhagar makes this interesting statement: "இதனைப் பூமேல் நடந்தான் என்பதோர் பெயர் பற்றிப் பிறிதோர் கடவுட்கு ஏற்றுவாரும் உளர்". (i.e. "There are also people who consider "One who walked on flower" as a reference to some other god"). Who is this other god "பிறிதோர் கடவுள்"? Parimelazhagar is obviously referring here to the Jains! Manakkudavar, generally accepted as a Jaina commentator, renders the phrase unambiguously as "He who walked on flowers". In chronology, Manakkudavar's commentary is considered to be the earliest (Sundaram, 1990).

Satguru Subramaniyaswami, Rajasingham and many others have rendered phrase (malarmisai ékinān) "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்" as "He who resides in the lotus hearts". This interpretation, surprisingly one of the common ones, is little far stretched considering the fact that there is no reference to the heart in this couplet. It is iniquitous on the part of those who translate "நிலம் மிசை" in the second line as "on the earth" to translate "மலர் மிசை" in the first as "in the heart". Such an interpretation seems nothing but a extrapolation based on the Hindu belief that heart is abode of God (e.g. Shiva) which is not implied any where in the Kuŗal. Here I quote Thirumandiram again which repeats this idea of "Shiva abiding in the heart" throughout the work:

அகம் படிகின்ற நம் ஐயனை ஒரும்
அகம் படிகண்டவர் அல்லலில் சேரார்
Muse on the Lord who resides in your heart;
They who see Him residing within, know sorrows none.
(Tirumandiram 1874)

Who lives in the heart according Valluvar? Being a moralist and concerned with conduct of man in this world, he had only this to say:

உள்ளத்தால் பொய்யாது ஒழுகின் உலகத்தார்
உள்ளத்துள் எல்லாம் உளன்.
He who lives truly in his own heart,
Truly lives in the hearts of all people. (294) SS

Is there any reference to Hindu deities being called as the One who walked on flowers? Venkatasamy in his book "திருக்குறள் மூலமும் கட்டுறைகளும்" (part of this work "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்" reproduced here by R. Banukumar) brings to the notice a reference to Lord Siva as the 'one with flower embedded feet' in Thévāram: "தாளிடைச் செங்கமலத் தடங்கோள் சேவடியார் போலும், நாளுடைக் காலன்விடி வுதைசெய்த நம்பர் போலும்". He wonders if it was due to Appar's prior experience of being a Jaina chief! If it was a practice in Saivism to refer Lord Siva with this attribute, it must have been also mentioned in other Saiva literatures.

எரியாய தாமரைமேல் இயங்க னாரும்
இடைமருது மேவிய ஈசனாரே. (Appar in Thirumurai 6.16.7)
பூமேல எழுந்தருளி இருந்தானை (Appar in Thirumurai, 6.84.1)

All these evidences only go on to show that the deity referred in this couplet suits perfectly the the Jaina Arhat. And to Lord Buddha as well in spite of the fact that there are not many references in Tamil literature like the one for Arhat. //

References:

Chakravarti, A. 1953. Kuŗal. Deccan Press, Vepery, Madras. 648 pages

Pope, G.U. 1886. The Sacred Kurral of Tiruvalluva Nayanar. Asian Educational Services, New Delhi. 328 pages

Subramanian, P., Palasubramanian, K.V. and Thatchinamurthy, A. 2004. பரிபாடல் [மூலமும் உரையும்). Chief Editors: Parimanam, A.M. and Balasubramian, K.V. New Century Book House (P) Ltd. Chennai. page 195.

Sundaram, P.S. 1990. Introduction. In: Tiruvalluvar: The Kuŗal. Penguin Books. pp 7-16

Zvelebil, K.V. 1975. Tamil Literature. E.J. Brill. p. 125-26
[/tscii:19cf6b17c3]

[manuel]

Can anyone tell me that in the entire of St.Thiruvalluvar's Thirukrazh has there been any mention of any particular GOD, i mean by any particular god's name ... i know there are description like "Kadavul" or "bagawan" in general.

What i am trying to understand is, probably during that period we might have been only a nature worshippers and our people were worshipping sun and other such natural entity and not any god in particular.

[devapriya]

[tscii:8211549234]Friends,

I see two different persons in NVK of his website, and another who is defending Kural as following Jainistic Ethics.

Jainism which is a Reformative movement of Vedic Hinduism which took from it the Developments of Upanishadaic periods. Sankyam Philosophy dated to 1000Bce is totally against Sacrifices. Mimasam is Agnostic. These are much more emphasised in Jainism.

Ahimsa is the Core if Jainism. It gives such an importance that it bans Farming and Carpentry to Jains. Jainism equally has acccepted Varna breaks. NVK says there are many Jain Farmers. I have my own Clients from Jains as Leather Tanners and Fishing Hatcheries. My statement is based on Ancient Jain Teachings. Jainism's Ahumsa has gone beyond Practical level, it says if you take away water from Lakes the water- the Water animals would be killed- Hence do not bath. Weaving again is considered harming many insects etc., sofor Jain monks - no dress etc.,

Jainism believes that a Soul to be born as Human is due to Sins, and Meditation, Being Vegeterian is must for all.

Valluvar has brought Vegetarianism and Against Killing in Thuraviayal and not for Family men, as per many Scholars.

Can we leave which ever is to suit our Speculations that Valluar said these just as Simili and not because he Agrees or Disagrees. Then 70% of Kural become Meaningless.

Valluvar names Vishnu, Lashmi in many Kurals, names Kama or Manmatha, refers Raghu and Kethu in Kurals.

Valluvar also refers to Temple worship in Two Kurals.

Valluvar also refers Vedas by name in few Kurals asper the Tradition of Sangam Lit.

Is Valluvar against Caste- NVK's claim shows he refers only one Kural, and in many Kurals Valluvar refers and agrees Varna System.

Even the Kural NVK refers the Translation should be :
The difference in men is by PROFESSION THEY do.

Varna System breaks men by Profession.

Is Valluvar against Vedic Yagnas and is the Interpretation of NVK right, Igive from myearlier posting in page 9 here again.

NOW SAYINg this word is Tamil, by trying to work out some root, in most cases the pattern which is used does not consider the Historic Linguistics- the usage of the relevant period Sangam Literature or others. And whether these roots follow Tholkappiyam rules of WordS.
In most cases - No ? why You go by assumptions and not by Actual HISTORICAL Truths.

Now on Kurals where valluvar referred Anthanar, and what does it mean- there is no use quoting various Authors- who tells what MAla wants. For the Benefit of all Viewers - I take from Madurai Kamarajar University’s Kural Peedam established by Mu.Varadarajanar, and Peedam selected Lecturer. Selvi.Kamatchi Sinivasan, who was born in a Saivite family in Srilanka, came to India, served various collages before Joining the Kural Peedam. She had converted to Christianity also. She was of highest repute for integrity, and Peedam asked her to bring Books

1. ÌÈû ÜÚõ ºÓ¾¡Âõ
2. ¾¢ÕÌÈÙõ ŢŢĢÂÓõ (Tirukural and Bible)
3. ÌÈû ÜÚõ ºÁÂõ ( Religion of Tirukural) and One more also.

The books were published by Peetam after the death of the Author, i.e., the views represented edited by A team of Experts who made final Edition.
The Author was selected for Her Strict Integrity, being a Christian Convert- as that was the time Deivanayagam was making with the political support of DMK rule and Pavanar links that Tiruvalluvar was Christian and Tirukural is a book based on Bible. The end result was that the Author Madam lost her beliefs on Christianity on researching Bible. Now let me come to the references of Anthanar in this.


«ó¾½÷ ±ý§À¡÷ «È§Å¡÷Áü ¦Èù×¢÷ ìÌõ
¦ºó¾ñ¨Á âñ¦¼¡Ø¸ Ä¡ý. 30

The author of the book analysises the Relligious situation in Tholkappiyam to and takes all references of every song in Sangam Literature, Tholkappiyam, Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai and confirms the research view.

I QUOTE:
«ó¾½÷ Ñ¡üÌõ «Èò¾¢üÌõ ¾¢Â¡ö
¿¢ýÈÐ ÁýÉÅý §¸¡ø. 543

«ó¾½÷ ±ýÛõ ¦º¡üÌ ±ù×¢÷Ìõ ¦ºó¾ñ¨Á âñ¦¼¡Ø̧š÷ ±É ÅûÙÅ÷ ÜȢɡá¢Ûõ þíÌ «î¦º¡ø À¢ÃÁ¡½¨Ãì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¾¡¸ì ¦¸¡ûŦ¾ ¦À¡ÕóÐõ. «ó¾½÷ áø ±ýÀÐõ §Å¾õ ӾĢ ºÁÂëø¸¨Ç§Â ±ÉÄ¡õ. þùÅ¡§È À¨Æ ¯¨Ã¡º¢Ã¢Â÷¸û «¨ÉÅÕõ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ñ¼É÷.
«Ú¦¾¡Æ¢§Ä¡÷ ±É º¢Ã¢Â÷ ÌÈ¢À¢ð¼Ðõ À¢ÃÁ¡½÷¸¨Ç§Â ¡¾¡ø §ÅñÎõ. µ¾ø, µÐÅ¢ò¾ø, §Åð¼ø, §ÅðÀ¢ò¾ø, ®¾ø ²üÈø ±ýÛõ Ú ¦¾¡Æ¢ø¸û «Å÷ìÌâ ±ýÀÐ ºí¸ ¸¡Äò¾¢ø Óý¦À ÅÌì¸ôÀð¼Ð. þùÅ¡Ú ¦¾¡Æ¢ø¸û À¾¢üÚÀò¾¢ÛûÙõ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀðÎûÇÉ.

µ¾ø §Åð¼ø «¨ÅÀ¢È÷î ¦ºö¾ø
®¾ø ²üÈø ±ýÚ ÚÒâóÐ ´ØÌõ
«Èõ Òâ «ó¾½÷ .. .. À¾¢üÚÀò¾Ð 24.
¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢ÂÕõ
“ «ÚŨ¸ôÀð¼ À¡÷ôÀÉô Àì¸Óõ ¦º¡ø-75
±Éô À¡÷ôÀÉâý «Ú¦¾¡Æ¢¨Äì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ð¼¡÷. §Å¾õ ӾĢ ºÁÂáø¸¨Çì ¸üÀÐ º¢ÈôÀ¡¸ «ó¾½÷ (À¢ÃÁ¡½÷) ¸¼¨Á ±É «ì¸¡ÄòÐ ¿¢ÄŢ ¸Õò¨¾ ÅûÙÅÕõ ²üÚì ¦¸¡ñ¼¡÷ §À¡Öõ.
µÐÅ¢ò¾Öõ «Å÷¸û ¦¾¡Æ¢ø ¨¸Â¢É¡ø «ó¾½÷ «øÄ¡¾ À¢È÷ìÌõ
(ÁýÉÅ÷ Ž¢¸÷ ÌÄò¾Åá?) §Å¾õ ӾĢ áø¸¨Çì ¸üÀ¢òòÅ÷ ±Éì ¸Õ¾Ä¡õ.

ÀÂý ÌýÚõ «Ú¦¾¡Æ¢§Ä¡÷ Ñ¡øÁÈôÀ÷
¸¡ÅÄý ¸¡Å¡ý ±É¢ý. 560

Áì¸û Å¡ú쨸¢ø §Å¾õ ӾĢ º¨ÁÂáü¸øÅ¢ìÌ þ¼õ ¯ñÎ, «¨Å Áì¸ðÌ ¿ý¨Á ÀÂôÀÉ ±ýÈ ¸ÕòÐ ²üÚì ¦¸¡ûÇô ÀΞɡ§Ä§Â «Åü¨È ¾Ã¢ôÀÐ ÁýÉÉ¢ý ¸¼¨Á¡¢üÚ.
¸¡ÅÄý ¸¡Å¡¦ÉÉ¢ý «Ú¦¾¡Æ¢§Ä¡÷ Ñ¡øÁÈôÀ÷ ±É ±îºÃ¢ì¸ô ÀÎÅÐõ ºÁ áø¸û ÁÈì¸ô Àξø ºÓ¾¡Âò¾¢üÌ §¸Î ±Éì ¸Õ¾ô ÀΞɡ§Ä§Â.

ÁÈôÀ¢Ûõ µòÐì ¦¸¡ÇÄ¡Ìõ À¡÷ôÀ¡ý
À¢Èô¦À¡Øì¸í ÌýÈì ¦¸Îõ. 134

þìÌÈû À¡÷ôÀ¡¨ÃÔõ «Å÷ µÐõ §Å¾ò¨¾Ô§Á ÌȢ츢Ȧ¾ýÀÐ ¦¾Ç¢×. “ÁÈôÀ¢Ûõ µòÐì ¦¸¡ÇÄ¡Ìõ” (134) ±ýÈ ¦¾¡¼Õõ À¡÷ôÀ¡ý µò¨¾(§Å¾õ µ¾ì¸üȨ¾) ÁÈò¾Ä¡¸¡Ð. ´Õ¸¡ø ÁÈôÀ¢Ûõ Å¢¨ÃÅ¢ø ¾¢ÕõÀ µ¾¢ì ¸üÚì ¦¸¡ûÇø §ÅñÎõ ±ýü ¸Õò¨¾ò ¾Õõ
Àì¸õ-194,195.

On Kural which was interpreted as Valluvar being against Vedas, the Peedam Author again confirms

«Å¢¦º¡Ã¢ó ¾¡Â¢Ãõ §Åð¼Ä¢ý ´ýÈý
¯Â¢÷¦ºÌò Ðñ½¡¨Á ¿ýÚ. 259
¾£ ãðÊ ¦ºöÂô ÀÎõ §ÅûÅ¢¨Âì â ÅÆ¢À¡Î ӨȨ§ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ô Àθ¢ýÈÐ. §¾Å÷¸ÙìÌ ¯½Å¡¸ò ¾£Â¢Ä¢¼ÀÎõ ¦À¡Õ¨Ç§Â ż¦Á¡Æ¢Â¢ø †Å¢Š ±ýÀ÷, «Ð§Å ¾Á¢Æ¢ø “«Å¢” ¡¢üÚ, .. «Å¢ô¦À¡Õû¸¨Ç ¦¿ÕôÀ¢ø ¦º¡Ã¢óР¢Ãõ §ÅûÅ¢ ¦ºöŨ¾ Å¢¼ ´ýÈ¢ý ¯Â¢÷ ¦ºÌòÐ «¾ý °¨É ¯ñ½¡¨Á ¿ýÚ ±É ÅûÙÅ÷ þíÌ ÜȢɡ÷. þ¾É¡ø §ÅûÅ¢ ¾£ÂÐ ±É ÅûÙÅ÷ ¸Õ¾¢É¡÷ ±Éø ÌÁ¡? §ÅûÅ¢¨ÂÔõ ¿øľ¡¸ì ¸Õ¾¢ò¾¡§É §ÅûÅ¢ ¦ºö¾¨Ä Å¢¼ì ¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á ¿ýÚ ±ýÈ¡÷. .. .. â §ÅûÅ¢ì¸Çò¾¢Ö§Á ¯Â¢÷즸¡¨ÄÔõ Å¢ÄíÌÀÄ¢Ôõ þø¨Ä. ÀÍ¡¸õ ±ÉôÀÎõ º¢Ä §ÅûÅ¢¸Ç¢ø ÁðΧÁ Å¢ÄíÌÀÄ¢ÂÇ¢ôÀ÷. ¦¿ö, À¡ø, ¾¡É¢Âí¸û ¾¡É¢Âí¸Ç¢É¡ø ¦ºöÂôÀð¼ ¯½×ô ¦À¡Õð¸û ¸¢ÂÅü¨È ¦¿ÕôÀ¢Ä¢ðÎõ §ÅûÅ¢¸û ¦ºöÅ÷ ( Author quotes this from " INDIA OF THE AGE OF THE BRAMANAS" book-iii, CHAP-2, The forms of Sacrifice- by Basu, Dr.Jogiraj.). ±É§Å ¯Â¢÷ì ¦¸¡¨Ä¢ýÈ¢ þùÅ¡Ú ¦ºöÂôÀÎõ §ÅûÅ¢¸û ÅûÙÅ÷ìÌ ¯¼ýÀ¡Î ±ý§È ¦¸¡ûÇÄ¡õ. Àì¸õ - 192,193.

FSG, Bismala, Idiyappam etc., has a peculiar problem, of denying the Indian Heritage, and the part played by every section of Indians.
Tiruvalluvar must be viewed by what Valluvar said, and Not by Misinterpretting Tirukural.
I intend to cover in History section of Indian Heritage- as to how Vedas are touched in Sangam Lit. and Tholkappiyam and also views of Pavanar etc., on this. I certainly do not believe Casteism is right or that any caste is superior, and though I Had this book for long, I did not want to put these, as Mala-FSG-iDIYappam-mahadevan etc., views in page no 6,7 as unwarranted blabbers need to be ignored, in spite of Anchaneya giving Verbatim of MuVa and others Vurais. As Mala started to quote again from Partial Author’s views, I have put this.
All references of Vetham, Naalvetham, Maarai etc, in Sangam Lit. only refers to Inidan Vedas, and I intend to give more on this in appropriate threads.
Leave Kural from these few Couplets if that is not to your liking. Ofcourse knowing these E.V.Ramasamy Naicker of Dravidian Movement said- “ ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âý âÂì ÜÄ¢. â ¾÷Áò¨¾§Â ¾Á¢ú þÄ츽Á¡¸î ¦ºöРŢð¼ Á¡¦ÀÕõ ЧḢ.
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅý «ì¸¡Äò¾¢üÌ ²üÈ Å¨¸Â¢ø â ¸ÕòÐìÌ ¾Ã× ¦¸¡ÎìÌõ «ÇÅ¢ø ÀÌò¾È¢¨Åô ôüÈ¢ ¸Å¨Äô À¼¡Áø ¿£¾£ ÜÚõ ӨȢø ¾ÉÐ Á¾ ¯½÷§Â¡Î ²§¾¡ ÜÈ¢î ¦ºýÈ¡÷. ôì¸õ 7 ¾Á¢Øõ ¾Á¢ÆÕõ.
Take views of Valluvar on Vegetarianism and God fearing and speaking truths, please,and more and more evidences can be added, but please stop with misinterpretations.

Jainusn took Ahimsa beyond practical levels,and Valluvar is Practical
and a Perfectly Vedic with reformatic of his day. More on this shortly.

Devapriya[/tscii:8211549234]

[Uppuma]

Dear Friends,
The following Link given by K.P.Aravindan gives about the various research papers on Kural.

here:

http://www.thirukkural2005.org/call_for_papers.htm

This Discuses also as Valluvar not being Jain/Buddhist/Vedic

Devapriya must Reply for Vedic postion

Uppuma

[NVK Ashraf]

Can anyone tell me that in the entire of St.Thiruvalluvar's Thirukrazh has there been any mention of any particular GOD, i mean by any particular god's name ... i know there are description like "Kadavul" or "bagawan" in general.

What i am trying to understand is, probably during that period we might have been only a nature worshippers and our people were worshipping sun and other such natural entity and not any god in particular.

Dear Manuel,

Though one may state that no deity has been mentioned by name, Jains could argue that "adi bhagawan" in couplet 1 is a reference to their first Tirthankara "Bhagawan Adinath" or Rishabha Deva. But the phrase "Adi Bhagawan" can also be translated as "Primordial God" as most "Theistic" translators interpret. But for this one reference, Valluvar seems to have deliberately avoided any deity by name. The word "ati alanthaan" is a clear reference to Lord Vishnu, but here also he has avoided Him by name!

If you are to consider the Kural as a work that appeared during the times of nature worship, then you should take the Kural as work of the Sangam period or even pre-Sangam period since there are references Shiva, Vishnu and Lord Murugan even in Sangam classics (Paripaadal in particular)! Since the Kural has chapters that talk about the Soul-Body-Birth relationship, doctrine of samsara or Rebirth, "Mei unarthal" or Realization of Truth, practices of penance, renunciation and the like, I would consider the Kural as a work that appeared during the time when Brahminical Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism were in vogue.

Note: I am travelling and will be back in my realm only by the 29th of this month. I may have access to net in between, but nothing is certain.

[manuel]

thanks ashraf ...though still not convinced i think i need to do some heavy reading on this.

[devapriya]

[tscii:ce6399e5b5]Dear Friends,

We have a Grave Problem, a Special School of Thinking is developed by the worst style of research methods followed by Missonaries and later Indian Missionary minded like Pavanar for conversion Purposes. Thani Tamil movement fell on to this trap, and a Proper Research is virtually absent. Any Opinion on Research based onSangam are attacked on Caste etc.,

Sangam Literature calls at more than 100 Places Vedic Practice by Brahmins, and not once any Animal Sacrifice is mentioned. However Sangam Lit also talks about Velan Veriyattu- something similar to Jewish Prophets where in Sacrifices were available.

Uppumaji, I Saw the Link and following articles are releavent to this thread.

http://www.thirukkural2005.org/researchpaper/Kasirajan.pdf
http://www.thirukkural2005.org/researchpaper/Kasturiraja.pdf
http://www.thirukkural2005.org/researchpaper/GOMATHIsooryamoorthi.pdf
http://www.thirukkural2005.org/researchpaper/Indrakumary.pdf
http://www.thirukkural2005.org/researchpaper/Veeramani.pdf

Veeramani- tells Kural is not Vedic - because of the misleading School of thoughts. He says Saivam did not exist in Valluvar days.
Thirumurugatrupadai is part of Saiva SiddanthA Lit.
Manimekhalai talks of Saiva Vathi & Vaishnava Vathi.. Valluvar names Anthanar Vetham many a times.

NVKji wrote :


தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
God, guests, kindred, ancestors and himself. * SS
(i) Adoration of deity (தெய்வம்), //The word "theyvam" here can easily be taken to mean a Creator God.
(ii) Veneration of gurus or ancestors (தென்புலத்தார்),
(iii) Study of scriptures (not mentioned in the couplet)
(iv) Practice of self discipline (தான்),
(v) Penance or austerities (not in this couplet)
(vi) Charity (விருந்தோக்கல்).// THE INTERPRETATION IS TOTALLY WRONG. THENPULATHAR MEANS YOUR OWN BLOOD RELATIVES-ANCESTORS.
Let us analyse Sangam Literature to Silapathirkaram, and for our reference.

Purananuru song 9 says-
‘×õ, É¢Âü À¡÷ôÀÉ Á¡ì¸Ùõ,
¦ÀñÊÕõ, À¢½¢Ô¨¼ £Õõ §À½¢ò
¦¾ýÒÄõ Å¡ú¿÷ìÌ «Õí¸¼ý ÚìÌõ
¦À¡ý§À¡ü Ò¾øÅ÷ô ¦ÀÈ¡« ¾£Õõ,
This song tells that while Going to war, Youngman who have not got their Male Children to perform Thenpula valnar kadan are exempted from Participating in WAR. A Son performs his Thenpula duty for his father and 2 further past Generations as per Tradition. So Young men without Son to carryout this duty if he dies are exempted.
After death for Marumai, these rituals are to be done and some Offerings as Gifts are given to this date and Puram 232 and 234 and Silapathikaram 15 talks of this.
SO SAYING THENPULATHAR- TO GURU WORSHIP IS CUTTING LEG TO SUIT SHOE.

Actually The HINDU 5 rituals called Panchayagnayams, are given in the right order by Valluvar in Kural- 43

தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.

ThenPulathar is already explained, this is Pithru Yagnayam, Theivam- Devayagnayam- worship of GOD Almighty, Third comes- Athithi Yagnayam.

Chapter.5. Å¢Õ󧾡õÀø 1.2.5. Hospitality
þ¨ÉòШ½ò ¦¾ýÀ¦¾¡ý È¢ø¨Ä Å¢Õó¾¢ý
Ш½òШ½ §ÅûÅ¢ô ÀÂý. 87

À¡¢ó§¾¡õÀ¢ô ÀüÈü§Èõ ±ýÀ÷ Å¢Õ󧾡õÀ¢
§ÅûÅ¢ ¾¨ÄôÀ¼¡ ¾¡÷. 88 and in this chapter Valluvar uses almost Velvi a word equivalent to Yagnayam.

Agains Listening and Reading of Good Literature - Satsangh is very important and this is recommended for all. And this is considered equivalent to Yagnayam WHERE in we try to please the Devas and KURAL 413
413. ¦ºÅ¢Ô½Å¢ü §¸ûÅ¢ Ô¨¼Â¡÷ «Å¢Ô½Å¢ý
ýÈ¡§Ã¡ ¦¼¡ôÀ÷ ¿¢ÄòÐ. HERE agains Valluvar uses this Vedic term.
«ó¾½÷ Õ쨸
´Õº¡÷-«Èò¦¾¡Î §Å¾õ Ò½÷ ¾Åõ ÓüÈ¢,
Å¢Èø Ò¸ú ¿¢üÀ, Å¢Çí¸¢Â §¸ûÅ¢ò
¾¢Èò¾¢ý ¾¢¡¢× øÄ¡ «ó¾½÷ ®ñÊ, .. .. 20 Paripadal- agains proves that §¸ûÅ¢ would more mean SATSANGAM.

The Names of God- in Chapter-1 KADAVUZ VAAZTHU -கடவுள் வாழ்த்து- The Tamil word
கடவுள் is really needs to be looked in depth. What does it come.
Who is He? Where is He?
He is above all. எல்லாவற்றையும் கடந்தவன். He is there every where எங்குமே உள்ளவன்.
.so Valluvar when gave the First Chapter- “கடவுள் வாழ்த்து”- refers to God Almighty, the Creator God.
With Respect to Chapter-1, ஆ¾¢ «ó¾½ý- for Brahma and «ÁÃ÷ §ÅûÅ¢ô À¡¸õ ¯ñ¼ ¨Àí ¸ð À¡÷ôÀ¡ý for Siva in Sangam Literature –Paripadal.
ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º Ó¾øÅÛõ, all of this are there, much earlier to Tirukural.
Vaalarivan could well suit Sat-chit-ananda
§Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡ÉÊ, ¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý- Every Religious Follower is going to say His Religious god by Similar Titles, and you have given proofs also.
-Valluvar could he have referred mortal men as Risahba. Most Scholars who are neutral do not Agree.
¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý ¾¡û§º÷ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø
ÁÉì¸Å¨Ä Á¡üÈø «¡¢Ð.
¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý ¾¡û§º÷ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø
ÁÉì¸Å¨Ä Á¡üÈø «¡¢Ð.
À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£óÐÅ÷ ¿£ó¾¡÷
þ¨ÈÅý «Ê§ºÃ¡ ¾¡÷. - in this Three Kurals Valluvar makes it Conditional clause- Only- «øÄ¡ø & ¿£ó¾¡÷- Valluvar has used many Smilies from Various Scriputures such as Gita, Mahabharatha, Manusmirithi, Dammapatha, etc., Now He can say if you follow Rishaba or Buddha You might attain Moksha, but being Indic order Valluvar to Use Only Clause- We can very clearly take it refers to God Alimighty -Superior Creator God, and certainly not Mortel Gurus or Dead Man.
Valluvar Wrote Kural when Jainistic Kalapira’s Sword was above him, and hence he used this Tricky method of SECULAR TITLES, but a Straight look with Unbiased look would prove that He follows Hinduism.

Jainism virtually does not recommend Family Life and it is virtually impossible to reach Birthless state with Family Life.
First Chapter of Valluvar in Kural’s
«ÈòÐôÀ¡ø - after À¡Â¢ÃÅ¢Âø is 1.2. þøÄÈÅ¢Âø DOMESTIC VIRTUE, and again here first chapter is 1.2.1. þøÅ¡ú쨸 1.2.1. Married Life
41. þøÅ¡úÅ¡ý ±ýÀ¡ý þÂøÒ¨¼Â ãÅ÷ìÌõ
¿øÄ¡üÈ¢ý ¿¢ýÈ Ð¨½.
The ideal householder is he
Who aids the natural orders there.
from NVK Site- The three orders possibly refer to these stages: Student, Elders and Renunciates- þÂøÒ¨¼Â ãÅ÷ìÌõ பிரம்மசாரி, வானப்பிரஸ்தம் & சன்னியாஸி
42. ÐÈó¾¡÷ìÌõ ÐùÅ¡ ¾Å÷ìÌõ þÈó¾¡÷ìÌõ
þøÅ¡úÅ¡ý ±ýÀ¡ý Ш½.
His help the monk and retired share,
And celibate students are his care.
46. «Èò¾¡üÈ¢ý þøÅ¡ú쨸 üÈ¢ý ÒÈò¾¡üÈ¢ý
§À¡´öô ¦ÀÚÅ ¦¾Åý.
Who turns from righteous family 46
To be a monk, what profits he?
47. þÂøÀ¢É¡ý þøÅ¡ú쨸 Å¡úÀÅý ±ýÀ¡ý
ÓÂøÅ¡Õû ±øÄ¡õ ¾¨Ä.
Of all who strive for bliss, the great 47
Is he who leads the married state.
48. üÈ¢ý ´Ø츢 «ÈÉ¢Ø측 þøÅ¡ú쨸
§¿¡üÀ¡¡¢ý §¿¡ý¨Á ¯¨¼òÐ.
Straight in virtue, right in living 48
Make men brighter than monks praying.
49. «Èý ±Éô À𼧾 þøÅ¡ú쨸 «·Ðõ
À¢ÈýÀÆ¢ôÀ ¾¢øġ¢ý ¿ýÚ.
Home-life and virtue, are the same; 49
Which spotless monkhood too can claim.
50. ¨ÅÂò¾¢ý Å¡úÅ¡íÌ Å¡úÀÅý Å¡ý¯¨ÈÔõ
¦¾öÅòÐû ¨Åì¸ô ÀÎõ.
He is a man of divine worth 50
Who lives in ideal home on earth.
Valluvar’s Ethics is that Family way of living is much better than Sanyasam, which is totally OPPOSITE to the Fundamental ROOT OF JAINSIM.

Valluvar next Chapter is 1.2.2 Å¡ú쨸ò Ш½¿Äõ 1.2.2 The Worth of a Wife

54. ¦Àñ½¢ý ¦ÀÕó¾ì¸ ¡×Ç ¸ü¦ÀýÛõ
¾¢ñ¨Á¯ñ ¼¡¸ô ¦ÀÈ¢ý.
What greater fortune is for men 54
Than a constant chaste woman?
58. ¦ÀüÈ¡ü ¦ÀÈ¢ý¦ÀÚÅ÷ ¦ÀñÊ÷ ¦ÀÕﺢÈôÒô
Òò§¾Ç¢÷ Å¡Øõ ¯ÄÌ.
The woman who gains her husband's love
Gains great glory in the heaven.
Women who win their husbands' heart 58
Shall flourish where the gods resort.
Now, we have already discussed Jainism Denies comnpletely Moksha to Women and they need to be Sanyasin to prey to be born as Man So that in next birth they can have chance of Moksha, Valluvar gives totally opposite etic and good family Lady with Chasticity is promised of Heaven.


How was Tamilnadu during Sangam Days- Paripadal says
âÅ¢Ûû À¢È󧾡ý ¿¡Å¢Ûû À¢Èó¾
¿¡ýÁ¨Èì §¸ûÅ¢ ¿Å¢ø ÌÃø ±ÎôÀ
²Áý Тø ±Æ¢¾ø «øĨ¾,
šƢ ÅﺢÔõ §¸¡Æ¢Ôõ §À¡Äì
§¸¡Æ¢Â¢ý ±Æ¡Ð, ±õ §À÷ °÷ Т§Ä. Paripadal Thirattu

You Chola capital Uraiyur (§¸¡Æ¢) Chera Capital Vanchi- Raise up from Sleep with the crawl of Cock- We in Pandiya Madurai Wake-up daily with Brahmins Vedic Chandting- which they received from Brahma.

NVKji says that Valluvar was against Castes by quoting Kural 972. This is a Wonderful Kural – But I look at You as A Scholar and I want you to apply equal yardstick to both you are looking. (For Record Jainism also has accomdated Varna System as its part). Can we Totally sat Valluvar has Outrightly rejected Caste and Varna Ashramas- I do not think so. I certainly agree he has given lot of reformative thoughts, but still the following confirms his acceptance to-
À¢Èô¦À¡Øì¸í ÌýÈì ¦¸Îõ. 134
1075. «îº§Á ¸£ú¸ÇÐ º¡Ãõ ±îºõ
«Å¡×ñ§¼ø ¯ñ¼¡õ º¢È¢Ð.
Fear forms the conduct of the low 1075
Craving avails a bit below.

681. «ýÒ¨¼¨Á ýÈ ÌÊôÀ¢Èò¾ø §Åó¾Å¡õ
ÀñÒ¨¼¨Á àШÃôÀ¡ý ÀñÒ.
Love, noble birth, good courtesy 681
Pleasing kings mark true embassy.
குடிபிறப்பு,
அறுதொழிலார்

41. þøÅ¡úÅ¡ý ±ýÀ¡ý þÂøÒ¨¼Â ãÅ÷ìÌõ
¿øÄ¡üÈ¢ý ¿¢ýÈ Ð¨½.
The ideal householder is he
Who aids the natural orders there.
from NVK Site- The three orders possibly refer to these stages: Student, Elders and Renunciates- þÂøÒ¨¼Â ãÅ÷ìÌõ பிரம்மசாரி, வானப்பிரஸ்தம் & சன்னியாஸி

NVKji accepts that Valluvar refers Creator God in Kural 43 and also his selection of Translation:
Couplet: 1062
If some must beg and live, let the Creator of the world
Himself roam and perish
- These are against Jainism.

NVK says in One of the Aricles:

Mr. Vidyarthi, Dr. Haq and Mr. Menon all belong to the same school of religious scholars who read their ideas into others' scriptures to extract what they want. It is unfortunate that Mr. Anderson has drawn his conclusions about Hindu scriptures from the works of such people. He should have verified the authenticity of these translations before making such comments on Hindu scriptures
Mr. Vidyarthi, Dr. Haq and Mr. Menon all belong to the same school of religious scholars who read their ideas into others' scriptures to extract what they want. It is unfortunate that Mr. Anderson has drawn his conclusions about Hindu scriptures from the works of such people. He should have verified the authenticity of these translations before making such comments on Hindu scriptures.- Same is true to NVK here.

Vegetarianism is not a concept of Jainism, it was taken over from Hinduism, but emphasised to all by Jainism, But Valluvar says it only in Thuraviyal.
Valluvar was totally Vedic but with Reformative type of the day like Vivekanand or Raja Ram MohanRai, or Bharathiyar.

Devapriya[/tscii:ce6399e5b5]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:42add3405c]Dear Mr. Sivamaalaa,

I am surprised how I missed this important posting of yours! You have raised an interesting point and I would be too happy to dwell into it. You wrote in your posting dated 27th June, 2006, Subject: Direct/Indirect influences:

"I do not know whether I should trouble you with this:

I have one question. Hinduism pre-existed Jainism, (though Jain history may dispute this. I won’t be surprised).

If the former is true, then it can be expected that some of the Hindu precepts, customs, deities, etc ., would have found their way into KuraL either directly or via Jainism. Just like if a Hindu were to write presently on Hinduism, some Christian or Islamic ideas may find their way into her work without the writer even knowing it. Are you able to say to what extent Jainism was unaffected/affected by Hinduism? You get this formula:

Hinduism > Jainism
Hinduism > KuRaL
Therefore: (it appears) Jainism > KuRaL.

Rather taxing for you to delve into this, when I am asking in the abstract without real examples. If too troublesome, you may just ignore this question. "

(i) Modern Jaina historians reiterate that Jainism pre-existed Vedic or Brahminical Hinduism and they cite references to naked ascetics and mention of some of the Jaina Tirtankakaras in Vedas and other Brahminical texts. However, some scholars like Jagdishchandra Jain (1992) consider that the mention of some Tirthankaras by name cannot be taken as an indication of the antiquity of Jainism. He writes: "It is certain that certain terms related to divine personages recognized by Jains occur in the early Vedic literatures, but there is nothing to prove so far that they signify the same meaning as known to Jain authors". But one thing is certain: that Jaina religious practices existed during the time of Buddha and thus Buddha himself practiced the extreme case of severe austerities before he opted for the middle path. Dhammapada itself has references to 'śramanas':

As for the man who is undisciplined and untruthful, his shaven head does not make him an ascetic.
Full of desire and greed, how can he be a Samana? (Dhammapada 264)

He who is purged of all evil, both great and small, can be called a Samana,
For he is purified of all evil. (Dhammapada 265)

(ii) It is true that Jain writers have adopted many of the Hindu beliefs and legends into their religion simply for the sake of religious propagation. Of course at the time of Valluvar, there may not have been a clear cut division of Jainism from Hinduism or vice versa, as we see today. As I mentioned in one of my earlier postings, what we called Hinduism is the name given to all sects, except Jainism and Buddhism, that stand together as an university of religion based on a 'common minimum program'. What we call Hinduism now, is a conglomeration of many religious sects. One may say that Jainism and Buddhism are outgrowths of Hinduism, but the fact remains (as emphasized by many scholars) that many of the Buddhist and Jaina ideas were absorbed into Hinduism. George Feurestein, for instance, writes that Hinduism had to accept many of the Buddhist ideas into its fold in order to eliminate Buddhism from its country of origin.

However, it is also true that many of the Indian religious beliefs (we now call them under the umbrella "Hinduism") were also adopted by Jains and Buddhists in order to promote their faiths. Jagdishchandra Jain (1992) mentions how Jaina writers adopted the Vishnu-Bali legend, wrote their own Ramayana and even adopted many of the Panchatantra tales for the furtherance of their religious course. Interestingly, the popular recensions of Panchatantra are the works of the Jainas (Jain, 1999). There had been a number of Jain editions of Panchatantra and in course of time many such works became so popular that the readers, including Jains, completely forgot their Jaina origin (Hertel, J.). There are many verses of Panchatantra and Hitopadesa that look very similar to that of Valluvar! The Panchatantra (Book III: Crows and Owls) "Even truth should be concealed if causing sorrow when revealed" echoes very much like Valluvar's definition on "truthfulness" in couplet 291 and 292! We can definitely seen an "ahimsa" overtone in Pachatantra.

Now coming to Vishnu-Bali legend. Jagdishchandra Jain (1992) writes: "The adoption of Vishnu-Bali legend is an example wherein God Vishnu is tranformed into an ascetic Vishnukumara by Jains. Jaina authors of Vishnu-Bali legend adress the month Vishnu by the purifying name Tivikkama or Trivikrama as stated in the Brahminic legend". Interestingly Valluvar also refers to this legend when he says "அடி அளந்தான்" in couplet 610.

When a new faith takes shape (here Jainism), it is quite natural that many of the traditional religious beliefs (in this case that of Brahminical or Vedic Hinduism) would naturally be adopted into it. But remember that we cannot say that Jains copied those from Hinduism! Neither can we say Islam is a copy of Jewish and Christian ideas! It is just like the split of a political party from the other: ADMK from DMK, and Trinamul Congress from Congress. There will of course be similarities between them, but differentiated by key issues on which they differ.

(iii) Now coming to your formula. You wrote.....

Hinduism > Jainism
Hinduism > KuRaL
Therefore: (it appears) Jainism > KuRaL.

When I interpret this formula of yours, I get the following implications:

Jainism came from Hinduism
The Kural is actually a product of a Hindu mind
But the Kural appears to be a product of Jainism because the latter evolved from Hinduism!

I presume this is what you meant. In replying to this suggestion of yours, I would like to quote what you said earlier: "Just like if a Hindu were to write presently on Hinduism, some Christian or Islamic ideas may find their way into her work without the writer even knowing it."

Very rightly so. But we can easily find out that such works are on Hinduism because of the dominance of Hindu ideas in them. Let us take the example of the Sikh religion. Its denouncement of idol worship, insistence on ONE Creator God, absence of rituals like poojas and its Gurudwara architecture are all indications of a strong Islamic influence. But still, doctrinally Sikhism is closer to Hinduism than Islam because its fulcrum is on the belief in karma and samsara. Sikhism is therefore fundamentally an Indian religio-philosphical tradition. Similarly Tirukkural is an ethical treatise that evolved in the Indian ethico-philosophical tradition with considerable Jaina overtone. Valluvar did not stop there, but he wrote an Invocation which some Tamil scholars found it difficult to digest! V.O.C. Chidambaram Pillai, in spite of being a believer in God, regarded the first chapter to be a later addition (Veeramani, 2002). We do not know what made VOC to say so but we can speculate that the very noticeable applicability of all attributes in the first chapter to Jaina deities would have made him to proclaim so!

References:

Jain, J. 1992. Studies in Early Jainism. Navrang, New Delhi.
Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith. p. 191

Hertel, J. On the literature of Svetambaras of Gujarat, p. 8. Cited by Jagdishchandra Jain in his section "Animal tales in Jaina narrative literature" p 111-117

Veeramani, K. 2002. திருவள்ளுவரின் 'கடவுள் வாழ்த்து?'. In: வள்ளுவம்: Valluvam. Editors: Palladam Manickam and E. Sundaramurthy. திருக்குறள் பண்பாட்டு ஆய்வு மையம், விருத்தாச்சலம். Tiruvalluvar Year 2033. Issue No. 19. Pp 16-27[/tscii:42add3405c]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:2cbe25e04d]
Devapriya sees two different NVKs!

Devapriya began one of his earlier postings with this note:
"I see two different persons in NVK of his website, and another who is defending Kural as following Jaina Ethics".

But Devapriya did not explain in detail what he meant by this. From the subsequent paragraphs and the following posting, I could figure out that he is perhaps referring to those translations of Kurals I have uploaded on my website, some of which are "Hindu" in character, and there are quite "contradictory" to my observation that the Kural follows Jaina ethics. I presume this is what he meant.

Actually, Mr. Devapriya is in confused. This confusion has come because he is not able to distinguish ethical values from beliefs and practices that Valluvar refers throughout his work. When Valluvar says "திங்களைப் பாம்பு கொண்டு அற்று" in couplet 1146, if I have to be true to the original, I have to opt for the correct translation which says "as if a serpent has swallowed the moon" and mention in the notes that this actually refers to lunar eclipse. When Valluvar says "அடி அளந்தான்" in couplet 610, I should chose a translation that provides the literal meaning "Lord had measured by his feet". This is obviously a reference to Lord Vishnu measuring the whole universe in three strides. By saying so, Tirukkural does not become a work of a Hindu or for that matter a work based on Brahminical or Vedic beliefs.

Take Cilappathikaram for instance. Most scholars agree that Ilango Adigal was a venerable ascetic prince who renounced the world, but his work contains a predominant quantum of non-Jaina ideas and beliefs. Before the resurgence of Hinduism through Azhwars and Nayanmars in Tamil Nadu during the 6th and 7th century AD, the Jaina works were largely secular in nature and their emphasize was on ethics. Parthasarathy (1993) who translated Cilappathikaram into English had this to say: "It is somewhat exceptional in the Indian literature for a renouncer (sanyasin) to have composed a secular classic such as the Cilappatikaram, which is totally unlike a religious one such as the Ramayana". My question is this. If a renouncer can write Cilappathikaram which is not religious, why not Jaina householder like Valluvar compose a work which is secular in outlook? Parthasarathy continues: "That the eponymous author of Cilappatikaram was perhaps a Jaina there is little doubt, for Jaina ideas crisscross the poem like a golden thread". Similarly I would say that Jaina ethics crisscross the Kural like a golden thread and this only goes on to show that the author of the Kural must have been either a Jain or someone who was inclined towards Jaina ethics.

Now coming back to Mr. Devapriya's confusion. He did not cite any couplet to illustrate by contradicting nature, but I presume he pointed out the the couplet on உலகியற்றியான் (Creator of the world) only in this context.

Writes Devapriya:
"NVKji accepts that Valluvar refers Creator God in Kural 43 and also his selection of Translation: Couplet: 1062. If some must beg and live, let the Creator of the world Himself roam and perish - These are against Jainism".

I wonder what here is against Jainism. Is cursing or praising a Creator God against Jainism? Here Valluvar curses God! I had touched upon this controversial issue in my posting on May 27, 2006 (Post subject: Creator of the world...) addressed to Sivamaalaa, but Mr. Devapriya seem to have not read it. Let me reproduce that again.

//
"In this posting I will reproduce here the part that deals controversy regarding the reference to "Creator of the World" (உலகியற்றியான்) in couplet 1062:

Valluvar did not hesitate to use these beliefs about God and gods as similes and superlatives while composing a couplet to give that extra punch to drive home his message. Two couplets would suffice to cite such instances in Kural:

Couplet: 1062
If some must beg and live, let the Creator of the world
Himself roam and perish! PS, SI

Popley (1931) and Gopalan (1979) maintained that no other couplet in the Kural can be more opposed to the Jaina idea than this couplet 1062 on Creator God. Their contention was that Valluvar believed in a Creator God and therefore he referred to Him as the Creator of the world. According to Chakravarti (1953), Valluvar here strongly condemns the religious attitude which tries to justify social evils as a result of divine will. Valluvar is actually cursing God here if He had to be held responsible for some men to beggars in this life! He wouldn't have done so, had he believed in a Creator God who is just and full of mercy and compassion. In Jainism, which has an extreme position of Law of Karma, grief and joy in this life has nothing to do with God but to the consequences of one's deeds in the past alone. Nāladiyār, a Jaina classic beyond doubt, declares:

Nāladiyār 107:
If people, with heart full of grief, beg from door to door and suffer endless misery,
It is the result of their deeds in a former birth.

Valluvar seems to have only reinforced this idea by saying that the Creator God may himself go begging if he has to be held responsible for some to live on begging. The same Valluvar has mentioned elsewhere in the Kural that propriety of conduct is great birth, while impropriety will sink into a mean birth (Kural 133). In couplet 330, he says a deprived life of diseased bodies comes from depriving the life of another (in the previous birth). So too begging, which is a result of one's deeds in the past and not a result of Creator God's will.
//

References:

i) Chakravarti, A. 1953. Tirukkural. Deccan Press, Vepery, Madras. 648 pages

ii) Gopalan, S. 1979. Tirukkural and Indian traditions. In: The Social Philosophy of Tirukkural. Affiliated East-West Press Pvt Ltd. pp 41-74

iii) Parthasarathy, R. 1993. Translator. The Cilappatikaram of Ilanko Atikal. Columbia University Press, NY. 425 pages

iv) Popley, H.A. 1931. The Sacred Kural or The Tamil Veda of Tiruvalluvar. YMCA Publishing House, Calcutta. pp 23-24 [/tscii:2cbe25e04d]

[NVK Ashraf]

Arrangement of chapters in Kural

Mr. Devapriya wrote:
"Vegetarianism is not a concept of Jainism, it was taken over from Hinduism, but emphasized to all by Jainism. But Valluvar sys it only in Thuraviyal. Valluvar was totally Vedic but with reformative type of the day like Vivekananda or Raja Ram Mohanraj or Bharathiyar."

Valluvar's objective was to produce a classic on mandatory ethics for householders, ascetics and rulers and help everyone to progress to "சான்றான்மை". While doing so, he freely cited the prevailing beliefs and religious practices of his time. Valluvar was NOT a reformer of Hinduism. Hinduism, in the form we see today, never existed during the time of Valluvar for us to consider him a reformer of that religion. During the times of Vivekananda, Raja Ram and Bharathiyar, yes! And that's why we call them reformers. If reforming Vedic Hinduism was his objective, Valluvar would have definitively mentioned it in his work. What Valluvar has left us is only a set couplets from which we have to extract the information to pinpoint his religious inclination.

Even if we are to agree that Jainism is a deviation from Hinduism, we cannot consider that vegetarianism was TAKEN from "Hinduism" because Hinduism as we identify now never existed during that time. In any religious tradition, there would have always been groups or sects emphasizing a particular point and you cannot conclude that they have TAKEN those ideas from that tradition when they manage to establish a faith of their own (like Jainism and Buddhism). Like the Sufi movement within Islam (surprisingly being tolerated by the majority in spite of it being radically different from orthodox Islam), Śramana practices were a movement within the Indian religio-philosophical tradition. You cannot call that Hinduism!. While writing about monastic practices in India, Buddhist scholar G.C. Pande (1995) wrote: "The immediate context of the emergence of Buddhism in India in the 5th century B.C. is the Śramana movement, in which independent ascetics freed themselves from Vedic authority, Brahminic ritualism and conservative social tradition, and established communities for the purpose of exploring new paths to spiritual liberation". This reminds us very much like the sects like the ascetic group of Essenes (apart from Sadduces and Pharisees) of Judea during the time of Jesus. The difference? While some of the Śramanas went on to establish the Jaina religion, the Essenes never found even a mention in the New Testament, in spite of Jesus being closely associated with them.

Now coming to Devapriya's mention about Vegetarianism in "Thuraviyal". Devapriya had mentioned this point even in his earlier posting: "Valluvar has brought Vegetarianism and Against Killing in Thuraviyal and not for Family men, as per many scholars". To answer this issue, let me reproduce the following two paragraphs from my article on Jaina ideas in Tirukkural:

//
Popley (1931) said Valluvar included two chapters (Not killing and Not eating meat) under the subdivision Ascetic Virtue and not under Domestic Virtue. His line of argument is that if Valluvar had been a Jain, he would have listed these two chapters under Domestic Virtue, instead of giving an impression that ahimsā and vegetarianism are something to be followed by monks alone. But a cursory look at the organization of different subjects and chapters in Kuŗal will reveal that many chapters of relevance to either groups (householder and monks) are listed under both subdivisions of Ascetic and Domestic Virtue, and sometimes even under the II Division "Wealth" which according to many scholars are meant for Rulers! For example, chapters on Self-restraint (13) and Forbearance (16) are equally ascetic virtues but why are they included under Domestic Virtue? Why is Compassion (chapter 58), which can also be regarded as an ascetic virtue, listed under the second division "Wealth"? And why is "Greatness of ascetics" (chapter 3) not under Ascetic virtue? Subramanian and Rajalakshmi (1984) who dwelled in some detail about the distribution and sequencing of some chapters in Kuŗal, ask why the chapter 92 on Prostitutes, 93 on Abstinence and 94 on Gambling were not deemed serious enough to merit inclusion in the first division Aŗattuppāl (Virtue)!

Saman Suttam, the well known anthology of Jaina principles and teachings, says a householder is one who is free from seven vices (sūtrā 302) such as (i) sex with other's wives, (ii) gambling, (iii) liquor, (iv) hunting, (v) harshness in speech, (vi) harshness in punishment and (vii) misappropriation of wealth. Valluvar has devoted a chapter each to deal with these subjects but all are not under the subdivision Domestic Virtue. Of the seven, only vices (i), (v) and (vii) are under 'Domestic Virtue' (chapters 15, 10, 18 respectively), while the rest are either under 'Ascetic Virtue' (iv) and in the second division on "Wealth" (ii, iii and vi). Therefore, it appears that the relevance of any couplet or subject matter to either householders or monks cannot be decided based on its placement in Kuŗal. Commenting on the distribution of chapters and couplets in the Kuŗal, Subramanian and Rajalakshmi (1984) concluded that the verses themselves are couched in such general language that it is difficult to say to whom especially they are meant.
//

References:

Pande, G.C. 1995. The Message of Gotama Buddha and Its Earliest Interpretations. In: Buddhist Spirituality. Editor: Yoshinori, Takeuchi. Buddhist Spirituality. p 3-33

Popley, H.A. 1931. The Sacred Kuŗal or the Tamil Veda of Tiruvalluvar. The Heritage of India Press, Calcutta.

Subramanian, N. and Rajalakshmi, R. 1984. The Concordance of Tirukkural (With Critical Introduction). Ennes Publications, Madurai. 250 pages

[NVK Ashraf]

Arrangement of chapters in Kural

Mr. Devapriya wrote:
"Vegetarianism is not a concept of Jainism, it was taken over from Hinduism, but emphasized to all by Jainism. But Valluvar sys it only in Thuraviyal. Valluvar was totally Vedic but with reformative type of the day like Vivekananda or Raja Ram Mohanraj or Bharathiyar."

Valluvar's objective was to produce a classic on mandatory ethics for householders, ascetics and rulers and help everyone to progress to "சான்றான்மை". While doing so, he freely cited the prevailing beliefs and religious practices of his time. Valluvar was NOT a reformer of Hinduism. Hinduism, in the form we see today, never existed during the time of Valluvar for us to consider him a reformer of that religion. During the times of Vivekananda, Raja Ram and Bharathiyar, yes! And that's why we call them reformers. If reforming Vedic Hinduism was his objective, Valluvar would have definitively mentioned it in his work. What Valluvar has left us is only a set couplets from which we have to extract the information to pinpoint his religious inclination.

Even if we are to agree that Jainism is a deviation from Hinduism, we cannot consider that vegetarianism was TAKEN from "Hinduism" because Hinduism as we identify now never existed during that time. In any religious tradition, there would have always been groups or sects emphasizing a particular point and you cannot conclude that they have TAKEN those ideas from that tradition when they manage to establish a faith of their own (like Jainism and Buddhism). Like the Sufi movement within Islam (surprisingly being tolerated by the majority in spite of it being radically different from orthodox Islam), Śramana practices were a movement within the Indian religio-philosophical tradition. You cannot call that Hinduism!. While writing about monastic practices in India, Buddhist scholar G.C. Pande (1995) wrote: "The immediate context of the emergence of Buddhism in India in the 5th century B.C. is the Śramana movement, in which independent ascetics freed themselves from Vedic authority, Brahminic ritualism and conservative social tradition, and established communities for the purpose of exploring new paths to spiritual liberation". This reminds us very much like the sects like the ascetic group of Essenes (apart from Sadduces and Pharisees) of Judea during the time of Jesus. The difference? While some of the Śramanas went on to establish the Jaina religion, the Essenes never found even a mention in the New Testament, in spite of Jesus being closely associated with them.

Now coming to Devapriya's mention about Vegetarianism in "Thuraviyal". Devapriya had mentioned this point even in his earlier posting: "Valluvar has brought Vegetarianism and Against Killing in Thuraviyal and not for Family men, as per many scholars". To answer this issue, let me reproduce the following two paragraphs from my article on Jaina ideas in Tirukkural:

//
Popley (1931) said Valluvar included two chapters (Not killing and Not eating meat) under the subdivision Ascetic Virtue and not under Domestic Virtue. His line of argument is that if Valluvar had been a Jain, he would have listed these two chapters under Domestic Virtue, instead of giving an impression that ahimsā and vegetarianism are something to be followed by monks alone. But a cursory look at the organization of different subjects and chapters in Kuŗal will reveal that many chapters of relevance to either groups (householder and monks) are listed under both subdivisions of Ascetic and Domestic Virtue, and sometimes even under the II Division "Wealth" which according to many scholars are meant for Rulers! For example, chapters on Self-restraint (13) and Forbearance (16) are equally ascetic virtues but why are they included under Domestic Virtue? Why is Compassion (chapter 58), which can also be regarded as an ascetic virtue, listed under the second division "Wealth"? And why is "Greatness of ascetics" (chapter 3) not under Ascetic virtue? Subramanian and Rajalakshmi (1984) who dwelled in some detail about the distribution and sequencing of some chapters in Kuŗal, ask why the chapter 92 on Prostitutes, 93 on Abstinence and 94 on Gambling were not deemed serious enough to merit inclusion in the first division Aŗattuppāl (Virtue)!

Saman Suttam, the well known anthology of Jaina principles and teachings, says a householder is one who is free from seven vices (sūtrā 302) such as (i) sex with other's wives, (ii) gambling, (iii) liquor, (iv) hunting, (v) harshness in speech, (vi) harshness in punishment and (vii) misappropriation of wealth. Valluvar has devoted a chapter each to deal with these subjects but all are not under the subdivision Domestic Virtue. Of the seven, only vices (i), (v) and (vii) are under 'Domestic Virtue' (chapters 15, 10, 18 respectively), while the rest are either under 'Ascetic Virtue' (iv) and in the second division on "Wealth" (ii, iii and vi). Therefore, it appears that the relevance of any couplet or subject matter to either householders or monks cannot be decided based on its placement in Kuŗal. Commenting on the distribution of chapters and couplets in the Kuŗal, Subramanian and Rajalakshmi (1984) concluded that the verses themselves are couched in such general language that it is difficult to say to whom especially they are meant.
//

References:

Pande, G.C. 1995. The Message of Gotama Buddha and Its Earliest Interpretations. In: Buddhist Spirituality. Editor: Yoshinori, Takeuchi. Buddhist Spirituality. p 3-33

Popley, H.A. 1931. The Sacred Kuŗal or the Tamil Veda of Tiruvalluvar. The Heritage of India Press, Calcutta.

Subramanian, N. and Rajalakshmi, R. 1984. The Concordance of Tirukkural (With Critical Introduction). Ennes Publications, Madurai. 250 pages

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:5d7c0bedb2]Five rituals: Cutting the leg to suit the shoe

I had mentioned in my posting on June 23, 2006 (subject: "Kural is not a book on Jainism") that social service is a prominent part of Jaina ethics, and therefore Jainism prescribes six daily duties for every householder (Jain, 1999), some of which are astonishingly similar to the couplet 43:

தென்புலத்தார் தெய்வம் விருந்தோக்கல் தானென்றாங்கு
ஐம்புலத்தாறு ஓம்பல் தலை.
A householder’s main duty is to serve these five:
God, guests, kindred, ancestors and himself. * SS

(i) Adoration of deity (தெய்வம்), (ii) Veneration of gurus or ancestors (தென்புலத்தார்), (iii) Study of scriptures (not mentioned in the couplet), (iv) Practice of self discipline (தான்), (v) Penance or austerities (not in this couplet),
(vi) Charity (விருந்தோக்கல்).

To this Mr. Devapriya said:
"Saying Thenpulathar to Guru Worship is cutting leg to suit shoe. Atually the HINDU five rituals called "Panchayagnayams" are given in the right order by Valluvar in Kural 43".

I entirely agree with his point that the word தென்புலத்தார் cannot be taken as an equivalent for Guru worship. I have been trying to find out equivalents for these five duties from Hindu, Jaina and Buddhist works, but have not managed to find suitable ones far. Devapriya identifies these a Pithru Yagnayam, Devayagnayam, Athithi Yagnayam, etc. (the last two has not been listed). It would be nice if Devapriya lists the remaining ones with actual citation from the Hindu scripture, so that I can include his observation also in my article.

I have been trying to identify the importance of ahimsa doctrine and its relevance and importance to other virtues in Hinduism by comparing the five 'commandments' mentioned in different scriptures. (see my posting dated 29th June 2006, Subject: Ahimsa dharma in Brahminism, Jainism and Buddhism). I had mentioned about Five virtues (dakshinās) in Hinduism, Five moral percepts (pañca-sila) in Buddhism and Five minor vows (anuvratās) in Jainism. Interestingly the five anuvratas (Five minor Vows) of Jains, namely ahimsa, satya, asteya, brahmacharya and aparigraha (namely Non-harming, truthfulness, non-stealing, chastity and greedlessness) were listed down as "Restraints" in the same order by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutra (II.30). We all know Patanjali was not a Jain and his work appeared during the third century A.D. It is indeed a surprise how these vratas got into Yoga Sutra as "restraints". But then Patanjali's Ishvara is not a creator but a person whose sins are destroyed (Pungaliya, 1997). Writes George Feuerstein, the famous exponent Yoga, in his commentary on Yoga Sutra: "It is perfectly clear from the Yoga-Sutra that eh Ishvara is neither the kind of Absolute envisaged by the Vedanta thinkers, nor the anthropomorphic deity of Christianity or Judaism. Nor is 'the lord' a type of enlightened super-being such as the buddhas or transcendental bodhisattvas of Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhisms respectively". Patanjali's concept of Ishvara is very near to Jaina Darshana says Yogi Swatmarama Yogi in his commentary on Hatha Yoga Pradipika (Pungaliya, 1997). Yoga Sutra I.24 says "Ishwara is a special self [because he is] untouched by the causes of affliction, action [and its] fruition [and by] the deposit [in the depth-memory". Commenting on this sutra, Feuerstein (1979) says: "Ishwara's uniqueness likes in the fact that he has never been, nor will ever be, touched by the mechanisms of Nature. He has at no time been subjected to the cause-of affliction". Does it sounds like Valluvar's வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான் because he is பொறி வாயில் ஐந்து அவித்தான்! No doubt Patanjali, as Feuerstein (1979) says, has been frequently criticized for his diluted concept of Ishvara!

References:

Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith, New Delhi. 234

Pungaliya, G.K. 1997. Yoga philosophy of Jhaneshvara and Patanjali. Article available at http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/yoga_philosophy_of_jnaneshvara.htm) [/tscii:5d7c0bedb2]

[NVK Ashraf]

Praise of God: கடவுள் வாழ்த்து

Mr. Devapriya has all of a sudden decided that the first chapter in Tirukkural refers only to a Creator God because it is nothing but கடவுள் வாழ்த்து. Devapriya wrote:
"The Name of God in Chapter 1 KADAVUZ VAAZTHU கடவுள் வாழ்த்து The Tamil world கடவுள் is really needs to be looked in depth. What does it come. Who is He? Where is He? He is above all. எல்லாவற்றையும் கடந்தவன். He is there everywhere எங்குமே உள்ளவன். So Valluvar when gave the first chapter "கடவுள் வாழ்த்து" refers to God Almighty, the Creator God"

I do not think Mr. Devapriya is reading my earlier postings properly. I have already touched upon this subject. Let me reproduce it again, afresh.

Mr. Devapriya seem to indicate that any Tamil work that begins with a "Kadavul Vaazhthu" should be a non-Jaina work since the very word "கடவுள்" is a reference to a Being who is everywhere. I had mentioned in one of my previous postings that etymologically the word 'கடவுள்' is a perfect one to denote a Reality which is both Transcendent (கட) and Immanent (உள்). There are many literary texts in Tamil that underline this twin attributes of God, be it Shiva or Vishnu.

Is not "kadavuļ" a word to be used in non-Jaina works alone? I think this is Devapriya's question. The answer is "NO" because "Kadavul Vaaltthu" is found in many established Jaina works as well. Wonder how Devapriya will explain the beginning of Nalatiyar with a "கடவுள் வாழ்த்து"! Iļango Adigal, the Jaina author of Cilappathikāram, has frequently used the words "கடவுள்" (1.5.178, 2.11.5, 3.24.13), "தெய்வம்" (1.2.47, 1.3.1, 3.24.1) and "இறைவன்" (2.20.37, 2.22,144) in his work. So also Valluvar. Therefore to conclude that Valluvar has referred to Creator God in Chapter 1, simply based on the mere occurrence of a title "கடவுள் வாழ்த்து" is incorrect.

In spite of my elaborate and clear cut explanations to point out that all the attributes of divinity in Chapter 1 (like ஆதி பகவன், மலர்மிசை ஏகினான், வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான், தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான் etc.) are relevant to describe a Jaina deity, Mr. Devapriya is not ready accept.

* I had asked why Valluvar decided to use the phrase "ஆதி பகவன்", words of Sanskrit origin (வடமொழி), in his very first couplet itself. Mr. Devapriya has not answered.

* Citing Gita (2.27), I had pointed out that "வேண்டுதல் வேண்டாமை இலான்" (One without any desire or aversion) is more applicable to describe mortals who have raised to the stature of a being without likes and dislikes. Citing this important verse from Gita, I had stated that a Creator God cannot be born into delusion for him to be called as a being without desires and aversion. Mr. Devapriya has not answered.

* I had also cited references from Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Sikh and Jaina scriptures to show that the attribute தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான் (the one beyond compare) could perfectly suit any deity, be it of Brahmana, Śramana or Semitic origin. Mr. Devapriya is ready to accept this attribute as a reference to Creator God but not for a Jaina deity. I wonder why this partiality.

* I had also described in detail why most translators translate "மலர் மிசை ஏகினான்" as "He who resides in the lotus hearts" instead of opting for the literal meaning which is "He one who walked on flowers". Mr. Devapriya has nothing to comment on this.

Devapriya has not replied to any of these my observations specifically. அப்படிச்செய்வதை விட்டுவிட்டு, அரைத்த மாவையே மீண்டும் மீண்டும் அரைத்துக்கொண்டிருக்கிறார் திரு தேவப்ரியா அவர்கள்.

* Now, I will touch upon couplet six which talks about "பொறி வாயில் ஐந்து அவித்தான்" in my next posting. This has not been discussed so far in this thread. Devapriya said: "Valluvar when gave the first chapter "கடவுள் வாழ்த்து" refers to God Almighty, the Creator God". I would like to know how "பொறி வாயில் ஐந்து அவித்தான்" could refer to a Creator God! Wonder why Mr. Devapriya has not even mentioned about this couplet so far! Does he himself believe that it is a difficult verse for Theistic interpreters to defend?

While I do not have any problem in attributing some of these qualities or names (like தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான், இறைவன், வாலறிவன், எண் குணத்தான் and even ஆதி பகவன்) to Creator God, Mr. Devapriya for strange reasons refuses to accept that these attributes could perfectly fit in for describing a Jaina deity (Arhat or Siddha) also.

Strangely, Mr. Devapriya comes out an interesting reasoning as to why Valluvar wrote his Kural in SECULAR tone! He wrote:
"Valluvar wrote Kural when Jainistic Kalapira's Sword was above him, and hence he used this Tricky method of SECULAR ................. but a Straight look with unbiased look would prove that he follows Hinduism".

Here Mr. Devapriya declares that Valluvar wrote his couplets under the THREAT of some Jaina terrorists! This is news to me!

Wonder if Mr. Devapriya knows the meaning of biased and unbiased observations. He refuses to accept the fact that the attributes of the Deity mentioned by Valluvar in Chapter 1 could well be relevant for Jaina deity also. He refuses to acknowledge anything to do with Jainism and Kural. With all these lacunae in hand, he is the one talking about neutrality and unbiased mind!

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:8e3132f694]To Mr. Devapriya:

Who controls the five senses?

பொறிவாயில் ஐந்தவித்தான் பொய்தீர் ஒழுக்க
நெறிநின்றார் நீடு வாழ்வார். (6)
Long life is theirs who tread the path of Him
Who conquered the five senses. PS

Generally translators refer to God as the one who controlled his senses. The question why should a creator God be praised for controlling his senses? P.S. Sundaram (1990) writes: "It may seem strange to refer to God as one who conquered the five senses as if this was for Him a matter of effort." S.M. Diaz (2000), another translator, also mentions that there is a controversy on the real meaning of "aindavithān" for it would be wrong to describe God as the one who has scotched the five senses as He is above all this. In Bhagvad Gita, Lord Krishna says:

One who restrains his senses and fixes his consciousness upon Me,
Is known as a man of steady intelligence. (Gita 2:61).

Satguru Subramaniyaswami (2000) translates the phrase poŗivāyil aindhavithān (பொறிவாயில் ஐந்தவித்தான்) as "Him who controls the five senses" but as we saw the slôka from Gita, only humans are required to control their senses. Rajasingham (1987) while commenting on his translation clearly mentions the difficulty in translating the couplet. In his attempt to make it conform to the nature of Lord Shiva, he ended up producing a translation that is no way close to the original: "The deathless state to reach, liberation it is from falsehood; When path ahead is found, senses verily are restrained". Other translators like K. Krishnaswamy & Vijaya Ramkumar (http://acharya.iitm.ac.in/mirrors/vv/literature/tirukkural/kuralndx.html) have attempted to get over this difficulty by employing non-committal rendering: "He who has controlled the five senses and is established in the path of righteousness will lead a life of fulfillment". This translation is not a reference to any deity and it is also not close to the original.

It is only in Jainism and Buddhism that Tirthankarās, Siddhās and Bodhisatvās, being men, could control their five senses and rise to godhood. A Hindu interpreter can even get away by translating Ādi Bagavan as Primordial God but not while translating couplet six, unless he takes it as a reference to a sage. Well aware of this difficulty, Rajasingham (1987) quite rightly agrees that this couplet is a difficult one to translate.

Control of the five senses is the attribute of an ascetic, be it a Jaina, Buddhist or a Hindu. It is worth noting that the word ‘Jina’ literally means "conqueror or victorious", i.e. the conqueror of five senses. Cilappadikāram (10.198) says "ஐவரை வென்றோன்", Ceevacambõthanai (1-29) says "பொறிவாயில் ஐந்தவித்த புனிதன் நீயே" and Ceevacintāmañi (2563) says "பொறிவரம்பாகிய புண்ணிய முதல்வன்". couplet six appears to be a reference to a "Victorious" Jaina God who has conquered the five senses. This act of conquering five senses has been repeatedly mentioned in the Kuŗal.

Couplet 24.
The restraint of senses five by the ankush of firmness
Is the seed for the bliss of heaven. NV

Couplet 25:
Even the celestial king Indra will vouch the strength
Of one who rules his senses five. * KK, PS

Couplet: 126.
If you withdraw -like a tortoise- your senses five in one birth,
It will protect you in seven. NV

Couplet 343.
To be controlled are the senses five,
And to be given up at once are all cravings. NV

What is implied in couplet six has been reemphasized by Valluvar under chapter 35 on "Renunciation" when he says: "Cling to the one who clings to nothing; and so clinging, cease to cling" PS (Kuŗal 350). Only a human being, after conquering the five senses, would be expected to live a life free of any attachments. Valluvar here seem to ask ascetics to shed their desires by clinging to those who do not cling to anything in this world.

References:

Diaz, S.M. 2000. Tirukkural. General Editor: N. Mahalingam. Ramanandha Adigalar Foundation, Coimbatore. pp 9-30.

Rajasingham, C. 1987. Thiruk-Kuŗal: The Daylight of the Psyche. International Institute of Tamil Studies, Madras.

Satguru Subramaniaswami. 2000. Weaver's Wisdom. Himalayan Academy Publications.

Sundaram, P.S. 1990. Introduction. In: Tiruvalluvar: The Kuŗal. Penguin Books. pp 7-16[/tscii:8e3132f694]

[NVK Ashraf]

PATH OF ASCETICS AND HOUSEHOLDERS

Mr. Devapriya wrote:
1. "Jainism virtually does not recommend Family Life and it is virtually impossible to reach Birthless state with Family Life"
2." Valluvar's Ethics is that Family way of living is much better than Sanyasam, which is totally OPPOSITE to the Fundamental ROOT OF JAINISM"
3. "Now, we have already discussed Jainism Denies completely Moksha to Women and they need to be Sanyasin to prey to be born as Man So that in next birth they can have chance of Moksha, Valluvar gives totally opposite edict and good family Lady with Chastity is promised of Heaven"

Once again Mr. Devapriya அரைத்த மாவையே மீண்டும் மீண்டும் அரைத்துக்கொண்டிருக்கிறார். I have reiterated several times that Tirukkural's affinity to Jainism (of for that matter any other religious tradition) cannot be determined by looking at the presence of religious sundry laws, ideas on moksha (first of all he wrote only on Dharma, Artha and Kama and did not venture to write about Moksha!). Please refer to my posting on Jun 24, 2006 (Post subject: The Kural is not a book on Jainism) where I had emphasized this point. Let me reproduce a small section from that posting again here:

//"Even though the very foundation of Valluvar's moral prescriptions is Jaina-based, he does not go overboard and indulge in statements that are life negating.......... It is only these differences that prove to be a decisive factor in categorizing the Kuŗal as non-sectarian work, preventing scholars from regarding it a classic on Janism. Still Valluvar's morals are based on the foundation of Jaina ideas."//

To substantiate his view, Mr. Devapriya cited all the couplets from chapter five on "இல்வாழ்க்கை" and said "Valluvar places Householders above Ascetics, and therefore he against the Fundamental Root of Jainism". Indeed the following couplet 48 in chapter 5 seem to clearly substantiate his view:

Couplet 48.
ஆற்றின் ஒழுக்கி அறன் இழுக்கா இல் வாழ்க்கை
நோற்பாரின் நோன்மை உடைத்து.
A virtuous householder endures more
Than the penance of the penance doer. * (DZ, DL)

But the same Tiruvalluvar says in Chapter 3 on "Greatness of Ascetics" ......

Couplet 23.
இருமை வகை தெரிந்து ஈண்டு அறம் பூண்டார்
பெருமை பிறங்கிற்று உலகு.
The world shines on the greatness of those who,
Knowing both, choose renunciation. * (PS)

Why is there a "contradiction" here? At one place Valluvar says Householder's endurance is greater than the penance of the Ascetic, and at another place exalts the greatness of those who choose ascetic life over the other? One may also ask why Valluvar placed "Greatness of Ascetics" (Chapter 3) ahead of Domestic Virtue (Chapter 5)!

The answer to this "contradiction" in emphasis lies in discovering the style of Tiruvalluvar. He would exalt one virtue over the other in one chapter and at the same time exalt the other in another chapter. I reproduce here a section from my article "An Introduction to Tirukkural and its author" (http://www.geocities.com/nvkashraf/kur-trans/Kural-Int.htm) where I briefly touched upon the style of Valluvar (a detailed article on this is on the pipeline):

//A close look at the different chapters would reveal that Valluvar composed every chapter, perhaps in response to a demand or request to produce 10 best couplets on a particular subject. He would bring together all his experience, the knowledge he has gained in mastering other texts and all the information available as folklore in order to compose 10 couplets on a subject, say on Ignorance. He would then do so for another subject, say on Virtue. Given the fact that there are similarities in ideas between couplets within and between chapters, it would appear as if the poet, while producing the best 10 on a subject, did not show any concern as to what similes and superlatives he used earlier while writing on other subjects. This may perhaps be the reason for some repetitions in ideas and 'contradictions' we find in the Kural. He would write on the evils of drinking in one chapter (Chapter 93), but at the same time elsewhere say that love is sweeter than wine (Chapter 109). To cite another instance, if you ask him "What is wealth of all wealth?", he would say two different things: "the wealth of wealth is the wealth of grace" (couplet 241) and "the wealth of wealth is the wealth of hearing" (couplet 411). Similarly, if you want to know which of the virtues should one follow dearly even at the expense of other virtues, he would say it is speaking truth in couplet 297, it is trespassing the bounds of another's wife in couplet 150 and in couplet 181 say that its the quality of not being called a slanderer! The same Valluvar who says what is natural or inborn in us cannot be ejected (Kural 376 on "Fate") would say while emphasizing the value of "Exertion" that inherent natural flaws can be overcome by getting rid of laziness (Kural 609). For a purist these may appear as contradictions but it is the style Valluvar follows while emphasizing the importance of a particular code of ethic. //

[bis_mala]

Here Mr. Devapriya declares that Valluvar wrote his couplets under the THREAT of some Jaina terrorists! This is news to me!


VaLLuvar wrote under threat? That's interesting. Let's see what Mr Devapriya has to say to Ms Ashraf.

[bis_mala]

]ome Tamil scholars found it difficult to digest! V.O.C. Chidambaram Pillai, in spite of being a believer in God, regarded the first chapter to be a later addition (Veeramani, 2002). We do not know what made VOC to say so but we can speculate that the very noticeable applicability of all attributes in the first chapter to Jaina deities would have made him to proclaim so!


Thanks to you Ms Ashraf - you've taken much trouble to explain something which was presented as optional to reply.

But if we take the position of kappalOttiya Thamizan's conclusion or opinion, then we must necessarily conclude that the author of KuRaL did not write the KadavuL vAzththu. With that, your case that the author wrote with Jain overtone also falls flat. My feeling is that you are substantially relying on the lst chapter of kuRaL to bring "home" your case.

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:7a618d1a53]Dear Sivamaalaa,

You wrote:
"But if we take the position of kappalOttiya Thamizan's conclusion or opinion, then we must necessarily conclude that the author of KuRaL did not write the KadavuL vAzththu. With that, your case that the author wrote with Jain overtone also falls flat. My feeling is that you are substantially relying on the lst chapter of kuRaL to bring "home" your case."

Almost all the scholars who hold the opinion that the Kural is a Jaina's work, have arrived at their conclusion primarily based on the analysis of Chapter 1. In my posting dated Jul 01, 2006, Post subject: Thirukkural and the Fundamentals Jaina ethics, I had addressed the following three questions to Mr. Devapriya:

//
* Does he know that Non-killing and Not-hurting (through deeds and words) are two of the most important ethical teachings of Valluvar?
* Is he aware of Valluvar’s definition of truthfulness? (வாய்மை எனப்படுவது யாதெனின். . . . .?)
* Is he aware that Valluvar places ahima above satya which is quite opposite to that of Arichandra? (ஒன்றாக நல்லது கொல்லாமை. . . . .)

If he is not aware of these things, then I would like upload in my next posting the most important reasons for considering the Kural as work based on Jaina ethics.
//

I think the time has come for me to drill the final nail in the coffin.[/tscii:7a618d1a53]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:c239e35671]
Greetings Ms Ashraf

would like upload in my next posting the most important reasons for considering the Kural as work based on Jaina ethics.
//

You are raising interesting points. I would like to read from your submissions as to when each important relevant concept surfaced in Jainism, where , how and the circumstances in each case leading up to the surfacing of the concept under consideration. At the same time it is also necessary to prove whether other religions had corresponding or similar concepts issuing forth in their arena, when, how, where and by whom. A further point to consider would the duration of real connection between the concept in question and the religion itself, showing how the concept is bound up with the religion (in each instance and for each relevant religion). Furthermore, at what point of time in history can it be considered for the concepts in question to have been fully developed for presentation to the faithful.
For instance, concept A could have taken shape in 300 BC, but concept B could have come into being only in 300 AD and if you look at the Jain book of today, you will find A, B and a host of other concepts all summarized and presented as one complete document, without regard to the historical background and rise of each concept.

It is to be noted that VaLLuvar had presented his teachings in various ways. For example: “eNNenpa. Enai ezuththepa…” : he is referring to what others say; but in “Avichorinthu aayiram vEttalin…” he presents the teaching as his own. Sometimes he condemns other teacher(s) and gives his own: as “ aRaththiRkE anbu saarbenpa, aRiyaar! MaRaththiRkum aqthE thuNai” . It is clear that in VaLLuvar, each topic or item under a topic receives emphasis as though it is all important; but in another topic, he would also say that that is of chief importance. One may have to explain whether he is referring to the high importance of compliance of that point or requirement or merely talking about doctrinal importance. VaLLuvar is a person of complex mind, though his work and words look simplistic to the ordinary person. I would not easily agree with you that he placed ahimsa above truthfulness. But I am not intending to submit arguments contrary to your submission on the point.

KadavuL vaazththu became a standard practice in medieval times; kuRaL – I consider – was closer to Sangam during which period provision of a KadavuL vaazththu was not a standard practice. Furthermore it is irrelevant to a book on ethics. Hence, one way of looking at kuRaL is to say that the first chapter was later addition. It is nothing surprising. Hence you may be put to strict proof that it was written by VaLLuvar!!

I have no intention to add to your burden you have taken upon yourself. I am also not intending to go for a PhD on this topic, you may ignore what I have written for the load it may place on your shoulders!!

Happy battle with Devapriya! Just ignore what I wrote pl
[/tscii:c239e35671]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:f32c764d4b]Dear Sivamala,

You made a very relevant observation. You wrote:

It is to be noted that VaLLuvar had presented his teachings in various ways. For example: “eNNenpa. Enai ezuththepa…” : he is referring to what others say; but in “Avichorinthu aayiram vEttalin…” he presents the teaching as his own. Sometimes he condemns other teacher(s) and gives his own: as “ aRaththiRkE anbu saarbenpa, aRiyaar! MaRaththiRkum aqthE thuNai” . It is clear that in VaLLuvar, each topic or item under a topic receives emphasis as though it is all important; but in another topic, he would also say that that is of chief importance. One may have to explain whether he is referring to the high importance of compliance of that point or requirement or merely talking about doctrinal importance.

I appreciate your understanding of the style of Valluvar's presentation. In fact I would like to categorize the couplets based on the occurrence of such words or phrases like என்ப, எல்லாம் தலை, யாதெனின், etc. The Tirukkural Concordance and Dr. Mohanraj's திருக்குறளில் திருப்புரைகள் should come handy to me while doing this exercise.

You also said: "I would not easily agree with you that he placed ahimsa above truthfulness. But I am not intending to submit arguments contrary to your submission on the point."

When Valluvar himself says so, there is no way you can dismiss it. You will see it for yourself on Monday. [/tscii:f32c764d4b]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:1e954712ec]«ÈÅ¢¨É ¡¦¾É¢ý ¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á...!

.........á§Ä¡÷ ¦¾¡Ìò¾ÅüÚû ±øÄ¡õ ¾¨Ä....! (á§Ä¡÷)

....... À¢ýº¡Ãô ¦À¡ö¡¨Á ¿ýÚ.!

........ ¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á ÝúÅ¡ý ¾¨Ä!! etc etc...

but still......!

Let me read what you have to say.[/tscii:1e954712ec]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:9ab00d427b]The final nail in the coffin

Dear Sivamaalaa,

Here I provide the most important evidence, outside the first chapter on "Praise of God", to show that Valluvar defined the very basis of Kural's ethics, namely கொல்லாமை, இன்னா செய்யாமை and பொய்யாமை, in Jaina terms.

(i) Repeated emphasis on "Not killing" கொல்லாமை

Gopalan (1979), who compared the Kural with Brahminical Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism to determine its affilitation, deals with Jaina claims more elaborately for he himself agrees that stronger claims have come from Jainism than from Buddhism. If ahimsā or no-violence is the foundation of Jainism, then we have many places in Kuŗal that reiterate this principle of non-killing.

Valluvar himself asks the question: What is virtue?
And the reply is "not killing because killing causes every ill" (321)

He asks a different question: “What is grace and disgrace?”.
He gives the same reply: "killing is disgrace and non-killing grace". (254)

To another question, “What is the perfect path”, he says the same:
“It is the path of avoiding killing anything” (324)

If you ask “What is the characteristic of penance”
He says it lies in "harming no life" (261) in "non-killing" (984).

And what is the topmost teaching ever written? Here also the answer is no different:
"It is to share your food and protect all life" (322)

Sutrakritanga of Jainism says "A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated" (1.11.33). In Kuŗal, Valluvar even goes a step higher and says in couplet 327:

தன்னுயிர் நீப்பினும் செய்யற்க தான்பிறிது
இன்னுயிர் நீக்கும் வினை.
Avoid removing the dear life of another
Even when your own life is under threat. NV

(ii) Repeated emphasis on "Not hurting" (இன்னா செய்யாமை)

And not to forget the chapter preceding to Chapter 33. This one on "Not hurting" together with "Not killing" forms the sum and substance of the ahimsā docrtine of "Non Injury". Two couplets from Chapter 32 would suffice here as examples to show Valluvar's resolve on not hurting.

Couplet 317
It is best to refrain from willfully hurting
Anyone, anytime, anyway. PS

Couplet 320
Hurt comes to the hurtful; hence it is those
Who don't want to be hurt cause no hurt. * PS

Like "Not killing", Valluvar has over and over again emphasized "Not hurting" in many places even outside the designated Chapter 32 (see couplets 109, 160, 579, 852, 881, 987) and at times the same idea has been put forward in different contextச். To cite an example, in Chapter 32: இன்னா செய்யாமை, Valluvar says:

இன்னாசெய் தாரை ஒறுத்தல் அவர்நாண
நன்னயஞ் செய்து விடல். (314)
Punish an evil-doer
By shaming him with a good deed.* PS

The same idea is repeated in Chapter 99 on Goodness (சான்றாண்மை):

இன்னாசெய் தார்க்கும் இனியவே செய்யாக்கால்
என்ன பயத்ததோ சால்பு? (987)
What good is that goodness if it does not return good
Even to those who cause evil? * PS

Couplet 579 in Chapter 58 on "Compassion" also recaps the same idea:

ஒறுத்தாற்றும் பண்பினார் கண்ணும் கண்ணோடிப்
பொறுத்தாற்றும் பண்பே தலை.
That quality of forbearance and sympathy is the best,
Even to those who hurt us. NV

Yet again the same idea is repeated, this time in Chapter 86 on Hostility (இகல்):

பகல்கருதிப் பற்றா செயினும் இகல்கருதி
இன்னா செய்யாமை தலை. (852)
Even if disagreeable things are done to cause rift,
Better do nothing painful to avoid conflict. * DL, NV

There is no doubt that the foremost teaching of Valluvar is ahimsā as he has emphasized it not only through chapters like கொல்லாமை, புலால் உண்ணாமை, இன்னா செய்யாமை and இகல் but also through many other couplets in அறத்துப்பால் and பொருட்பால். One may ask if these references to ahimsā are sufficient enough to conclude that only a person of Jaina faith would have written the Kuŗal. Many non-Jaina works also reiterate the concept of ahimsā, but they do not repeatedly emphasize Not-killing as a virtue, grace, as a characteristic of penance, as the perfect path and the topmost code to have been ever written! And not to speak of "Not hurting" which has also been emphasized over and again.

(iii) Placing Ahimsā above Satyā

The characteristic of Jainism is that, of the five vratās or vows (ahimsā, satyā, asteya, brahmāchārya and apārigraha), the second vratā truthfulness is subordinate to the the first vratā of ahimsā (Jain, 2002). Valluvar states this explicitly in Kuŗal in the following words:

Kuŗal 323.
ஒன்றாக நல்லது கொல்லாமை மற்றதன்
பின்சாரப் பொய்யாமை நன்று.
The first and foremost good is ‘Non killing’.
Next to it in rank comes ‘Not lying’. NV

Valluvar places satyā after ahimsā which is in direct contradiction to Harichandra who put satyā above ahimsā (Subramanian and Rajalakshmi, 1984). One wonders what prompted Valluvar to talk about "பொய்யாமை" in the Chapter on "கொல்லாமை" and that too make a specific mention that "Not lying" comes only next to "Not killing" in rank! There can be no better explanation than this: that the author of Thirkkural was consciously defining ethics based on Jaina ideals.

(iv) But Satyā should also be Ahimsic

Interestingly, the Jaina definition of Truthfulness (வாய்மை) or Not speaking falsehood (பொய்யாமை) itself has ahimsā connotation. Says H.R. Jain (2002) in his book on Jaina Tradition in Indian Thought: "It is interesting to note that even speaking truth which results in injury to others should be avoided". Avoiding harsh speech is one of the oft repeated pronouncements of Valluvar. He emphasized it not only under chapter 10 on "Pleasant Speech" (couplets 99, 100) but also in may places outside this chapter (see couplets 35, 386, 566, 567).

Sūtrā 400 under Self-control in Saman Suttam, an anthology of well known Jaina sūtrās, says:

तहेव फरुसा भासा, गुरुभूओवघाइअणी ।
सच्चा-वि सा न वत्तव्वा, जओ पावस्स आगमो ॥१७॥

The monk should not use harsh words
Or speak what is harmful to other living beings;
Even if its true, because it is sinful. (400)

Three points have been brought out in the above Sūtrā:

(i) What is to be avoided? Speaking harsh words.
(ii) What is a harsh word? Any speech harmful to other living beings.
(iii) What to do if truth to be conveyed causes harm? Avoid it, because it is a sin.

The last point is worth taking note of. Anything that harms others should be avoided, even if it is the truth. In other words, better lie than speak the truth in situations that may harm the other. This is exactly what Valluvar says in the very first two couplets in chapter 30 on Truthfulness.

Couplet 291.
வாய்மை எனப்படுவது யாதெனின் யாதொன்றும்
தீமை இலாத சொலல்.
What is truthfulness? It is nothing but
Utterance wholly devoid of ill. VS, PS

Couplet 292.
பொய்மையும் வாய்மை இடத்த புரைதீர்ந்த
நன்மை பயக்கும் எனின்.
Even a lie would take the place of truth,
If it brings blameless benefit. NV, VR

The second couplet is actually a supplement to the first. Valluvar's definition of truthfulness is perhaps the most clinching evidence, if one may say so, to prove his inclination towards Jaina ideals and morality. The Jaina commentator of the 16th century AD Vāmana Munivar (சமய திவாகர வாமன முனிவர்) while commenting on the Jaina work Neelakéci, cites this couplet from Kuŗal and adds the phrase "so says our scripture" (எம் ஒத்து ஆதலின்) (Zvelebil, 1975; Shanmugampillai, 2005). Sabramanyam (1987) reiterates that it is in this chapter that the poet implies the ahimsā doctrine of the Jainas. Interestingly such a definition of truthfulness is not hard to find in other texts as well! In Panchatantra (Book III in 'Crows and Owls'), we see a similar pronouncement: "Even truth should be concealed if causing sorrow when revealed". As I mentioned in one of my earlier postings, it is not a surprise to know that the popular recensions of Panchatantra have been the works of the Jains (Jain, 1999).

(v) From the concluding chapter of my article on "Jaina ideas in Tirukkural":

What makes Kuŗal Jaina in character is the combination of all these:

a) An Invocation in the very beginning that is consistent with the terminologies and beliefs employed for praising of Jaina godheads, Arhat and Siddha

b) Valluvar's repeated emphasize on Not-killing and Not hurting even outside the chapters on Not-killing (கொல்லாமை) and Not-hurting (இன்னா செய்யாமை)

c) Valluvar's frequent reference to Not-killing as virtue (அறம்), grace (அருள்), perfect path (நல்லாறு), characteristic of penance (தவத்திற்கு உரு), and as the topmost code ever written (தொகுத்தவற்றுள் எல்லாம் தலை)

d) The chapter headings in the first division Virtue (அறத்துப்பால்) that are very much in line with the spirit of the Jaina tradition (compared with Jaina anthologies like Saman Suttam and Pearls of Jaina Wisdom)

e) His definition of truthfulness as something that should not cause any harm to others

f) The special mention of Not-killing as a vow above Truthfulness (as I and II vratās respectively)

Therefore there is no doubt that the ethic Valluvar builds in his work is based on Jaina principles. In a state like Tamil Nadu, dominated by the majority Hindus and with a tradition of four of the five great commentators of Kuŗal (Pariperumaal, Parithiar, Parimelazhagar and Kalingar) interpreting the first chapter in Hindu non-Jaina terms, it is nothing but natural that Jaina renderings have taken a back seat. Zvelebil (1975), citing M. Irakava Iyenkar's reference to an inscription of 1272 in Sri Varadaraja Temple in Kanchi that refers to a Jaina commentators, mentions that many of the Jaina commentaries of Kuŗal were suppressed by the commentary of the 13th century Parimelazhagar.

While the majority are ignorant of the Jaina terminologies, the Jains who are supposed to know them are unfortunately a marginal minority. No wonder their voices are never heard. One is left to wonder, what would have been the recognition given to the Kuŗal had the state been a Jaina majority. The Jains have every right to say that Valluvar was a Jain, or at least claim that the author of the Kuŗal was inclined towards Jaina ideals. But they do not have the right to claim the Kuŗal as their scripture for the simple reason that the Kuŗal was not written for any particular sect in mind.

Let us now revisit what Rajaji said: "It is claimed by many that Tiru-Valluvar was a Jain. I do not accept this theory". But Rajaji didn't explain why he denied such claims. He only said "Tiru-Valluvar was one of those rare and great men whose catholic spirit rose above all denominations and whose vision was not clouded by dogma or prejudice of any kind". Even those who claim Valluvar to be a Jain say so! They also declare that in spite of being a Jain, Valluvar's Kuŗal is a non-sectarian composition, with the author making no attempt or whatsoever to impart the doctrines of his own religion on others.

The Deity Valluvar invokes in Chapter is sufficient enough to show that Valluvar must have been a Jain. In spite of all these, Thirukkuŗal is not a book on Jainism or Jaina philosophy but a book written by someone who must have been either a Jain or someone who was impressed by Jaina ideals of life. As Subramaniyam (1987) said, Valluvar made great use of ideas that came his way, be it from Hinduism or Buddhism, but the greater part of his familiarity is with Jainism.

References:

Jain, J.P. 1999. Religion and Culture of the Jains. Bharatiya Jnanpith. p. 191

Jain, H.R. 2002. Jaina Tradition in Indian thought. Editor: D.C. Jain. Sharada Publishing House, Delhi. pp 273-289

Shanmugampillai, M. 2005. Thiruvalluvar a Jain (வள்ளுவர் சைன சமயம் சார்ந்தவர்). Available at http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-IHs9FFYzeqhS6IL.5yu4wTp7Ww--?cq=1&p=13

Subramanyam, K. N. 1987. Tiruvalluvar and His Kuŗal. Bharatiya Jnanpith Publication. 220 pages

Subramanian, N. and Rajalakshmi, R. 1984. The Concordance of Tirukkural (With Critical Introduction). Ennes Publications, Madurai. 250 pages

Venugopala Pillai, M.V. (undated) Who is Adhibagawan? (English translation of Tamil essay). Available at Ahimsā Foundation.(http://www.jainsamaj.org/literature/adhibhagwan/300103.htm)

Zvelebil, K.V. 1975. Tamil Literature. E.J. Brill. p. 125-26[/tscii:9ab00d427b]

[bis_mala]

Dear Ms Ashraf!

Still there is no convincing evidence, which can establish beyond reasonable doubt that VaLLuvar is Jain or that he was so deeply impressed by the Jains. Of course Jains can claim anything, as indeed even the Christians are claiming now.

There are similarities between some precepts of Jainism with certain corners of KuRaL. These similarities are insufficient to reach any conclusion.

Buddhism also emphasizes a great deal on non-killing.

VaLLuvar did not approve of shaving off one's head or pulling out of one's hair to become a monk or nun. (as the Jains do). He also says that it is sufficient for a person if goes along with the world. He emphasized family virtues and begetting children. He devoted about one third of his book to love and sex. He preached love: "anpin vaziyathu uyirnilai". He was against begging and certainly is against monks and nuns who do so.

VaLLuvar is a thoroughbred Tamilian in body and mind, who commenced with "a" and ended his KuRaL with "n".

Religious leaders borrowed from the societies in which they rose. Many concepts can be proven to have pre-existed them..

I therefore do not think that you have proven your point.

[bis_mala]

[tscii:84cb3ad195]«Èò¾¡üÈ¢ý þøÅ¡ú쨸 ¬üÈ¢ý ÒÈò¾¡üÈ¢ü
§À¡´öô ¦ÀÚÅÐ ±Åý?

¬üÈ¢ý ´Ø츢 «ÈÉ¢Ø측 þøÅ¡ú쨸
§¿¡üÀ¡Ã¢ý §¿¡ý¨Á Ô¨¼òÐ.

ºÁ½ ÐÈŢ¡¸§Å¡ Òò¾ ÐÈŢ¡¸§Å¡ §À¡Å¾¢ø Òñ½¢ÂÁ¢ø¨Ä ±ý¸¢È¡÷! ¾¢ÕÁ½õ ¦ºöЦ¸¡û¸ ±ý¸¢ýÈ¡÷.

ÁÉòÐì¸ñ Á¡º¢Äý ¬¾ø «¨Éò¾Èý;
¬ÌÄ ¿£Ã À¢È.

Á¡º¢Ä¡¾ ÁÉõ §À¡Ð§Á! «Èõ ±ýÀÐ «ùÅÇ×¾¡ý ±ý¸¢È¡÷.

´Øì¸õ Å¢ØôÀõ ¾ÃÄ¡ý ´Øì¸õ
¯Â¢Ã¢Ûõ µõÀô ÀÎõ.

¾ýÛ¢÷, À¢È ¯Â¢÷ ±É ±ù×¢¨Ã Å¢¼×õ, ´Øì¸ò¨¾§Â ¸¡òÐ즸¡ûǧÅñÎõ. À¢È×¢¨Ãì ¦¸¡ýÚ ¾¢ýÀÅýܼ ´Øì¸Ó¨¼ÂÅɡ¢ý, «Åý º¢ÈôÒ ±öи¢È¡ý. ¯Â¢Ã¢Ûõ ±ýÈ ¦º¡øÖìÌ "¾ý" "À¢È" ±ýÈ «¨¼¦Á¡Æ¢¸û þø¨Ä!![/tscii:84cb3ad195]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:6c1c2727ee]//Sutrakritanga of Jainism says "A man should wander about treating all creatures
as he himself would be treated" (1.11.33).
In Kuŗal, Valluvar even goes a step higher and says in couplet 327:
¾ýÛ¢÷ ¿£ôÀ¢Ûõ ¦ºöÂü¸ ¾¡ýÀ¢È¢Ð
þýÛ¢÷ ¿£ìÌõ Å¢¨É.

Avoid removing the dear life of another
Even when your own life is under threat. NV//


If a teacher went beyond what has been pronounced in an established religion, then he qualified or modified that teaching, assuming that the teacher was at the time having in his mind that religious teaching. Then it is very clear that he was not an adherent of that religion.

There is no evidence that VaLLuvar was looking at or considering Jain teachings when he wrote the kuRaL.[/tscii:6c1c2727ee]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:ea0a395f37]
NVK Ashraf wrote:
iv) But Satyā should also be Ahimsic

Interestingly, the Jaina definition of Truthfulness (வாய்மை) or Not speaking falsehood (பொய்யாமை) itself has ahimsā connotation. Says H.R. Jain (2002) in his book on Jaina Tradition in Indian Thought: "It is interesting to note that even speaking truth which results in injury to others should be avoided". Avoiding harsh speech is one of the oft repeated pronouncements of Valluvar. He emphasized it not only under chapter 10 on "Pleasant Speech" (couplets 99, 100) but also in may places outside this chapter (see couplets 35, 386, 566, 567).

Sūtrā 400 under Self-control in Saman Suttam, an anthology of well known Jaina sūtrās, says:


iii) Placing Ahimsā above Satyā

The characteristic of Jainism is that, of the five vratās or vows (ahimsā, satyā, asteya, brahmāchārya and apārigraha), the second vratā truthfulness is subordinate to the the first vratā of ahimsā (Jain, 2002). Valluvar states this explicitly in Kuŗal in the following words:

Kuŗal 323.
ஒன்றாக நல்லது கொல்லாமை மற்றதன்
பின்சாரப் பொய்யாமை நன்று.
The first and foremost good is ‘Non killing’.
Next to it in rank comes ‘Not lying’. NV

Ms Ashraf,

இதை ஒரு கதைபுனைந்து விளக்குகிறேன்.

ஓர் அரசன், மரண தண்டனை விதிக்கப் பட்ட கைதியைச் சிறைக் காவலனிடம் ஒப்படைத்து, தண்டனையை நிறைவேற்றும்படிப் பணிக்கின்றான். சிறைக் காவலனோ கொல்லாமை போற்றுபவன். கைதியைக் காட்டிற்குக் கொண்டுசென்று தப்புவித்துவிடுகின்றான். ( அதாவது, வள்ளுவன் சொன்ன கொல்லாமையை அவன் கடைப் பிடித்து வெற்றிகண்டுவிட்டான்).

அடுத்து அவன் அரசனிடம் வருகின்றான். "எப்படி? என்னவாயிற்று?" என்றரசன் கேட்க, இங்கு: பொய்யைச் சொல்வதா? தப்புவித்துவிட்ட உண்மையைச் சொல்வதா? என்ற போராட்டம் எழுகின்றது. வள்ளுவர் கருத்துப்படி, காவலன் உண்மை பேசினால், "நன்று" என்கிறார். காவலனுக்கு 100/100 கொடுக்கவேண்டியதுதான்!! உண்மை பேசி உயிரை மாய்த்துக் கோண்டான் என்று காவியங்கள் புகழட்டும்.

" தன்டனை நிறைவேற்றப்பட்டது" என்று பொய பேசினால் - பாவம், தானும் பிழைத்து, குடும்பத்தையும் காக்கவேண்டிய பொறுப்பு உள்ளவன் அவன். போகட்டும் என்று வள்ளுவன் விட்டுவிடுகிறான்.

உயிர்க் கொலையினால், நன்மை இல்லை.
ஆனால் பொய்யாமையினால் நன்மை - தீமை இரண்டுமுண்டு.

அதனால்தான், பொய்யாமை பின்பு வைக்கப் பட்டது. இதைப் போன்ற நிகழ்வுகளை வள்ளுவன் எத்தனையோ கேள்விப் பட்டிருப்பான். இதற்குச் சமணனிடம் போய்க் கேட்கவேண்டியதில்லை.

கொல்லாமையைப் பின்பற்றிக் காவலனைபோல் மாட்டிகொள்ளக் கூடாது என்றுதான், அதைத் துறவிகளுக்கு மட்டும்் ஓதினார் வள்ளுவர். "கொல்லா நலத்தது நோன்மை" என்றார்!! காவலனைப் பொறுத்தவரை அவன் தன் அலுவலுக்குரிய கடமையைத்தானே் செய்யவேண்டும்?

A contrast or comparison between two items is grossly insufficient to conclude one way or the other. If anyone doubts it, just give it to your class of 40 students and ask them to rank the two items. You will be surprised. Some will rank 1,2 and the rest 2,1. If it is a ranking of 10 items and the ranking is identical, then we can talk. I am surprised how authors like Jain can misdirect themselves in this manner.
[/tscii:ea0a395f37]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:27cc46a0e1]
(a) Brahmins in Tirukkural

I still have few points to cover in my reply to Mr. Devapriya's latest posting. At one place, he has spent considerable time on the occurrence of "Brahmins" in Tirukkural. This subject has already been discussed in detail but still he is continuing to raise the issue. He cited the following couplets from Tirukkural:

அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர்மற் றெவ்வுயிர்க்கும்
செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுக லான். 30
அந்தணர் நூற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் தியாய்
நின்றது மன்னவன் கோல். 543
பயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர்
காவலன் காவான் எனின். 560
மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கங் குன்றக் கெடும். 134

and said: "The author of the book (I presume Devapriya is here referring to Kamatchi Srinivasan) analyses the Religious situation in Tholkappiyam and takes all references of every song in Sangam Literature, Tholkappiyam, Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai and confirms the research view".

My reply:
One of the single most arguments of Mr. Devapriya has been that the Kural shows influence of Sangam literary tradition, including the religious ideas mentioned in Sangam literature. This is true in the case of காமத்துப்பால் which is undoubtedly styled on the அகம் poetry of the Sangam period. But பொருட்பால், as scholars have repeatedly emphasized, shows considerable affinity to works like Arthashāstra, Nitishāstra and the like. P.S. Sundaram (1989) writes. "There is evidence in the Kural of Valluvar's indebtdeness to Manu's Dharmasastra, Kamandaka's Nitisara, Kautilya's Arthasastra and certain Ayurvedic treatises all written in Sanskrit. ....... His delineation of the romantic pangs of a lover, he is more influenced by the earlier Tamil conventions than by anything he may have found in Sanskrit literature".

Citing the above couplets referring to Brahmins, Mr. Devapriya quoted the following observations (of Kamatchi Srinivasan?):

(i) "அந்தணர் என்னும் சொற்கு எவ்வுயிர்கும் செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுகுவோர் என வள்ளுவர் கூறினாராயினும் இங்கு அச்சொல் பிரமாணரைக் குறிப்பதாகக் கொள்வதெ பொருந்தும்".

My comment: "இருக்கட்டுமே! அதனால் என்ன?"

(ii) "அந்தணர் நூல் என்பதும் வேதம் முதலிய சமயனூல்களையே எனலாம். இவ்வாறே பழைய உரையாசிரியர்கள் அனைவரும் பொருள் கொண்டனர்"

My comment: We all think that the words ""anthañar nūŗkum" (அந்தணர் நூற்கும்) in the couplet 543 is usually translated as "scriptures of Brahmins". Not necessarily. Reproduced below are 13 translations I have access to:

J. Narayanaswamy: "Scriptures"
S. Maharajan: "Scriptures"
PS Sundaram: "Scripture"

VVS Ayyar: "Science of the Brahmans"
Drew/Lazarus: "Vedas of the Brahmins"
G. Vanmikanathan: "Brahmin's Vedas"
SM Diaz: "Vedas of sages"

Satguru Subramaniaswamy: "Priests' Scriptures"
Suddhanata Bharati: "Sage's scripture"
K. Kannan: "Scriptures preached by priests"
K. Krishnaswamy & Vijaya Ramkumar: "Scriptures of Seers"
Swami Iraianban: "Person helping in religious worship"
GU Pope: "Learning of the sages"

Why only three of the 13 translators have taken the word "அந்தணர்" here to mean "Brahmins"? No doubt that the word "anthañan" standing on its own mean "Brahmin", but in the Kural the meaning differs according to the context (like in any other text for that matter). Valluvar never seemed to have used the word "anthañan" to mean "Brahmin" in Tirukkural. It is only when Valluvar employs the word pārppān (பார்ப்பான்) and probably also "அறுதொழிலோர்" does he refer to the Vedic Brahmin. The phrase "அந்தணர் நூற்கும்" in couplet 543 should actually mean the "scriptures of the great" since Valluvar himself in couplet 28 says "மறைமொழி" (scriptures) are filled with the great words of people "மாந்தர்" (couplet 28). Anyway, even if this is taken as a reference to "Brahmins", how does it weaken the claims of Valluvar's familiarity to Jaina ideas and deities?

(iii) "அறுதொழிலோர் என சிரியர் குறிபிட்டதும் பிரமாணர்களையே யாதால் வேண்டும். ஓதல், ஓதுவித்தல், வேட்டல், வேட்பித்தல், ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்னும் தொழில்கள் அவர்க்குரிய என்பது சங்க காலத்தில் முன்பெ வகுக்கப்பட்டது. இவ்வாறு தொழில்கள் பதிற்றுபத்தினுள்ளும் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ளன".

My comment: There is no argument against this statement. I can easily be taken as a reference to Brahmins. சரி அதனான் என்ன? "பிராமணர்" என்ற வார்த்தையும், பிராமணரின் தொழிலும் திருக்குறளில் இடம்பெற்றுள்ளதால் அது இந்து மதத்தின் அடிப்படையான நூல் ஆகிவிடுமா? அப்படியானால் பௌத்த மத நூலான "தம்மபாதா"-வில் "Brahamin" என்ற தலைப்பில் ஒரு முழு அதிகாரமே உள்ளதால் அதை "இந்து" மத நூல் என்று கொள்ளலாகுமா?

(iv) "இக்குறள் (134) பார்ப்பாரையும் அவர் ஓதும் வேதத்தையுமே குறிக்கிறதென்பது தெளிவு. "மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும்" என்ற தொடரும் பார்ப்பான் ஓத்தை (வேதம் ஓதக்கற்றதை) மறத்தலாகாது. ஒருகால் மறப்பினும் விரைவில் திரும்ப ஓதிக் கற்றுக் கொள்ளல் வேண்டும் என்ற கருத்தைத் தரும்"

My comment: Of course it is a reference to Brahmin. (I have reproduced below, selections from my article "Jaina ideas in Tirukkural" which will be uploaded at http://nvkashraf.myweb.io/valluvar/jaina.htm)

//
Though Valluvar said in couplet 972 that men are all equal by birth and distinction arises only because of their deeds, he was aware of the prevailing custom of Brahmins reciting the Vedas and they being considered men of noble birth. Says Valluvar in couplet 134:

Scriptures forgot can be recapitulated.
Bad conduct debases a Brahmin and his birth. * PS, JN

In this couplet, Valluvar's intention is to say what happens to a person of good birth if his conduct is bad. The emphasis is on the morality and not on who is qualified to recite scriptures. Chakravarti (1953) writes that the honour and respect that a Brahmin can expect from society must be based on excellence and not upon cultivation of memory. The Jaina anthology Saman Suttam (340) says a person does not become a Brahmin by repeating the Ōmkāra mantra. Similarly Valluvar also says in couplet 134 that it is by conduct that a person becomes a Brahmin and not by his ability to recapitulate scriptures.
//

In the end Mr. Devapriya quotes these two major conclusions (of Kamatchi Srinivasan?):

(a) வேதம் முதலிய சமயநூல்களைக் கற்பது சிறப்பாக அந்தணர் (பிரமாணர்) கடமை என அக்காலத்து நிலவிய கருத்தை வள்ளுவரும் ஏற்றுக் கொண்டார் போலும்.

My answer: I disagree. For instance Buddha says in Dhammapada: "One should reverently pay homage to the man from whom one has learned the Truth, taught by the True Buddha, like a brahmin does to the sacrificial fire." (verse 392). This does not mean Buddha accepted or promoted the practice of sacrificial fire. He has only made a mention of it.

(b) காவலன் காவானெனின் அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர் என எச்சரிக்கப் படுவதும் சமய நூல்கள் மறக்கப் படுதல் சமுதாயத்திற்கு கேடு எனக் கருதப் படுவதனாலேயே.

My reply: Devapriya's aim seems to be to somehow show that Valluvar is in support of reciting religious scriptures. There is no need to try so hard because இது உண்மையாக இருக்கலாம். ஆனால் வள்ளுவர் "சமய நூல்கள் மறக்கப் படுதல் சமுதாயத்திற்கு கேடு" எனக்கருதினார் என்பதற்கு குறள் 560-ல் (see below) ஆதாரமிருப்பதாக எனக்குத் தெரியவில்லை.

பயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நூல்மறப்பர்
காவலன் காவான் எனின். 560
Cows yield less and priests forget their hymns
If the protector fails to protect. * PS

In the ancient Tamil country, many of the religious establishments and religious practices survived only under the patronage of the Kings. Religio-philosophical history of Tamil Nadu is studded with the conversion and re-conversions of Kings from Jainism to Saivism and vice versa. One of the reasons, we know, for the disappearance of Jainism from Tamil Nadu is the failure on the part of Jains to get the Royal patronage. It is quite natural that Valluvar thought Royal patronage has lot to do in the preservation of scriptural knowledge.[/tscii:27cc46a0e1]

[NVK Ashraf]

(b) Offerings and Vegetarianism

Devapriya cites what the Peedam Author mentions about verse 259 on

அவிசொரிந்து ஆயிரம் வேட்டலின் ஒன்றன்
உயிர்செகுத்து உண்ணாமை நன்று. (259)

"...... அவிப்பொருள்களை நெருப்பில் சொரிந்து யிரம் வேள்வி செய்வதை விட ஒன்றின் உயிர் செகுத்து அதன் ஊனை உண்ணாமை நன்று என வள்ளுவர் இங்கு கூறினார். இதனால் வேள்வி தீயது என வள்ளுவர் கருதினார் எனல் ஆகுமா? வேள்வியையும் நல்லதாகக் கருதித்தானே வேள்வி செய்தலை விடக் கொல்லாமை நன்று என்றார். .. .. ரிய வேள்விக்களத்திலுமே உயிர்க்கொலையும் விலங்குபலியும் இல்லை. பசுயாகம் எனப்படும் சில வேள்விகளில் மட்டுமே விலங்குபலியளிப்பர். நெய், பால், தானியங்கள் தானியங்களினால் செய்யப்பட்ட உணவுப் பொருட்கள் கியவற்றை நெருப்பிலிட்டும் வேள்விகள் செய்வர் (Author quotes this from "INDIA OF THE AGE OF THE BRAMANAS" book-iii, CHAP-2, The forms of Sacrifice- by Basu, Dr. Jogiraj). எனவே உயிர்க் கொலையின்றி இவ்வாறு செய்யப்படும் வேள்விகள் வள்ளுவர்க்கு உடன்பாடு என்றே கொள்ளலாம். பக்கம் - 192,193. "

My reply:
வேள்வி தீயது என்று வள்ளுவர் இக்குறளின் (259) மூலம் கூறவில்லை என்பது சரியே. ஆனால், கொலையின்றி செய்யப்படும் வேள்விகளுடன் வள்ளுவருக்கு "உடன்பாடு" என்பதைவிட, அக்காலத்தில் மக்களிடம் காணப்பட்ட வழிபாட்டு முறைகளை வள்ளுவர் அறிந்திருந்தார் என்பதையுன், அதை இக்குறளில் ஒரு விலங்கைக் கொன்று அதை உண்பதைவிட கொலையின்றி ஆயிரம் வேள்விகள் செய்வதே மேல் என்று குறிப்பிடுவதாக பொருள் கொள்வதே சரியாகத்தோன்றுகிறது. Being such a staunch promoter of vegetarianism and not-killing, it is quite natural that Valluvar would have opposed the Vedic practice of sacrifice with animal offerings.

In this context, it is pertinent to refer to Parithiyar's commentary on this verse here because it differs from that of others: "நெய் முதலானவற்றை ஓமத்திலே சொரிந்து ஆயிரம் யாகம் செய்வதில், ஓர் உயிரைக் கொன்று புலால் தின்னாமை நன்று என்றவாறு." I not surprised to see this daring interpretation by Parithiyar! Though, this may not be what Valluvar actually meant in this couplet.

While discussing about "திருக்குறளில் வழிபாட்டு முறைகள்", Mohanraj (1983) says:

"திருக்குறளில் பூசனை (16), தென்புலத்தார் ஓம்பல் (43), வேள்வி (259), அவியுணவு (413) ஆகியன பற்றிய - வழிபாட்டு முறைகளை உணர்த்தும் குறிப்புகளைக் காண முடிகின்றது. இவற்றால், தமிழரிடமும் ஆரியரிடமும் காணப்பட்ட நடைமுறை வழிபாட்டு நெறிகளை வள்ளுவர் அறிந்திருந்தார் என்பது தெளிவு. ஆனால், இக்குறிப்புகளில் ஒன்ருகூட - சொல் தொடர் அளவிலும்கூட - கடவுள் வாழ்த்து அதிகாரத்தில் இடம்பெறவில்லை என்பது கருத்தில் கொள்ளத்தக்க ஒன்றாகும்".

References:

Mohanraj, K. 1983. சமயப் பொதுமை. In: Idealism and Universalism of Tiruvalluvar. திருவள்ளுவரின் குறிக்கோளியலும் உலகப் பொதுமையியலும். University of Madras. pp 315-370

Sundaram, P.S. 1990. Introduction. In: Tiruvalluvar: The Kuŗal. Penguin Books. pp 7-16

[NVK Ashraf]

சிவமாலா அவர்களே,

You have been posting some "interesting" replies. This is posting of mine is for your observations made on the 8th.

(அ) You said:
(i) Still, there is no convincing evidence, which can establish beyond reasonable doubt that VaLLuvar is Jain or that he was so deeply impressed by the Jains.

என்ன சார் இது? விடிய விடிய என் கதையை கேட்டுவிட்டு, நான் கூறிய கருத்துகளுக்கு இடையில் ஒரு எதிர்ப்பும் தெரிவிக்காமல், கடைசியில் மொட்டையாக "Still there is no convincing evidence" என்று சோன்னால் எப்படி? I would appreciate if you can tell me where I have gone wrong in my presentation all these days and which of my arguments are unreasonable. That would help in either restructuring my presentation or even reconsider my view.


(ஆ) You wrote:
(ii) Of course Jains can claim anything, as indeed even the Christians are claiming now.

We all know, Jains (even non-Jains!) have claimed the Kural to be a work of a Jaina.
We all know, Saivites have claimed the Kural to be a work of Saiva devotee.
We also know that there is no dearth of similar claims from the Vaishnavite sect.
We also know that there are scholars who consider the Kural to be a Buddhist one.
We also know that there are Christians who claim the Kural to be a work based on the Bible.

Sivamaala, are you are willing rank these claims, based on a simple criteria of reasonability of such claims! i.e. எது மிகவும் நியாயமான முறையீடு என்று?

If you take the first chapter கடவுள் வாழ்த்து, the suitability ranking for all the 10 names and attributes of the deity comes to the following figures for Jesus, Shiva, Vishnu, Buddha, Jain God and Noble man, in that order.

Ranking:
0 means "not appropriate"
1 means "can be considered with reluctance"
2 means "appropriate" and
3 means "very appropriate"

J S V B JG N
1 ஆதி பகவன் 0 2 2 0 3 0
2 வாலறிவன் 1 2 2 1 2 3
3 ம. ஏகினான் 0 0 1 2 3 0
4 வே. வே. இலான் 1 1 1 3 3 2
5 இறைவன் 3 3 3 2 2 1
6 ஐந்தவித்தான் 1 0 0 3 3 0
7 தன. இல்லாதான் 2 3 3 3 2 1
8 அற. அந்தனன் 1 2 2 3 3 2
9 எண் குணத்தான் 1 2 1 2 3 2
10 இறைவன் 3 3 3 2 2 1

Marks out of 30: 13 18 18 21 26 12

You will appreciate that the contents of the first chapter are more relevant to describe a Jaina deity than deities of other faiths. Buddhism comes close second.

(இ) You also wrote:
There are similarities between some percepts of Jainism with certain corners of KuRal.

But do you at least agree that the similarity is more with Jainism than with Buddhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism or Christianity for that matter? If not, then please prove me otherwise.

(ஈ) You wrote:
He emphasized family virtues and begetting children. He devoted about one third of his book to love and sex.

So what? Do you mean to say Jains and Buddhists never indulged in procreation? Do you mean to say there were no Buddhist and Jaina householders during the time of Valluvar? I will agree with your argument if Tirukkural had been a religious work. It is not. It contains religious ideas, but is not a book on religious philosophy or doctrines. வள்ளுவர் காமத்துப்பாலை எழுதினாராம், அதனால் அவர் சமண மதத்தைச் சார்ந்தவரில்லையாம்! Wonder when people are going to shed this line of argument. My dear sir, Valluvar's Tirukkural is not based on Jaina religious philosophy but Jaina ethics. He cannot be a Jaina Acharya (like Sri Kundakunda as Jains claim) but a householder.

(உ) You made an interesting comment:
He preached love: "anpin vaziyathu uyirnilai"

எனக்குப் புரியவில்லை. சுத்தமாகப் புரியவில்லை. "அன்பின் வழியது உயிர் நிலை" means the "seat of life love" (SB) or "The throb of life is love" (JN). Here Valluvar is equating Soul with Love: "A loveless body is as good as a Soulless one". Can you tell what this has to do with Jainism? Don't they believe in the existence of Soul? Or, do you mean to say Jain and Buddhist religions has nothing to do with LOVE?

(ஊ) You also wrote:
VaLLuvar is a thoroughbred Tamilian in body and mind, who commence with "a" and ended hi KuRal with "n".

Again I could not understand the implication of the statement here. Do you meant to say Jains and Buddhists were not Tamilians? What this has to do with Valluvar being a Hindu or a believer in Creator God or whatever it is? Or, are you implying that only a believer in Creator God would have written a book beginning with "அ" and endinக் with "ன்"?.

(எ) You cited these two couplets......

அறத்து ஆற்றின் இல் வாழ்க்கை ஆற்றின்
புறத்து ஆற்றில் போய்ப் பெறுவது எவன்.

ஆற்றின் ஒழுக்கி அறன் இழுக்கா இல் வாழ்க்கை
நோற்பாரின் நோன்மை உடைத்து.

.... and said: "சமண துறவியாகவோ போவதில் புண்ணியமில்லை என்கிறார்"

I have three questions. Hope you will answer these.

(i) Where does Valluvar say it is useless to become Jaina and Buddhist renunciates?

(ii) How did the same Valluvar exalted Ascetic life in the following verse?

Couplet 23.
இருமை வகை தெரிந்து ஈண்டு அறம் பூண்டார்
பெருமை பிறங்கிற்று உலகு.
The world shines on the greatness of those who,
Knowing both, choose renunciation. * (PS)

(iii) If he had denounced "Asceticism" and Ascetic practice, please tell me why he wrote a special chapter on "Ascetics greatness" and placed it before "Domestic life"? And also wrote chapters on "Renunciation", "Penance", "Imposture", "Impermanence" and "Desirelessness" which all have something to do with Ascetic life, in some way or the other ?

(ஏ) You cited this couplet:

ஒழுக்கம் விழுப்பம் தரலான் ஒழுக்கம்
உயிரினும் ஓம்பப் படும். 131.
Discipline is more precious than life itself,
For it is discipline that confers eminence. * (CR, GV)

The commentary you have given for this couplet is very interesting! "தன்னுயிர், பிற உயிர் என எவ்வுயிரைவிடவும், ஒழுக்கத்தையே காத்துக்கொள்ளவேண்டும். பிறவுயிரைக் கொன்று தின்பவன்கூட ஒழுக்கமுடையவனாயின், அவன் சிறப்பு எய்துகிறான்"

Do you really think Valluvar, a resolute opponent of killing animal life, would have said so? I am shocked to see your interpretation, to say the least. Reproduced below are translations of the phrase "ஒழுக்கம் உயிரினும் ஓம்பப் படும்" by different translators:

decorum more than life guards its purity - Suddhanta Bharathi
conduct should be guarded as more precious than life itself. - Satguru Subramaniswamy
conduct is precious than life itself - K. Kannan and C. Rajagopalachari
conduct should be preserved more carefully than life - Drew/Lazarus
conduct is prized even above life - VVS Aiyar
decorum men should guard than life, which all men share - GU Pope
conduct should be cherished as more precious than life itself - SM Diaz
conduct must be guarded above life - PS Sundaram
discipline is like life to the body to protect - J Narayanaswamy

None of these translators even remotely imply what you said. That "தன்னுயிர், பிற உயிர் என எவ்வுயிரைவிடவும், ஒழுக்கத்தையே காத்துக்கொள்ளவேண்டும்" என்று! What Valluvar says here is this. Since it is conduct that makes our life precious, conduct is more precious than life/soul. In other words, men caught in the net of misconduct or dishonour would prefer death than saving their life! Well, Valluvar mentions this in other places:

மயிர் நீப்பின் வாழாக் கவரிமா அன்னார்
உயிர் நீப்பர் மானம் வரின். (969)
The yak, sheared of its hair, does not survive.
The noble, stripped of their honour, prefer death. (NV)

The same idea is repeated in these following couplets (968 and 970):

Is body as precious as ambrosia that men desire to save it
Even at the cost of honour? (MS, VS)
The world will admire and worship the glory of men
Who prefer death to dishonour. * (CR)

[bis_mala]

Ms Ashraf,

ஒழுக்கம் விழுப்பம் தரலான் ஒழுக்கம்
உயிரினும் ஓம்பப் படும் ---

என்ற குறளுக்கு நான் கூறிய விளக்கம் சரியானதுதான். இக்குறளுக்கு "தன்" என்ற சொல்லைப் பெய்து பொருளுரைத்தவர்கள் தம்மை அறியாமலேயே
அதன் முழுப்பொருளையும் குறுக்கிவிட்டனர் என்றுதான் கொள்ளவேண்டும்.

பிற உயிரினால் தம் ஒழுக்கத்திற்குக் கேடு வருமுன் அவ்வுயிரை அழித்துவிடுதல் வள்ளுவரால் தடுக்கப் படவில்லை. ஒழுக்கத்தைக் காத்துக்கொள்ள கொல்வது ஒரு மனித உயிராகவோ அல்லது விலங்கின் உயிராகவோ இருக்கலாம். மேலும் கொல்லாமை என்பது துறவிகளுக்கே அவர்கள் மேற்கொள்ளுவதற்குரிய நோன்பாக எடுத்துரைக்கப் பட்டுள்ளது. இதில் சமண க் கருத்து ஏதுமில்லை.

இந்தியாவில் பழம்பெரு நாகரிகமும் பண்பாடும் உடையோர் தமிழர். அவர்கள் கொல்லாமை, பொய்யாமை முதலியவற்றை அறியாமல் இருந்து, வட மானிலத்துத் தோன்றிய சமணரிடமிருந்து உணர்ந்துகொண்டனர் என்பது ஒத்துக் கொள்ளமுடியாத கருத்து.

I agree you have taken great pains to convince us, but nothing is so unusually convincing in your submissions. Even your submissions on the lst chapter of kuRaL are also not convincing.

[bis_mala]

[tscii:c0af446ae3]Ms Ashraf,

´Øì¸õ Å¢ØôÀõ ¾ÃÄ¡ý ´Øì¸õ
¯Â¢Ã¢Ûõ µõÀô ÀÎõ ---

±ýÈ ÌÈÙìÌ ¿¡ý ÜȢ ŢÇì¸õ ºÃ¢Â¡Éо¡ý. þìÌÈÙìÌ "¾ý" ±ýÈ ¦º¡ø¨Äô ¦ÀöÐ ¦À¡ÕÙ¨Ãò¾Å÷¸û ¾õ¨Á «È¢Â¡Á§Ä§Â
«¾ý ÓØô¦À¡Õ¨ÇÔõ ÌÚ츢Ţð¼É÷ ±ýÚ¾¡ý ¦¸¡ûǧÅñÎõ.

À¢È ¯Â¢Ã¢É¡ø ¾õ ´Øì¸ò¾¢üÌì §¸Î ÅÕÓý «ù×¢¨Ã «Æ¢òÐŢξø ÅûÙÅáø ¾Îì¸ô À¼Å¢ø¨Ä. ´Øì¸ò¨¾ì ¸¡òÐ즸¡ûÇ, ¦¸¡øÅÐ ´Õ ÁÉ¢¾ ¯Â¢Ã¡¸§Å¡ «øÄРŢÄí¸¢ý ¯Â¢Ã¡¸§Å¡ þÕì¸Ä¡õ. §ÁÖõ ¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á ±ýÀÐ ÐÈÅ¢¸Ù째 «Å÷¸û §Áü¦¸¡ûÙžüÌâ §¿¡ýÀ¡¸ ±ÎòШÃì¸ô ÀðÎûÇÐ. þ¾¢ø ºÁ½ ì ¸ÕòÐ ²ÐÁ¢ø¨Ä.

þó¾¢Â¡Å¢ø ÀÆõ¦ÀÕ ¿¡¸Ã¢¸Óõ ÀñÀ¡Îõ ¯¨¼§Â¡÷ ¾Á¢Æ÷. «Å÷¸û ¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á, ¦À¡ö¡¨Á ӾĢÂÅü¨È «È¢Â¡Áø þÕóÐ, ż Á¡É¢ÄòÐò §¾¡ýȢ ºÁ½Ã¢¼Á¢ÕóÐ ¯½÷óЦ¸¡ñ¼É÷ ±ýÀÐ ´òÐì ¦¸¡ûÇÓÊ¡¾ ¸ÕòÐ.

I agree you have taken great pains to convince us, but nothing is so unusually convincing in your submissions. Even your submissions on the lst chapter of kuRaL are also not convincing.[/tscii:c0af446ae3]

[NVK Ashraf]

One point agenda:

Dear Sivamaalaa,

You seem to have only ONE point agenda. To show that Tirukkural has nothing to do with Jainism. Well, what I am saying is nothing new but something that has been emphasized my many renowned scholars, many of whom were not even Jains! Most of the evidences I have produced for Jaina influence, are not products of Ashraf's wishful thinking. They have been emphasized by many others many times. I am have only reproduced them with a different approach and greater objectivity.

This is what I wrote, citing couplet 327. One person says a man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. Another person says avoid removing the dear life of another even when your own life is under threat. To this you went on and said,

"If a teacher went beyond what has been pronounced in an established religion, then he qualified or modified that teaching, assuming that the teacher was at the time having in his mind that religious teaching. Then it is very clear that he was not an adherent of that religion"

What are you saying, Mr. Sivamaalaa? I didn't expect you to write such inane stuff! How does it become modification of another's "pronouncement" or "teaching"? For instance, to say "Not to kill other beings" is a PRONOUNCEMENT (often found in CANONICAL scriptures) and for acharyas, poets and sages to write slokas, couplets and verses with similes and real life examples of their own choice is for PROPAGATION of this pronouncement of non-violence. Such works or compilations of their sayings are sometimes called quazi-canonical texts. Obviously there will be differences in style and emphasis between these writings. Because of this, how can you say one author has deviated from the religion? Coming to the above instance where I had cited verses from Saman Suttam and Tirukkural, the authors had only emphasized the PRONOUNCEMENT of non-violence through their quazi-canonial texts!

Another example to explain this point better. Do you mean to say none of the four great Saiva Nayanmars (namely Appar, Sundarar, Jnanasambandar and Manikyavachagar) differed in their teachings and like what you say "modified" their pronouncements? I would like to know from you. Waiting for a reply on this.

[bis_mala]

[tscii:862882de6c]
You seem to have only ONE point agenda. To show that Tirukkural has nothing to do with Jainism.

You appear to have been troubled by what I wrote in my postings. Since you have your agenda and you would accuse any other who would share her thoughts on the subject as having a (counter)-agenda, I would leave you to carry on with your submissions.


You wrote:
In Kuŗal, Valluvar even goes a step higher and says in couplet 327:

You in your own words said that VaLLuvar had gone a step higher. Well, if someone goes a step higher, then he was not following the religious text in question strictly. All these come from what you wrote and there is nothing inane about it. A person who goes a step higher is modifying or qualifying the principle. Going higher is a change as well as cutting short is also a change.

What you have tried to say is that: VaLLuvar, having the Jain text in his presence and having read from there, had gone a step higher! (or having known of the existence of such religious principle) . You are now refusing to admit that “going a step higher” is a modification when I put that issue back to you.

Whether it is an ordinary text or a canonical text or quasi-canonical text, going a step higher is a modification, provided the whole exercise proceeded from the original setting of a given text (which of course have yet to prove: that is, you have not proven that the “going higher was from a Jain text.). An enhancement is also a modification.

To deny that going a step higher is a modification is quite absurd. I did not expect a denial of this sort. In any case, please carry on with your agenda!! Bye Ms Ashraf.
[/tscii:862882de6c]

[NVK Ashraf]

சிவமாலாவின் கதை!

I had written how Valluvar defines Truthfulness (Satya) in Ahimsic terms and how Valluvar places Ahimsa above Satya. I had also pointed out parallels from Jaina religion and said Valluvar's definition of வாய்மை and prioritization of கொல்லாமை is based on Jaina principles. ஆனால் சிவாமாலாவோ, இதையெல்லாம் சமணனிடம் போய்க் கேட்டுத் தெரிந்துகொள்ள வேண்டியதில்லை, வள்ளுவருடைய வாழ்க்கையில் நடந்த நிகழ்ச்சிகளை வைத்தே அவரால் அவ்வாறு எழுதியிருக்கமுடியும் என்று சொல்லுகிறார். இதை ஒரு கதைசொல்லி விளக்குவதற்காக இறங்கியிருக்கிறார் சிவமாலா. இனி அவர் சொல்லவரும் கதையைப் பார்ப்போம்.

Ms Ashraf,
இதை ஒரு கதைபுனைந்து விளக்குகிறேன்.
ஓர் அரசன், மரண தண்டனை விதிக்கப் பட்ட கைதியைச் சிறைக் காவலனிடம் ஒப்படைத்து, தண்டனையை நிறைவேற்றும்படிப் பணிக்கின்றான். சிறைக் காவலனோ கொல்லாமை போற்றுபவன். கைதியைக் காட்டிற்குக் கொண்டுசென்று தப்புவித்துவிடுகின்றான். (அதாவது, வள்ளுவன் சொன்ன கொல்லாமையை அவன் கடைப் பிடித்து வெற்றிகண்டுவிட்டான்).

அகா! என்ன ஒரு அற்புதமான விளக்கம்! நன்பர் சிவமாலா அவர்களே, கொலைத் தண்டனையிலிருந்து ஒருவனை தப்பிக்கவிடுவது எவ்வாறு "கொல்லாமை" ஆகும்? கீழ்க்கண்ட குறளைப் படியுங்கள்!

கொலையின் கொடியாரை வேந்து ஒறுத்தல் பைங்கூழ்
களை கட்டதனொடு நேர். (550)
A king punishing criminals by execution is like a farmer
Removing weeds from his fields.* (SS)

Valluvar says eliminating murderers from the society is the duty of the king. How can the jailer allow the criminal escape under the pretext of கொல்லாமை? அவ்வாறு இருக்கும்போது, எப்படி நீங்கள் சிறைக்காவலன் வள்ளுவரின் "கொல்லாமை"- யைக் கடைப்பிடித்தான் என்று சொல்லமுடியும்? உங்களுடைய கதையின் அடிப்படைக் கருத்தே தவறு! எனவே மெற்கொண்டு இதைப்பற்றி எழுதுவதற்கு ஒன்றும் இல்லை.

Sivamaalaa writes in the end:

"A contrast or comparison between two items is grossly insufficient to conclude one way or the other. If anyone doubts it, just give it to your class of 40 students and ask them to rank the two items. You will be surprised. Some will rank 1,2 and the rest 2,1. If it is a ranking of 10 items and the ranking is identical, then we can talk. I am surprised how authors like Jain can misdirect themselves in this manner"

What are these two items? Not-killing and Truthfulness? And rank according to what? I am unable to understand the second half of this paragraph. What is this ranking of 10 items? Is Sivamaalaa referring to the 10 couplets in chapter 1? If so, please say "couplets" and not "items"! (இப்பொழுதெல்லாம் தமிழில் "ITEM" என்றாலே பொருள் வேறு!). And what mis-directions have the Jains given? Which Jains do you mean? In a nutshell, this paragraph is not clear.

[NVK Ashraf]

Vegetarianism and Not killing only for Ascetics?

சிவமாலா எழுதுகிறார். . . .

ஒழுக்கம் விழுப்பம் தரலான் ஒழுக்கம்
உயிரினும் ஓம்பப் படும் ---

என்ற குறளுக்கு நான் கூறிய விளக்கம் சரியானதுதான். இக்குறளுக்கு "தன்" என்ற சொல்லைப் பெய்து பொருளுரைத்தவர்கள் தம்மை அறியாமலேயே அதன் முழுப்பொருளையும் குறுக்கிவிட்டனர் என்றுதான் கொள்ளவேண்டும்.

.... என்று தாங்கள் கூறினால் சரிதான்! P.S. Sundaram, Suddhananta Bharathi, C. Rajagopalachari, G.U. Pope, VVS Aiyar, Drew/Lazarus, S.M. Diaz ஆகியோரை ஒரே அடியில் ஒதுக்கிவிட்டீர்கள் போங்கள்! Keep it up.

Sivamaala said:
மேலும் கொல்லாமை என்பது துறவிகளுக்கே அவர்கள் மேற்கொள்ளுவதற்குரிய நோன்பாக எடுத்துரைக்கப் பட்டுள்ளது. இதில் சமணக் கருத்து ஏதுமில்லை.

எப்படிச்சொல்லுகிறீர், சிவமாலா அவர்களே? Is it because chapter "Not Killing" has been placed under "Ascetic Virtue"? இதே கதையைத்தான் தேவப்ரியாவும் கூறினார்.

(a) Chapters on "Thieving" and "Covetousness"
Chapter 29 (Thieving: கள்ளாமை) has been placed under "Ascetic virtue" and couplet 283 says "Stolen wealth may seem to swell but in the end will burst" (PS). First of all ascetics are not supposed to even have a desire for wealth, leave alone accumulating wealth, or for that matter indulge in thieving! In fact most of the couplets in this chapter talk about evils of thieving, therefore more relevant for householders who are occupied in social life and therefore have opportunities to indulge in thieving, corruption and the like! Let us look at the other chapter 18 (Covetousness: கயவாமை) placed under "Domestic virtue" and these two couplets ("They will not sin for fleeting pleasures who seek eternal joy"-173; "Their senses conquered, the clear-eyed cite not their poverty to covet" -174). Clearly these couplets are more appropriate for placing under "Ascetic virtue". Mr. Sivamaalaa, can you explain why this discrepancy?

(b) Chapters on "Self control" and "Forbearance"
These chapters (13: அடக்கமுடைமை and 16: பொறையுடைமை) are placed under "Domestic virtue". Do you mean to say those who follow the ascetic path need not show "self control" and "forbearance"?

(c) Chapters on "Truthfulness and "Kindliness"
These chapters (30: வாய்மை and 25: அருளுடைமை) are placed under "Ascetic virtue". Do you mean to say householders need not be truthful and compassionate?

(d) Prostitution, Alcoholism and Gambling
And what about these two chapters (92: வரைவின் மகளிர், 93: கள்ளுண்ணாமை, 94: சூது) which are neither in "Ascetic virtue" nor in "Domestic virtue". Does it mean householders and ascetics can make merry with மது, மாது and சூது?

I have explained all these things in great detail in my posting on "Arrangement of chapters in Tirukkural" (dated Aug 01, 2006). சிவமாலா இதையெல்லாம் படிப்பதில்லை போலும். மலையாளத்தில் உள்ள ஒரு பழமொழி எனக்கு ஞாபகத்திற்கு வருகிறது: "போத்தினோடு வேதம் ஓதி எந்து காரியம்?"

Sivamaalaa said:
இந்தியாவில் பழம்பெரு நாகரிகமும் பண்பாடும் உடையோர் தமிழர். அவர்கள் கொல்லாமை, பொய்யாமை முதலியவற்றை அறியாமல் இருந்து, வட மானிலத்துத் தோன்றிய சமணரிடமிருந்து உணர்ந்துகொண்டனர் என்பது ஒத்துக் கொள்ளமுடியாத கருத்து.

Here comes the real reason why Sivamaalaa is not ready to accept Jaina influence on Tirukkural! He does not want to show that Valluvar got his ideas from others! There we go. தமிழ்ப்பாசம் தேவைதான், அதற்காக இப்படியா? On the contrary, we all know that Valluvar's work, like any other work in general, is a conglomeration of ideas he acquired from various sources (both written and oral) that were available to him during his lifetime. That is why Tirukkural, like any other ethical work, shows resemblance to many Indian works written on Polity, Economics, Dharma, Ahimsa, Medicine and Love. அவையேல்லாம் கவிதை வடிவில் வகுத்தார் என்பதே உண்மை. Of course, there are plenty of couplets for which we cannot see parallels in other sources. These bear the stamp of originality of the poet.

There are Muslims who refuse to accept the fact that the Qur'an is based on Christian and Jewish ideas! Of course it has the status of a revelation amongst Muslims and they cannot accept the proposition that prophet Muhammad was influenced by the Jewish and Christian ideas of his time. இதை ஒப்புக்கொள்வதால் திருக்குரானின் மதிப்பு ஒன்றும் குறையப் போவதில்லை. In fact, all revelations have been in the native tongue based on the native religious beliefs and customs. History has not seen a Semitic Prophet who spoke about "karmā" and "samsārā" and an Indian Avatār who recapitulated the struggle of prophets of the Semitic world.

[NVK Ashraf]

Going higher means "Excommunication"?

Dear Sivamaalaa,

How come, you never agreed to ANY OF MY presentations of Jaina ideas in Tirukkural (literally whatever I said), but at the same time readily accepted to this statement of mine (that Valluvar even goes a step higher and says in couplet 327)? Is it because it simply suits your argument? Given below are the two verses I cited:

A man should wander about treating all creatures
As he himself would be treated. (Saman Suttam 1.11.33)
Avoid removing the dear life of another
Even when your own life is under threat. (Tirukkural Kural 327)

If you were an unbiased scholar, you should have taken up these two verses and reflected on them, instead of focusing on the words I used to express what I meant. Still, your argument looks very absurd to me. You say "Well, if someone goes a step higher, then he was not following the religious text in question strictly". "Then it is very clear that he was not an adherent of that religion".

Going by this logic of yours....
Should a Sikh who says one should not even get involved in trading cigarettes would cease to be a Sikh, just because he went a step higher. Or a Muslim who refuses to eat any food in a hotel where pork is also served?

Wonder if there is any point in providing such examples to either illustrate a point or point out the lacunae in your argument. I have been doing it consistently throughout my discussion in this forum, but to no avail. I have addressed a series of questions to you in my last 2 or 3 postings which were all in response to the statements you made. I had to ask those questions because some of the statements you made looked incorrect and strange to me (I hope you know what I am talking about).
The problem with you and Sivamaalaa is that you all do not pinpoint the place I have gone wrong in my presentation. Just like how I do while replying to your postings.. ஏதோ கடலில் காயம் கலக்கிய மாதிரி பதில் எழுதுவது சரியில்லை. இடம் சுட்டி பொருள் விளக்கம் தர வேண்டும். The problem with such replies is that many of the questions I raise go unanswered. And by employing such "கூட்டத்தில கோவிந்தா" strategy, people believe they can get away from answering such tricky questions. Let me reproduce them here.

I had asked ......

(i) But do you at least agree that the similarity is more with Jainism than with Buddhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism or Christianity for that matter? If not, then please prove me otherwise.
(ii) So what? Do you mean to say Jains and Buddhists never indulged in procreation? Do you mean to say there were no Buddhist and Jaina householders during the time of Valluvar?
(iii) Don't they (Jains) believe in the existence of Soul? Or, do you mean to say Jain and Buddhist religions has nothing to do with LOVE?
(iv) Do you meant to say Jains and Buddhists were not Tamilians? What this has to do with Valluvar being a Hindu or a believer in Creator God or whatever it is? Or, are you implying that only a believer in Creator God would have written a book beginning with "அ" and end with "ன்"?.
(v) If he had denounced "Asceticism" and Ascetic practice, please tell me why he wrote a special chapter on "Ascetics greatness" and placed it before "Domestic life"? And also wrote chapters on "Renunciation", "Penance", "Imposture", "Impermanence" and "Desirelessness" which all have something to do with Ascetic life, in some way or the other ?

I am waiting for answers for these.

[bis_mala]

[tscii:0ef773816f](4) //The God beyond compare Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 2:22 am

You wrote:
¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý- The attribute of this couplet "thanakkuvamai illāthān" (தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்), meaning "the one beyond compare" could perfectly suit any deity, be it of Brahmana, Śramana or Semitic origin. This attribute of being not equal to others or being unique is easily the commonest quality attributed to God in most religious scriptures.

"No one can compare to You, Lord" (ਤੁਮ ਸਰਿ ਅਵਰੁ ਨ ਲਾਗੇ) says Guru Grant Sahib (p. 688).

"There is none like unto the Lord our God" (אֵין כַּיהוָה אֱלֹהֵינו), says the Bible (Exodus 8:6).

"There is none comparable unto Him" (وَلَمْ يَكُنْ لَهُ كُفُوًا أَحَدٌ) says the Qur'an (Qur’an 112:3-4).

"There is none here below to equal Shiva" (அவனொடு ஒப்பார் இங்கு யாவரும் இல்லை) says the principal text of Saiva Siddhānta, Tirumandiram (verse 5).

"ஒப்பில்லா ஒருவன் றன்னை" (6.26.4), "மற்றாருந் தன்னொப்பார் இல்லாதான் காண்" (6.24.10), "தன்னொப்பு இலானை" (7.68.1) says Thévāram of Thirumurai.

Baghvad Gita says "There exists none who is equal to You" (न त्वत्समः) (Gita, 11:43).

FROM THE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES CITED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS ATTRIBUTE IS COMMONLY USED FOR A CREATOR GOD. //

Have you not demolished your own case? Is there anything left?

I do not therefore feel the urgency to reply to your questions above.
[/tscii:0ef773816f]

[bis_mala]

//The problem with you and Sivamaalaa is that you all do not pinpoint the place I have gone wrong in my presentation. Just like how I do while replying to your postings.. ஏதோ கடலில் காயம் கலக்கிய மாதிரி பதில் எழுதுவது சரியில்லை. இடம் சுட்டி பொருள் விளக்கம் தர வேண்டும். The problem with such replies is that many of the questions I raise go unanswered. And by employing such "கூட்டத்தில கோவிந்தா" strategy, people believe they can get away from answering such tricky questions. Let me reproduce them here.//

Miss Ashraff! This is the most inane outpouring I have ever come across in these threads.
You must remember that it is you who wanted to prove to the world at large the connection between VaLLuvar and Jainism. Others and I here are just innocent browsers more like passers-by on the road coming across a snake charmer doing some show along the pavement. If you have problems handling your snake, would you scold the passers-by for your inadequacy? If your snake turns against you or it starts running haywire and we run after it and catch it for you, it is just a bonus for you. If no one around comes forward to help, would you leave the snake to run zig zag on the public thoroughfare and go after us for no fault of ours for failing to catch it for you? We are not the ones who came with the idea of snake show in the first place. So what is our obligation??

Why do you say that we are trying to avoid tricky questions? Is it part and parcel of your scholarship to pose tricky questions to us? What are the tricks you have in your questions anyway that we are running away from? Can you compose yourself and address your issues correctly and methodically?

[NVK Ashraf]

Dear Sivamaalaa,

You have proudly proclaimed to have found something in my posting that would demolish my case of Jaina ideas/influence in Tirukkural.

//
FROM THE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES CITED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS ATTRIBUTE IS COMMONLY USED FOR A CREATOR GOD.
Have you not demolished your own case? Is there anything left?
//

Hello, sir! I beg your pardon! I only said this attribute is COMMONLY used for a Creator God. I never said that it is ONLY used for Creator God. The attribute has also been used to describe a Jaina deity. In fact I cited the following sloka from Samaya sara also, which you conveniently omitted from your list. Can you tell me why you did that?

Here is that sloka from the Jaina scripture:
In Samaya-sāra, the Jaina āchāryā Kundakunda describes Jaina God as the one without compare (anovamam)
वन्दित्तु सव्वा सिद्धे धुवम् अचलम् अणोवमं गदिं पत्ते
वोच्चामि समया पाहुडम् इनामो सुय केवली भणियं॥

It is only because such an attribute is not commonly mentioned in Jaina scriptures (as far as I am aware), that I gave only 2 marks for the Jaina Deity for this attribute, as opposed to 3 marks form many others (see that part alone reproduced below)

J S V B JG N 7. தன. இல்லாதான் 2 3 3 3 2 1

In fact at the end of the section on "The God Beyond Compare", I wrote:

//The only religion missing from the list is Buddhism (of course Zoroastrianism and Bahai). I am sure there must be a reference somewhere, either in Theravādā or Mahāyānā tradition, that refers Lord Buddha as "Incomparable". //

Sivamaalaa, unlike you I don't want to hide anything. I want to make an impartial inquiry into the claims and counter claims. It is my duty to study all scriptures to do my analysis. Unlike you, I will not reject or hide claims that come from outside the Jaina faith.

You also wrote:
I do not therefore feel the urgency to reply to your questions above.

No hurry. You can take some time. I will wait.

You also wrote:
"You must remember that it is you who wanted to prove to the world at large the connection between VaLLuvar and Jainism. Others and I here are just innocent browsers more like passers-by on the road coming across a snake charmer doing some show along the pavement. If you have problems handling your snake, would you scold the passers-by for your inadequacy?"

This is a discussion forum and every one has the right to do their own "snake charming". You have voluntarily come forward to take part in the show. No body put a gun to your head asking you to comment. You have held on to the snake and you should be ready to face the bites if you are not smart enough or trained enough to avoid them. Do not say you were only a passerby. Next to Devapriya, you have made most of the replies.

[bis_mala]

[tscii:2822e3beb6]
The prevailing beliefs and religious practices of Valluvar’s time was Hinduism., and for this purpose, we may disregard differences between current practices and the practices then. There is no reason to deny that vegitarianism was the prevailing practice among the people at the time. Until Śramana practices grew to become a distinct belief group, it grew within Hinduism. It cannot be otherwise. Buddhist scholar G.C. Pande (1995) has been quoted: "The immediate context of the emergence of Buddhism in India in the 5th century B.C. is the Śramana movement, in which independent ascetics freed themselves from Vedic authority, Brahminic ritualism and conservative social tradition, and established communities for the purpose of exploring new paths to spiritual liberation". To the question where did the Jains get their philosophy and ethics, the answer is that they got it from Hinduism of the day, regardless of the fact Hinduism did not exist under that name then!! To the question: where did Hinduism get its philosophy and ethics, the answer should be: from Dravidians, who were the then inhabitants of the entire subcontinent, who spread all over from ancient Tamiz KuuRum Nallulakam.

VaLLuvar, if at all he had to take anything from anywhere, took his materials from “ Hinduism” of the day, practiced by the Dravidians then. In any discussion, we should not forget this history.

The alleged Jain connection to kuRaL should therefore be discarded.
[/tscii:2822e3beb6]

[bis_mala]

Sivamaalaa, unlike you I don't want to hide anything. I want to make an impartial inquiry into the claims and counter claims. It is my duty to study all scriptures to do my analysis. Unlike you, I will not reject or hide claims that come from outside the Jaina faith.

I cited from a post of yours which is still there. I also gave the date of the post. I reproduced as is so far relevant to my argument.

Why do you use the word "hide" in connection with what I wrote? Is the word "hide" proper in the circumstances, miss Ashraff? Please explain!

[NVK Ashraf]

Dear Sivamaalaa,

You said:
I cited from a post of yours which is still there. I also gave the date of the post. I reproduced as is so far relevant to my argument.

I do not understand what you mean here. Absolutely no idea! Which post of mine did you cite? Which one did you reproduce which was "RELEVANT" to your argument? Is that the one cited under the subject "Broken Down" on the 10th of August?

If so, did I reply to you on the very same day and said in clear terms that the attribute தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான் is COMMONLY used one for Creator God and not ONLY used for Creator God. I also mentioned that the attribute has also been used to describe a Jaina deity. I pointed to you that I had also cited the sloka from Samaya Sara (Jaina scritpure) which you conveniently omitted from your list.

I am reproducing that sloka again, for the third time:
In Samaya-sāra, the Jaina āchāryā Kundakunda describes Jaina God as the one without compare (anovamam)
वन्दित्तु सव्वा सिद्धे धुवम् अचलम् अणोवमं गदिं पत्ते
वोच्चामि समया पाहुडम् इनामो सुय केवली भणियं॥

You have to still tell me why you did not bother to reproduce this verse, while at the same time produce those from Quran, Gita, Bible and Tirumurai? Mr. சிவமாலா அவர்களே, இப்படியெல்லாம் செய்யலாமா? இது உங்களுக்கும் எனக்கும் இடையே Email மூலமாக நடக்கும் வாதமல்ல.! It is happening in a discussion forum and all your omissions and commissions will be read by everyone! Please have some shame.

You said:
Why do you use the word "hide" in connection with what I wrote? Is the word "hide" proper in the circumstances, miss Ashraff? Please explain!

என்ன ஒன்றும் தெரியாத மாதிரி நடிக்கிரீர்கள்? You only hid the citation from Jaina scripture aboute தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்? Why Jaina citations alone does not strike your eyes?
By the by, please don't call me Miss Ashraf. Say Mr. Ashraf or simply Ashraf.

[bis_mala]

You have to still tell me why you did not bother to reproduce this verse, while at the same time produce those from Quran, Gita, Bible and Tirumurai? Mr. சிவமாலா அவர்களே, இப்படியெல்லாம் செய்யலாமா? இது உங்களுக்கும் எனக்கும் இடையே Email மூலமாக நடக்கும் வாதமல்ல.! It is happening in a discussion forum and all your omissions and commissions will be read by everyone! Please have some shame.

Simply, I am writing my post and I decide how much to quote from a previous post. You cannot excercise control over what I write. The purpose is to call attention to those parts on which I am basing my post. I am not obliged to please you. I am also not obliged to reproduce for you parts which are useless for my purpose of the post but you would prefer to hear. You can go and reproduce those parts which you like any number of times for your own consumption. I am not interested.
In any case, the previous post I referred to is still available at the time of my posting and even now. There is nothing to hide. You have used the wrong word against a fellow hubber: the word hide. You are shamelessly refusing to admit your mistake now.

Stop addressing me as Mr.
Use proper address as in my signature.

Do not use the word hide again.

[bis_mala]

[tscii:ac189b10be]ÅûÙÅò¾¢üÌõ ºÁ½ ¦Àªò¾ ºÁÂí¸Ç¢ý ¦¸¡û¨¸¸ÙìÌõ ÀÄ ¦Àâ §ÅÚÀ¡Î¸û ¯ûÇÉ. ºÁ½Óõ ¦Àªò¾Óõ ÐÈÅÈò¾¢üÌ Ó¾ý¨Á ¾óÐ þøÄÈò¨¾î º¢Ú¨Áô ÀÎò¾¢Â Á¾í¸û. ÅûÙÅõ þøÄÈò¾¢üÌ Ó¾Ä¢¼õ ¾Õ¸¢ýÈÐ. ºÁ½õ ¦Àñ¸¨Çî º¢Ú¨ÁôÀÎò¾¢Â Á¾õ. ¬É¡ø ÅûÙŧÁ¡, ¦Àñ ¸üÀ¢É¡ø ¯Â÷ó¾Å¦ÇýÚõ «Åû ¦Àö ±ýÈ¡ø Á¨ÆÔõ ¦ÀöÔõ ±ýÚ ¦Àñ¨Á¨Â ¯Â÷×ÀÎò¾¢ì ¸¡ðÎÅмý, ¦Àñ§À¡ø ¸üÒ¨¼Â ¬¼ÅÕõ «Åû§À¡ø ¦ÀÕ¨Á ±öÐÅ÷ ±ý¸¢ÈÐ.

¦¸¡øÄ¡¨Á, ÒÄ¡ø ¯ñ½¡¨Á ӾĢÂÅü¨È ÅûÙÅõ ÜȢ¢ÕôÀ¢Ûõ, «Åü¨Èò ÐÈÅ¢¸ÙìÌ ±ÎòШÃ츢ÈÐ. þ¾¢ø ºÁ½ò¾¢ÈÌõ ÅûÙÅò¾¢üÌõ §ÅÚÀ¡ÎñÎ.

þÅüÚìÌ Á¡È¡¸, ÅûÙÅõ ºÁ½ò¨¾ ´ðÊø¸¢ÈÐ ±ýÛõ ¦¸¡û¨¸, ´Õ §¸¡½ø¦¸¡û¨¸Â¡Ìõ. ºÁñò ¦¾¡¼÷Ò ¸üÀ¢ìÌõ ¦¸¡û¨¸¨Âì Ìô¨Àò ¦¾¡ðÊ¢ø þÎŧ¾ «È¢×¨¼¨Á¡Ìõ.

º¢Å¨Éì ÌÈ¢ìÌõ ¦º¡ü¸û ÌÈÇ¢ø ¯ÇÅ¡¨¸Â¡ø, ÅûÙÅ÷ ´Õ ¨ºÅô ¦ÀÕÁ¸É¡÷ ±ýÀÐ ¦¾Ç¢×.[/tscii:ac189b10be]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:2ce0b59c18]Jainism during the time of Valluvar?

Dear Sivamaalaa,

I forgot to comment on your following views (Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2006 , Post subject: to keep in the background) . I don't want to leave any of your points unaddressed (unlike you).

You wrote:
The prevailing beliefs and religious practices of Valluvar’s time was Hinduism., and for this purpose, we may disregard differences between current practices and the practices then.

For this to be true, you should place Valluvar before 2nd Century B.C. I don't think any one has dated Valluvar that early! Hope you understand what I mean. If you can't, please let me know.

You also said:
There is no reason to deny that vegitarianism was the prevailing practice among the people at the time. Until Śramana practices grew to become a distinct belief group, it grew within Hinduism. It cannot be otherwise. Buddhist scholar G.C. Pande (1995) has been quoted: "The immediate context of the emergence of Buddhism in India in the 5th century B.C. is the Śramana movement, in which independent ascetics freed themselves from Vedic authority, Brahminic ritualism and conservative social tradition, and established communities for the purpose of exploring new paths to spiritual liberation".

Whether Sramana movement emerged from Hinduism or whether it existed before is immaterial to our discussion. Jaina scholars may say many things, but at least everyone agrees that Jainism began with Mahavira (unlike you disagree with this also!!). This is 5th or 6th century BC. The period of Valluvar is at least half a millennium later! Remember there are scholars who place Valluvar as late as 6th century A.D. Nevertheless, the point I am trying to make is that Jaina ideas must have been prevalent during the time of Valluvar. Well, once again, as I reiterated again and again in my postings, let me tell you that these are NOT MY views or something that has been DISCOVERED BY ASHRAF, but something ALL scholars have agreed upon. That is, Jainism and Buddhism were prevalent during the time of Valluvar. If YOU want to be different, by all means, please EXPOSE YOUR IGNORANCE to everyone in this forum.

You also said:
To the question where did the Jains get their philosophy and ethics, the answer is that they got it from Hinduism of the day, regardless of the fact Hinduism did not exist under that name then!!

Well, if Buddhism had managed to hold on to its dominance it had during the 6th and 7th centuries, I am sure the majority Buddhists in this country would have said that Hinduism got its ideas from Buddhism of the day, regarding of the fact Buddhism did not exist by that name then!!! There are scholars (including Dr. Radhakrishnan) who hold the view that one of ways Hinduism eliminated Buddhism from India is by assimilating many of the Buddhist ideas into its fold!

To the question: where did Hinduism get its philosophy and ethics, the answer should be: from Dravidians, who were the then inhabitants of the entire subcontinent, who spread all over from ancient Tamiz KuuRum Nallulakam.

I am not surprised to hear this from you. It does not take much courage to make this statement for some one who considers that Jaina beliefs were not in vogue during the time of Valluvar!

You said:
Simply, I am writing my post and I decide how much to quote from a previous post. You cannot excercise control over what I write. The purpose is to call attention to those parts on which I am basing my post. I am not obliged to please you. I am also not obliged to reproduce for you parts which are useless for my purpose of the post but you would prefer to hear. You can go and reproduce those parts which you like any number of times for your own consumption. I am not interested.

I am not a person who would like to hear the arguments from only one side of the coin. And that is why true to my nature, I cited more than 5 verses from non-Jaina scritpures and only one from a Jaina source. If you were like you ("I am also not obliged to reproduce for you parts which are useless for my purpose"), I would not have cited them simply under the same "logic" of yours! (i.e. because they are useless to serve my purpose. That is partiality. Anyway you have proved to everyone in this forum that you would not heed to anything contrary to your Hindu and Tamil

சமன்செய்து சீர்தூக்குங் கோல்போல் அமைந்தொருபால்
கோடாமை சான்றோர்க் கணி. (118)
To be unbiased like an unswerving weighing scale
Is an ornament for the great. * PS, SI


You said:
In any case, the previous post I referred to is still available at the time of my posting and even now. There is nothing to hide. You have used the wrong word against a fellow hubber: the word hide. You are shamelessly refusing to admit your mistake now.

You have already stated that you are biased in reproducing citations and you will do so because they do not serve your purpose. If the word "hide" is improper, then please let me know how I should call someone who crops parts a group citations and present only those that support his argument.

You said:
Stop addressing me as Mr.
Use proper address as in my signature.

Sorry, Ms. Sivamaalaa. The confusion came because of the other person "Devapriya" who happened to be a male unlike what the name would suggest. [/tscii:2ce0b59c18]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:7d45d8b084]¡÷ ±ó¾ì ¸¡Äò¾¢ø Å¡úó¾¡ø ±ýÉ? «ó¾ò ¸¡Äò¾¢ø Ó¨Çò¾ ¸¡Ç¡ý¸¨Ç «ôÀʧ º¡ôÀ¢ðÎÅ¢ÎÅ¡÷¸û ±ýÀÐ ¯ÁÐ Å¡¾Á¡?

Ìñ¼Ìñ¼ý ¦º¡øÉ¡ø ±ýÉ? Òò¾Û¨¼Â À¡ð¼ý ÅóÐ ¦º¡ýÉ¡ø¾¡ý ±ýÉ? §ÅÚ ¦¸¡õÀý¸û ÅóÐ ¦º¡ýÉ¡ø ±ýÉ? ã¨Ç¨Â «¼Ì¨ÅòÐÅ¢ðÎ Á¾¦ÁýÈ ¦ÀÂáø Ìô¨À¸¨Ç ²üÚ즸¡ûÀÅÉøÄý ÅûÙÅý!! Á¾ò¨¾ì ¸Õò¾¢ø ¦¸¡ñÎ À¡ÊÉ¡ý ±ýÀÐ ¦ÅÚíÜÇõ.

ºÁÂõ, ºÁÂ츽ìÌ, Á¾õ ±ýÈ ¦º¡ü¸¨Çò ¾õÁ¸òÐûÇ / ¦¸¡ñÊÕìÌõ ÌÈðÀ¡ì¸¨Ç ±ÎòÐÅ¢ÇìÌõ À¡÷ì¸Ä¡õ!!

þó¾¢Â¡Å¢ø §¾¡ýȢ ±øÄ¡ Á¾í¸Ùõ þóÐÁ¾ò¾¢ý ¾¢Ã¢ó¾¨Á׸§Ç. Á¾ò¾¨ÄÅý, Áì¸Ç¢¼õ ¦¾¡ýÚ¦¾¡ðÎ ÅÆí¸¢Â ÀÆì¸ ÅÆì¸ ¦¿È¢¸Ç¢ø º¢ÄÅü¨È ²üÚ즸¡ñÎ º¢ÄÅü¨È ²üÚ즸¡ûÇÁÚòÐô Ò¨ÉÂôÀð¼¨Å§Â Á¾í¸û.

´Ø츦¿È¢Ó¨È¸û Á¾í¸Ù째 ¦º¡ó¾Á¡É¨Å ±ýÀÐ ÌÕðÎì ¸øÅ¢Á¡ý¸Ç¢ý ´Õ ¸Õò¾¡Ìõ.

¿£÷ ¦º¡øŨ¾¦ÂøÄ¡õ ÅâìÌÅâ «ÊòÐ ¯¨¼òÐ즸¡ñÊÕì¸Ä¡õ. ¯ÕôÀ¼¡¾ Å¡¾ò¾¢üÌ þùÅÇ× ¸¡Äò¨¾ Å¢ÃÂõ ¦ºöÅРţñ§Å¨Ä.[/tscii:7d45d8b084]

[bis_mala]

You have already stated that you are biased in reproducing citations and you will do so because they do not serve your purpose.

Right and freedom to select what is relevant is different from being biased..

Can you tell me why you did not reproduce everything that kundakunda said on earth and only selected some lines for your posts? Same principle applies.

You have also omitted to quote some parts of my posts and cited other parts. Well, I am not accusing you of anything yet. Why? That is the norm and your right. freedom or preference. I am not holding you by your collar for that. You follow??

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:df0f985890]Is Valluvar a Saivite?

Sivamaalaa wrote:
குண்டகுண்டன் சொல்னால் என்ன? புத்தனுடைய பாட்டன் வந்து சொன்னால்தான் என்ன? வேறு கொம்பன்கள் வந்து சொன்னால் என்ன? மூளையை அடகுவைத்துவிட்டு மதமென்ற பெயரால் குப்பைகளை ஏற்றுக்கொள்பவனல்லன் வள்ளுவன்!! மதத்தைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டு பாடினான் என்பது வெறுங்கூளம்.

மதத்தைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டு பாடவில்லை என்றால், எப்படி சிவனைக் குறிக்கும் சொற்கள் திருக்குறளில் உள்ளதாகக் கூறுகிறீர்கள்?

This is what you wrote in your earlier posting:
"சிவனைக் குறிக்கும் சொற்கள் குறளில் உளவாகையால், வள்ளுவர் ஒரு சைவப் பெருமகனார் என்பது தெளிவு."

Sivamaalaa considers Tiruvalluvar to be a Saivite. I would appreciate her views on the following statements found in Dr. K Moharaj’s (1983) seminal research work “Idealism and Universalism of Tiruvalluvar” (University of Madras). Pages 343-345.

உலகம் தோன்றிய முறையைப் பற்றித் தெளிவாகத் திருவள்ளுவர் ஏதும் கூறாததால் திருக்குறள் சைவ நூலாக இருத்ததற்கு இயலாது எனக் கருதுகின்றனர் உருத்திர கோடீசுவரர் அவர்கள் (Ref 1).

மெய்ப்பொருள் முப்பத்தாறு என்பதையும், உருவ வழிபாடு, சைவர்களின் ஆரியச் சார்பு ஆகியனவற்றையும் வள்ளுவர் ஏற்றுக்கோள்ளாததால் திருக்குறள் சைவ நூல் அன்று என்கிறார் வீ. அரங்கனாதன் அவர்கள் (Ref 2).

செல்வி காமாட்சி சீனிவாசன் அவர்கள் பின்வரும் காரணங்கள் கூறித் திருக்குறள் சைவ நூல் அன்று எனக் கருதுகின்றார் (Ref 3). திருக்குறளில்,

1. கடவுள் உயிர்களுடனும் உலகத்துடனும் கலந்து நிற்கின்றார் என்னும் கருத்து இன்மை,
2. மாயை பற்றிய கருத்து இன்மை,
3. ஆன்மா வீட்டு நிலையில் இறைவனிடமிருந்தே பேரின்பத்தைப் பெறுகிறது என்னும் கருத்து தெளிவாகக் கூறப்படாமை,
4. கடவுளின் அருளையும் வழிபாட்டையும் குறித்த கருத்துகள் சித்தாந்த நூல்களில் காணபடுவது போல இன்மை,
5. வழிபாட்டு முறைகள் கூறப்படாமை,
6. மணிமேகலையில் சைவசமயக் கடவுளர்க்கு உரியனவாகக் கூறப்படும் எட்டு வடிவங்களோ பிற இறையியற் கொள்கைகளோ இன்மை,
7. சிவபெருமான் எங்கும் வெளிப்படையாகச் சுட்டப்படாமை.

திருவள்ளுவர் திருவுருவம் சைவக் கோயில்களில் வைக்கப்படாமையாலும், அடியவர் வாழ்த்தில் அவர் சேர்க்கப்படாமையாலும், வழிபாட்டுக் காலங்களில் வள்ளுவரின் நூல் ஓதப்படாமையாலும் திருவள்ளுவர் சைவர் அல்லர் என வேறொரு கோணத்தில் நின்று மறுப்புரை தருகின்றார் திரு. வி.க. அகர்கள் (Ref 4).

(Though I personally do not agree with this method of approaching the Kural to determine the religious affiliation of the author, I leave this matter to Sivamaalaa to counter these views)

References:

1. உருத்திர கோடீசுவரர். “திருவள்ளுவர் சமயம் யாது?”. மறைமலை அடிகள் நூலகம், எண் 01C5: 999. பக்கம் 8.
2. வீ. அரங்கநாதன், 1978. “நுழைவாயில்” திருக்குறளும் இறையருளும். அருளமுது வெளியீடு, South Arcot District. பக்கம் 26
3. காமாட்சி சீனிவாசன், 1979. குறள் கூறும் சமயம். மதுரை காமராசர் பல்கலைக்கழகம், மதுரை. பக்கம்210-211
4. திரு. வி.க. மேற்கோள்: எஸ். இராமகிருஷ்ணன். திருக்குறள்: ஒரு சமுதாயப் பார்வை. பக்கம் 18-19. (Citation not in full).[/tscii:df0f985890]

[NVK Ashraf]

When I said "You have already stated that you are biased in reproducing citations and you will do so because they do not serve your purpose.", Sivamaalaa wrote:

Can you tell me why you did not reproduce everthing that kundakunda said on earth and only selected some lines for your posts? Same principle applies.

No.. No... they are not the same! Much of Kundakunda's writing in Samaya Sara are on Atma vidya which has no relevance to the topic we are discussing here. Your point would have made sense had I not cited a verse from Samayasara which is contrary to what I was trying to point out.

Sivamaalaa:
You have also omitted to quote some parts of my posts and cited other parts. Well, I am not accusing you of anything yet. Why? That is the norm and your right. freedom or preference. I am not holding you by your collar for that. You follow??

As long as I have not omitted anything important, it is fine. But you can point out if I have left out anything critical as you did in the case of தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்!

Anway, I am still waiting for your answers to the following questions. They all have a direct relevance to the topic of discussion here:

I had asked.....

(i) But do you at least agree that the similarity is more with Jainism than with Buddhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism or Christianity for that matter? If not, then please prove me otherwise.
(ii) Do you mean to say Jains and Buddhists never indulged in procreation? Do you mean to say there were no Buddhist and Jaina householders during the time of Valluvar?
(iii) Don't they (Jains) believe in the existence of Soul? Or, do you mean to say Jain and Buddhist religions has nothing to do with LOVE?
(iv) Do you meant to say Jains and Buddhists were not Tamilians? What this has to do with Valluvar being a Hindu or a believer in Creator God or whatever it is? Or, are you implying that only a believer in Creator God would have written a book beginning with "அ" and end with "ன்"?.
(v) If he had denounced "Asceticism" and Ascetic practice, please tell me why he wrote a special chapter on "Ascetics greatness" and placed it before "Domestic life"? And also wrote chapters on "Renunciation", "Penance", "Imposture", "Impermanence" and "Desirelessness" which all have something to do with Ascetic life, in some way or the other ?

[bis_mala]

You wrote:
PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 12:51 am It is therefore not a book that Jains can claim to be theirs!
Interestingly, when people take the Kural as a Hindu work, there are no disagreements.

You have demolished your own case long ago. You r no diff from a snake charmer putting on a show with a dead snake. So, I do not want to make myself busy hitting it.

[bis_mala]

[tscii:9590b5b4dc]
You wrote Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:18 am

It is only in Vedic or Brahminical Hinduism that Animal sacrifice is practiced to please gods existed.

You have tacitly agreed that Dravidians were by and large vegetarians during Valluvar’s time. You agreed that VaLLuvar need not have to go to Gujarat to learn about it!! Keep it up.
[/tscii:9590b5b4dc]

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:2152548f3f]Sivamaalaa,

While I will keep answering to your new questions and strange conclusions you make from my old postings, you keep avoiding the questions I raise.

By raising two more pettyissues, you have exposed your ignorance again, Ms. Sivamaalaa. I will show how.

(i) The first issue

You proclaimed:
"You have demolished your own case long ago. You r no diff from a snake charmer putting on a show with a dead snake. So, I do not want to make myself busy hitting it."

Why you said so? Because I had written "It is therefore not a book that Jains can claim to be theirs! Interestingly, when people take the Kural as a Hindu work, there are no disagreements." (PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2006 12:51 am)

My reply:
Of course, I have always been saying that Tirukkural is NOT a book that Jains can claim to be theirs! What is strange and disagreeable about this statement? In the same vain, Tirukkural is NOT a book that Hindus can claim to be theirs! The Kural may contain predominant Jaina, Buddhist or Hindu ideas (as different groups claim), but it is not a book written with a particular community in mind. The reason is because the Kural is NOT a book on Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism. Ms. Sivamaalaa, didn't I say in the very preceding sentence of the same posting (Post Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 12:51 am) the reason behind not considering the Kural as a work on Jainism, the religion? How come you managed to once again edit that from my posting and copy paste only that section that seems suitable to you? Deceitful tactics? Please read the point in full.

"I understand your predicaments in accepting the dominating Jaina ideas in Kural. I repeat once again. The Kural is not a work on Jainism. It is therefore not a book that Jains can claim to be theirs!"

The Jains can claim Samaya Sara, Tatvartha Sutra, Acaranga Sutra, Nalatiyar, Valaiyapathy, Civaka Cintamani etc as their work, but not the Kural. Ms. Sivamaalaa, there is a difference in saying that the Kural is based on Jaina ethics and ideas and saying that the Kural is a work on Jainism. இப்பொழுதாவது புரிஞ்சதா, சிவமாலா அவர்களே!

In my post dated 7th August, I had also said: "The Jains have every right to say that Valluvar was a Jain, or at least claim that the author of the Kuŗal was inclined towards Jaina ideals. But they do not have the right to claim the Kuŗal as their scripture for the simple reason that the Kuŗal was not written for any particular sect in mind"

Wonder why such sentences fail to catch your attention, Ms. Sivamaalaa? Strangely, your mind works very selectively!

(ii) Second issue.

You wrote:
"You have tacitly agreed that Dravidians were by and large vegetarians during Valluvar’s time. You agreed that VaLLuvar need not have to go to Gujarat to learn about it!! Keep it up."

You made this statement because I had apparently said in my posting on Thu Jun 29, 2006 2 that "It is only in Vedic or Brahminical Hinduism that Animal sacrifice is practiced to please gods existed".

How do you manage to bring out such concocted conclusions, Ms Devapriya? If animal sacrifice existed in one community, it does not mean others were vegetarians! What a crooked conclusion. Moreover why should Valluvar go to Gujarat to learn about Jainism? If a common man had to know about Buddhism in the 5th Century AD, it doesn't mean he would have learnt about it only by coming to Bodhgaya! For your information, there are non-vegetarians who do not practice animal sacrifice. And there are also vegetarians who eat meat only at the time of their annual animal sacrifice event (eg. The Todas of Nilgiris).

Ms. Sivamaalaa, you are increasingly becoming like my old "friend" Ibrahim of Malaysia who, during our discussion in the Indolink forum five years ago, needlessly kept insisting that the reference to "navdāara puré" in Hindu scriptures is nothing but a reference to the Mecca with nine entrances. No amount of citations from wide range of Hindu scriptures could convince him that it is nothing but a reference to the human body with nine gates! (I was then using my second name Kunhunu). This discussion went for months together on the same subject!. I did a google search and found the link below, but apparently they have removed all old postings.

INDOlink Arts-Culture Discussion Forum Forum - Kunhunu: 9 gates ...
Ibrahim says : My dear kunhunu, I just had a chance to verify whether your claims that the city with 9 gates refers to our body as per the reference you ...
www.indolink.com/Forum/Arts-Culture/messages/2918.html - 7k - Supplemental Result -
[/tscii:2152548f3f]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:0f9792d507]//Ms. Sivamaalaa, you are increasingly becoming like my old "friend" Ibrahim of Malaysia who, during our discussion in the Indolink forum five years ago, needlessly kept insisting that the reference to "navda-ara puré" in Hindu scriptures is nothing but a reference to the Mecca with nine entrances. No amount of citations from wide range of Hindu scriptures could convince him that it is nothing but a reference to the human body with nine gates! (I was then using my second name Kunhunu). This discussion went for months together on the same subject!. I did a google search and found the link below, but apparently they have removed all old postings. //

¯ÁìÌ ÁÉ §¿¡ö ¯ûǦ¾ýÀÐ þô§À¡Ð ÒâóÐÅ¢ð¼Ð. þÕ ¦À¡ÕûÀÎõ ´ýÈ¢ø, ¿£÷ ¦º¡øÖõ ¦À¡Õû¾¡ý ºÃ¢ ±ýÚ ÀÄ Á¡¾í¸û «¨Ãò¾ Á¡¨Å§Â À¢¨ºóЦ¸¡ñÊÕó¾¢Õ츢ȣ§Ã!! «¨¾ ±ýɦÅýÀÐ? «¨¾§Â ¾¡ý þíÌõ ¦ºöЦ¸¡ñÊÕ츢ȣ÷!

§ÁÖõ ¯ÁÐ Å¡¾í¸Ç¢ø ¯ûÇ µð¨¼¸¨Ç ±ÎòÐ¡ýÉ¡ø, Àì¸òРš츢Âí¸¨Ç ¦ÂøÄ¡õ Ш½ì¸¨ÆòÐ, À¢¾üȢ즸¡ñÊÕôÀÐ «ó§¿¡ö ÓüȢ¾ý «È¢ÌÈ¢¾¡§É¡?

¿¡ý «È¢Â¡¨Á¢ø ±Ø¾¢Ôû§Çý ±ý¸¢È£÷! «Îò¾¸½§Á ²Á¡üÚžüÌ «ôÀÊ ±Øи¢§Èý ±ý¸¢È£÷! þùÅ¢ÃñÊÖõ ±Ð ¯ñ¨Á? þÃñÎõ ±ôÀÊ ´òÐÅÕ¸¢ýÈÉ?

±Ø¾¢ Å¢¨Ç¡Îž¡Â¢ý þùÅ¡ñÎ ÓØÅÐõ ±Ø¾¢ì¦¸¡ñÊÕì¸Ä¡õ. ¬É¡ø ÀÂÉ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ¨¾ Óý§À ÜȢŢð§¼ý.

ÁÉ¿Ä Á¨É¢ø ¯õ ¿¢¨Ä ±ôÀÊô §À¡¸¢ÈÐ ±ýÀ¨¾ §¿Ãõ ¸¢¨¼ìÌõ§À¡Ð ÅóÐ À¡÷츢§Èý. ÁÉ ¿Äõ Á£Ç ±ý Å¡úòÐì¸û!! bye!! [/tscii:0f9792d507]

[bis_mala]

How do you manage to bring out such concocted conclusions, Ms Devapriya? If animal sacrifice existed in one community, it does not mean others were vegetarians! What a crooked conclusion.

You can't even recognise with whom you are conversing!! Very serious mental disease.... che che!! :cry:

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:fd26fce773]Unanswered questions

To Sivamaalaa,

In your previous posting, you wrote:
"உமக்கு மன நோய் உள்ளதென்பது இப்போது புரிந்துவிட்டது. இரு பொருள்படும் ஒன்றில், நீர் சொல்லும் பொருள்தான் சரி என்று பல மாதங்கள் அரைத்த மாவையே பிசைந்துகொண்டிருந்திருக்கிறீரே!! அதை என்னவென்பது? அதையே தான் இங்கும் செய்துகொண்டிருக்கிறீர்!"

Instead of talking in riddles like this, it would be useful for me if you can tell me what this "இரு பொருள்படும் ஒன்று" is! And also specify where I said "நான் சொல்லும் பொருள்தான் சரி என்று". I am keen to know this so that I can reply. Or at least I can correct myself if had gone wrong anywhere.

You also said:
மேலும் உமது வாதங்களில் உள்ள ஓட்டைகளை எடுத்துச்சொன்னால், பக்கத்து வாக்கியங்களை யெல்லாம் துணைக்கழைத்து, பிதற்றிக்கொண்டிருப்பது அந்நோய் முற்றியதன் அறிகுறிதானோ?

At least ஒரு ஐந்து ஓட்டைகளையாவது சொல்லமுடியுமா? I am desperate to know them. Don't make general sweeping statements without any supporting evidence. The hallmark of a scholar is to provide evidences to support the argument.

You also said: "நான் அறியாமையில் எழுதியுள்ளேன் என்கிறீர்! அடுத்தகணமே ஏமாற்றுவதற்கு அப்படி எழுதுகிறேன் என்கிறீர்! இவ்விரண்டிலும் எது உண்மை? இரண்டும் எப்படி ஒத்துவருகின்றன?"

What is this? When did I say so? Please tell me. Your allegation is very intriguing! Unlike you, I would like answer every question of yours.

I will not evade questions like you have been doing in this thread. Let me once again reproduce the questions for which you have not answered so far. This discussion between you and me has been dragging along because of the following unanswered questions. There cannot be an end or conclusion to any discussion if one party refuses to provided answers. If you go through the points below, you will realize that they were ALL in response to the comments you made. I have not asked or raise any out of the bloom issues!

(A) Questions raised in my posting on Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:56 am
Post subject: Sivamaalaa's interesting replies!

(1) When you said may other faiths including Christians are claiming the Kural as their work, I pointed out to similar claims in every religion and said: "Sivamaala, are you are willing rank these claims, based on a simple criteria of reasonability of such claims! i.e. எது மிகவும் நியாயமான முறையீடு என்று?" இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(2) I had also said: "You will appreciate that the contents of the first chapter are more relevant to describe a Jaina deity than deities of other faiths. Buddhism comes close second" இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(3) When you said: "There are similarities between some percepts of Jainism with certain corners of KuRal" I replied: "But do you at least agree that the similarity is more with Jainism than with Buddhism, Saivism, Vaishnavism or Christianity for that matter? If not, then please prove me otherwise". No comments from your side on this also!

(4) When you provided this famous oft repeated evidence to show Valluvar as a non-Jaina, you said: "He emphasized family virtues and begetting children. He devoted about one third of his book to love and sex". To this I replied saying: "So what? Do you mean to say Jains and Buddhists never indulged in procreation? Do you mean to say there were no Buddhist and Jaina householders during the time of Valluvar? I will agree with your argument if Tirukkural....." இதற்கும் இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(5) When you cited "anpin vaziyathu uyirnilai" and said "Valluvar preached love", I said: "எனக்குப் புரியவில்லை. சுத்தமாகப் புரியவில்லை. "அன்பின் வழியது உயிர் நிலை" means the "seat of life love" (SB) or "The throb of life is love" (JN). Here Valluvar is equating Soul with Love: "A loveless body is as good as a Soulless one". Can you tell what this has to do with Jainism? Don't they believe in the existence of Soul? Or, do you mean to say Jain and Buddhist religions has nothing to do with LOVE?" இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(6) When you wrote: "VaLLuvar is a thoroughbred Tamilian in body and mind, who commence with "a" and ended hi KuRal with "n". I asked: "Do you meant to say Jains and Buddhists were not Tamilians? What this has to do with Valluvar being a Hindu or a believer in Creator God or whatever it is? Or, are you implying that only a believer in Creator God would have written a book beginning with "அ" and end with "ன்"?." இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(7) When you said: "சமண துறவியாகவோ போவதில் புண்ணியமில்லை என்கிறார் (வள்ளுவர்)" , I had these two questions addressed to you. .

(i) Where does Valluvar say it is useless to become Jaina and Buddhist renunciates?
(ii) How did the same Valluvar exalted Ascetic life in the following verse?
இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(B) Questions raised in my posting on Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:32 am
Post subject: Vegetarianism and Not killing only for Ascetics?

(8) When you said: "மேலும் கொல்லாமை என்பது துறவிகளுக்கே அவர்கள் மேற்கொள்ளுவதற்குரிய நோன்பாக எடுத்துரைக்கப் பட்டுள்ளது. இதில் சமணக் கருத்து ஏதுமில்லை." I asked the following questions....

* Chapters on "Self control" and "Forbearance"
These chapters (13: அடக்கமுடைமை and 16: பொறையுடைமை) are placed under "Domestic virtue". Do you mean to say those who follow the ascetic path need not show "self control" and "forbearance"?

* Chapters on "Truthfulness and "Kindliness"
These chapters (30: வாய்மை and 25: அருளுடைமை) are placed under "Ascetic virtue". Do you mean to say householders need not be truthful and compassionate?

* Prostitution, Alcoholism and Gambling
And what about these two chapters (92: வரைவின் மகளிர், 93: கள்ளுண்ணாமை, 94: சூது) which are neither in "Ascetic virtue" nor in "Domestic virtue". Does it mean householders and ascetics can make merry with மது, மாது and சூது?

These are very relevant questions. இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(C) Questions raised in my posting on Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:00 am
Post subject: Jainism during the time of Valluvar?

(9) When you wrote: "The prevailing beliefs and religious practices of Valluvar’s time was Hinduism., and for this purpose, we may disregard differences between current practices and the practices then", I had stated "For this to be true, you should place Valluvar before 2nd Century B.C. I don't think any one has dated Valluvar that early! Hope you understand what I mean. If you can't, please let me know."
No explanation given so far from your side!

(10) When you said: "In any case, the previous post I referred to is still available at the time of my posting and even now. There is nothing to hide. You have used the wrong word against a fellow hubber: the word hide. You are shamelessly refusing to admit your mistake now.", I wrote back saying "You have already stated that you are biased in reproducing citations and you will do so because they do not serve your purpose. If the word "hide" is improper, then please let me know how I should call someone who crops parts a group citations and present only those that support his argument."

If it is not "hiding", you should have suggested me an alternate word to label activities like what you have done. i.e. Copy pasting stuff that would support your case and excluding (hiding) the other part which would prove otherwise. YOU HAVE DONE THIS TWICE SO FAR (Once in the case of "தனக்குவமை இல்லாதான்" and on the other occasion you removed the sentence "The Kural is not a work on Jainism". . இதுவரை செய்யவில்லை!

(D) Questions raised in my posting on Mon Aug 14, 2006 7:38 am
Post subject: Is Valluvar a Saivite?

(10) When you said: "மதத்தைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டு பாடினான் என்பது வெறுங்கூளம்", I said: "மதத்தைக் கருத்தில் கொண்டு பாடவில்லை என்றால், எப்படி சிவனைக் குறிக்கும் சொற்கள் திருக்குறளில் உள்ளதாகக் கூறுகிறீர்கள்?". Here you were contradicting yourself!

But no comments from you so far on this. இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை!

(11) This is what you said: "சிவனைக் குறிக்கும் சொற்கள் குறளில் உளவாகையால், வள்ளுவர் ஒரு சைவப் பெருமகனார் என்பது தெளிவு." To this I had asked you to comment on some of the statements found in Dr. K Moharaj’s (1983) seminal research work “Idealism and Universalism of Tiruvalluvar” (University of Madras) on a pages 343-345. Let me reproduce some of them here.

1. கடவுள் உயிர்களுடனும் உலகத்துடனும் கலந்து நிற்கின்றார் என்னும் கருத்து இன்மை,
2. மாயை பற்றிய கருத்து இன்மை,
3. ஆன்மா வீட்டு நிலையில் இறைவனிடமிருந்தே பேரின்பத்தைப் பெறுகிறது என்னும் கருத்து தெளிவாகக் கூறப்படாமை,
4. கடவுளின் அருளையும் வழிபாட்டையும் குறித்த கருத்துகள் சித்தாந்த நூல்களில் காணபடுவது போல இன்மை,
5. வழிபாட்டு முறைகள் கூறப்படாமை,
6. மணிமேகலையில் சைவசமயக் கடவுளர்க்கு உரியனவாகக் கூறப்படும் எட்டு வடிவங்களோ பிற இறையியற் கொள்கைகளோ இன்மை,
7. சிவபெருமான் எங்கும் வெளிப்படையாகச் சுட்டப்படாமை.

இவைகளுக்கும் இதுவரை பதில் வரவில்லை! சும்மா, வள்ளுவர் சைவர் என்று சொன்னால் மட்டும் போதாது. You have to not only provide evidence but also refute disclaimers like those above.[/tscii:fd26fce773]

[tfmlover]

i dono if the one who recited spoiled the poem...or one who wrote, spoiled the text..
guess his image is spoiled i feel portrayal does not match the locution
valluvar how come you with long thaadi and long hair ?
dint you say ?

'no need of tonsure or long hair, if one avoids
what the world condemns'

[NVK Ashraf]

There are objections from few sections of the society against the depiction of Valluvar in any form. The most vehement of all has been Professor Thirukkural Bhaskar of Karunakaran Tirukkural Library, Anna Nagar. You go and meet him, he will give you a pamphlet where he criticises those who try to depict Valluvar in a particular portrait.

It has been a tradition in India and even outside, to depict the great sages in a particular form. We have images for Krishna, Appar, Tirumoolar, Jesus, Moses etc. even though we NO IDEA as to how they actually looked like. These images only provide us a tamp of identity and they do not mean their actual representation.

It is folly to think that the popular image of Valluvar we follow worldwide is the actual represevation of the poet himself.

[tfmlover]

as-Salamu alaikum NVK Ashraf
Jesus was actually born in around 4-6 BC (not AD)
has a good chance to think ( possible) that the wordsmith known as valluvar lived same period?
( sorry if this not the subject matter at issue )
thanks

[bis_mala]

[tscii:ed40d1cc69]

I am keen to know this so that I can reply. Or at least I can correct myself if had gone wrong anywhere.

You are not fit for discharge from your mental institution yet. So you can’t correct yourself presently. You won’t know where you had gone wrong even if I tell you now!!


//then please let me know how I should call someone who crops parts a group citations and present only those that support his argument."//

Since you could not understand what I have said, there is no point telling you anything more. Your illness is persisting!!


//If it is not "hiding", you should have suggested me an alternate word to label activities like what you have done//

That is not my duty!! Even if I did, it cannot penetrate your skull.


//Here you were contradicting yourself!//

You think so because of your acute mental incapacity. I have to wait and see if you can recover.

VaLLuvar is a Saivite; all other arguments to the contrary are rejected in toto.
[/tscii:ed40d1cc69]

[tfmlover]

Saivite's main bourne is to praise shiva is it ?
something came to mind here
There once was a man of St Bees
Who was stung in the hand by a wasp;
When asked, "Does it hurt?"
He replied, "Yes, it does,
I'm so glad it wasn't a hornet."

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:268766eb90]சிவமாலா எழுதியது....

(i) You are not fit for discharge from your mental institution yet. So you can’t correct yourself presently. You won’t know where you had gone wrong even if I tell you now!!
(ii) Since you could not understand what I have said, there is no point telling you anything more. Your illness is persisting!!
(iii) That is not my duty!! Even if I did, it cannot penetrate your skull.
(iv) You think so because of your acute mental incapacity. I have to wait and see if you can recover.

இப்படி ஏதாவது எழுதிக்கொண்டு மனதைத் தேர்த்துக்கொள்வதைவிட வேறு வழியில்லை சிவமாலாவிற்கு!

VaLLuvar is a Saivite; all other arguments to the contrary are rejected in toto.

Thanks for proclaiming so! I understand there is no room for research and scholarship (வள்ளுவர் கூறுவதைப்போல "ஆராய்ந்த கல்வி") in your vocabulary. Unlike you I would never say that Valluvar IS a Jaina and other arguments to the contrary are to be rejected in toto. That is the difference between Sivamaalaa and Ashraf.[/tscii:268766eb90]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:7ff7f89f7d]¸Å¢»÷ À¡ÀÉ¡ºõ º¢Åý, ¾¢ÕÅûÙÅâý ÅÆ¢¨Âô À¢ýÀüÈ¢ò ¾õ À¡¼ø¸Ç¢ýš¢ġ¸ô ÀÄ ¿øÄÈí¸¨Çô §À¡¾¢òÐûÇ¡÷!!
¬É¡ø, º¢ÅÉ¢ý Á¾ò¨¾ «Å÷ À¡¼ø¸Ç¢ý ÅÆ¢ ¿¡õ ¿¢ÚŢɡø, PhD Å¡íÌÅмý, ¯Ä¸ô Ò¸Øõ «¨¼óÐÅ¢¼Ä¡õ.

¸¡ó¾¢¨Âô ÀüÈ¢ ±Ø¾¢Â º¢Åý. " «¸¢õ¨º¾É¢§Ä Òò¾ÃÅ÷" ±ýÚ ´Õ À¡ðÊø ±Ø¾¢Â¢Õ츢ȡ÷.

þý¦É¡Õ À¡¼Ä¢ø "Òò¾¨Ãô §À¡üÚ¾ø ¿õ ¸¼§É" ±ýÚõ À¡ÊÔûÇ¡÷.

¬¸§Å, «Å÷ ¦Àªò¾÷ «øÄÐ, Òò¾ Á¾ò¾¢ýÀ¡ø ÁÉö× ¯ûÇÅ÷.

ÅûÙÅ÷ Á¾ò¨¾ì ¸ñÎÀ¢Êì¸ º¢Ä÷ ¨¸Â¡ñÎûÇ ÅÆ¢¨Âô À¢ýÀüÈ¢, ±øÄ¡Õ¨¼Â Á¾í¸¨ÇÔõ ¸ñÎÀ¢ÊòÐÅ¢¼Ä¡õ.

þ¾ü¸¡¸ ´Õ ¾É¢ò¾¢Ã¢ ¦¾¡¼í¸¢É¡ø ¦Àªò¾÷¸û Á¸¢úÅ¡÷¸û. ±ôÀÊ ±ý ¸ñÎÀ¢ÊôÒ? ¬ö× ±ýÈ¡ø þ·¾ý§È¡ ¬ö×? [/tscii:7ff7f89f7d]

[tfmlover]

[tscii:f1f2a02c7e]«Õû ¾¡Õõ §¾Å Á¡¾¡§Å
§¾Å§É ±ý¨É À¡Õí¸û
ÓýÉ¡ø ¸õÀ¾¡ºý
À¢ýÉ¡ø ¸ñ½¾¡ºý

À¡ð¨¼ §¸ðÎ «Å÷¸û º¡÷ó¾ Á¾ò¨¾ ¦º¡øÖí¸û À¡÷§À¡õ ?
À¡ðÎ §ÅÚ Å¡ú쨸 §ÅÚ [/tscii:f1f2a02c7e]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:087e025619]«ôÀÊ¡ɡø À¡¼¨Ä ¨ÅòÐ, ÅûÙÅý ±ýÉ Á¾õ, þÇí§¸¡ ±ýÉ Á¾õ, À¡À¿¡ºõ º¢Åý ±ýÉ Á¾õ, ¸õÀ¾¡ºý ±ýÉ Á¾õ, ¸ñ½¾¡ºý ±ýÉ Á¾õ ±ý¦ÈøÄ¡õ ¸ñÎÀ¢Êì¸ ÓÊ¡Р±ýÚ ¿£í¸û ÜÚÅЧÀ¡ø ¦¾Ã¢¸¢È§¾?
«ôÀÊ¡ɡø, þíÌ ¿¼óÐÅÕõ ¬ö× ¯í¸ÙìÌ ¯¼ýÀ¡Êø¨Ä ±ý¸¢È£÷¸§Ç¡?

´Õ À¡¼¨Ä ¨ÅòÐ, À¡Ã¾¢¾¡ºý ±ýÉ Á¾õ ±ýÚ ¸ñÎÀ¢ÊòÐŢ𼠿¢¨Ä¢ø, þÐ ´Õ À¢ýɨ¼×¾¡ý!!

À¡Õí¸û:

"À¢ý¨É ´Õ ¸¼×¨Çô §À½ ¿¢¨É¡÷,
§À¦Ã¡Ç¢¨Âì ¸¡ÏÅ¡¦Ãý È¡Î À¡õ§À!"

±ýÚ À¡Ã¾¢¾¡ºý À¡ÊÔûǾ¡ø, «Å÷ ¦Àªò¾÷ ±ýÚ ÓÊ× ¦ºöÂÄ¡õ ±ýÈħš ±ñ½¢ì¦¸¡ñÊÕó§¾ý!! §À¦Ã¡Ç¢ ±ýÈ¡ø Òò¾÷!! The Light of Asia ±ýÚõ ¬í¸¢Äò¾¢ø ÜÚÅ÷!!

¸õÀ¾¡ºý - ¸ñ½¾¡ºý ¸¢È¢Š¾Å÷¸û!!
¸¡Ç¢¾¡ºý ÁðÎõ ¸¡Ç¢Àì¾÷!

À¡Ã¾¢ ÁðÎõ ±ó¾ Á¾ò¾¢Öõ þø¨Ä§À¡Öõ. «Å÷:

""¡Õõ À½¢ó¾¢Îõ ¦¾ÂÅõ -- ¦À¡Õû
¡ŢÛõ ¿¢ýÈ¢Îõ ¦¾ÂÅõ.
À¡ÕìÌû§Ç ¦¾öÅõ ´ýÚ - þ¾¢ø
ÀüÀÄ ºñ¨¼¸û §Åñ¼¡!"

±ýÚ À¡Ê, ±øÄ¡ Á¾Óõ ´ýÚ¾¡ý ±ý¸¢È¡÷.

±ôÀÊ ±ý ¬ö×? [/tscii:087e025619]

[tfmlover]

[tscii:06da0e3893]À¡Ã¾¢ ±ýÉ Á¾õ ±ýÚ ¸ñÎ À¢Êì¸ «Å÷ À¡ð¨¼ §¸ð¸ §ÅýÎÁ¡ ???
«Å÷ ¦ÀÂ÷ ÍôÃÁ½¢Âý
¿¡õ þí§¸ ¬Ã¡öÅÐ ¦ÀÂ÷ ¦¾Ã¢Â¡¾ ÒÄÅ÷ ÀüÈ¢[/tscii:06da0e3893]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:c8251b2d9c]±ýÉ¡ø ´òÐ즸¡ûÇ ÓÊÂÅ¢ø¨Ä.

±ý ¦º¡ó¾ì¸¡Ãý ´ÕÅý - ¦ÀÂ÷ ÍôÃÁ½¢Âó¾¡ý. ´Õ ÁÄ¡öô¦Àñ¨½ Á½óЦ¸¡ñ¼¡ý. þøº¢Âô ¦ÀÂ÷ †¡º¡ý «ôÐøÄ¡!! «ÖÅĸò¾¢ø, ¦ÅǢ¢ø ¦ÀÂ÷ ÍôÃÁ½¢Âý. ÁÄ¡ö측â Á¨ÉÅ¢: "abang hasan! abang hasan" ±ýÚ ÜôÀ¢ÎÅ¡û.

þýÛõ ÀÄ ¯¾¡Ã½í¸û ¯ûÇÉ. þÅ¨É Å¢¼ìܼ¡Ð ±ýÚ ¿¡í¸û §¸¡Â¢ø ⨺ìÌ Åâ §¸ð§¼¡õ. 61 Á§Äº¢Â ¦ÅûÇ¢ ¦¸¡Îò¾¡ý. §¸¡Å¢ÖìÌ ÅóÐ ±í¸¨Çô À¡÷òÐ "†§Ä¡" ¦º¡øĢŢðÎô §À¡öÅ¢ð¼¡ý.

¿¡¼È¢Â¡¾, þÚ¾¢ ¿¡Ç¢ø ¦ÅÇ¢ôÀð¼ Á¾Á¡üÈí¸û ÀÄ ¯ûÇÉ.

þó¾¢Â ¿¡Î §À¡üȢ ´Õ ¦ÀÕó¾¨ÄÅ÷, ¾¢ÕÁ½ò¾¢ý§À¡Ð Á¾Á¡È¢ì¦¸¡ñ¼¡÷, À¢ýÉ÷ «Ð Á¨Èì¸ôÀð¼Ð ±ýÚ þ¨½Â ¾Çò ¾¸Åø¸Ç¢ø Óý Åó¾Ð «È¢§Åý.

¦ÀÂ÷ µ÷ «¨¼Â¡Çì ÌȢ¡¸Ä¡õ. ¬É¡ø, ÓüÈ¢Öõ ¿õÀò ¾Ìó¾Ð «ýÚ.

ºÃ¢, À¡Ã¾¢Â¡¨Ã Å¢ðΠŢð¼¡Öõ ÁüÈÅ÷¸û Á¡ðÊ즸¡ñ¼¡÷¸û «øÄÅ¡?[/tscii:c8251b2d9c]

[tfmlover]

[tscii:ae98dd881c]¿¡ý ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ð¼Ð Á¾õ Á¡È¡¾ ´Õ ÒÄÅ÷ ÀüÈ¢ ÁðΧÁ
[/tscii:ae98dd881c]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:2a0d2593af]«ó¾ ´Õ Á¾õ Á¡È¡¾ ÒÄÅ÷ ¾Å¢Ã, ÁüÈ Â¡Å¨Ãô ÀüȢ ¬ö×õ ¯í¸ÙìÌ ¯¼ýÀ¡Î¾¡ý!! ºÃ¢Â¡?[/tscii:2a0d2593af]

[mms]

Friends,
Jesus is certainly not a well attested Historic Personalitym and now important events such as Exodus of BIble and Quran are myths.

So to compare Jesus here is meaningless.

Valluvar has clearly refered Parppan Ooththu, Anthanar Nurkum Aram- all references as to Hindu Vedas.

Ashraff repeats with same highly biased authors do not confirm anything.

Mala has left all decency to attack.

Valluavar was Reform minded Vedic is an acceted and well attested by Kural.

MMS

[Uppuma]

Tiruvallluvar is Certainly a Hindu, and names Vedas straaight by its name, then why is all these arguements.

Devapriya should tell us what he means on Historical Jesus and what is Judaism, when he says them never PRaCTISed.

Jainism is totally opposite to Valluvar.

Uppuma

[F.S.Gandhi vandayar]

Tholkappiam & Thirukkural explicit the concepts of 'Asivakam' a renowned religion during 600 BCE and this religion was created by tamil 'Aasiriyans'.

This religion was the base for all traditions in India. Even Buddha learnt Asivakam and included some of the concpets into his fold. Jainism never came into being in tamil land before common era. Jains also sweeped some of the concepts of Asivakam. All the Stone layouts in tamil land was belonging to Asivakam and not jainism.

The athinathar Jains temples were created during 400 ACE and all of them were turned into siva temples now.

The theory of Jainism in tamil land has been wrongly concluded so far. This has been re-researched and latest conclusions have been made by scholars. Tamil Iyyanar tradition is the first form of Asivakam.

A detailed topic shall be written by me after some time.

f.s.gandhi

[sundararaj]

[tscii:7ea4643b6a]¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷ µ÷ ¸¢ÕòÐÅḠþÕó¾¢Õì¸Ä¡õ ±ýÚ º¢Ä÷ ÜÚ¸¢ýÈ¡÷¸§Ç? :? :o [/tscii:7ea4643b6a]

[devapriya]

[tscii:10387f8f92]Friends,

Tholkappiyam is dated around 50-100CE or later. Sangam Literature around 200 BCE TO 200CE. Tirukural 250 CE.

Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai- 275-300CE


Thani-Tamil Movement which came as a Tamil movement became a
tool of Politicians and PAVANAR- who used his articles as Missionary tools.

The latest DNA Position puts Two Races- 1.Black from African Continent & 2.Brown or Fairer from India are two races appeared early in the earth. If Black is Negroes and Brown is Aryans. When these two moved and mixed and based on climate of living became white etc., Dravidians are people who came from outside..

But as Vedas stand Mother to India and Brahmins as Custodians for it Missionaries and Nonsense Researchers wrote meaningless articles all falsified.

Swami Vivekananda on Aryan-Dravidian-
//In India we have fallen during the last few centuries into a fixed habit of unquestioning deference to Authority. .. We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Henotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainty with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.
So Great is the force of Generalisation and widely popularised errors that all the world goes on Perpetuating the blunder talking of the Indo-European Races claiming or disclaiming Aryan Kinship and building on that basis of falsehood the most far-reaching Political, social or Pseudo Scientific Conclusion.’// -Swami Vivekananda

The Missionary minded Indologists who found that Sanskrit was Mother of Greek and Latin- which in turn were the Eldest of Most European Languages, and the amount of Depth and Knowledge in it brought the “Aryan” Invasion Myths- i.e., Indians are not capable of such a Wealth Language and Civilisation. It is a continual attack to run down India's great accomplishments and Civilisation...

Proper Study of Harappah and Mohanjadero now confirms that most of its Contents are Aryan, And the Speculation of the Seals being Proto Dravidian is weakening. Even the Die-hard Aryan Incoming Supporters put that from BCE7000- 1500. Linguists who worked with Tamil, popularly Identified as Dravidianists from Caldwell, Burrows etc., – All say Dravidians came around 3000 BCE and later to India from Outside.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA : “There is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans ever came from anywhere outside India.... The whole of India is Aryan, nothing else.”

U.S. archaeologist Jim Shaffer puts it : “Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from prehistoric to historic periods”

Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, biological anthropologist at Cornell University, U.S.A., who has worked extensively on Harappan sites to study human skeletal remains, concludes unambiguously: “Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity.... What the biological data demonstrate is that no exotic races are apparent from laboratory studies of human remains excavated from any archaeological sites, including those accorded Aryan status [by the old school]. All prehistoric human remains recovered thus far from the Indian subcontinent are phenotypically identifiable as ancient South Asians.... In short, there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture.”

J. M. Kenoyer, who is still pursuing excavations at Harappa, is even more categorical :There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA //”We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Hynotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainity with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.”//


Sangam and Tholkappiyam to Manimekhalai are all based on Vedasand refers that so and I give-Historian M. G. S. Narayanan, who finds in Sangam literature –
“no trace of another, indigenous, culture other than what may be designated as tribal and primitive.” And concludes :
“The Aryan-Dravidian or Aryan-Tamil dichotomy envisaged by some scholars may have to be given up since we are unable to come across anything which could be designated as purely Aryan or purely Dravidian in the character of South India of the Sangam Age. In view of this, the Sangam culture has to be looked upon as expressing in a local idiom all the essential features of classical “Hindu” culture. M. G. S. Narayanan, “The Vedic-Puranic-Shastraic Element in Tamil Sangam Society and Culture,” in Essays in Indian Art, Religion and Society, p. 128.

Nilakanta Sastri goes a step further and opines,
“There does not exist a single line of Tamil literature written before the Tamils came into contact with, and let us add accepted with genuine appreciation, the Indo-Aryan culture of North Indian origin.”

Jainism is a movement from Hinduism and its ideologies are totally agiasnt family life, Women etc., which is all totally against Valluvam

[/tscii:10387f8f92]

[Sudhaama]

[tscii:aa3a6e9ad2]Friends,

Tholkappiyam is dated around 50-100CE or later. Sangam Literature around 200 BCE TO 200CE. Tirukural 250 CE.

Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai- 275-300CE

Thani-Tamil Movement which came as a Tamil movement became a
tool of Politicians and PAVANAR- who used his articles as Missionary tools.

The latest DNA Position puts Two Races- 1.Black from African Continent & 2.Brown or Fairer from India are two races appeared early in the earth. If Black is Negroes and Brown is Aryans. When these two moved and mixed and based on climate of living became white etc., Dravidians are people who came from outside..

But as Vedas stand Mother to India and Brahmins as Custodians for it Missionaries and Nonsense Researchers wrote meaningless articles all falsified.

Swami Vivekananda on Aryan-Dravidian-
//In India we have fallen during the last few centuries into a fixed habit of unquestioning deference to Authority. .. We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Henotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainty with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.
So Great is the force of Generalisation and widely popularised errors that all the world goes on Perpetuating the blunder talking of the Indo-European Races claiming or disclaiming Aryan Kinship and building on that basis of falsehood the most far-reaching Political, social or Pseudo Scientific Conclusion.’// -Swami Vivekananda

The Missionary minded Indologists who found that Sanskrit was Mother of Greek and Latin- which in turn were the Eldest of Most European Languages, and the amount of Depth and Knowledge in it brought the “Aryan” Invasion Myths- i.e., Indians are not capable of such a Wealth Language and Civilisation. It is a continual attack to run down India's great accomplishments and Civilisation...

Proper Study of Harappah and Mohanjadero now confirms that most of its Contents are Aryan, And the Speculation of the Seals being Proto Dravidian is weakening. Even the Die-hard Aryan Incoming Supporters put that from BCE7000- 1500. Linguists who worked with Tamil, popularly Identified as Dravidianists from Caldwell, Burrows etc., – All say Dravidians came around 3000 BCE and later to India from Outside.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA : “There is not one word in our scriptures, not one, to prove that the Aryans ever came from anywhere outside India.... The whole of India is Aryan, nothing else.”

U.S. archaeologist Jim Shaffer puts it : “Current archaeological data do not support the existence of an Indo-Aryan or European invasion into South Asia any time in the pre- or protohistoric periods. Instead, it is possible to document archaeologically a series of cultural changes reflecting indigenous cultural developments from prehistoric to historic periods”

Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, biological anthropologist at Cornell University, U.S.A., who has worked extensively on Harappan sites to study human skeletal remains, concludes unambiguously: “Biological anthropologists remain unable to lend support to any of the theories concerning an Aryan biological or demographic entity.... What the biological data demonstrate is that no exotic races are apparent from laboratory studies of human remains excavated from any archaeological sites, including those accorded Aryan status [by the old school]. All prehistoric human remains recovered thus far from the Indian subcontinent are phenotypically identifiable as ancient South Asians.... In short, there is no evidence of demographic disruptions in the north-western sector of the subcontinent during and immediately after the decline of the Harappan culture.”

J. M. Kenoyer, who is still pursuing excavations at Harappa, is even more categorical :There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC.

SWAMI VIVEKANANDA //”We are ready to accept all European Theories; “the theory of an “Aryan Colonisation of Dravidian India”; the theory of Nature Worship and Hynotheism of the Vedic Rishis .. .. as if these Hazardous Speculations were on Par in Authority and Certainity with the law of Gravity and Theory of Evolution.”//


Sangam and Tholkappiyam to Manimekhalai are all based on Vedasand refers that so and I give-Historian M. G. S. Narayanan, who finds in Sangam literature –
“no trace of another, indigenous, culture other than what may be designated as tribal and primitive.” And concludes :
“The Aryan-Dravidian or Aryan-Tamil dichotomy envisaged by some scholars may have to be given up since we are unable to come across anything which could be designated as purely Aryan or purely Dravidian in the character of South India of the Sangam Age. In view of this, the Sangam culture has to be looked upon as expressing in a local idiom all the essential features of classical “Hindu” culture. M. G. S. Narayanan, “The Vedic-Puranic-Shastraic Element in Tamil Sangam Society and Culture,” in Essays in Indian Art, Religion and Society, p. 128.

Nilakanta Sastri goes a step further and opines,
“There does not exist a single line of Tamil literature written before the Tamils came into contact with, and let us add accepted with genuine appreciation, the Indo-Aryan culture of North Indian origin.”

Jainism is a movement from Hinduism and its ideologies are totally agiasnt family life, Women etc., which is all totally against Valluvam

[/tscii:aa3a6e9ad2]

Very Well-said... Devapriya... Hats off to you... for your BEAUTIFUL PRESENTATION of the matter coherently.

Some unbiased foreign Researchers are able to assert that the Tamilan-Culture was the original Aryan-Culture... and the most Ancient....

...originated from India... subsequently spread over the entire world.

Dr. Ambedkar used to proudly claim that he belongs to Aryans race.

As one of their strategies of DIVIDE AND RULE policy...Just to break the Unity amongst Indians of One and the same Nation...

... British rulers concocted many stories and baseless Fictional-History...

... to make a Novel- claim that Original Indians... so called NATIVES... were uncultured Savages...

... while the English people are Anglicans... Divine-descendants of Holy Angels from the Divine Super- world...

.. that India had already been invaded by Foreigners like Aryans... and we are only the Subsequents..

... that Tamil is the Unrefined Language of the so called Savages... called Dravidians.

... and thus Anglicans are the FITTEST TO RULE OVER THE WORLD...

Such a Birth-right and claim by British was vehemently opposed by Hitler...

...Quoting the Correct Indian History documented by the French and German Historians...

...which equi-vocally establish that the MOST ANCIENT NATION in the world... was Lemuria...

...centred around the so called Holy-Land... Indian Region... inhabited by the so called Aryans...who spread over the whole world from India...

... we the GERMANS TOO ARE OF INDIAN ORIGIN... And we are pure ARYANS... the Ever-wisest and Divine-Human-beings...

...So the ARYANS ARE THE FITTEST to rule over the whole world...and Not the Anglicans whose claim is unfounded.

As Swami Vivekananda has rightly said...the whole lot of Indians are of ONE RACE ARYANS..

But...they named amongst themselves... one section of people who migrated to foreign lands...

... on an Unique and unparallel principle (compared to any other World-Culture, so authenticated and inculcated to students)...

.. by a Practical Proverb... "Thirai kadal Odiyum Thiraviyam thaedu".

Such Migrators... were named as Dravidians (One who moves from place to place)

...the Dhaathu(Route-word in Sanskrit) for the word "Dravid" is DHRU ... which means "MOVE"... as is DHRAVYAM...for Money.

Several German Terminolgies have originated from Tamil.

Tamilian culture ... is the only Human-Culture in the world... where the MIND has been rendered the Supreme status even over Wisdom...

..by stating...YAAVARUM KAELHIR... ULHLHATHU ANAIYADHU UYARVU...

... AAKKAM ATHARVINAAY CHELLUM ASAIVILA OOKKAM UDAIYAAN UZHAI....

...OOZHAIYUM UPPAKKAM KAANHBAR ULAIVINRHI THAAZHAADHU UJNARHUBAVAR.

..which sort of Human-Culture and EXEMPLARY LIFE-CODE (Rendering the most Importance to Mind)... has taken a different shape subsequently... due to some Kings subsequent domination.

But it is UNDISPUTABLE in the Practical Life- sense... Ever-applicable
to the Global- Mankind...

...that MIND DESERVES THE SUPREME STATUS ... in the Life-pursuits..

... as ascertained by the Universal Human-doctrine... Thirukkuralh.
.

[bis_mala]

Tholkappiyam is dated around 50-100CE or later. Sangam Literature around 200 BCE TO 200CE. Tirukural 250 CE.

Wrong!

[sundararaj]

Sorry...I don't agree with devapriya.

[bis_mala]

[tscii:c338b36ac1]
Nilakanta Sastri goes a step further and opines,
“There does not exist a single line of Tamil literature written before the Tamils came into contact with, and let us add accepted with genuine appreciation, the Indo-Aryan culture of North Indian origin.”

Nilakanda can go 3 steps further and opine anything.

What evidence is there that an Indo-Aryan culture existed prior to the Southern/Tamiz culture?

You said that there is no Aryan-Dravidian divide; then how come you still talk thereafter of Indo-Aryan culture? If there is no Aryan Migration, why talk of Indo-Aryan? Who is Aryan?[/tscii:c338b36ac1]

[devapriya]

Dear Friends,

Problem is History is WRONGLY Thought over last 200 years.

By15th & 16 th Centuries Muslim rule came to Tamilnadu, and Tamil rulers were weak, and came Marati and Vijaynagar Kings, and drove muslims out, they had earlier plundered Madurai- Meenakshu Temple and Srirangam among others. To make this Other Language Rulers Scholars used excessive Sanskrit filled Tamil, and this required little Cleansing, but the Tano-Tamil movement was Hijacked by Church and Barbaric Dravidian movement people, E.V.Ramasamy Naicker says entire Sangam and Tirukural Collections as Human Dung and to be Thrown. Tirukural, Vedas and Sangam Lit. were all misinterpreted.

Tiruvalluvar's 3 Kurals were Highlighted-
Athists and Anti Hindu Scholars used them.
Kural-18, IF no Rain, No Pujas.
Kiral 259. It is more better Not to eat Animal fat then doing 1000 of Vedic Yagna.
Kural 30 Brahmins mean One with Dharma, and who love all Living beings.

The truth is all these Kurals are Purely Vedic, first do not need any explanation.
Kural - 259, when Valluvar take a Topic, he compares it with smaller to bigger, Kural 260 says When who don't eat NV shall be Worshipped by Entire World, An Exaggarted saying to emphasis importance of Vegetarianism. Kural 259 says Keep doing Vedic Yagnas and eating NV is useless, here Vedic Yagna is not put on a lower level, but equated highly.
Kural-30 Brahmin- is referred many a times in Tholkappiyam and Sangam Literature and always as people with Dharma, and Valluvar has not changed a little. Few Eg. Pathirrupattu 4:3-6
Puram 361: 4,5
Puram-397:20,21
Puram- 93:7
Puram 26:12-13
Pura, 6:19-23
Kalithogai- 119:12,13 etc.,
Valluvar goes by Sangam Tradition. Valluavar's Definition for Brahmin is as per Vedic & Sangam Tradition.

Valluvar calls them further by Paarpaan and Aru Thozil Anthanar, all these has been analysed well by Many Indian Universities and All references of NanMarai and Anthanar are all the Noble Indian Vedas, and Pavnar's quote has been given earlier.

As for as old quotes as Aryan Migration, when we quote old authors we retain them. Dravidians migrated to India also as per many Scholars including Caldwell, and others.
The Whole world used BC/AD when Jesus Christ is Unhistorical and now they are changed to BCE-Before Common Era & CE-Common Era. September- means 7 from Sanskrit Septhami, October-8 from Oshtami; November 9 from Sans- Navami and December means 10 from Sanskrit Dasami, Two Historical Kings name July for Julies Ceaser and August for Augustus CAeser were insereted and whole world uses them wrongly, these are due to Practice.
EVR, and Justice movement are from Justice party which was from Upper Caste Non Brahmins who supported British and opposed Independence and enjoyed lot of Postings in BRITISH Rule, EVR declared Independence day as Thukka Nal, and He held this till his Death, and wrote against Tamil till end, but his followers make him as a Patriot.
These are the Pity of Life SITUATION.

Now on Tamil Alphatic Order follows Sanskrit and all the Tamil Specific Vuyir mei letters put in the end, confirming its burrowing and coexistance with Sanskrit and moreove Brahmi was mother of writing of all Languages in India.
Any Serious research with knowledge of Tamil/Prakrit/Sanskrit Vowles will clearly tell us that Brahmi was writing system developed for Sanskrit and adopted by all INdian Languages.
Sanskrit Hate campaign was a tool for Church to make people to hate Hinduism. Sankrot and Tamil has coexisted for 5000 years.

As per the Editor of Tamil Lexicon -Rig Veda has 20 Tamil words, others just SPECULATED meaninglessly to thier Blabbers by ignoring Tholkappiyam rules, P.Aruli tried but enc made a laughing stock of a=b=z. Tamil and Sanskrit both has adopted each other, Sankrit has Oldest tradions saved and Sangam Lit confirms it.

Valluvar says in Kura; 20- No Rains No water- and World will not exist.
Kural 559 says If King rules badly Rains wont be there- ie., world exsistance is doubtful.
For a COUNTRY -Any Thing WORSE THAN NO Rains.
Valluvar says- Brahmins will forget Vedas.Kural560
What is the role of a King- To be in Frontal support of BRAHMIN'S Vedic Dharma, Kural 543.
Now Kural in more than 27 Kurals refers Vedic GODS SUCH AS Indra, Vishnu, Laskhmi, Manmathan, Raahu and KEthu etc.,
Kural refers to Temple going also.
So One India- Oneness be our goal.
Love Valluvar and look for what he wrote

[bis_mala]

Who were the Aryans? Where did they come from? Who is Indo-Aryan?
What is the connection between Indo-Aryans and Brahmins? Where did Brahmins come from? Where did they originate? Why are they a separate class?

You have not explained the above.


E.V.Ramasamy Naicker says entire Sangam and Tirukural Collections as Human Dung and to be Thrown. Tirukural, Vedas and Sangam Lit. were all misinterpreted.

Where? Citation required.


//but the Tano-Tamil movement was Hijacked by Church and Barbaric Dravidian movement people,//

So who is in charge of the movement now? The Church? Which church? how and why do you say this?


//Tamil and Sanskrit both has adopted each other, Sankrit has Oldest tradions saved and Sangam Lit confirms it. //
How do you prove it?


//Vedic GODS SUCH AS Indra, Vishnu, Laskhmi, Manmathan, Raahu and KEthu etc.,//

All are Dravidian gods. Not Indo-European. Have they been traced to Mesopotamia? or Ancient Greece?


Valluavar's Definition for Brahmin is as per Vedic & Sangam Tradition.

The word Brahmin does not occur in VaLLuvar. Why do you twist?

[sundararaj]

[tscii:b64d245a87]
Mala avargale :notworthy: :notworthy: [/tscii:b64d245a87]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:79ee623e66]¾¢Õ Íó¾Ãሠ«Å÷¸ÙìÌõ ²¨É þ¨½Â §¿Â÷¸ÙìÌõ ±ý þɢ Òò¾¡ñÎ Å¡úòÐì¸û.[/tscii:79ee623e66]

[Sudhaama]

[tscii:dcced44dec]
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅâý ¸ÕòÐ... ÓýÛìÌ À¢ý Óý¡?..

.. Å¢¾¢§Â ÅÄ¢¨Á §Á§Ä¡í¸¢Â¾¡?

"°¨ÆÔõ ¯ôÀì¸õ ¸¡ñÀ÷ ¯¨ÄÅ¢ýÈ¢ ¾¡Æ¡Ð ¯»üÚÀÅ÷" ±ýÈ¡÷ ÅûÙÅ÷....

"ÁÉõ ¾ÇáÐ, ¦ºÂø-§Å¸ò¾¢ø ¦¾¡ö× ²üÀ¼¡Ð ±¾¢÷òÐ §À¡Ã¡ÎÀÅ÷... Å¢¾¢¨ÂÔõ ÒÈ-Óи¢ðÎ µ¼î¦ºö ÓÊÔõ"... ±ýÈ ¸Õò¾¢§Ä

þó¾ «Ã¢Â ¿ü-¸ÕòÐìÌ ±¾¢÷Á¡È¡É ¸Õò¾¢§Ä... Å¢¾¢¨Â ¸¡ðÊÖõ §Á§Ä¡í¸¢Â ÅÄ¢¨Á Á¢ì¸Ð §ÅÚ-±ó¾ ÅøĨÁÔõ þø¨Ä. ±É§Å Å¢¾¢ìÌ «ÊÀ½¢óÐ, Å¡ú쨸 ¾£¨Á¸¨Ç ²üÚ즸¡ñÎ ÐÂ÷ §¸Î¸Ç¡ø ÅÕóÐÅÐ ¾Å¢÷ì¸ þÂÄ¡Ð ±ýÈ ¸Õò¾¢§ÄÔõ ÜÚ¸¢È¡÷...

... "°Æ¢ü ¦ÀÕÅÄ¢ ¡×Ç? Áü¦È¡ýÚ ÝÆ¢Ûõ ¾¡ÓóÐÚõ" ±ýÚ.

²ý þó¾ ÓýÛìÌ-À¢ý ÓÃñÀ¡Î?
.[/tscii:dcced44dec]

[NVK Ashraf]

This is a very pertinent question. I would like copy paste below the relevant part from my article "Introduction to the Kural and its author" (http://www.geocities.com/nvkashraf/kur-trans/Kural-Int.htm)

A close look at the different chapters would reveal that Valluvar composed every chapter, perhaps in response to a demand or request to produce 10 best couplets on a particular subject. He would bring together all his experience, the knowledge he has gained in mastering other texts and all the information available as folklore in order to compose 10 couplets on a subject, say on Ignorance. He would then do so for another subject, say on Virtue. Given the fact that there are similarities in ideas between couplets within and between chapters, it would appear as if the poet, while producing the best 10 on a subject, did not show any concern as to what similes and superlatives he used earlier while writing on other subjects. This may perhaps be the reason for some repetitions in ideas and 'contradictions' we find in the Kural. He would write on the evils of drinking in one chapter (Chapter 93), but at the same time eleswhere say that love is sweeter than wine (Chapter 109). To cite another instance, if you ask him "What is wealth of all wealth?", he would say two different things: "the wealth of wealth is the wealth of grace" (couplet 241) and "the wealth of wealth is the wealth of hearing" (couplet 411). Similarly, if you want to know which of the virtues should one follow dearly even at the expense of other virtues, he would say it is speaking truth in couplet 297, it is trespassing the bounds of another's wife in couplet 150 and in couplet 181 say that its the quality of not being called a slanderer! The same Valluvar who says what is natural or inborn in us cannot be ejected (Kural 376 on "Fate") would say while emphasizing the value of "Exertion" that inherent natural flaws can be overcome by getting rid of laziness (Kural 609). For a purist these may appear as contradictions but it is the style Valluvar follows while emphasizing the importance of a particular code of ethic. To know more on this, click here for the article: The unique style of Thiruvalluvar.

[Sudhaama]

[tscii:eea6d09df9]
.
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅâý ¸ÕòÐ... ÓýÛìÌ À¢ý Óý¡?..

.. Å¢¾¢§Â ÅÄ¢¨Á §Á§Ä¡í¸¢Â¾¡?

quote: "Sudhaama"

// "°¨ÆÔõ ¯ôÀì¸õ ¸¡ñÀ÷ ¯¨ÄÅ¢ýÈ¢ ¾¡Æ¡Ð ¯»üÚÀÅ÷" ±ýÈ¡÷ ÅûÙÅ÷....

"ÁÉõ ¾ÇáÐ, ¦ºÂø-§Å¸ò¾¢ø ¦¾¡ö× ²üÀ¼¡Ð ±¾¢÷òÐ §À¡Ã¡ÎÀÅ÷... Å¢¾¢¨ÂÔõ ÒÈ-Óи¢ðÎ µ¼î¦ºö ÓÊÔõ"... ±ýÈ ¸Õò¾¢§Ä

þó¾ «Ã¢Â ¿ü-¸ÕòÐìÌ ±¾¢÷Á¡È¡É ¸Õò¾¢§Ä... Å¢¾¢¨Â ¸¡ðÊÖõ §Á§Ä¡í¸¢Â ÅÄ¢¨Á Á¢ì¸Ð §ÅÚ-±ó¾ ÅøĨÁÔõ þø¨Ä. ±É§Å Å¢¾¢ìÌ «ÊÀ½¢óÐ, Å¡ú쨸 ¾£¨Á¸¨Ç ²üÚ즸¡ñÎ ÐÂ÷ §¸Î¸Ç¡ø ÅÕóÐÅÐ ¾Å¢÷ì¸ þÂÄ¡Ð ±ýÈ ¸Õò¾¢§ÄÔõ ÜÚ¸¢È¡÷...

... "°Æ¢ü ¦ÀÕÅÄ¢ ¡×Ç? Áü¦È¡ýÚ ÝÆ¢Ûõ ¾¡ÓóÐÚõ" ±ýÚ.

²ý þó¾ ÓýÛìÌ-À¢ý ÓÃñÀ¡Î? //

¿¡ý ±ØôÀ¢Â þó¾ §¸ûÅ¢ìÌ ¿¡§É Å¢¨¼ÂǢ츢§Èý...

¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷ ÓýÛìÌô-À¢ý Óý¡¸ ¸ÕòÐ ÜÚÀÅ÷-«ýÚ.... ¬É¡ø ¬ú¸ÕòÐ ¯ûǼ츢 º£÷-¦¿È¢ ÜÚõ ÅÆì¸õ «ÅÕìÌ ¯ñÎ. ¬õ. «¾¢§Ä ¾¡ý «È¢Å¡÷ó¾ Ññ-ͨŠ¦¾ýÀÎõ.

ÅûÙÅ÷ ÁðÎõ «øÄ... «Å¨Ã §À¡ýÈ º£Ã¢Â §ÅÚ áÄ¡º¢Ã¢Â÷¸Ùõ þ§¾ §À¡Ä Á¡ÚÀð¼ ¯ð¸ÕòÐì¸¨Ç ÅÆí¸¢ÔûÇÉ÷. ¾Á¢Æ¢ø ÁðÎõ «øÄ¡Ð §ÅüÚ ¦Á¡Æ¢ þÄ츢Âí¸Ç¢Öõ º¡ò¾¢Ãí¸Ç¢Öõ ܼ þò¾¨¸Â Ò¾¢Ã¡É Å¢ò¾¸ô-À¡ý¨Á¨Â ¿¡õ ¸¡½Ä¡õ...

¬úó¾ ¬Ã¡öìÌõ ´ôÀ£ðÎìÌõ ¯Ã¢Â ÍÃí¸ô-¦À¡Õû þÐ.

²ý... þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý ¾¢ÕÅ¡ì¸¡É §Å¾í¸Ç¢§Ä§Â ܼ ¸¡½ôÀÎõ þò¾¨¸Â ÓýÛìÌô-À¢ý ÓÃñÀ¡Î¸û ¾¡ý, Àø§ÅÚ ºÁÂô-À¢Ã¢×¸û §¾¡ýÈ ¸¡Ã½õ-¬Â¢É...

¯¾¡Ã½Á¡¸... ºí¸Ã¡îº¡Ã¢Â¡÷ §¾¡üÚÅ¢ò¾ «ò¨Å¾õ ±Ûõ «§À¾-¦¿È¢Ôõ...

ÁòКâ¡÷ §¾¡üÚÅ¢ò¾ ò¨Å¾õ ±Ûõ §À¾-¦¿È¢Ôõ... «ùÅ¡Ú §¾¡ýȢ¨ŧÂ.

¬í¸¢Äò¾¢§Ä Å¡ú쨸ìÌõ, Å¡ú×ìÌõ... ´§Ã ¦º¡ø ¾¡ý.. Life...±ýÚ.

¬É¡ø þÂøÀ¢ø... þ¨Å þÃñÎõ ´ýÈ¡?... «øÄ.

Å¡ú쨸 ±ýÀÐ ±ýÉ? ¿¡õ ¾¢ð¼õ-þΞüÌõ §ÁÄ¡¸... ¿ÁìÌ µ÷ §Áø-¾¢ð¼ò¨¾ ÅÌòÐ즸¡ñÎ ¿õ¨Á ¿¼ò¾¢î-¦ºøÖõ þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý ¦Á¡ò¾-¾¢ð¼§Á (Overall Plan)... Å¡ú쨸.

¿õ¨Á «È¢Â¡Á§Ä§Â ¿õ¨Á ¿¼ò¾¢ ¦ºøÅÐ «ó¾ Á¨ÈÂÕû ¾¢ð¼§Á... Å¢¾¢ ±ýÀÐ «ó¾ ¾¢ð¼ò¾¢ý ¯ûǼì¸õ.

«ùÅ¡È¡É¡ø ±øÄ¡§Á Å¢¾¢ôÀÊ ¾¡ý ¿¼ìÌÁ¡?... ¦º¡ó¾ ¦ºÂøÓ¨ÈìÌ ¿¡õ ;ó¾¢Ã ¯Ã¢¨Á «üÈÅ÷¸Ç¡?... ¿ÁÐ Á¾¢ìÌõ ¾¢È¨ÁìÌõ §Å¨Ä§Â ¸¢¨¼Â¡¾¡?..

...«øÄ. ¿ÁÐ ±ñ½õ, Å¢ÕôÀõ, ¬¨º, ¸É׸û, Óý§É¡ìÌ-À¡÷¨Å¸û, ÍÂ-Óý§ÉüÈ ¾¢ð¼í¸û ¬¸¢ÂÅüÚìÌõ þ¼õ ¯ñÎ... ¬É¡ø «¾üÌ µ÷ ÅÃõÒ ¯ûÇÐ. «ó¾ ±ø¨Ä Ũà ¿¡õ ¿ÁÐ þ‰¼õ-§À¡Ä ¾¢ð¼õ þ¼Ä¡õ... ÁÉõ §À¡ÉÀÊ ¯Ä¡ÅÄ¡õ.... ;ó¾¢ÃÁ¡¸ ¦ºÂøÀ¼Ä¡õ.

¬É¡ø «ò¾¨¸Â ¯û-¾¢ð¼õ (Sub-Plan)... þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý ¦Á¡ò¾-¾¢ð¼ò¾¢üÌ (Overall-Plan) ¯ûÇ¼í¸¢ÂÐ.

«ó¾ ¯û-¾¢ð¼§Á... "Å¡ú×" ±ÉôÀÎÅÐ... ¿ÁìÌ ¿¡§Á «¨ÁòÐì-¦¸¡ûÅÐ. «ýÈ¡¼õ ¿¡õ ¿¼ò¾¢ì-¦¸¡ûÅÐ. þ¾¢ø ¯Â÷§Å¡ ¾¡ú§Å¡ ¯ûÇò¾¢ý ¦ºõ¨Á¨ÂÔõ º£÷¨Á¨ÂÔõ ¦À¡Úò¾Ð.

Å¡úÅ¢üÌ ¯ðÀð¼¨Å... ¦ÅûÇòÐ-«¨ÉÂÐ ÁÄ÷-¿£ð¼õ Á¡ó¾÷-¾õ ¯ûÇòÐ-«¨ÉÂÐ ¯Â÷×....

¡ ¸¡Å¡Ã¡Â¢Ûõ ¿¡ ¸¡ì¸ ¸¡Å¡ì¸¡ø §º¡¸¡ôÀ÷ ¦º¡øÄ¢ØìÌ ÀðÎ.

¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý ¾¡û §º÷ó¾¡÷ìÌ-«øÄ¡ø ÁÉì¸Å¨Ä Á¡üÈø «Ã¢Ð.... §À¡ýÈÉ ÀÄôÀÄ.

¬É¡ø Å¡ú쨸 ±ýÀÐ ¿ÁÐ ¸ðÎôÀ¡ðÎìÌ Á£È¢Â ¾¡ì¸õ... ¦À¡Ð-¾¢ð¼ò¾¢ý ¬¾¢ì¸õ... þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý-¿¢Â¾¢... «¾üÌ ¸ðÎôÀÎŨ¾ ¾Å¢Ã §ÅÚ ÅƢ¢ø¨Ä...

¯¾¡Ã½Á¡¸ Á¨Æ, ÒÂø §À¡ýÈ þÂü¨¸- ¬¾¢ì¸í¸Ùõ...

...Å¢ÀòÐì¸û, À¢ÈôÒ-þÈôÒì¸û, Ðì¸õ, ÐÂ÷, §¸Î, §ÀâÆôÒì¸û, «¾¢÷‰¼õ... §À¡ýÈ ¿õ¨Á Á£È¢Â ¦ºÂø¸Ùõ....

...¿ÁÐ ±¾¢÷À¡÷ôÀ¢üÌõ ÓÂüº¢ìÌõ Á¡ÚÀð¼ À¢È ÀÂý-Å¢¨Ç׸Ùõ... Å¡ú쨸¢ý «í¸í¸û... þÅüÚìÌ Å¢¾¢ ±ýÚõ ¦ÀÂ÷ ¦º¡øÄÄ¡õ.

"°¨ÆÔõ ¯ôÀì¸õ ¸¡ñÀ÷ ¯¨ÄÅ¢ýÈ¢ ¾¡Æ¡Ð ¯»üÚÀÅ÷" ±ýÀÐ Å¡ú¨Å ÌÈ¢ôÀÐ.....

... "°Æ¢ü ¦ÀÕÅÄ¢ ¡×Ç? Áü¦È¡ýÚ ÝÆ¢Ûõ ¾¡ÓóÐÚõ" ±ýÀÐ Å¡ú쨸¨Â ÌÈ¢ôÀÐ.

ÍÕí¸ì-ÜÈ¢ý... µ÷ Á¡Î §ÁöìÌõ þ¨¼Âý ¨¸Åºô-Àð¼ Á¡Î¸û §À¡ýÈÅ÷¸§Ç ¿¡õ.

«Åý ¨¸Â¢ø À¢ÊòÐûÇ Á¡ðÎ- ÐõÀ¢ý «Ç§Å Å¡ú×... ¿ÁР;ó¾¢Ã ¦ºÂø-ÅÃõÒ

«ÅÉ¡¸§Å þðÎî-¦ºøÖõ ¾¢¨ºÔõ §¿ÃÓõ §À¡ì̧Á Å¡ú쨸... ¿ÁÐ ¦ºÂø-ÅÃõÒ Á£È¢ÂÐ.

±É¢ý ¿ÁÐ ºì¾¢ìÌ Á£È¢Â Å¡ú쨸-¿¢Â¾¢Â¢Öõ þýÀÓõ ¦ÅüÈ¢Ôõ ¸¡½ ÓÊÔÁ¡.?
.[/tscii:eea6d09df9]

[pavalamani pragasam]

:clap:

[sar]

I have a honest doubt about relegious inclination of kural....

In many places kural cites the word "Deivam", which is meant to denote that God in human form, as in general persisting meaning,

and I beleive that "deivam" is certainly different from what kadavul means i.e. God in abstract form, and Deivam for example we say kaaval deivam, kai koduththa deivam, kodukkiRa deivam kooraiyay pichchukittu kodukkum etc in normal usage.

also, to be noted that hinduism is the only major relegion in the world to have deivams - i.e God given a human sort of form/shape...

It is obvious that valluvar agrees in existence of deivams apart from the aadhi Bagavan, the One Ultimate.

..........maDi thattRuth thaan deivam mundhuRum.(note: maDi means Lap)

Deivaththaal aagaadheninum muyaRchi than meyvaruththak kooli tharum.

Hence considering that deivam is different from kadavuL,

is it understood that Valluvar acknowledges the deity concept of hinduism...?

I am not saying that he is hindu or jain etc.. but still I think he could have had some form of agreeance with hinduism/saivism.

I beleive this saivism because both saivist sacred thiru mandhiram and tirukkural emphasises and gives importance to same sort good human values including 'vaan siRappu', 'pulaal maRuththal', 'naDuvu nilaimai' etc. If you have had a look at thiru mandhiram you could find this striking resemblance as an obvious fact.

Also thiru Mandhiram says in its first paayiram about eight divine qualities of god... (Anbu, AruL, ARivu, AatRal etc...)

Thirukkural in its first adhigaaram denotes God as 'Eight charactered'

So it is doubtful beleif that even though ThirukKural is undoubtedly recognised as 'Ulagap podhu maRai' it acknowledges and is in agreeance with hinduism/saivism in a way.

Moreover need to look at the difference between the words 'Vaazh neRi' - living principles and 'samaya neRi'-relegious principles.

ThirukkuRaL oru vaazh neRi nool - we should not always deeply concentrate on the relegious inclination of tirukkuRaL, although it is a heavy subject of argument.

[navles]

ஊழ் என்பது நாம் நினைபதுபோல் வேரு யாரோ ஒருவரால் அல்லது ஏதோ ஒன்றால் முடிவுசெயப்படும் விதி அல்ல. நமது செயல்களே அதற்கு காரணம்.
ஆகூழ், போகூழ் என வேறுபடுத்துவதை காணலாம். நல்வினை சாதகமான சூழ்நிலைகளையும், தீவினை எதிரான சூழ்நிலைகளையும் உருவாக்கும் என்கிறார்.
''ஊழிற் பெருவலி யாவுள மற்றொன்று சூழினுந் தான்முந் துறும்'' என்பது இரண்டு ஊழ்களுக்கும் பொதுவானது. நல்வினையால் வரும் ஆகூழ் ஒருவனுக்கு எதிரான சூழ்நிலைகளை சாதகமானதாகவும், தீவினையால் வரும் போகூழ் சாதகமான சூழ்நிலைகளை பாதகமானதாகவும் மாற்றும் என்று பொரூள் கொள வேண்டும். ஆகூழ் என்றொ போகூழ் என்றொ கூறாமல் ''ஊழ்'' எனவும் ''மற்றொன்று'' எனவும் குறிப்பிடுவது இரண்டு சூழ்நிலைகளுக்கும் பொதுவாக கொள்ளவே.

ஒரு குறிக்கோளை அடைய முயலுபவன், முயல்வதை நிறுதினால் - ஆகூழால் சாதகமான சூழ்நிலை உருவாகும் முன் முயல்வதை நிறுத்திவிட்டால் நிச்சயம் வெற்றியில்லை. எனவே சூழ்நிலை பாதகமானதாக இருந்தாலும் முயன்று கொண்டேயிரு உன்னுடய நல்வினையால் விளையும் ஆகூழால் சாதகமான சூழ்நிலை உருவாகும்போது உன் முயற்சி வெற்றிபெரும் என்பதையே முயற்சியை கைவிடாமல் தொடர்ந்து முயலவேண்டும் என்பதை வலியுருத்தும் பொருட்டு "ஊழையும் உப்பக்கம் காண்பர் உலைவின்றித் தாழாது உஞற்று பவர்" என்கின்றார்.

எழுத்துப்பிழைகளை மன்னிக்கவும்

[NVK Ashraf]

[tscii:93f9b03463]Dear Sar,

You have raised some pertinent issues. These have been already discussed in this thread, though in different contexts. You mentioned that....

1) It is obvious that valluvar agrees in existence of deivams apart from the aadhi Bagavan, the One Ultimate.
2) .........maDi thattRuth thaan deivam mundhuRum. (note: maDi means Lap)
Deivaththaal aagaadheninum muyaRchi than meyvaruththak kooli tharum.

The verses you quoted are these:

Kural 1023:
The Lord himself will wrap his robes
And lead the one bent on social service.

Kural 619:
Even though God(s) be against,
Effort is bound to pay the wages of labour.

From these couplets, we can appreciate that Valluvar was aware of the "belief in God", "worship of God" and also aware of the notion that "God has the capability to do all". The reference to such beliefs in God cannot be taken as an indication to prove that Tirukkuŗal is Hindu or Jaina in character; for the simple reason that the emphasis in these couplets is not to affirm such beliefs but use them as similes to emphasize virtues like industry in couplet 619, obedience to husband in couplet 55 and on social service in couplet 1023. Moreover, the word தெய்வம் has been found in non-Hindu works (read below) [On different note: The phrase “மடி தற்று” means “tightening one’s loin clothes”. Does this in any way refer to the Jaina deities that are always depicted naked?]

You also said:

3) also, to be noted that hinduism is the only major relegion in the world to have deivams - i.e God given a human sort of form/shape...
4) Hence considering that deivam is different from kadavuL, is it understood that Valluvar acknowledges the deity concept of hinduism...?

Not necessarily only Hinduism. Also not necessarily only a deity in human form qualifies being called a தெய்வம். This word occurs in works attributed to Jains as well. Moreover, in some places depending on the context, the word "theyvam" could taken to mean "fate" as well. Nālatiyār, a Jaina work beyond doubt, has this verse: "திருத் தன்னை நீப்பினும், தெய்வம் செறினும்" which means "Even if fortune forsakes and gods frown" (verse 304). While Rev. F. J. Leeper translates this verse as "Though Lakshmî withdraw from them and God be angry", S. Anavaratavinayakam Pillai translates as "Though fortune forsakes him and fate frown on him". Note the choice of the word "fate" here. Going by this logic, the word "theyvam" in couplet 619 (தெய்வத்தான் ஆகாது எனினும் முயற்சி தன் மெய் வருத்தக் கூலி தரும்) can also be translated as "fate" (Not to forget that this verse comes under the chapter "Fate" (ஊழ்)!!!). Another word used by Valluvar to mean "fate" appears to be "vaguthān" (வகுத்தான்) in couplet 377 (வகுத்தான் வகுத்த வகை அல்லால் கோடி தொகுத்தார்க்கும் துய்த்தல் அரிது). Not surprisingly, this couplet also comes under the chapter "Fate"!!!!!
Therefore the word "theyvam" in Kuŗal could mean three different things depending on the context. It could mean "fate" (619), a deity to be worshipped (43) or a deity capable of doing what man cannot achieve (55). You may ask what deities Jaina's or Buddhists worship. Well, they have their Tirthankaras and Amthabas.

You also wrote:

1) I am not saying that he is hindu or jain etc.. but still I think he could have had some form of agreeance with hinduism/saivism.

2) I beleive this saivism because both saivist sacred thiru mandhiram and tirukkural emphasises and gives importance to same sort good human values including 'vaan siRappu', 'pulaal maRuththal', 'naDuvu nilaimai' etc. If you have had a look at thiru mandhiram you could find this striking resemblance as an obvious fact.

We cannot be misled by mere resemblances to few chapter headings or even verses. If we have to take few chapters like வான் சிறப்பு, புலால் மறுத்தல் and நடுவுநிலைமை as indications to show the alliance of the Kural to Thirumandiram or vice versa (and therefore conclude that the Valluvar's affiliation is to Saivism), then some one will point out that Nalatiyar (நாலடியார்) has plenty of chapters similar to the Kural (e.g. கடவுள் வாழ்த்து, அறன் வலியுறுத்தல், துறவு, பொறையுடைமை, ஈகை, தீவினையச்சம், கல்வி, பெரியாரைப் பிழையாமை, பெருமை, கூடா நட்பு, அறிவுடைமை, இன்மை, இரவச்சம், பேதைமை, etc. etc.) and therefore claim based on these striking similarities that the Kural shows its affiliation to Jainism. Many couplets in Kural show striking resemblance to verses in Dhammapatha and from this we cannot conclude that Valluvar agrees with Buddhist views. Subramanian and Rajalakshmi, (1984) mention that the Tamil Buddhist work சீலபாரமிதை prescribes many of the ethical values found in the Kuŗal. These include கொல்லாமை (Ch.33), கள்ளாமை (Ch. 29), காமமின்மை (Ch. 37), பொய்யாமை (Ch. 30), புறங்கூறாமை (Ch. 19), வன்சொலியம்பாமை (Ch. 10), பயனில மொழியாமை (Ch. 20), வெஃகாமை (Ch. 18), வெகுளாமை. (Ch. 31), தற்காட்சி (Ch. 36). Based on this, we cannot say that Kural is affiliated to Buddhism.

And your apprehension:

So it is doubtful beleif that even though ThirukKural is undoubtedly recognised as 'Ulagap podhu maRai' it acknowledges and is in agreeance with hinduism/saivism in a way.

ஒரு நூல் அது உருவாகிய நாட்டிலுள்ள மக்களிடையே உள்ள சில நம்பிக்கைகளை உவமைகளாக எடுத்துக்காட்டுவதினால் அந்நூல் உலகப்பொதுமறை என்ற மதிப்பை இழந்துவிடாது. What matters is what message has been emphasized and not what simile or belief has been used to emphasize the message.

Reference:
Subramanian, N. and Rajalakshmi, R. 1984. The Concordance of Tirukkural (With Critical Introduction). Ennes Publications, Madurai. 250 pages[/tscii:93f9b03463]

[Uppuma]

Friends,

Religion of God, HINDUISM in itself is Universal and accepts all other was of Worship. All rivers leads to Sea, or to climb a mountain there are many sides.

As Valluvar clearly agrees Vedics and rejects Jainistic Style totally.

Valluvam is not a Religious book, but it supports AND Standsby Vedic Hinduism

Uppuma

[navles]

Friends,

Religion of God, HINDUISM in itself is Universal and accepts all other was of Worship. All rivers leads to Sea, or to climb a mountain there are many sides.

As Valluvar clearly agrees Vedics and rejects Jainistic Style totally.

Valluvam is not a Religious book, but it supports AND Standsby Vedic Hinduism

Uppuma :evil:
Painting such relegious colours on THIRUKKURAL is a waste of time. Let us discuss what it conveys.
:lol: Ventha Uppumava vaegaatha Uppumava :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mms]

Dear Friends,

Thirukural is written as a book of Morals, however Valluvar has given at many placesm that he is against Jainism and Buddhism.

The ideals of Vegetarianism is not specific to Jainistm, though it gave much importance.

So to say Valluvar is Hindu is absolutely true to the Character of Thiukural

mms

[devapriya]

[tscii:a484a08bb9]I reproduce from a Paper submitted for world Conference on Kural ÅûÙÅÕõ ºÁ½Õõ: - பா.வீரமணி.
º¢Èó¾ öÅ¡Ç÷¸Ùû º¢Ä÷ ¾¢ÕìÌȨÇî ºÁ½õ º¡÷ó¾ á¦ÄýÚõ, ºÁ½î º¢ó¾¨É¸§Ç ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ø þ¼õ ¦ÀüÈ¢Õ츢ýÈÉ ¦ÅýÚõ ÜÈ¢ÔûÇÉ÷. þÅ÷¸Ùû ¾Á¢úò¦¾ýÈø ¾¢Õ.Å¢.¸, §ÀẢ¡¢Â÷ ¨Å¡புரி À¢û¨Ç Á¢¨Ä. º£É¢ §Åí¸¼º¡Á¢ ¸¢§Â¡÷ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ò¾ì¸Å÷¸û. þÅ÷¸ÙûÙõ, ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ÖûÇ ºÁ½ì ¸Õòи¨Çî ºüÚ Å¢¡¢Å¡¸ ±Ø¾¢ÂÅ÷ Á¢¨Ä¡§Ã Å÷. ¾Ä¡ø Á¢¨Ä¡¡¢ý ¸Õòи¨ÇÔõ, ºÁ½ò¾¢ý º¢Ä «ÊôÀ¨¼ì ¦¸¡û¨¸¸¨ÇÔõ ¾¢ÕìÌÈÙ¼ý ´ôÀ¢ðÎ §¿¡ìÌÅÐõ þì¸ðΨâý §¿¡ì¸Á¡Ìõ. «Åü¨Èî ÍÕí¸ §¿¡ì̧šõ.

'ºÁ½÷ ÁðÎõ ¾ÁÐ «Õ¸ì ¸¼×Ç¢ý ¾¢ÕÅʨÂì ÜÚõ§À¡¦¾øÄ¡õ ÁÄ÷ §À¡ýÈ ¾¢ÕÅÊ ±ýÚ ÜÚÅÐ ÁðÎÁýÈ¢, ÁÄ÷§Áø ¿¼ó¾ ¾¢ÕÅÊ ±ýÚõ ¡ñÎõ ÜȢ¢Õ츢ýÈÉ÷. ¨ƒÉ ºÁ áø¸Ç¢Ä¢ÕóÐ ±ÎòÐ측ðÊ §Áü§¸¡û¸Ç¡ø ~ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ²¸¢É¡ý ±ýÚ ¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷ ÜÈ¢ÂÐ, «Õ¸ì ¸¼×¨Ç§Â ±ýÀÐ ¯ûÇí¨¸ ¦¿øÄ¢ì ¸É¢Â¡¸ Å¢Çí̸¢ÈÐ.

'«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ±ýÀÅ÷ ¡÷? «Å÷ ±ó¾ì ¸¼×û ±ýÀ¨¾ áö§Å¡õ. «È츼×Ç¡¸¢Â «ó¾½ý ±ýÚ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ûŨ¾Å¢¼ ¾ÕÁ ºì¸Ãò¨¾Ô¨¼Â «ó¾½ý ±ýÚ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ûÅÐ º¢ÈôÒ¨¼Â¾¡¸ò §¾¡ýÚ¸¢ÈÐ. áø¸Ç¢§Ä ¨ƒÉÕ¨¼Â «Õ¸ì ¸¼×û «ÈÅ¡Æ¢¨Â ¯¨¼ÂÅ÷ ±ýÚ ÜÈôÀθ¢È¡÷. ¸§Å «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ±ýÚ ÌÈ¢ì¸ôÀÎÅ÷ ¨ƒÉÕ¨¼Â «Õ¸ì ¸¼×û ±Éì ¦¸¡ûÇò¾Ìõ".

Á¢¨Ä¡¡¢ý þó¾ì ¸ðΨà ¦ÅÇ¢ÅÕžüÌ ÓôÀ¾¡ñθÙìÌ Óý§À þÄí¨¸ô ¦ÀÕõÒÄÅÃ¡É Ò§Ä¡Ä¢. ¾¢ø¨Ä¿¡¾ ¿¡ÅÄ÷, §Áü¸ñ¼ ¦¾¡¼÷¸¨Çì ¦¸¡ñÎ ÅûÙŨÃî ºÁ½¦ÃÉì ¦¸¡ûŨ¾ò ¾¢ÈõÀ¼ ÁÚòÐûÇ¡÷.

'ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º¦ÂØ ¾Õ¦À¡Õû ¿¢Â¾Ó Ó½÷ÀÅ÷"
-±ýÚ ¾¢Õ»¡É ºõÀó¾ ã÷ò¾¢¸Ùõ,
'²¡¢Â¡Â ¾¡Á¨Ã §ÁÄ¢Âí¸¢É¡Õõ þ¨¼ÁÕÐ §ÁŢ ®ºÉ¡§Ã"
-±ýÚ ¾¢Õ¿¡×ì¸ÃÍ ¿¡ÂÉ¡Õõ,
'§À¡¾¸ó§¾¡Úõ புரிº¨¼Â¡ÉÊ"
-±ýÚ ¾¢ÕãÄ÷ ¾¢ÕÁó¾¢Ãò¾¡Ûõ,
'Á¨É¸ÁÄÁÈ ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ¦ÂؾÕõ"
-±Éò ¾¢ÕÅ¡ö ¦Á¡Æ¢Â¢ø º¼§¸¡À÷ ÜھġÛõ,
þõã÷ò¾¢¸¨Ç ¦ÂøÄ¡õ Å¢ÎòÐ 'ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ²¸¢É¡ý" ±É ¿¡ÂÉ¡÷ «Õ¸¨Éì ÜȢɡ÷ ±ýறாø «ï»¡É Å¢Õò¾¢§Â ±ý¸."

§ÁÖõ «Õ¸ÛìÌ «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ §Åó¾ý ±ýÀ¾ýÈ¢ ~«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý| ±ýÀÐ ¦ÀÂÃý¨Á¡Ûõ, §Åó¾ÛìÌõ «ó¾½ÛìÌõ ¾õÓû §ÅüÚ¨Á ¦À¡¢Â¾¡¸Ä¡Ûõ «ÈÅ¡Æ¢§Åó¾ý ±ýÀÐ ¾ÕÁ ºì¸Ãò¨¾Ô¨¼Â «Ãºý ±ýÛõ ¦À¡Õ𼡸Ģý ºìÃõ §Åó¾Ûì¸ýÈ¢, «ó¾½Û츢¨Â¾ø º¢üôÀ¢ýÈ¡¸Ä¡Ûõ, ¿¡ÂÉ¡÷ «È츼צÇÛõ ¯ÕŸô ¦À¡Õ𼡸ÅýÈ¢, «Èîºì¸Ã¦ÁýÛõ ¦À¡Õ𼡸ì ÜÈ¡¨Á¡Ûõ, «Õ¸ÛìÌõ «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ÛìÌõ ¦ÅÌàÃõ ±ý¸" ±ýÚ Á¢¸ ÑðÀ¡¸ò ¾¢ø¨Ä. ¿¡¾ ¿¡ÅÄ÷ ÁÚ츢ȡ÷. þõÁÚôÀ¢ý ÅÆ¢ Á¢¨Ä¡¡¢ý ÓÊ× º¡¢ÂýÚ ±ýÀ¨¾ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ.

ÁüÚõ ÅûÙÅ÷ ¸¼×û Å¡úò¾¢ø Å¡ÄÈ¢Åý, §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨ÁþÄ¡ý, ¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý, ±ñ̽ò¾¡ý| ±ýÚ ÀÄÅ¢¼í¸Ç¢ø þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý ÀñÒ¸¨Ç §À͸¢È¡§ÃÂýÈ¢, «ÅÉ¢ý ¯ÕÅò¨¾§Â¡, Ô¾ò¨¾§Â¡ ±íÌõ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ð¼¡÷ «øÄ÷. ±É§Å, ¾ÕÁ ºì¸Ãõ ¯¨¼Â «ó¾½ý ±É즸¡ñÎ «Ð ºÁ½ì ¸¼×¨Çò¾¡ý ÌÈ¢ì̦ÁÉ×õ ' ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ²¸¢É¡ý" ±ýÀÐõ «Õ¸¨Éì ÌÈ¢ì̦ÁýÀÐõ ¦À¡Õó¾¡ ±ýÀ§¾ ¯ñ¨Á.

¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ø ¯ûÇ þò¦¾¡¼÷¸¨Çì ¦¸¡ñÎ ÅûÙÅ¡¢ý ºÁÂò¨¾ öŨ¾ì ¸¡ðÊÖõ, ºÁ½ò¾¢ý «ÊôÀ¨¼ì ¦¸¡û¨¸¸¨Çì ¦¸¡ñÎ öŧ¾ º¢Èó¾Ð, ²üÈÐ.

ºÁ½î ºÁÂõ ¸¼×¨Ç ²üÀ¾¢ø¨Ä. ¯Â¢÷¸ÙìÌì ¸ýÁ ÀÄý¸¨Çô (Å¢¨É¸¨Ç) Òº¢ì¸ ¨Åì¸ì ¸¼×û §¾¨Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ, ¸ýÁí¸û ¾¡Á¡¸§Å ¾ò¾õ ÀÄý¸¨Çò ¾Õõ ±ýÚõ ºÁ½õ ÜÚ¸¢ÈÐ. É¡ø ÅûÙÅõ þ¾üÌ ÓüÈ¢Öõ Á¡ÚÀð¼Ð. Áì¸û þ¨È¦¿È¢Â¢ø ¿¢ýÈ¡ø ¾¡ý ÐýÀí¸¨ÇÔõ, Å¢¨Ç¸¨ÇÔõ ¸¼ì¸ ÓÊÔõ ±ýÚ «Ð ÅÄ¢ÔÚòи¢ÈÐ. ¯Â¢÷¸ÙìÌì ¸ýÁí¸û ¾¡Á¡¸§Å (¸¼×û Ш½ þøÄ¡Áø) ÀÄý¸¨Ç Å¢¨ÇÅ¢ìÌõ ±ýÀ¨¾ ÅûÙÅ÷ º¢È¢Ðõ ²ü¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ¨¾ì ¸£ØûÇ ÌÈðÀ¡ì¸Ç¢É¡ø ¿ýÌ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ.

þÕû§º÷ þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡ þ¨ÈÅý
¦À¡Õû§º÷ Ò¸úâ¢ó¾¡÷ Á¡ðÎ

À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£óÐÅ÷ ¿£ó¾¡÷
þ¨ÈÅý «Ê§ºÃ¡ ¾¡÷

'ÅÌò¾¡ý ÅÌò¾ Ũ¸ÂøÄ÷"

±ýÚõ ÜȢ¢ÕôÀ¾¡ø °¨Æ ÅÌôÀÅý þ¨ÈÅý ±ýÀ§¾ «Å÷ ¸Õò¾¡Ìõ. ÅÌò¾¡ý| ±ýÀÐ °¨Æì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¾¡Â¢Ûõ ®íÌ þ¨ÈÅý ±ýÚ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ûŧ¾ ²üÒ¨¼òÐ.

§Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡ÉÊ §º÷ó¾¡÷ìÌ - 4 ±ýÚõ,
þÕû§º÷ þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡ - 5 ±ýÚõ,
«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ¾¡û §º¡ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø - 8 ±ýÚõ,
À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£òÐÅ÷ - 10 ±ýÚõ,
ÀüÚ¸ ÀüÈüÈ¡ý ÀüÈ¢¨É - 350 ±ýÚõ,
¾¢ÕõÀò¾¢ÕõÀ ±øÄ¡ÅüÈ¢üÌõ ãÄÓ¾øÅý þ¨ÈÅý ±É§È «Å÷ ÜÚž¡ø, þíÌ ÅÌò¾¡ý| ±ýÚ ÜȢ¢ÕôÀ¨¾ þ¨ÈÅý ±ýÚ ¦À¡Õû §¸¡¼§Ä ²üÈÐ. Å¢¨É¨Â ÅÌòÐ °ðÎõ Ó¾øÅý þ¨ÈŧɦÂýÚ ÅûÙõ ÜÚÅÐ ºÁ½òÐìÌ §¿ர்Á¡È¡ÉÐ. þ¨ÈÅ¨É ÁÚìÌõ ºÁ½õ ±í§¸? þ¨ÈÅ¨É ²üÌõ ÅûÙÅõ ±í§¸? þ·Ð «ÊôÀ¨¼ Á¡ÚÀ¼ý§È¡!

§ÁÖõ, °¨Æì ¸¡ðÊÖõ ÅÄ¢¨ÁÔ¨¼ÂÐ §Å¦È¡ýÚ þø¨Ä¦ÂýÚõ, Å¢¨ÉôÀÂ¨É Â¡Ã¡Öõ ¾Å¢÷ì¸ ÓÊ¡Р±ýÚ ÅÄ¢ÔÚòÐÅÐ ºÁ½õ. É¡ø, ÅûÙÅõ °¨Æ ²üÚì ¦¸¡ñ¼¡Öõ «¾¨É ¯¨Ä¡ ¯¨ÆôÀ¢É¡ø ÒÈõ ¾ûÇÄ¡õ ±ýÀÐ «¾ý н¢Ò. þÐ×õ ºÁ½òÐìÌõ ÅûÙÅòÐìÌõ «ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ÖûÇ Óý¡Ìõ. ÅûÙÅ÷ °Ø즸¾¢Ã¡¸ ûÅ¢¨ÉÔ¨¼¨Á¨Â ÅÌò¾¢ÕôÀÐ þó¾¢Âî º¢ó¾¨É ÁÃÀ¢ø ´Õ Ò¾¢Â «ò¾¢Â¡Âõ Ìõ. ¦ÀÇò¾õ ܼ, °¨Æ ¦ÅøÄ §ÅñΦÁÉì ÜȢ¢Õó¾¡Öõ, ¡ÁÈ¢ó¾ Ũâø ÁÉ¢¾ ÓÂüº¢ìÌ (ûÅ¢¨ÉìÌ) ÅûÙÅõ ¾ó¾ «Øò¾ò¨¾ «Ð ¾ÃÅ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ§¾ ¯ñ¨Á¡Ìõ.
¦¾öÅò¾¡ý ¸¡ ¦¾É¢Ûõ ÓÂüº¢¾ý
¦ÁöÅÕò¾ì ÜÄ¢ ¾Õõ (ÌÈû.619) ±ýÚõ,

°¨ÆÔõ ¯ôÀì¸í ¸¡ñÀ÷ ¯¨ÄÅ¢ýÈ¢ò
¾¡Æ¡ лüÚ ÀÅ÷ -(ÌÈû 620) ; ±ýÚõ
ÅûÙÅõ ¦À¡¢Ðõ ÅÄ¢ÔÚòÐÅÐ, ºÁ½òÐìÌ ÓüÈ¢Öõ Á¡È¡ÉÐ.þìÜüÚ þó¾¢Âò ¾òÐÅ ÁÃÒ째 º¢ÈôÒò ¾ÕÅÐ.

ºÁ½ò¾¢ý ¯Â¢÷즸¡û¨¸ ÐÈÅȧÁ¡Ìõ.
ºÁ½÷ ±ýÈ¡§Ä ÐÈÅ¢ ±ý§È ¦À¡ÕÇ¡Ìõ. ÐÈ× âñ§¼¡§Ã ţΧÀÚ «¨¼Å÷ ±ýÀÐ ºÁ½ì ¦¸¡û¨¸. ºÁ½ò¨¾ô §À¡ýÚ ¦ÀÇò¾õ «òШ½ì ¸Î¨Á¡¸ò ÐÅÅÈò¨¾ì ÜÈ¡Å¢ÊÛõ, öÅ¡Ç÷¸û þÃñÎ ºÁÂí¸¨ÇÔõ ÐÈÅÈî ºÁÂí¸¦Çý§È ÜÚÅ÷. ÅûÙÅõ ÐÈÅÈò¨¾ §Áü¦¸¡ûÅÐ ¯ñÎ. ÅûÙÅ÷ «¨ÉòÐô À̾¢Â¢É÷ìÌõ «Èõ ÜÈ Å¢¨Æó¾Åá¾Ä¢ý, «Å÷ ÐÈÅÈòÐìÌõ µÃÇ× þ¼õ ¾ó¾¡÷. ±É¢Ûõ þøÄÈò¨¾§Â ¦À¡¢Ðõ §À¡üȢɡ÷.

«Èò¾¡üÈ¢ý þøÅ¡ú쨸 ¡üÈ¢ý ÒÈò¾¡üÈ¢ü
§À¡µöô ¦ÀÚÅÐ ±Åý (ÌÈû - 46)
ÐÈ󾡡¢ý àö¨Á ¯¨¼Â÷ þÈó¾¡÷Å¡ö (ÌÈû - 159)
þýÉ¡î ¦º¡ø §¿¡ü¸¢üÀÅ÷
;¨ÅÂòÐû Å¡úÅ¡íÌ Å¡úÀÅý Å¡Û¨ÈÔõ
¦¾öÅòÐû ¨Åì¸ôÎõ (ÌÈû - 50)
þìÌÈðÀ¡ì¸Ç¢ý ÅÆ¢ò ÐÈÅÈò¨¾ò ¾Å¢÷òÐ þøÄÈò¨¾ ±ôÀÊô §À¡üÈ¢ ÅÄ¢ÔÚòи¢È¡÷ ±ýÀ¨¾ ¿ýÌ ¦¾Ç¢ÂÄ¡õ. þ¨Å¡×õ ºÁ½òÐìÌ Á¡È¡É¨Å¡Ìõ.
«ÈòÐôÀ¡Ä¢ÖûÇ 38 «¾¢¸¡Ãí¸Ç¢ø ÐÈÅÈòÐìÌ 15 «¾¢¸¡Ãí¸Ùõ, 22 «¾¢¸¡Ãí¸û þøÄÈò¾¡÷ìÌõ, µ÷ «¾¢¸¡Ãò¨¾ þÕ «Èò¾¡÷ìÌõ ÜÈ¢ÔûÇ¡÷. ²¨É ¦À¡Õð À¡Ä¢Öõ, ¸¡ÁòÐô À¡Ä¢Öõ ¯ûÇ «¾¢¸¡Ãí¸û ¡ÕìÌ ¯¡¢ÂÉ ±ýÀ¨¾ô ÀüÈ¢ì ÜȧÅñΞ¢ø¨Ä. þÅüȢĢÕóÐ ÅûÙÅ¡¢ý ºÁ½òÐìÌ Á¡È¡É þøÄÈì §¸¡ðÀ¡ð¨¼ ¿ýÌ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ.

ºÁ½õ, «îºÁÂò ÐÈÅ¢¸ÙìÌ ²Ø ¾¡;Áí¸¨Ç Å¢¾¢ò¾Ð. «ò¾ர்Áò¨¾ «Å÷¸û ¾¢¾¡;Áõ ±ýÈ¡÷. «¨Å ¯§Ä¡ºõ, ¾¢¸õÀÃõ. ¿£Ã¡¼¡¨Á, ¾¨Ã¢ü ÀÎò¾ø Àø §¾ö측¨Á, ¿¢ýÚ ¯ñ½ø, ²¸ Òì¾õ ±ýÀ÷. ÅûÙÅõ þÅüÈ¢üÌ Á¡È¡ÉÐ.¯§Ä¡ºõ ±ýÀÐ ¾¨Ä¢ĢÕóÐ Á¢¨Ãì ¸¨Çž¡Ìõ. . ÅûÙŧá ÁÆ¢ò¾Öõ ¿£ð¼Öõ §Åñ¼¡ - 280 ±ýÚ ÜȢ¢ÕôÀ¾¡ø ¯§Ä¡ºò¨¾ «Å÷ ²ü¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ¨¾ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ.
¾¢¸õÀÃõ ±ýÀÐ ¨¼Â¢ýÈ¢ þÕôÀ¨¾ ÌÈ¢ìÌõ. ÅûÙŧá '°Ï¨¼ ±îºõ ¯Â¢÷즸øÄ¡õ §ÅÈøÄ - 1012 ±ýÚõ '¯Î쨸 þÆó¾Åý ¨¸§À¡Öõ - 788 ±ýÚõ, ¯¨¼Â¢ý þýȢ¨Á¡¨Á¨Âì ÜÚž¡ø ÅûÙÅ÷ ¾¢¸õÀÃòÐìÌ Á¡È¡ÉÅ÷ ±ýÀ¨¾ «È¢ÂÄ¡õ. ÁüÚõ «Å÷ ÒÈóàö¨Á ¿£Ã¡ý «¨ÁÔõ - 298 ±ýÚ ÜÚž¡ø ºÁ½õ ÜÚõ ¿£Ã¡¼¡¨Á¨Â ²ü¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ¨¾ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ. ¦Áý§¾¡û ТĢý þɢР¦¸¡ø - 1191 ±ýÚ «Å÷ ÜÚž¡Öõ, ¾¨Ã¢ü ÀÎò¾¨Ä ±íÌõ ÜÈ¡¾¾¡Öõ, «¾üÌ «Å÷ Á¡È¡ÉÅ÷ ±ýÚõ ¦¾Ç¢ÂôÀÎõ. ¿¢ýÚ ¯ñ½ø, ²¸ Òì¾õ (´Õ §Å¨Ç ÁðÎõ ¯ñ½ø) þÅü¨È ÅûÙÅ÷ ÐÈÅÈò¾¢§Ä¡, ÁÕóÐ «¾¢¸¡Ãò¾¢§Ä¡ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ð¼¡÷ «øÄ÷. . «¸òàö¨ÁÔõ, ÒÈòàö¨Á¨ÂÔõ ÅÄ¢ÔÚòÐõ «Å÷, Àø §¾ö측¨Á¨Â Å¢ÕõÒšá? Á¡ð¼¡÷. 'À½¢¦Á¡Æ¢ Å¡¦ÄÂ£Ú °È¢Â¿£÷ 1121 ±ýÈ ÌÈðÀ¡Å¢ÖÛûÇ “Å¡¦Ä¢ڔ ±ýÀÐ àö¨ÁÂ¡É Àü¸¨Ç§Â ÌÈ¢ìÌõ. þ¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ Àø§¾ö측¨Á¨Â «Å÷ º¢È¢Ðõ Å¢ÕõÀ¡¾Å÷ ±ýÀ¨¾ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ.
ºÁ½÷ þÃò¾É ¾¢ÃÂò¨¾ Ó츢Âì §¸¡ðÀ¡¼¡ö ÜÚÅ÷. þÃò¾É ¾¢ÃÂõ ±ýÀÐ ¿ý»¡Éõ, ¿ü¸¡ðº¢, ¿ø¦Ä¡Øì¸õ ¸¢Â¨Å¡Ìõ. þÅü¨Èî ºÁ½÷ §¿¡ì¸¢§Ä¡, þÃò¾É ¾¢ÃÂô ¦À¡ÕÇ¢§Ä¡ «Å÷ ±íÌõ Å¢Ç츢ɡ÷ «øÄ÷. ÅûÙÅõ ÜÚõ ܼ¡¦Å¡Øì¸õ, «Å¡ «Úò¾ø, ¦ÁöÔ½÷× ¸¢Â¨Å þÃò¾É ¾¢ÃÂò¾¢üÌ §ÅȡɨÅ. þÃò¾É ¾¢ÃÂòÐìÌ Á¡üÈ¡¸ ÅûÙÅ÷.
¸¡Áõ ¦ÅÌÇ¢ ÁÂì¸õ þ¨ÅãýÈý
¿¡Áõ ¦¸¼ì¦¸Îõ §¿¡ö -(ÌÈû 360)
±ýÀÅü¨Èì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Îž¡ø «Å÷ Á¡üÚì ¦¸¡û¨¸Ô¨¼ÂÅ÷ ±Éì ÜÈÄ¡õ.

ºÁ½÷ þýÉ¡ ¦ºö¡¨Á¨Â, ±ø¨Ä ¸¼óÐ ¾¢¾ ¯½÷Å¢ø ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾¢É÷. ã츢ýÅÆ¢ ¸¡ü¨È ¯ð¦¸¡ñ¼¡ø, ¸¡üÈ¢ÖûÇ ÑñÏ¢÷¸û «Æ¢óРŢÎõ ±ýÀ¾ü¸¡¸ ã츢ø н¢¨Âì ¦¸¡ñÎ ãÊì ¦¸¡ñ¼É÷. ÁÃí¸¨Çî ¦ºÐìÌž¡Öõ, ¦¸¡ÙòО¡Öõ, ÁÃò¾¢ÖûÇ ÑñÏ¢÷¸û «Æ¢óÐÅ¢Îõ ±ýÀ¾ü¸¡¸ò ¾îÍò ¦¾¡Æ¢¨Ä «Å÷¸û ¾¨¼ ¦ºö¾É÷. þ¾É¡ø, âÁ¢¨Â ¯Ø¾¡ø, Áñ½¢ÖûÇ ÒØ â¸û «Æ¢óÐÅ¢Îõ ±ýÀ¾ü¸¡¸ ¯Æ×ò ¦¾Æ¢Ä¢ø ºÁ½÷¸û ®ÎÀ¼ìܼ¡¦¾É «Å÷¸û Å¢¾¢ò¾É÷. ÁÛ¿£¾¢§Â¡ ¯Æ×ò¦¾¡Æ¢¨Ä þƢ󧾡÷ ¦¾¡Æ¢ø ±ýÈÐ.
¯Æ×ò¦¾¡Æ¢¨Ä ÁÛ¿£¾¢ ÁÚò¾üÌõ, ºÁ½õ ÁÚò¾¾üÌõ §ÅÚÀ¡Î ¯ñÎ. ºã¸ò¾¢ø ºÁ¿£¾¢ ²üÀ¼¡Áø þÕì¸ ÁÛ¿£¾¢ «¾¨É þ¸úó¾Ð. ºÁ½§Á¡, ÅÃõÒ ¸¼ó¾ þÃì¸ò¨¾ ÓýÉ¢ðÎ ÁÚò¾Ð. É¡ø, ÅûÙŧÁ¡ ¯Ä¸¢Âø ¿¼ô¨Àì ¦¸¡ñÎ ¯Æ×ò ¦¾¡Æ¢¨Äô §À¡üÈ¢ÂÐ.
ÍÆüÚõ²÷ô À¢ýÉ Ðĸõ «¾É¡ø
¯ÆóÐõ ¯Æ§Å ¾¨Ä (ÌÈû - 1031)
¯ØÐñÎ Å¡úÅ¡§Ã Å¡úÅ¡÷Áü ¦ÈøÄ¡õ
¦¾¡ØÐñÎ À¢ý¦ºø ÀÅ÷ (ÌÈû - 1033)
-þìÌÈðÀ¡ì¸Ç¢ý ãÄõ ÅûÙÅõ ºÁ½òÐடன் ±òШ½ Á¡È¡ÉÐ ±ýÀÐ ¦ÀÈôÀÎõ.

§ÁÖõ, ºÁ½õ ¦Àñ¸¨Çò ¾¡úó¾ À¢ÈŢ¡¸ì ¸Õ¾¢ÂÐ. À¡Åõ ¦ºö¾Å§Ã ¦Àñ½¡¸ô À¢È츢ýÈÉ÷ ±ýÚõ ÜÈ¢ÂÐ. ¦Àñ ţΧÀÚ «¨¼Â §ÅñÎÁ¡Â¢ý, «Îò¾ À¢ÈŢ¢ø ½¡¸ô À¢Èó¾¡ø¾¡ý ÓÊÔõ ±ýÈÐ. þ¨Å §À¡ýÈ ¸Õòи¨Çî º£Å¸º¢ó¾¡Á½¢, ŨÇ¡À¾¢ §À¡ýÈ ºÁ½ áø¸Ç¢Öõ ¸¡½Äõ. ÅûÙÅõ þÅüÈ¢üÌ ÓüÈ¢Öõ Á¡È¡ÉÐ.
ÅûÙÅõ, ¦Àñ¸Ç¢É º¢Èô¨À ±ñ½¢ 'Å¡ú쨸ò Ш½¿Äõ" ±ýÈ «¾¢¸¡Ãò¨¾ ÅÌòÐ '¦Àñ½¢ý ¦ÀÕó¾ì¸ ¡×Ç -54 ±ýÚõ, §Å¦È¡Õ «¾¢¸¡Ãò¾¢Öõ ´Õ¨Á Á¸Ç¢§Ã §À¡Äô ¦ÀÕ¨ÁÔõ ¾ý¨Éò¾¡ý ¦¸¡½¦;¼¡Ø¸¢ý ¯ñÎ -974 ±ன்Úõ, Á¾¢òÐô §À¡üÈ¢ÂÐ. ºÁ½õ ¸¡Áò¨¾ þ¸úóÐ ¸Êó¾Ð. ÅûÙŧÁ¡, þÕÀò¨¾óÐ «¾¢¸¡Ãí¸¨Ç ÅÌòÐì ¸¡Áò¾¢ý þýȢ¨Á¡¨Á¨Âô ÒÄôÀÎò¾¢ÂÐ. þùÅ¡Ú, ÀøÄ¡üÈ¡ý «ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø ºÁ½òÐìÌ Á¡È¡É ¸Õòи¨Ç ÅûÙÅõ ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾¢Â¢Õì¸, Á¢¨Ä¡÷ §À¡ý§È¡÷ ÅûÙÅò¾¢ø ºÁ½ì ¸Õòи§Ç Á¢ÌóÐ §¾¡ýÚ¸¢ýÈÉ. ±ýÚ ÜȢ¢ÕôÀÐ ²ü¸ ÓÊ¡¾§¾Â¡Ìõ.

[/tscii:a484a08bb9]

[Sudhaama]

[tscii:83333b4f2f]
- .Àâ§Áø-«Æ¸÷ ¯¨Ã ÁðΧÁ... ²ý ²ü¸ôÀθ¢ÈÐ?

quote: devapriya :-- // I reproduce from a Paper submitted for world Conference on Kural ÅûÙÅÕõ ºÁ½Õõ: - ??.??????.

º¢Èó¾ öÅ¡Ç÷¸Ùû º¢Ä÷ ¾¢ÕìÌȨÇî ºÁ½õ º¡÷ó¾ á¦ÄýÚõ, ºÁ½î º¢ó¾¨É¸§Ç ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ø þ¼õ ¦ÀüÈ¢Õ츢ýÈÉ ¦ÅýÚõ ÜÈ¢ÔûÇÉ÷. þÅ÷¸Ùû ¾Á¢úò¦¾ýÈø ¾¢Õ.Å¢.¸, §ÀẢ¡¢Â÷ ¨Å¡???? À¢û¨Ç Á¢¨Ä. º£É¢ §Åí¸¼º¡Á¢ ¸¢§Â¡÷ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ò¾ì¸Å÷¸û. þÅ÷¸ÙûÙõ, ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ÖûÇ ºÁ½ì ¸Õòи¨Çî ºüÚ Å¢¡¢Å¡¸ ±Ø¾¢ÂÅ÷ Á¢¨Ä¡§Ã Å÷. ¾Ä¡ø Á¢¨Ä¡¡¢ý ¸Õòи¨ÇÔõ, ºÁ½ò¾¢ý º¢Ä «ÊôÀ¨¼ì ¦¸¡û¨¸¸¨ÇÔõ ¾¢ÕìÌÈÙ¼ý ´ôÀ¢ðÎ §¿¡ìÌÅÐõ þì¸ðΨâý §¿¡ì¸Á¡Ìõ. «Åü¨Èî ÍÕí¸ §¿¡ì̧šõ.

'ºÁ½÷ ÁðÎõ ¾ÁÐ «Õ¸ì ¸¼×Ç¢ý ¾¢ÕÅʨÂì ÜÚõ§À¡¦¾øÄ¡õ ÁÄ÷ §À¡ýÈ ¾¢ÕÅÊ ±ýÚ ÜÚÅÐ ÁðÎÁýÈ¢, ÁÄ÷§Áø ¿¼ó¾ ¾¢ÕÅÊ ±ýÚõ ¡ñÎõ ÜȢ¢Õ츢ýÈÉ÷. ¨ƒÉ ºÁ áø¸Ç¢Ä¢ÕóÐ ±ÎòÐ측ðÊ §Áü§¸¡û¸Ç¡ø ~ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ²¸¢É¡ý ±ýÚ ¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷ ÜÈ¢ÂÐ, «Õ¸ì ¸¼×¨Ç§Â ±ýÀÐ ¯ûÇí¨¸ ¦¿øÄ¢ì ¸É¢Â¡¸ Å¢Çí̸¢ÈÐ.

'«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ±ýÀÅ÷ ¡÷? «Å÷ ±ó¾ì ¸¼×û ±ýÀ¨¾ áö§Å¡õ. «È츼×Ç¡¸¢Â «ó¾½ý ±ýÚ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ûŨ¾Å¢¼ ¾ÕÁ ºì¸Ãò¨¾Ô¨¼Â «ó¾½ý ±ýÚ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ûÅÐ º¢ÈôÒ¨¼Â¾¡¸ò §¾¡ýÚ¸¢ÈÐ. áø¸Ç¢§Ä ¨ƒÉÕ¨¼Â «Õ¸ì ¸¼×û «ÈÅ¡Æ¢¨Â ¯¨¼ÂÅ÷ ±ýÚ ÜÈôÀθ¢È¡÷. ¸§Å «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ±ýÚ ÌÈ¢ì¸ôÀÎÅ÷ ¨ƒÉÕ¨¼Â «Õ¸ì ¸¼×û ±Éì ¦¸¡ûÇò¾Ìõ".

Á¢¨Ä¡¡¢ý þó¾ì ¸ðΨà ¦ÅÇ¢ÅÕžüÌ ÓôÀ¾¡ñθÙìÌ Óý§À þÄí¨¸ô ¦ÀÕõÒÄÅÃ¡É Ò§Ä¡Ä¢. ¾¢ø¨Ä¿¡¾ ¿¡ÅÄ÷, §Áü¸ñ¼ ¦¾¡¼÷¸¨Çì ¦¸¡ñÎ ÅûÙŨÃî ºÁ½¦ÃÉì ¦¸¡ûŨ¾ò ¾¢ÈõÀ¼ ÁÚòÐûÇ¡÷.

'ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º¦ÂØ ¾Õ¦À¡Õû ¿¢Â¾Ó Ó½÷ÀÅ÷"
-±ýÚ ¾¢Õ»¡É ºõÀó¾ ã÷ò¾¢¸Ùõ,
'²¡¢Â¡Â ¾¡Á¨Ã §ÁÄ¢Âí¸¢É¡Õõ þ¨¼ÁÕÐ §ÁŢ ®ºÉ¡§Ã"
-±ýÚ ¾¢Õ¿¡×ì¸ÃÍ ¿¡ÂÉ¡Õõ,
'§À¡¾¸ó§¾¡Úõ ????º¨¼Â¡ÉÊ"
-±ýÚ ¾¢ÕãÄ÷ ¾¢ÕÁó¾¢Ãò¾¡Ûõ,
'Á¨É¸ÁÄÁÈ ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ¦ÂؾÕõ"
-±Éò ¾¢ÕÅ¡ö ¦Á¡Æ¢Â¢ø º¼§¸¡À÷ ÜھġÛõ,
þõã÷ò¾¢¸¨Ç ¦ÂøÄ¡õ Å¢ÎòÐ 'ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ²¸¢É¡ý" ±É ¿¡ÂÉ¡÷ «Õ¸¨Éì ÜȢɡ÷ ±ý??ø «ï»¡É Å¢Õò¾¢§Â ±ý¸."

§ÁÖõ «Õ¸ÛìÌ «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ §Åó¾ý ±ýÀ¾ýÈ¢ ~«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý| ±ýÀÐ ¦ÀÂÃý¨Á¡Ûõ, §Åó¾ÛìÌõ «ó¾½ÛìÌõ ¾õÓû §ÅüÚ¨Á ¦À¡¢Â¾¡¸Ä¡Ûõ «ÈÅ¡Æ¢§Åó¾ý ±ýÀÐ ¾ÕÁ ºì¸Ãò¨¾Ô¨¼Â «Ãºý ±ýÛõ ¦À¡Õ𼡸Ģý ºìÃõ §Åó¾Ûì¸ýÈ¢, «ó¾½Û츢¨Â¾ø º¢üôÀ¢ýÈ¡¸Ä¡Ûõ, ¿¡ÂÉ¡÷ «È츼צÇÛõ ¯ÕŸô ¦À¡Õ𼡸ÅýÈ¢, «Èîºì¸Ã¦ÁýÛõ ¦À¡Õ𼡸ì ÜÈ¡¨Á¡Ûõ, «Õ¸ÛìÌõ «ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ÛìÌõ ¦ÅÌàÃõ ±ý¸" ±ýÚ Á¢¸ ÑðÀ¡¸ò ¾¢ø¨Ä. ¿¡¾ ¿¡ÅÄ÷ ÁÚ츢ȡ÷. þõÁÚôÀ¢ý ÅÆ¢ Á¢¨Ä¡¡¢ý ÓÊ× º¡¢ÂýÚ ±ýÀ¨¾ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ.

ÁüÚõ ÅûÙÅ÷ ¸¼×û Å¡úò¾¢ø Å¡ÄÈ¢Åý, §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨ÁþÄ¡ý, ¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾¡ý, ±ñ̽ò¾¡ý| ±ýÚ ÀÄÅ¢¼í¸Ç¢ø þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý ÀñÒ¸¨Ç §À͸¢È¡§ÃÂýÈ¢, «ÅÉ¢ý ¯ÕÅò¨¾§Â¡, Ô¾ò¨¾§Â¡ ±íÌõ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ð¼¡÷ «øÄ÷. ±É§Å, ¾ÕÁ ºì¸Ãõ ¯¨¼Â «ó¾½ý ±É즸¡ñÎ «Ð ºÁ½ì ¸¼×¨Çò¾¡ý ÌÈ¢ì̦ÁÉ×õ ' ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ²¸¢É¡ý" ±ýÀÐõ «Õ¸¨Éì ÌÈ¢ì̦ÁýÀÐõ ¦À¡Õó¾¡ ±ýÀ§¾ ¯ñ¨Á.

¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ø ¯ûÇ þò¦¾¡¼÷¸¨Çì ¦¸¡ñÎ ÅûÙÅ¡¢ý ºÁÂò¨¾ öŨ¾ì ¸¡ðÊÖõ, ºÁ½ò¾¢ý «ÊôÀ¨¼ì ¦¸¡û¨¸¸¨Çì ¦¸¡ñÎ öŧ¾ º¢Èó¾Ð, ²üÈÐ.

ºÁ½î ºÁÂõ ¸¼×¨Ç ²üÀ¾¢ø¨Ä. ¯Â¢÷¸ÙìÌì ¸ýÁ ÀÄý¸¨Çô (Å¢¨É¸¨Ç) Òº¢ì¸ ¨Åì¸ì ¸¼×û §¾¨Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÚõ, ¸ýÁí¸û ¾¡Á¡¸§Å ¾ò¾õ ÀÄý¸¨Çò ¾Õõ ±ýÚõ ºÁ½õ ÜÚ¸¢ÈÐ. É¡ø ÅûÙÅõ þ¾üÌ ÓüÈ¢Öõ Á¡ÚÀð¼Ð. Áì¸û þ¨È¦¿È¢Â¢ø ¿¢ýÈ¡ø ¾¡ý ÐýÀí¸¨ÇÔõ, Å¢¨Ç¸¨ÇÔõ ¸¼ì¸ ÓÊÔõ ±ýÚ «Ð ÅÄ¢ÔÚòи¢ÈÐ. ¯Â¢÷¸ÙìÌì ¸ýÁí¸û ¾¡Á¡¸§Å (¸¼×û Ш½ þøÄ¡Áø) ÀÄý¸¨Ç Å¢¨ÇÅ¢ìÌõ ±ýÀ¨¾ ÅûÙÅ÷ º¢È¢Ðõ ²ü¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ¨¾ì ¸£ØûÇ ÌÈðÀ¡ì¸Ç¢É¡ø ¿ýÌ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ.

þÕû§º÷ þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡ þ¨ÈÅý
¦À¡Õû§º÷ Ò¸úâ¢ó¾¡÷ Á¡ðÎ

À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£óÐÅ÷ ¿£ó¾¡÷
þ¨ÈÅý «Ê§ºÃ¡ ¾¡÷

'ÅÌò¾¡ý ÅÌò¾ Ũ¸ÂøÄ÷"

±ýÚõ ÜȢ¢ÕôÀ¾¡ø °¨Æ ÅÌôÀÅý þ¨ÈÅý ±ýÀ§¾ «Å÷ ¸Õò¾¡Ìõ. ÅÌò¾¡ý| ±ýÀÐ °¨Æì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¾¡Â¢Ûõ ®íÌ þ¨ÈÅý ±ýÚ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ûŧ¾ ²üÒ¨¼òÐ.

§Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡ÉÊ §º÷ó¾¡÷ìÌ - 4 ±ýÚõ,
þÕû§º÷ þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡ - 5 ±ýÚõ,
«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «ó¾½ý ¾¡û §º¡ó¾¡÷ì ¸øÄ¡ø - 8 ±ýÚõ,
À¢ÈÅ¢ô ¦ÀÕí¸¼ø ¿£òÐÅ÷ - 10 ±ýÚõ,
ÀüÚ¸ ÀüÈüÈ¡ý ÀüÈ¢¨É - 350 ±ýÚõ,
¾¢ÕõÀò¾¢ÕõÀ ±øÄ¡ÅüÈ¢üÌõ ãÄÓ¾øÅý þ¨ÈÅý ±É§È «Å÷ ÜÚž¡ø, þíÌ ÅÌò¾¡ý| ±ýÚ ÜȢ¢ÕôÀ¨¾ þ¨ÈÅý ±ýÚ ¦À¡Õû §¸¡¼§Ä ²üÈÐ. Å¢¨É¨Â ÅÌòÐ °ðÎõ Ó¾øÅý þ¨ÈŧɦÂýÚ ÅûÙõ ÜÚÅÐ ºÁ½òÐìÌ §¿??Á¡È¡ÉÐ. þ¨ÈÅ¨É ÁÚìÌõ ºÁ½õ ±í§¸? þ¨ÈÅ¨É ²üÌõ ÅûÙÅõ ±í§¸? þ·Ð «ÊôÀ¨¼ Á¡ÚÀ¼ý§È¡!

§ÁÖõ, °¨Æì ¸¡ðÊÖõ ÅÄ¢¨ÁÔ¨¼ÂÐ §Å¦È¡ýÚ þø¨Ä¦ÂýÚõ, Å¢¨ÉôÀÂ¨É Â¡Ã¡Öõ ¾Å¢÷ì¸ ÓÊ¡Р±ýÚ ÅÄ¢ÔÚòÐÅÐ ºÁ½õ. É¡ø, ÅûÙÅõ °¨Æ ²üÚì ¦¸¡ñ¼¡Öõ «¾¨É ¯¨Ä¡ ¯¨ÆôÀ¢É¡ø ÒÈõ ¾ûÇÄ¡õ ±ýÀÐ «¾ý н¢Ò. þÐ×õ ºÁ½òÐìÌõ ÅûÙÅòÐìÌõ «ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ÖûÇ Óý¡Ìõ. ÅûÙÅ÷ °Ø즸¾¢Ã¡¸ ûÅ¢¨ÉÔ¨¼¨Á¨Â ÅÌò¾¢ÕôÀÐ þó¾¢Âî º¢ó¾¨É ÁÃÀ¢ø ´Õ Ò¾¢Â «ò¾¢Â¡Âõ Ìõ. ¦ÀÇò¾õ ܼ, °¨Æ ¦ÅøÄ §ÅñΦÁÉì ÜȢ¢Õó¾¡Öõ, ¡ÁÈ¢ó¾ Ũâø ÁÉ¢¾ ÓÂüº¢ìÌ (ûÅ¢¨ÉìÌ) ÅûÙÅõ ¾ó¾ «Øò¾ò¨¾ «Ð ¾ÃÅ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ§¾ ¯ñ¨Á¡Ìõ.
¦¾öÅò¾¡ý ¸¡ ¦¾É¢Ûõ ÓÂüº¢¾ý
¦ÁöÅÕò¾ì ÜÄ¢ ¾Õõ (ÌÈû.619) ±ýÚõ,

°¨ÆÔõ ¯ôÀì¸í ¸¡ñÀ÷ ¯¨ÄÅ¢ýÈ¢ò
¾¡Æ¡ лüÚ ÀÅ÷ -(ÌÈû 620) ; ±ýÚõ
ÅûÙÅõ ¦À¡¢Ðõ ÅÄ¢ÔÚòÐÅÐ, ºÁ½òÐìÌ ÓüÈ¢Öõ Á¡È¡ÉÐ.þìÜüÚ þó¾¢Âò ¾òÐÅ ÁÃÒ째 º¢ÈôÒò ¾ÕÅÐ.

ºÁ½ò¾¢ý ¯Â¢÷즸¡û¨¸ ÐÈÅȧÁ¡Ìõ.
ºÁ½÷ ±ýÈ¡§Ä ÐÈÅ¢ ±ý§È ¦À¡ÕÇ¡Ìõ. ÐÈ× âñ§¼¡§Ã ţΧÀÚ «¨¼Å÷ ±ýÀÐ ºÁ½ì ¦¸¡û¨¸. ºÁ½ò¨¾ô §À¡ýÚ ¦ÀÇò¾õ «òШ½ì ¸Î¨Á¡¸ò ÐÅÅÈò¨¾ì ÜÈ¡Å¢ÊÛõ, öÅ¡Ç÷¸û þÃñÎ ºÁÂí¸¨ÇÔõ ÐÈÅÈî ºÁÂí¸¦Çý§È ÜÚÅ÷. ÅûÙÅõ ÐÈÅÈò¨¾ §Áü¦¸¡ûÅÐ ¯ñÎ. ÅûÙÅ÷ «¨ÉòÐô À̾¢Â¢É÷ìÌõ «Èõ ÜÈ Å¢¨Æó¾Åá¾Ä¢ý, «Å÷ ÐÈÅÈòÐìÌõ µÃÇ× þ¼õ ¾ó¾¡÷. ±É¢Ûõ þøÄÈò¨¾§Â ¦À¡¢Ðõ §À¡üȢɡ÷.

«Èò¾¡üÈ¢ý þøÅ¡ú쨸 ¡üÈ¢ý ÒÈò¾¡üÈ¢ü
§À¡µöô ¦ÀÚÅÐ ±Åý (ÌÈû - 46)
ÐÈ󾡡¢ý àö¨Á ¯¨¼Â÷ þÈó¾¡÷Å¡ö (ÌÈû - 159)
þýÉ¡î ¦º¡ø §¿¡ü¸¢üÀÅ÷
;¨ÅÂòÐû Å¡úÅ¡íÌ Å¡úÀÅý Å¡Û¨ÈÔõ
¦¾öÅòÐû ¨Åì¸ôÎõ (ÌÈû - 50)
þìÌÈðÀ¡ì¸Ç¢ý ÅÆ¢ò ÐÈÅÈò¨¾ò ¾Å¢÷òÐ þøÄÈò¨¾ ±ôÀÊô §À¡üÈ¢ ÅÄ¢ÔÚòи¢È¡÷ ±ýÀ¨¾ ¿ýÌ ¦¾Ç¢ÂÄ¡õ. þ¨Å¡×õ ºÁ½òÐìÌ Á¡È¡É¨Å¡Ìõ.
«ÈòÐôÀ¡Ä¢ÖûÇ 38 «¾¢¸¡Ãí¸Ç¢ø ÐÈÅÈòÐìÌ 15 «¾¢¸¡Ãí¸Ùõ, 22 «¾¢¸¡Ãí¸û þøÄÈò¾¡÷ìÌõ, µ÷ «¾¢¸¡Ãò¨¾ þÕ «Èò¾¡÷ìÌõ ÜÈ¢ÔûÇ¡÷. ²¨É ¦À¡Õð À¡Ä¢Öõ, ¸¡ÁòÐô À¡Ä¢Öõ ¯ûÇ «¾¢¸¡Ãí¸û ¡ÕìÌ ¯¡¢ÂÉ ±ýÀ¨¾ô ÀüÈ¢ì ÜȧÅñΞ¢ø¨Ä. þÅüȢĢÕóÐ ÅûÙÅ¡¢ý ºÁ½òÐìÌ Á¡È¡É þøÄÈì §¸¡ðÀ¡ð¨¼ ¿ýÌ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ.

ºÁ½õ, «îºÁÂò ÐÈÅ¢¸ÙìÌ ²Ø ¾¡;Áí¸¨Ç Å¢¾¢ò¾Ð. «ò¾??Áò¨¾ «Å÷¸û ¾¢¾¡;Áõ ±ýÈ¡÷. «¨Å ¯§Ä¡ºõ, ¾¢¸õÀÃõ. ¿£Ã¡¼¡¨Á, ¾¨Ã¢ü ÀÎò¾ø Àø §¾ö측¨Á, ¿¢ýÚ ¯ñ½ø, ²¸ Òì¾õ ±ýÀ÷. ÅûÙÅõ þÅüÈ¢üÌ Á¡È¡ÉÐ.¯§Ä¡ºõ ±ýÀÐ ¾¨Ä¢ĢÕóÐ Á¢¨Ãì ¸¨Çž¡Ìõ. . ÅûÙŧá ÁÆ¢ò¾Öõ ¿£ð¼Öõ §Åñ¼¡ - 280 ±ýÚ ÜȢ¢ÕôÀ¾¡ø ¯§Ä¡ºò¨¾ «Å÷ ²ü¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ¨¾ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ.
¾¢¸õÀÃõ ±ýÀÐ ¨¼Â¢ýÈ¢ þÕôÀ¨¾ ÌÈ¢ìÌõ. ÅûÙŧá '°Ï¨¼ ±îºõ ¯Â¢÷즸øÄ¡õ §ÅÈøÄ - 1012 ±ýÚõ '¯Î쨸 þÆó¾Åý ¨¸§À¡Öõ - 788 ±ýÚõ, ¯¨¼Â¢ý þýȢ¨Á¡¨Á¨Âì ÜÚž¡ø ÅûÙÅ÷ ¾¢¸õÀÃòÐìÌ Á¡È¡ÉÅ÷ ±ýÀ¨¾ «È¢ÂÄ¡õ. ÁüÚõ «Å÷ ÒÈóàö¨Á ¿£Ã¡ý «¨ÁÔõ - 298 ±ýÚ ÜÚž¡ø ºÁ½õ ÜÚõ ¿£Ã¡¼¡¨Á¨Â ²ü¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÀ¨¾ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ. ¦Áý§¾¡û ТĢý þɢР¦¸¡ø - 1191 ±ýÚ «Å÷ ÜÚž¡Öõ, ¾¨Ã¢ü ÀÎò¾¨Ä ±íÌõ ÜÈ¡¾¾¡Öõ, «¾üÌ «Å÷ Á¡È¡ÉÅ÷ ±ýÚõ ¦¾Ç¢ÂôÀÎõ. ¿¢ýÚ ¯ñ½ø, ²¸ Òì¾õ (´Õ §Å¨Ç ÁðÎõ ¯ñ½ø) þÅü¨È ÅûÙÅ÷ ÐÈÅÈò¾¢§Ä¡, ÁÕóÐ «¾¢¸¡Ãò¾¢§Ä¡ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ð¼¡÷ «øÄ÷. . «¸òàö¨ÁÔõ, ÒÈòàö¨Á¨ÂÔõ ÅÄ¢ÔÚòÐõ «Å÷, Àø §¾ö측¨Á¨Â Å¢ÕõÒšá? Á¡ð¼¡÷. 'À½¢¦Á¡Æ¢ Å¡¦ÄÂ£Ú °È¢Â¿£÷ 1121 ±ýÈ ÌÈðÀ¡Å¢ÖÛûÇ “Å¡¦Ä¢ڔ ±ýÀÐ àö¨ÁÂ¡É Àü¸¨Ç§Â ÌÈ¢ìÌõ. þ¾¢Ä¢ÕóÐ Àø§¾ö측¨Á¨Â «Å÷ º¢È¢Ðõ Å¢ÕõÀ¡¾Å÷ ±ýÀ¨¾ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ.
ºÁ½÷ þÃò¾É ¾¢ÃÂò¨¾ Ó츢Âì §¸¡ðÀ¡¼¡ö ÜÚÅ÷. þÃò¾É ¾¢ÃÂõ ±ýÀÐ ¿ý»¡Éõ, ¿ü¸¡ðº¢, ¿ø¦Ä¡Øì¸õ ¸¢Â¨Å¡Ìõ. þÅü¨Èî ºÁ½÷ §¿¡ì¸¢§Ä¡, þÃò¾É ¾¢ÃÂô ¦À¡ÕÇ¢§Ä¡ «Å÷ ±íÌõ Å¢Ç츢ɡ÷ «øÄ÷. ÅûÙÅõ ÜÚõ ܼ¡¦Å¡Øì¸õ, «Å¡ «Úò¾ø, ¦ÁöÔ½÷× ¸¢Â¨Å þÃò¾É ¾¢ÃÂò¾¢üÌ §ÅȡɨÅ. þÃò¾É ¾¢ÃÂòÐìÌ Á¡üÈ¡¸ ÅûÙÅ÷.
¸¡Áõ ¦ÅÌÇ¢ ÁÂì¸õ þ¨ÅãýÈý
¿¡Áõ ¦¸¼ì¦¸Îõ §¿¡ö -(ÌÈû 360)
±ýÀÅü¨Èì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Îž¡ø «Å÷ Á¡üÚì ¦¸¡û¨¸Ô¨¼ÂÅ÷ ±Éì ÜÈÄ¡õ.

ºÁ½÷ þýÉ¡ ¦ºö¡¨Á¨Â, ±ø¨Ä ¸¼óÐ ¾¢¾ ¯½÷Å¢ø ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾¢É÷. ã츢ýÅÆ¢ ¸¡ü¨È ¯ð¦¸¡ñ¼¡ø, ¸¡üÈ¢ÖûÇ ÑñÏ¢÷¸û «Æ¢óРŢÎõ ±ýÀ¾ü¸¡¸ ã츢ø н¢¨Âì ¦¸¡ñÎ ãÊì ¦¸¡ñ¼É÷. ÁÃí¸¨Çî ¦ºÐìÌž¡Öõ, ¦¸¡ÙòО¡Öõ, ÁÃò¾¢ÖûÇ ÑñÏ¢÷¸û «Æ¢óÐÅ¢Îõ ±ýÀ¾ü¸¡¸ò ¾îÍò ¦¾¡Æ¢¨Ä «Å÷¸û ¾¨¼ ¦ºö¾É÷. þ¾É¡ø, âÁ¢¨Â ¯Ø¾¡ø, Áñ½¢ÖûÇ ÒØ â¸û «Æ¢óÐÅ¢Îõ ±ýÀ¾ü¸¡¸ ¯Æ×ò ¦¾Æ¢Ä¢ø ºÁ½÷¸û ®ÎÀ¼ìܼ¡¦¾É «Å÷¸û Å¢¾¢ò¾É÷. ÁÛ¿£¾¢§Â¡ ¯Æ×ò¦¾¡Æ¢¨Ä þƢ󧾡÷ ¦¾¡Æ¢ø ±ýÈÐ.
¯Æ×ò¦¾¡Æ¢¨Ä ÁÛ¿£¾¢ ÁÚò¾üÌõ, ºÁ½õ ÁÚò¾¾üÌõ §ÅÚÀ¡Î ¯ñÎ. ºã¸ò¾¢ø ºÁ¿£¾¢ ²üÀ¼¡Áø þÕì¸ ÁÛ¿£¾¢ «¾¨É þ¸úó¾Ð. ºÁ½§Á¡, ÅÃõÒ ¸¼ó¾ þÃì¸ò¨¾ ÓýÉ¢ðÎ ÁÚò¾Ð. É¡ø, ÅûÙŧÁ¡ ¯Ä¸¢Âø ¿¼ô¨Àì ¦¸¡ñÎ ¯Æ×ò ¦¾¡Æ¢¨Äô §À¡üÈ¢ÂÐ.
ÍÆüÚõ²÷ô À¢ýÉ Ðĸõ «¾É¡ø
¯ÆóÐõ ¯Æ§Å ¾¨Ä (ÌÈû - 1031)
¯ØÐñÎ Å¡úÅ¡§Ã Å¡úÅ¡÷Áü ¦ÈøÄ¡õ
¦¾¡ØÐñÎ À¢ý¦ºø ÀÅ÷ (ÌÈû - 1033)
-þìÌÈðÀ¡ì¸Ç¢ý ãÄõ ÅûÙÅõ ºÁ½òÐ??? ±òШ½ Á¡È¡ÉÐ ±ýÀÐ ¦ÀÈôÀÎõ.

§ÁÖõ, ºÁ½õ ¦Àñ¸¨Çò ¾¡úó¾ À¢ÈŢ¡¸ì ¸Õ¾¢ÂÐ. À¡Åõ ¦ºö¾Å§Ã ¦Àñ½¡¸ô À¢È츢ýÈÉ÷ ±ýÚõ ÜÈ¢ÂÐ. ¦Àñ ţΧÀÚ «¨¼Â §ÅñÎÁ¡Â¢ý, «Îò¾ À¢ÈŢ¢ø ½¡¸ô À¢Èó¾¡ø¾¡ý ÓÊÔõ ±ýÈÐ. þ¨Å §À¡ýÈ ¸Õòи¨Çî º£Å¸º¢ó¾¡Á½¢, ŨÇ¡À¾¢ §À¡ýÈ ºÁ½ áø¸Ç¢Öõ ¸¡½Äõ. ÅûÙÅõ þÅüÈ¢üÌ ÓüÈ¢Öõ Á¡È¡ÉÐ.
ÅûÙÅõ, ¦Àñ¸Ç¢É º¢Èô¨À ±ñ½¢ 'Å¡ú쨸ò Ш½¿Äõ" ±ýÈ «¾¢¸¡Ãò¨¾ ÅÌòÐ '¦Àñ½¢ý ¦ÀÕó¾ì¸ ¡×Ç -54 ±ýÚõ, §Å¦È¡Õ «¾¢¸¡Ãò¾¢Öõ ´Õ¨Á Á¸Ç¢§Ã §À¡Äô ¦ÀÕ¨ÁÔõ ¾ý¨Éò¾¡ý ¦¸¡½¦;¼¡Ø¸¢ý ¯ñÎ -974 ±??Úõ, Á¾¢òÐô §À¡üÈ¢ÂÐ. ºÁ½õ ¸¡Áò¨¾ þ¸úóÐ ¸Êó¾Ð. ÅûÙŧÁ¡, þÕÀò¨¾óÐ «¾¢¸¡Ãí¸¨Ç ÅÌòÐì ¸¡Áò¾¢ý þýȢ¨Á¡¨Á¨Âô ÒÄôÀÎò¾¢ÂÐ. þùÅ¡Ú, ÀøÄ¡üÈ¡ý «ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø ºÁ½òÐìÌ Á¡È¡É ¸Õòи¨Ç ÅûÙÅõ ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾¢Â¢Õì¸, Á¢¨Ä¡÷ §À¡ý§È¡÷ ÅûÙÅò¾¢ø ºÁ½ì ¸Õòи§Ç Á¢ÌóÐ §¾¡ýÚ¸¢ýÈÉ. ±ýÚ ÜȢ¢ÕôÀÐ ²ü¸ ÓÊ¡¾§¾Â¡Ìõ.//

Á¢ì¸ ¿ýÈ¢.. §¾Åôâ¡ «ýÀ§Ã.!!... ͨÅÁ¢Ì «Ã¢Â ¾¸Å¨Ä ±ÎòÐ측ðʨÁ측¸.

¾ÕÁ÷ Á½ì̼Å÷ Àâ§ÁÄƸ÷ ±ýÛõ ãÅ÷ ¦Åù§ÅÚ ¸¡Äí¸Ç¢ø ¯¨Ã ¦ÅǢ¢ðÊÕ¸¢ýÈÉ÷.

±É¢Ûõ «ÅüÚû Àâ§ÁÄƸ÷ ¯¨Ã ÁðΧÁ... ¦À¡Ð-Áì¸ÙìÌõ, Á¡½ÅÕìÌõ, ¸Õò¾¡ö׸ÙìÌõ ²üÚ즸¡ûÇôÀðÎ ÀÂýÀÎò¾ôÀθ¢ÈÐ. ²ý?

²¦ÉÉ¢ø ¾ÕÁ÷ µ÷ ºÁ½÷... «Å÷ ºÁ½ ¸ñ§½¡ð¼ò¾¢§Ä§Â ¬ö× ¦ºöÐûÇ¡÷. ¬É¡ø «ÅüÚû ¯û-ÓÃñÀ¡Î¸û(Inconsistency), ÌÆôÀí¸û Á¢ÌóÐûÇÉ.

Á½ì̼Å÷ µ÷ ¦Àªò¾÷... Òò¾-Á¾ ¸ñ§½¡ð¼ò¾¢§Ä§Â ¬ö× ¦ºöÐûÇ¡÷. ¦ÀÕõÀ¡Öõ «ó¾ ¯¨Ã ¸ÕòÐìÌ þɢ¾¡¸ò¾¡ý ¯ûÇÐ. þÕôÀ¢Ûõ þ¾¢Öõ ¯û-ÓÃñÀ¡Î¸û, ÌÆôÀí¸û ¯ûÇÉ.

¬É¡ø Àâ§ÁÄƸ÷ ¯¨Ã§Â¡... º¢È¢Ðõ ÌÆôÀ§Á¡, ¯û-ÓÃñÀ¡§¼¡ ²Ðõ þøÄ¡¾ ¦¾Ç¢×¨Ã¡¸ ¾¢¸úŧ¾ «¾ý º¢ÈôÒ.

¯Ä¸ ¦À¡Ð-Á¨È¡¸ ¾¢ÕìÌ鬂 À¨¼ò¾ ÅûÙÅÉ¡÷ «§¿¸ þ¼í¸Ç¢ø §Å¾-¸¼×û¸¨ÇÔõ §Å¾-¦¿È¢¸¨Ç ´ðÊÔ§Á ÌÈû À¨¼òÐûÇ¡÷...

...±ýÛõ ¯ñ¨Á þõãÅÃÐ ¯¨Ã¸Ùõ ´ôÀ¢ðÎ ¬ö󧾡÷ ¦¾Ç¢×È ¯½Õõ ¸ÕòÐ.

§ÁÖõ Àâ§ÁÄƸ÷ ¯¨Ã ÅûÙÅɡâý ÀÃó¾ ¸ñ§½¡ð¼ò¨¾§Â ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾¢ ¸¡ðÎÅÐõ....

.. «È¢»÷¸Ç¢ý §¸ûÅ¢¸ÙìÌõ Á¡½Å÷¸Ç¢ý ³Âí¸ÙìÌõ ±Ç¢¾¡¸ Å¢¨¼ ¸¡Ïõ Ũ¸Â¢Öõ «¨ÁóÐûǧ¾...

... Àâ§ÁÄƸ÷-¯¨Ã¢ý º£Ã¢Â ´ôÒÂ÷Å¢øÄ¡ §Áý¨Á.
.[/tscii:83333b4f2f]

[devapriya]

[tscii:3da8b74d73]I am reproducing what is one of the articles in Tirukural Conference for reading, and though I am perfectly aware Valluvar is Vedic, to put him as Saivaite or Vaishnavite is wrong; this is just for a reading and grosping
¾¢ÕìÌ;ÌÈÙõ ¾¢ùöÂÀ¢ÃÀóò¾ÓÁ ; §¾.þóò¾¢ÃÌÁ¡¡¢.
ÓÉÛ¨Ã: ´Õ ¾É¢ÁÉ¢¾ý «ÈÅƢ¢ø ¿¢ýÚ ¨ÅÂòÐû Å¡úÅ¡íÌ
Å¡úó¾¡ø Å¡Ûĸ¢ý ¦¾öÅòÐû ¨Åì¸ôÀðÎÅ¡ý ±ýÚ «Èõ ¯½÷òÐõ þÄ츢§Á ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¡Ìõ. ´Õ ¾É¢ÁÉ¢¾ý À쾢¢ø ¾¢¨ÇòÐ ¿¡ò¾Øõ§ÀÈ ¿¡Ã¡Â½¡ ±ýÚ¨Ãò¾¡ø Á£ñÎõ À¢È¡Å¡ô §À¡¢ýÀ¿¢¨Ä¨Â «¨¼Å¡ý ±ýÚ «È¢×¨ÃôÀÐ ¬úÅ¡÷¸Ç¢ý ¾¢ùÂÀ¢ÃÀó¾Á¡Ìõ. þ¨ÈÅý «ÈÅÊÅ¡öò ¾¢¸úÀÅý ±ýÀ¾¡Öõ ´§Ã ¸¼Ä¢ø, ºí¸Á¢ìÌõ ¬Ú¸¨Çô §À¡Äò ¾¢ÕìÌÈÙõ ¾¢ùÂÀ¢ÃÀó¾Óõ Á¡Û¼õ º¢Èò¾¨Ä§Â ÅÄ¢ÔÚòО¡Öõ, ºÁÂáÄ¡¸¢Â
¾¢ùÂÀ¢ÃÀó¾Óõ «ÈáÄ¡¸¢Â ¾¢ÕìÌÈÙõ ÀÄ þ¼í¸Ç¢ø ´ý¨È¦Â¡ýÚ ´ò¾¢ÕìÌõ ¾ý¨Á¢¨Éî ÍðÊ측ðÎŧ¾ þùÅ¡ö×ì ¸ðΨâý §¿¡ì¸Á¡Ìõ.

ºÁÂáÖõ «ÈáÖõ:;:
ºÁÂõ ±ýÀÐ ¸¼×𠦸¡û¨¸¨Âô À¢ýÀüڧš÷
ÅÌòÐì ¦¸¡ñ¼ ´Õ ´Ø츦¿È¢Â¡Ìõ. ³õÒÄý¸Ç¢ý ãÄÁ¡¸ò §¾¡ýÚ¸¢ýÈ §Å𨸸¨Çì ¸¨Çó¾ ¿¢¨Ä¢ø þó¦¿È¢¨Âô ¦ÀÈÄ¡õ ±ýÀÐ ºÁÂÅ¡¾¢¸Ç¢ý §¸¡ðÀ¡¼¡Ìõ. «¾¡ÅÐ ¸¼×û þÕôÀ¢ø ¿õÀ¢ì¨¸ ¦¸¡ñÎ ¯Ä¸ô À¨¼ôÀ¢ý ¯ð¦À¡Õ¨Ç ¯½÷óÐ ´ØÌõ Å¡ú쨸 ¦¿È¢§Â ºÁÂõ «øÄÐ Á¾õ ±Éì
ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀθ¢ÈÐ.

¾¢ùöÂÀ¢ÃÀóò¾õ : ÁÉ¢¾ý þ¨È¡üÈÄ¢ý Á£Ð ¦¸¡ñÊÕìÌõ «ÇÅüÈ ¿õÀ¢ì¨¸Â¢¨É º¼íÌÇ¡Öõ, Áó¾¢Ãí¸Ç¡Öõ ÀÄŨ¸ô À¡¼ø¸Ç¡Öõ ÒÄôÎòи¢È¡ý. «ùŨ¸Â¢ø ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý Á£Ð «ÇÅüÈ Àì¾¢ ¦¸¡ñÎ «ÅÉÐ ¾¢Õì̽í¸Ç¢ø ¬Æí¸¡üÀðÎ ÀýÉ¢Õ ¬úÅ¡÷¸û À¡Ê À¡ÍÃí¸Ç¢ý
¦¾¡Ìô§À ¿¡Ä¡Â¢Ã¾¢ùÂÀ¢ÃÀó¾õ ±ÉÉôÀθ¢ÈÐ.

¾¢ÕìÌ;ÌÈû :
þù×ĸ¢ø Á¡É¢¼Ã¡öô À¢Èó¾Å÷¸û À¢ýÀüÈ §ÅñÊ ´Øì¸ ¦¿È¢Â¢ý «ÊôÀ¨¼§Â «Èõ ±ÉôÀθ¢ÈÐ. þò¾¨¸Â «Èò¾¢üÌ
ÅÆ¢¸¡ðÎÅÐ ±ñ½§Á ¬Ìõ. ±ñ½õ àö¨Á¡ɡø ÁðΧÁ ¦º¡øÖõ ¦ºÂÖõ º¢ÈôÀ¨¼Ôõ, ±ñ½í¸ÙìÌ ¿¢¨Äì¸ÇÉ¡ö þÕôÀÐ ÁÉõ. ±É§Å ÁÉõ Á¡ºüÚ àö¨Á¡¸ þÕìÌõ ¿¢¨Ä§Â «È¿¢¨Ä¡Ìõ. ´ù¦Å¡ÕÅÕõ þ󿢨ĨÂô ÀÊôÀÊ¡¸ «¨¼Å¾üÌ º¢Èó¾ ÅÆ¢¸¡ðÎõ á§Ä ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¡Ìõ.
ºÁÂÓõ «ÈÓõ ´ý§;§È : Å¡úÅ¢Âø ¦¿È¢¸¨Çì ¸ñ½ý «÷ÍÉÛìÌ ±ÎòШÃìÌõ ¸£¨¾ ¾¡;Á§„ò§Ã" ±Ûõ ¦º¡øÖ¼§É ¦¾¡¼í̸¢ÈÐ.
~±ô¦À¡Ø¦¾øÄ¡õ ¾¡Áõ ¿¢¨Ą̈ÄóÐ «¾¡Áõ µí̸¢È§¾¡ «ô¦À¡Ø¦¾øÄ¡õ ¿¡ý À¢ÈÅ¢¦ÂÎô§Àý112 ±Ûõ ¸ñ½À¢Ã¡É¢ý š츢ýÀÊ þ¨È «Å¾¡Ãí¸û ÅÄ¢ÔÚòÐÅÐõ, ¸¡ì¸ ÓüÀÎÅÐõ «È§Á ±É ¯½ÃÄ¡õ. ¾Á¢ú þÄ츢Âí¸û
ÀÄÅüÈ¢Öõ ºÁÂÓõ «ÈÓõ ´ý¦ÈÉ ¿ÁÐ Óý§É¡÷ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ðÎûǨ¾ì ¸¡½Óʸ¢ÈÐ.
«Ú¦¾¡Æ¢ø «óò¾½÷ «ÈõÒ;â¢óÐ;Ð3
«ÈóÐ;Ð¨È Å¢Çí츢 «È§Å¡÷ ÀûûÇ¢Ôõ4
«ýüÈ¢Ôõ «ÃºÛõ ´ý¦;¦È «Ãºý ¡ý5+
±É§Å ºÁÂÓõ «ÈÓõ ´ý¨È¦Â¡ýÚ º¡÷óÐõ. ¸ÕòÐì¸Ç¢ø ´ýÈ¢Ôõ.
Å¡úÅ¢Âø ¦¸¡û¨¸¸¨Ç ¯ûǼ츢Ôõ ¯ûÇÉ ±ÉÄ¡õ.
¸¡Äò¨;¨¾ ¦Åýü ¨Å : 1:4 ±ó¾ ¦Å¡Õ þÄ츢Âò¾¢ý º¢ÈôÒõ «Ð
§¾¡ýȢ ¸¡Äò¾¢ý «ÊôÀ¨¼Â¢ø ¬ö× ¦ºöÂôÀÎõ ÁðΧÁ ÓبÁ¡¸ ¦ÅÇ¢ôÀθ¢ÈÐ. ¸ÇôÀ¢Ã¡; ¸¡Äò¾¢ø Áì¸Ç¢¨¼§Â ¦À¡ö, ¸Ç×. °Æø, ´Øì¸Á¢ý¨Á §À¡ýȨŠ§Á§Ä¡í¸¢Å¢ð¼ ¸¡Ã½ò¾¡ø ¿£¾¢ì ¸Õòи¨Ç ÅÄ¢ÔÚòÐõ þÄ츢Âí¸û §¾¨ÅôÀð¼É. þùŨ¸Â¢ø §¾¡ýȢ «Èáø¸û ÀÄÅüÚÁû
¾¢ÕìÌ餂 Á¢¸îº¢Èó¾ áÄ¡ö ±ì¸¡Äò¾¢Öõ ±ó¿¡ð¼ÅÕìÌõ
²üÈ ´ôÀüÈ ¦À¡ÐáÄ¡öò ¾¢¸úž¡ø.
±ôôÀ¡ ÄÅÕõ þ¨ÂÀ§Å ÅÇÙ;Ù;ÙÅÉ¡÷
ÓôôÀ¡ø ¦Á¡Æ¢óò¾ ¦Á¡Æ¢6
±Éô À¡Ã¡ð¼ôÀθ¢ÈÐ. ºÁ½ ¦ÀÇò¾ Á¾í¸ÙìÌ ¬¾ÃÅÇ¢òÐ Åó¾¸ÇôÀ¢Ã¡¢ý «Ãº¢Âø ¦ºøÅ¡ìÌ ¬È¡õ áüÈ¡ñÊý þÚ¾¢Â¢ø ÅÖÅ¢Æì¸, ¦¾ü§¸ À¡ñÊÂ÷¸Ùõ ż째 ÀøÄÅ÷¸Ùõ «Å÷¸¨Ç ¦ÅýÚ þÕóÐ ºÁÂò¾¢üÌ ÒòТÃÇ¢ò¾É÷. ºÁ¸¡ÄÁ¡¸¢Â ÀøÄÅ÷ ¸¡Äò¾¢ø §¾¡ýÈ¢ÂÅ÷¸§Ç ¬úÅ¡÷¸û ±ýÈ¡Öõ þ¾ü¸¡É º¡ýÚ¸û ¸¢¨¼ì¸ô¦ÀÈÅ¢ø¨Ä. Áì¸ÙìÌ ºÁ ºã¸õ ¦À¡ÕÇ¡¾¡Ãõ «Ãº¢Âø ¬¸¢ÂÉô ÀüÈ¢ ¦¾Ç¢Å¡É ¸ÕòÐ
§¾¨ÅôÀ𼨾Ôõ ÅûÙÅ÷ «È¢ó¾¡÷. Áì¸Ç¢ý §¾¨Å¨Âô â÷ò¾¢ ¦ºö ±Ø󾧾 ¾¢ÕìÌÈû. ÅûÙÅ÷ ºÁÂò¨¾ô ÒÈ츽¢ì¸§Å¡ «øÄÐ ¦ÅÚ츧š ÀÂÉüÈÐ ±ý¦È¡ ¸Õ¾Å¢ø¨Ä.7 þýÈÇ×õ ¯Ä¸ô ¦À¡ÐÁ¨È¡ö «È¢»÷ ¯ûÇí¸Ç¢ø ¦¾ûÇÁ¢ú¾¡öò ¾¢ÕìÌÈû ¾¢ò¾¢ôÀ¾¡Öõ, À¡§Äöò ¾Á¢ú ±É ¨Å½Å÷¸Ç¡ø §À¡üÈôÀÎõ ¬úÅ¡÷ô À¡ÍÃí¸û ¨Å½Å þøÄí¸Ç¢Öõ, ¾¢Õ째¡Â¢ø¸Ç¢Öõ À¡Ã¡Â½õ ¦ºöÂôÀΞ¡Öõ ¸¡Äò¨¾
¦ÅøÖõ ¾ý¨Á¢ø þÃñÎ þÄ츢Âí¸Ùõ ´òÐûÇÉ.

¾¢ÕìÌ;ÌÈû ¦Á¡Æ¢Ôõ, ¾¢ÕÅ¡ö ¦Á¡Æ¢Ôõ:;:;: ¾¢ÕìÌÈû ¸¡Äò¾¢üÌô
À¢üÀð¼ÅáÉ, µ¾¡Ð½÷ó¾ »¡Éî ¦ºøÅÃ¡É ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡÷ ¿¡ýÁ¨È¸Ù¼ý ¾¢ÕìÌȨÇÔõ ¿ýÌ ¸üÈÈ¢ó¾Å÷ ýÀ¨¾ «ÅÃÐ ¾¢ÕÅ¡ö ¦Á¡Æ¢ô À¡ÍÃí¸û ¯½÷òи¢ýÈÐ. ÀÄ ÌÈðÀ¡ì¸Ç¢ý ¦¾¡¼÷¸Ùõ, ¦À¡Õû ´ôÒ¨Á¸Ùõ ¾¢ÕÅ¡ö¦Á¡Æ¢Â¢ø þ¼õ¦ÀüÚûÇ ¾ý¨Á§Â þ¾üÌî º¡ýÈ¡Ìõ.; ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Â÷
¸¡Äò¾¢§Ä§Â Å¡ú쨸ô À½ò¾¢üÌò Ш½Â¡¸î §º§Â¡ý, Á¡§Â¡ý, §Åó¾ý, ÅÕ½É8; §À¡ýÈ ¸¼×Ç÷¸û Ží¸ôÀð¼É÷ ±É «È¢ÂÓʸ¢ÈÐ. ¸¡Äõ ¦ºøÄî ¦ºøÄ «ó¾ó¾ ¿¢Äò¾¢ø
šظ¢ýÈ Áì¸û ¾ò¾õ ¿¢ÄÅÇò¾¢üÌ ²üÀô ¦ÀÂèÁó¾ ¸¼×û¸û ¡×õ µ§Ã ÀÃõ ¦À¡Õ¨Ç ¯½÷òи¢ýÈÉ ±ýÈ ¦¸¡û¨¸¨Â ÁÈóÐ ¦¾öÅí¸ÙìÌû ²üÈò¾¡úÅ¢¨É Å¢¨ÇÅ¢ò¾É÷. þîÝÆÄ¢ø ÅûÙŧá þ¨ÈÅý, ¦Áö¦À¡Õû, ¦ºõ¦À¡Õû ±Ûõ ¦À¡Ðô ¦ÀÂ÷¸Ç¡ø þ¨ÈŨÉì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢È¡÷.
¬¾¢À¸Åý : «ÈÁ¡ÅÐ ÁÛ Ó¾Ä¢Â áø¸Ç¢ø Å¢¾¢ò¾É ¦ºö¾Öõ
Å¢Ä츢ÂÉ ´Æ¢¾ÖÁ¡õ ±ýÀÐ À¡¢§ÁÄƸ¡¢ý ÜüÚ. «¾ýÀÊ
ÁÉ¢¾Ã¡öô À¢Èó¾Å÷¸û ¸¼×¨Ç Å¡úò¾¢ ŽíÌŨ¾§Â ¾ÁÐ ¾¨Ä¡ö «ÈÁ¡¸ì ¦¸¡ûǧÅñÎõ ±É ¯½÷ò¾ Å¢ÕõÀ¢Â ÅûÙÅ÷ ±øÄ¡õ ÅøÄ þ¨ÈÅ¨É ¬ñÀ¡ø Ţ̾¢Ô¼ý ‘¬¾¢À¸Åý’ ±ýȨÆ츢ȡ÷. «Èò¨¾ ÅÄ¢ÔÚòÐŨ¾§Â ¾ÉÐ ÌȢ째¡Ç¡¸ì ¦¸¡ñ¼ ÅûÙÅ÷ «ÈÅÊÅ¡öò ¾¢¸Øõ þ¨ÈÅÉÐ º¢ÈôÒ¸¨Ç Å¢Çì¸ ÓüÀÎõ§À¡Ð ‘«ÈÁ’; ±Ûõ ¦º¡øÄ¢ý
Ó¾¦ÄØò¾¡¸¢Â «¸Ãòмý ´ôÀ¢ÎÅÐ ¿ÂÁ¢ì¸ ´ýÈ¡Ìõ. «¸Ãõ ¾É¢òÐõ ¯Â¢÷ ±ØòÐì¸Ù¼ý ÑðÀÁ¡öì ¸ÄóÐõ, ¦Áö¦ÂØòÐì¸Ù¼ý þ¨½óÐõ þÂí̸¢ÈÐ. þ¨ÈÅÛõ º¡÷Ò ´ýÈ¢ýÈ¢ò ¾É¢òÐõ. ¯Ä¸ ¯Â¢÷¸Ù¼ý ¸ÄóÐõ, «ÅüÈ¢ý Å¢¨É¸ÙìÌÁî º¡ýÈ¡ö ¿¢ýÚõ ¯Ä¸¢¨É þÂì̸¢È¡ý.
¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý þò¾ý¨Á¨Â ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡÷.
ÒĦɡΠÒÄý «Åý ´Æ¢Å¢Äý : ÀÃó¾«ó
¿ÄÛ¨¼ ´ÕÅý12
±Éô À¡Ã¡ðθ¢È¡÷ ±ØòÐì¸Ç¢ø ¿¡ý «¸ÃÁ¡Â¢Õ츢§Èý ±ýÀÐ
¸ñ½À¢Ã¡ý ÜüÚ. ¨Å½Åò ¾¢Õ¦Åð¦¼ØòÐ Áó¾¢Ãò¾¢ý Ó¾ø À¾Á¡É µõ ±ýÀ¾¢ø «¼í¸¢ÔûÇ «, Á, ¯ ±Ûõ ±ØòиǢø Ó¾ý¨Á¡ÅÐõ «¸Ã§Á¡Ìõ. §ÁÖõ À¸Å¡ý ±Ûõ ż¦º¡ø Å¢¸¡ÃÁ¡ö À¸Åý ±É Ó¾ü ÌÈÇ¢ø þ¼õ¦ÀüÚûÇÐ. §Àá٨Á, Å£÷Âõ,; Ò¸ú ¦ºøÅõ, «È¢×, §ÀÃÈ¢× þ¨Å ¬Ú Ì½í¸¨ÇÔõ ¦¸¡ñ¼Å§Ã ‘À¸Å¡É’; ±ÉôÀθ¢È¡÷.14+ ¾¢ÕÁ¡§Ä
þò¾¨¸Â Ì½í¸¨Çì ¦¸¡ñ¼Åý ±ýÀ¨¾ ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡÷.
¸½ì¸Ú ¿Äò¾¢Éý «ó¾Á¢ø
¬¾¢«õ À¸Åý15
±Ûõ À¡ÍÃÅʸǢø ¯½÷òи¢È¡÷. ¬¾¢ãÄÁ¡öò ¾¢¸Øõ ¾¢ÕÁ¡ø
¾¢ÕôÀ¡ü¸¼Ä¢ø ¬¾¢§º¼É¡¸¢Â À¡õÀ¨½Â¢ø ÀûÇ¢¦¸¡ñÊÕ츢ȡý. ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý þò¾ý¨Á¢¨É.
ÓØã ×ĸ¡¾¢ì ¦¸øÄ¡õ Ó¾ø¾É¢ ¯ý¨É
¬¾¢Â¡ý Å¡ÉÅ÷ ¬¾¢ ±ý§¸¡18
±Éô ÀÄÅ¡È¡¸ ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡÷ À¡ÊÁ¸¢ú¸¢È¡÷.
«ÈÅ¡Æ¢ «¿òò ½ý : «Èì ¸¼×Ç¡¸¢Â ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý ¾¢Õì¸Ãò¾¢ÖûÇ
ºì¸Ãõ «Èîºì¸Ãõ ±ÉôÀθ¢ÈÐ. «ñ¼í¸û «¨Éò¨¾Ôõ ¯ÕÅ¡ì̾Öõ ¿¢¨Ä¦ÀÈî ¦ºö¾Öõ À¢ýÒ «Åü¨È ¿£ì̾ÖÁ¡¸¢Â Óò¦¾¡Æ¢ø¸¨ÇÔõ þ¨¼Å¢¼¡Áø «Åý ¦ºöÐ ÅÕŨ¾§Â «îºì¸Ãî ÍÆüº¢ ¯½÷òи¢ÈÐ.
«ò¾¨¸Â §ÀáüÈø Á¢ì¸ÅÉ¢ý ¾¢ÕÅʸ¨Ç «¨¼ó¾Å÷¸¨Çò
¾Å¢Ã ÁüÈÅ÷¸Ç¡ø ¦À¡Õ𸼨ÄÔõ «¾É¡ø ¯ñ¼¡Ìõ º¢üÈ¢ýÀì ¸¼¨ÄÔõ ¸¼ì¸ þÂÄ¡Ð ±É ¯½÷òи¢È¡÷ ÅûÙÅ÷.
«Èîºì¸Ãò¨¾ ²ó¾¢Â «È§Å¡É¡ö ¾¢¸Øõ ¾¢ÕÁ¡¨Ä§Â «ÈÅ¡Æ¢
«ó¾½É119; ±ý¸¢È¡÷. «ó¾½÷ ±ý§À¡÷ «È§Å¡¡120; ±É Áü¦È¡Õ ÌÈÇ¢ø ÅûÙÅ÷ þì¸Õò¾¢¨Éò ¦¾Ç¢×ÀÎòи¢È¡÷. À¢ÈÅ¢ò ÐÂ÷ ¿£í¸ ÀüÈÚòÐ »¡É¿¢¨Ä¢ø °ýÈ¢ ¿¢ýÚ ¬ýÁ ´Ç¢¨Âì ¸¡½ Å¢Õõҧš÷ «È§Å¡É¡ö ¬Æ¢ôÀ¨¼ ²ó¾¢Â «ÕÇ¡ÇÉ¡¸¢Â Á¡ÂÅ¨É ÁȾ¢Â¢ýÈ¢ Áɾ¢ø ¨ÅòÐô §À¡üÚÅ÷ ±ýÀÐ ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡¡¢ý ÜüÚ.
«ÈÅ¨É ¬Æ¢ôÀ¨¼ «ó¾½¨É
ÁÈÅ¢¨Â ¢ýÈ¢ ÁÉòШÅô À¡§Ã21
±Ûõ À¡ÍÃÅÊŸǢø þùÅ¡Ú ÅûÙÅ¡¢ý ¸Õò¾¢¨É ¬úÅ¡÷
ÅÆ¢¦Á¡Æ¢¸¢ýÈ¡÷. ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý ¾¢Õ쨸¢ÖûÇ ¬Æ¢ ¾£ÂÅ÷¸¨Çò ¾ñÊìÌõ þÂøÒ¨¼Â¾¡ø ¬Æ¢ôÀ¨¼ ±ÉôÀð¼Ð.
§ÅñÎ;ξø §Åñ𼡨Á þÄ¡ý : þ¨ÈÅÉРŢÕôÒ ¦ÅÚôÀüÈò
¾ý¨Á¨Â §Åñξø §Åñ¼¡¨Á þÄ¡ÉÊ’22 ±É ÅûÙÅ÷
Ţš¢ì¸, ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡Õõ.
¦¸¡û¨¸ ¦¸¡Ç¡¨Á ¢ġ¾¡ý23
±É þ¨ÈÅÉÐ ¿Î¿¢¨Äò ¾ý¨Á¨Âô À¡Ã¡ðθ¢È¡÷.
‘þÅý À¢ÈŢ¡Öõ ¦¾¡Æ¢Ä¡Öõ »¡Éò¾¡Öõ ¯Â÷󾡦ɡÕÅý. þÅÉ¢¼ò¾¢ø «ó¾Ãí¸ò ¦¾¡ñʨÉì ¦¸¡û§Å¡õ. þÅý ¾ý ¾¢Õ×ûÇò¾¡§Ä º¢Ä¨Ã þ¸úó¾¢Õò¾ø º¢Ä¨Ã ¬¾¡¢ò¾ø ¦ºö¡ɒ; ±É þ¨ÈÅÉÐ ºÁ§¿¡ìÌô À¡÷¨Å þôÀ¡ÍÃò¾¢ø ¦ÅÇ¢ôÀθ¢ÈÐ.
þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡ : ‘þ¨ÈÂýÒ ¿¢¨È¿ò Å¡ì ¨Ç «È¢Â¡¨Á¢¨É
²üÀÎòÐõ þÕÅ¢¨É¸Ùõ ¦¿ÕíÌž¢ø¨Ä ±Ûõ ¸Õò¾¢¨É ÅûÙÅ÷.
þÕû§º÷ þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡’25 ±Ûõ ÌÈ𠦾¡¼¡¢ø
¯½÷òи¢È¡÷. ¾¢ÕÅ¡ö¦Á¡Æ¢Ôõ. þÕ¨Á Å¢¨É¸ÊÅ¡¡ ±ýÚ «Ê¡÷¸Ç¢ý Å¢¨É¸¨Çò ¾£÷ìÌõ þ¨ÈôÀñÀ¢¨Éô À¡Ã¡ðθ¢È÷. þíÌ ¿øÅ¢¨É, ¾£Å¢¨É±ÛÁ¢Ãñ§¼ ‘þÕ¨Á
Å¢¨É’ ±ÉôÀð¼Ð. þùÅ¢ÃñÎõ §ÅÚÀð¼¨Å ±ýÈ¡Öõ Å£Î
§ÀüÈ¢¨É «¨¼Å¾üÌ þ¨Å þÃñΧÁ ¾¨¼¸Ç¡Â¢ÕôÀ¨¾ þÕ¨Á Å¢¨É ±Ûõ ¦º¡ø Íðθ¢ÈÐ.
¾ÉìÌ;ÌŨÁ þÄ¡¾¡ý:; ¨Å½Åò ¾òÐÅò¾¢ýÀÊ ÀÆ «È¢×ûÇ
¦À¡Õû, «È¢Å¢ø ¦À¡Õû, þ¨È ¬¸¢Â Óô¦À¡Õð¸Ç¢ø
ӾĢÃñÊý ¾ý¨Á¸¨Çì ¸¡ðÊÖõ þ¨ÈÅÉÐ ¾ý¨Á ¯Â÷ó¾¢ÕìÌõ, ¾ý ̽í¸Ç¢ø ¯Â÷óÐ ¾ÉìÌŨÁ¡¸ §Å¦È¡ýÚõ þÄ¡¾ Ũ¸Â¢ø º¢ÈóÐ ¿¢üÌõ þ¨Èô¦ÀÕ ¿¢¨Ä¨Â ÅûÙÅ÷ ‘¾ÉìÌŨÁ þÄ¡¾¡É’27; ±Éô À¡Ã¡ðθ¢È¡÷.
«ÅÉÐ ¾¢ÕÅʸ¨Çî ºÃ½¨¼ó¾¡ø ÁðΧÁ ¿ÁÐ ÁÉì
¸Å¨Ä¸Ç¢Ä¢ÕóРŢÎÀ¼ ÓÊÔõ ±É×õ «È¢×Úòи¢È¡÷.
¾¢ÕÁ¡§Ä ¾ÉìÌ ´ôÀ¡ÉÅ÷¸Ùõ, ¾ý¨ÉÅ¢¼î º¢Èó¾Å÷¸Ùõ þøÄ¡¾Åý ±Ûõ ¸Õò¨¾ ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡Õõ.
´ò¾¡; Á¢ì¸¡¨Ã þ¨Ä¡ Á¡Á¡Â¡28.
¾ý ´ôÀ¡¡¢øÄôÀý29 ±É Å¢Â츢ȡ÷.
¾¡¨Ç ŽíÌ;̸ : §¸¡Ç¢ø ¦À¡È¢Â¢ü ̽Á¢Ä§Å ±ñ̽ò¾¡ý ¾¡¨Ç Å½í¸¡ò ¾¨Ä30 ±ýÈ ÌÈÇ¢ø ±ñ Ũ¸ôÀð¼ Ì½í¸¨ÇÔ¨¼Â ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý ¾¢ÕÅʸ¨Ç Å½í¸¡¾ ¾¨Ä¸û ¾ó¾ÁìÌ ²üÈ ÒÄý¸¨Çò ¾ý ÅÂÁ¡ì¸¡¾ ¦À¡È¢¸û §À¡Äô ÀÂýÀ¼¡Ð ±ý¸¢È¡÷. ±ñ º¡ñ ¯¼õÀ¢üÌò ¾¨Ä¨Á¡ö Å¢ÇíÌõ ¾¨Ä¢§Ä ¾¡ý ‘ã¨Ç’ ±Ûõ Ó츢Âô À̾¢ «¨ÁóÐûÇÐ. þõã¨Ç¡ÉÐ Áñ¼ÄÁ¡¸×õ ³õÒÄý¸¨Ç ¦ºÂüÀÎòÐõ ¿¢¨Äì¸ÇÉ¡¸×õ þÕ츢ÈÐ. ±É§Å ´ÕŨÃò ¾¨Ä¡ø ŽíÌÅÐ ±ýÈ¡ø «¸Óõ ÒÈÓõ ´ýÈ¢¨½óÐ ÅÆ¢Àθ¢ÈÐ ±É
«È¢ÂÄ¡õ. «ò¾¨É ÅÆ¢À¡§¼ º¢È󾦾ýÀ¨¾ þìÌÈôÀ¡ ¯Ú¾¢ÀÎòи¢ÈÐ.
¾¡û¸û ¾¨Ä¢ø Å½í¸¢ - ¿¡û ¸¼¨Äì ¸Æ¢Á¢§É31 ±É ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡Õõ þ¨ÈÅÉÐ ¾¢ÕÅʸ¨Çò ¾¨Ä¡ø Å½í¸¢ô À¢ÈÅ¢ô ÀÂɨ¼ÔÁ¡Ú ÅÄ¢ÔÚòи¢È¡÷.
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Îõ ±ñÌ½í¸¨Çò ‘¾ý ÅÂò¾É¡¾ø
àÂ×¼õÀ¢ÉÉ¡¾ø þÂü¨¸Ô½÷Å¢ÉÉ¡¾ø, ÓüÚÓ½÷¾ø® þÂøÀ¡¸§Å À¡ºí¸Ç¢øþ½í̾ø, §ÀÃÕÙ¨¼¨Á, ÓÊŢġüÈÖ¨¼¨Á, ÅÃõÀ¢Ä¢ýÀÓ¨¼¨Á ±ÉÅ¢¨Å’32 ±Éô À¡¢§ÁÆĸ¡; ÀðÊÂĢθ¢È¡÷.
¨Å½Å áø¸§Ç¡ ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý ±ñŨ¸ôÀð¼ Ì½í¸¦ÇÉ Å¡ò…øÂõ (¾¡ÂýÒ) …Å¡Á¢òÅõ (¾¨ÄÅÉ¡õ ¾ý¨Á) ¦…Ǻ£øÂõ («Èô¦À¡¢ÂÅý «Èó¾¡÷úó¾Å§É¡Î Ò¨ÈÂÈì ¸ÄìÌõ ¾ý¨Á) ¦…Ǻ£ÄôÂõ (±Ç¢¨Á) «È¢×, ºì¾¢ ôáô¾¢ (¯¡¢¨Á) â÷ò¾¢32 §À¡ýÈÅü¨Èì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈÉ.
§ÁÖõ þ¨ÈÅÉÐ ¾¢ÕÅʸǢø ºÃ½¨¼Å§¾ ¨Å½Åò¾¢ø ºÃ½¡¸¾¢ ±Ûõ ¯Â÷ó¾ ¾¾ÐÅÁ¡¸ô §À¡üÈôÀθ¢ÈÐ. ¾ÉìÌŨÁ þÄ¡¾¡ý¾¡û, ±ñ̽ò¾¡ý ¾¡û þ¨ÈÅÉÊ, «ó¾½ý¾¡û, ¿¡üÈ¡û ±ÉôÀÄÅ¡È¡¸ ÅûÙÅ÷ þ¨ÈÅÉÐ ¾¢ÕÅʸ¨Çô §À¡üÚÅÐ «Å÷ ºÃ½¡¸¾¢ ¾òÐÅò¾¢ø ®ÎÀð¼ ¾ý¨Á¢¨Éô ÒÄôÀÎòи¢ÈÐ.
ÀüüÈüüÈ¡ý: þ¨È þÂø¨À ¿ý¸È¢ó¾ À¢ý µÕ¢÷ þ¨ÈŨÉ
«¨¼Å¾üÌ «Å¨É§Â ¾ì¸ ¦¿È¢Â¡¸ô ÀüÈ¢ì ¦¸¡ûÇ §ÅñÎõ ±Ûõ ¸Õò¾¢¨É ¾¢ÕìÌÈÙõ
ÀüÚ¸ ÀüÈ¡ý ÀüÈ¢¨É «ôÀü¨Èô
ÀüÚ¸ ÀüÚ Å¢¼üÌ ÀüÈüÈÅÉ¡¸¢Â þ¨ÈŨÉô ÀüÈ¢ì ¦¸¡ûŧ¾
þ¨È¿¢¨Ä «¨¼Âî º¢Èó¾ ÅÆ¢ ±É ÅûÙÅ÷ þìÌÈðÀ¡Å¢ø ¯½÷ò¾, ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡§Ã¡,
«üÈÐ Àü¦ÈÉ¢ø ¯üÈРţ΢÷
¦ºüÈÐ Áý¯È¢ø «üÈ¢¨Èô Àü§È ±Ûõ À¡ÍÃÅʸǢø ÀüÈüÈ
¿¢¨Ä¢ø ¯Â¢÷ Ţξ¨Ä «¨¼Ôõ þ󿢨Ä¡ÉÐ ÀüÈüÈ þ¨ÈŨÉô ÀüȢɡø ÁðΧÁ ²üÀθ¢ÈÐ ±É ¯½÷òи¢È¡÷.
§ÁÖõ ÀüÈüÈ ¸ñ§½ À¢ÈôÀÚìÌõ ±Éì ÜÚõ ÅûÙÅõ þù×ĸô
ÀüÚ¸ÙìÌ ¬¨º§Â «ÊôÀ¨¼ì ¸¡Ã½Á¡¸ ¯ûǾ¡ø ¬¨º¸¨Ç ´Æ¢ìÌÁ¡Úõ «üÈÅ÷ ±ýÀ¡÷ «Å¡ÅüÈ¡÷, ±Éì ÜÈ¢ «È¢×Úòи¢È¡÷.
³õôâ¾íì¸Ç¡öò ¾¢¸úôÀÅý : ÀÃõ¦À¡Õ§Ç Àïºâ¾í¸Ç¡¸×õ «ÅüÈ¢ý ̽í¸Ç¡¸×õ «¨Å ¸Äó¾ ¯Ä¸Á¡×õ, «ù×ĸ¢ý ÀÄŨ¸ ¯Â¢÷¸Ç¡¸×õ
¾¢¸ú¸¢È¡ý ±Ûõ þ¨Èò ¾òÐÅò¨¾ ¦¾öÅôÒÄÅ÷,
ͨŴǢ °Úµ¨º ¿¡üȦÁýÛ ³ó¾¢É
Ũ¸ ¦¾¡¢Å¡ý ¸ð§¼ ¯ÄÌ.38
±Ûõ Á¨È ¦Á¡Æ¢Â¡ø ¯½÷òи¢È¡÷. þìÌÈÇ¢ø ‘³ó¾¢É’; ±ýÀРͨÅ. ´Ç¢, °Ú, µ¨º, ¿¡üÈõ ±Ûõ ³Å¨¸ì Ì½í¸¨ÇÔõ, ‘Ũ¸’ ±ýÀÐ «ÅüÈ¢ý
̽¢¸¨ÇÔõ «¾¡ÅÐ ¦À¡Õð¸¨ÇÔõ ÌÈ¢ìÌõ. ̽ò¨¾ ¯¨¼ÂÐ
̽¢Â¡Ìõ. þíÌ ÌÈ¢ì¸ôÀÎõ Àïºâ¾í¸Ç¡¸¢Â ̽¢¸Ç¢ý ÅÊÅ¡ö
Å¢ÇíÌÀÅý þ¨ÈÅý ±ýÀÐ ÅûÙÅ÷ ÜüÚ.
¯½ýÛ Í¨Å¦Â¡Ç¢ °Úµ¨º ¿¡üÈÓüÚ ¿£§Â39
±Ûõ À¡ÍÃÅÊ¢ø ͨÅ, ´Ç¢, ¯ûÇ¢ð¼ ̽í¸Ç¡¸×õ, ¿£Ã¡ö
¿¢ÄÉ¡öò ¾£Â¡ö ¸¡Ä¡ö ¦¿ÎÅ¡É¡Â40; ±É Áü¦È¡Õ À¡ÍÃò¾¢ø ̽¢¸Ç¡¸×õ þ¨ÈÅý Å¢ÇíÌõ ¾ý¨Á¨Â ±ÎòШÃ츢ȡ÷.
â¾í¸û ³óÐõ ¦À¡È¢«¨Å ³óÐÙõ ²Ðõ À¼ï¦ºöÐ þÕóÐ
ÒÈ¿¢¨Ä ±Éô Àïºâ¾í¸Ùõ «ÅüÈ¢ý ̽í¸Ùõ ¸Ä󾧾 þù×ĸõ ±Ûõ ¾¢ÕãÄ÷À¡¼ø þíÌ ´ôÒ§¿¡ì¸ò ¾ì¸Ð.
¯Ä¸Çóò¾¡ý : þóÐ ºÁÂõ §À¡üÚõ ¸¼×Ç¡¢ø ¾¢ÕÁ¡¨Äò ¾Å¢Ã
§Å¦Èó¾ ¦¾öÅÓõ ¯Ä¸Ç󾾡¸ô Òá½ì ¦ºö¾¢¸û þø¨Ä. «Ã측; ÌÄò¾¢ø À¢Èó¾ Á¸¡ÀÄ¢î ºì¸ÃÅ÷ò¾¢ ±ýÀÅý þó¾¢ÃÉ¢¼Á¢ÕóÐ ¸Å÷óÐ ¦ºýÚ ¯Ä¸í¸¨Ç Á£ðÌõ ¦À¡ÕðÎ ¾¢ÕÁ¡ø Å¡ÁÉÉ¡ö «Å¾¡¢òÐ «ÅÉ¢¼õ ãÅÊ ¿¢ÄÁ þÃóÐ À¢ýÒ «Åü¨È «ÇôÀ¾ü¸¡¸ ¦¿Ê§Â¡É¡ö Å¡É¢ø ¯Â÷ó¾¡ý.
þ󿢸ú¨Âò ¾ý ¾¢ÕÅʸǡø þôÀÃó¾ ¯Ä¸ò¨¾ «Çó¾ ¸¼×û ¾¡Å¢Â ÀÃôÀ¨Éò¾¨ÉÔõ §º¡õÀø þøÄ¡¾ «Ãºý ÁðΧÁ ´Õ§ºÃ «¨¼Å¡ý ±É ¯½÷òÐõ ÌÈðÀ¡Å¢ø ÅûÙÅ÷
ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢È¡÷.
À¡ÁÕ ã×ÄÌ ÁÇó¾ ÀüÀ À¡¾¡§Å¡ ±É ¿õÁ¡ÆÅ¡÷ ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý ¾¡Á¨Ãô À¡¾í¸û ã×Ä¸í¸¨ÇÔÁ «Çó¾ ¦ºö¾¢¨Çô À¡Î¸¢È¡÷.
¾¡Á¨Ãì ¸ññ½ý :; ¾¡Á¨Ã ÁÄ¡¢ø Å¡ºõ ¦ºöÔõ ¾¢ÕÁ¸Ù¼ý ¯¨ÈÔõ ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý ¾¢Õì¸ñ¸¨Çò ¾¡Á¨Ãì ¸ñ¸¦ÇÉ ÅÕ½¢ôÀÐ ÁÃÒ. ĉÁ£¸¡ó¾õ ¸ÁÄ¿ÂÉõ ±ýÚ ¾¢ÕÁ¡¨Äô §À¡üÚÅ÷. «ùÅ¡§È ÅûÙÅÕõ. ¾¡Á¨Ãì ¸ñ½¡ý ¯ÄÌ ±Éò ¾¢ÕÁ¡¨Äô À¡Ã¡ðθ¢È¡¡.
¾¡Á¨Ãì ¸ñ½ý Å¢ñ§½¡÷ ÀÃ×ó ¾¨ÄÁ¸¨É46 §¸¡Ä§Á ¾¡Á¨Ãì ¸ñ½§¾¡÷ «ïºÉ ¿£Ä§Á! ±ýÚ ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡Õõ ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý ¾¢Õì¸ñ¸¨Çô À¡Î¸¢È¡÷.
«ÃÅõ ÍÁôÀÐ µ÷ «ïºý½½½ Á¨Ä§Â
«õÁ¨Ä âò¾Ð µ÷ «ÃÅ¢ó¾ ÅɧÁ ±Éò ¾¢ÕÅÃí¸ò¾¢ø ÀûÇ¢ ¦¸¡ñ¼ ¦ÀÕÁ¡¨Çò ¾¡Á¨Ã측¦¼É
«‰¼ôÀ¢ÃÀó¾õ À¡ÎÅÐ ´ôÒ§¿¡ì¸ò¾ì¸¾¡Ìõ.
¸¡ÁòÐ;ÐôôÀ¡ÖÁ ; «¸ôôÀ¡ÍÃíì¸ÙÁ ; : ´Õ ¦Á¡Æ¢¸Ì; «ÆÌ ¾ÕÀ¨Å þÄ츢Âí¸§Ç. ÁÉ¢¾ Å¡ú쨸¢ý ±ØòÐÕÅô À¢Ã¾¢ôÀÄ¢ô§À þÄ츢Âõ ±ÉôÀθ¢ÈÐ. þò¾¨¸Â þÄ츢Âí¸û ãÄÁ¡¸ ¿ÁìÌô ÀÄ Å¡úÅ¢Âø ÜÚ¸¨Ç Ţš¢ì¸ ÓüÀð¼ ¿õ Óý§É¡÷ «Åü¨È «¸õ ±ýÚõ ÒÈõ ±ýÚõ þÃñ¼¡¸ô À¢¡¢ò¾É÷. ¯ûÇõ ¯½÷¿Ð Ðöò¾¨¾ô À¢ÈÕìÌ ¯½÷ò¾ÓÊ¡¾Å¡Ú «¨Áó¾¢ÕìÌõ Àñ§À «¸õѾĢÂÐ ±ÉôÀθ¢ÈÐ. ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ý ¸¡ÁòÐôÀ÷ À̾¢ ´ò¾ «ýÒ¨¼Â ´Õ ¾¨ÄÅÛìÌõ ¾¨ÄÅ¢ìÌõ þ¨¼§ÂÂ¡É ¦ÁøĢ ÁÉ ¯½÷׸¨Çî º¢ò¾¡¢ìÌõ «¸ì ÌÈðÀ¡ì¸Ç¢ý ãÄÁ¡¸ô ÀÄ «Èì¸Õòи¨Ç Ţš¢ì¸¢ÈÐ.
~ºã¸ ´ØíÌ ÀüȢ ÅûÙÅ¡¢ý À¡÷¨Å ¸¡Áò¨¾ ྡ¸
Á¡üȢŢθ¢ÈÐ. ¸¡ÁòÐôÀ¡ø ¦ÅÇ¢ôÀ¨¼Â¡¸î º¢üÈ¢ýÀò¨¾Ôõ ¯û٨ȡ¸ §À¡¢ýÀò¨¾Ô§Á ÜÚ¸¢ÈÐ. ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ý ¸¡ÁòÐôÀ¡Ä¢ø §À¡¢ýÀò¾¢ý §Å÷¸¨Çì ¸¡½ÓÊž¡ø ¬úÅ¡÷ô À¡ÍÃí¸Ù¼ý ´ôÀ¢¼Óʸ¢ÈÐ| ±Ûõ ÜüÚ ¸¡ÁòÐôÀ¡Ä¢ý º¢ÈôÀ¢¨É ¯½÷òи¢ÈÐ.
¿õ Óý§É¡÷ þýÀò¨¾ þÕŨ¸Â¡¸ô À¢¡¢òÐûÇÉ÷. ´ýÚ
º¢üÈ¢ýÀõ ±ýÚõ Áü¦È¡ýÚ §À¡¢ýôõ ±É×õ ÌÈ¢ì¸ôÀθ¢ÈÐ. º¢Ä§¿Ãõ ÁðΧÁ ¿¢¨Äò¾¢ÕôÀÐ º¢üÈ¢ýÀÁ¡Â¢Õì¸ ±ýÚõ ¿¢¨ÄòÐ ¿¢üÀÐ §À¡¢ýÀõ ±ÉôÀθ¢ÈÐ.
¯Ä¸¢ø ¿¡õ ͨÅìÌõ «¨ÉòЧÁ º¢üÈ¢ýÀí¸Ç¡Ìõ. ¸¼×¨Ç ¯½÷¾§Ä §À¡¢ýÀÁ¡Ìõ, º¢üÈ¢ýÀò¾¢üÌ ¯Ä¸ô¦À¡Õð¸û ¸ÕŢ¡¸×õ, §À¡¢ýÀò¾¢üÌ þ¨ÈÅÛ¨¼Â ÅÊÅõ, ̽õ, ¦ºÂø §À¡ýȨŠ¸ÕÅ¢¸Ç¡¸×õ Å¢Çí̸¢ýÈÉ.
ÁÕó¾¢¨É ¯ñ½ ÁÚìÌõ º¢Ú ÌÆó¨¾ìÌò §¾Û¼ý ¸ÄóÐ ¾ÃôÀÎõ ÁÕóÐ §À¡Ä ¯Ä¸ Áì¸ÙìÌ º¢üÈ¢ýÀò¾¢ý ãÄõ §À¡¢ýÀò¨¾ ¯½÷ò¾ ÓüÀ𧼠¬úÅ¡÷¸û, ¿¡Â¸ - ¿¡Â¸¢ ӨȢø «¸ô À¡Íí¸¨Çô À¡ÊÔûÇÉ÷. «ùÅ¡Ú À¡Îõ §À¡Ð ¾¡ö, §¾¡Æ¢, ¾¨ÄÅ¢ ±Éô ÀÄ ÁÉ¿¢¨Ä¸Ç¢ø À¡ÍÃí¸¨Ç «¨ÁòÐûÇÉ÷.
´ñ¦;¦¼¡Ê þÉôôõ : ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ø ¸ÇÅ¢Âø Å¡úÅ¢ø ´Ç¢¦À¡Õó¾¢Â
ŨÇÂĽ¢ó¾ ¾¨ÄŢ¢¼ò§¾ ¯ûÇ ³õÒÄ þýÀí¸¨Ç Å¢Å¡¢ìÌõ ¾¨ÄÅý.
¸ñÎ §¸ðÎ ¯ñÎ À¡÷òÐ ¯üÈÈ¢Ôõ ³õÒÄÛõ
´ñ¦¼¡Æ ¸ñ§½ ¯Ç50 ±Éì ÜÚ¸¢È¡ý.
¸ñΧ¸ð ÎüÚ§Á¡ó ÐñÎÆÖ ¨Áí¸ÕÅ¢
¸ñ¼Å¢ýÀó ¦¾¡¢ÂÅ¡¢Â ÅÇÅÅ¢Ä¡î º¢üÈ¢ýÀõ
´ñ¦¼¡Æ¡û ¾¢Á¸Ùõ ¿¢Ô§Á ¿¢Ä¡¿¢üÀ
¸ñ¼¸¾¢÷ ¸ñ¦¼¡Æ¢ó§¾ý «¨¼ó§¾ý ¯ý ¾¢ÕÅƧÂ
þôÀ¡ÍÃò¾¢ø, ¾¢ÕÁ¸Ùõ ¾¢ÕÁ¡Öõ ¿¢ýÈ «ÆÌ¿¢¨Ä ³õÒÄ þýÀí¸§Ç¡Î ¯ûǾ¡ö Å¢Çí¸ «ùÅ¡¢Â ¸¡ðº¢¨Âì ¸ñÎ
Á¸¢úóÐ «ô¦ÀÕÁ¡Ç¢ý ¾¢ÕÅʨ «¨¼óÐ §À¡¢ýÀõ ¦ÀüȾ¡ö ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡÷ À¡Î¸¢È¡÷.
¸¼ÄýýÉ ¸¡¾ø : ±õ¦ÀÕÁ¡¨É ¿¡Â¸ - ¿¡Â¸¢ ӨȢø À¡ÍÃõ À¡Îõ§À¡Ð ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡÷ ¾¡ö¿¢¨Ä¢ø Àáí̺¿¡Â¸¢Â¡¸ò ¾ý §¾¡Æ¢Â¢¼õ ÜüÚ ¿¢¸úòО¡öÀ À¡ÊÔûÇ¡÷. «ÅüÚû,
°ÃÅ÷ ¸ù¨Å ¦ÂÕÅ¢ð ¼ý¨É¦º¡ø ¿£÷ÀÎòÐ
®Ã¦¿ø Å¢ò¾¢ Ó¨Çò¾ ¦¿ïºô ¦ÀÕ了öÔû
±Ûõ À¡ÍÃÅʸǢø, §¾¡Æ£! °Ã¡÷ «Ä¨Ã ±ÕÅ¡¸ þðÎ, «ý¨É¢ý
¸ÊóШè ¿£Ã¡¸ô À¡ö, ±ý ¦¿ïº ÅÂÄ¢ø «ýÀ¡¸¢Â
¦¿øÄ¢¨É Å¢¨¾òÐì ¸¼ÄýÉì ¸¡¾¨Ä Å¢¨ÇÅ¢ò¾ ¸ñ½ý º¢Èó¾Åý ±Éì ÜÚ¸¢È¡û.
þôÀ¡ÍÃò¨¾,
°ÃÅ÷ ¸ù¨Å ±ÕÅ¡¸ «ý¨É ¦º¡ø
¿£Ã¡¸ ¿£ÙÁ¢ý §¿¡Â53;
±Ûõ ÅûÙÅ¡¢ý Å¡ö¦Á¡Æ¢¨Â §¿¡ì¸¢ þöüȢɡ÷ ±ÉÄ¡õ, ¸¡¾¨Ä §¿¡Â¡¸ ÅûÙÅ÷ º¢ò¾¡¢ì¸ «¾¨É ¬úÅ¡Õõ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¡ø ¯½÷òи¢È¡÷, §ÁÖõ, Áü¦È¡Õ ÌÈðÀ¡Å¢ø
‘²ÁÀ Ò¨½ÁýÛõ þø’ ±É ÅûÙÅ÷ ¸¡ðÎõ ¾¨ÄÅ¢ ¾ÉÐ ¸¼ø
§À¡ýÈ ¸¡Á §¿¡¨Âò ¾¡ñÊî ¦ºøÄ ÅÖÅ¡É µ¼õ þø¨Ä ±É ÅÕóи¢È¡û. ¾¢ÕÁ¡¨Ä§Â ¾ÉÐ Á½¡ÇÉ¡¸ ¿¢¨ÉòÐô ÀÄ À¡ÍÃí¸¨Çô À¡ÊÂÕǢ ¬ñ¼¡Ùõ þò¾¨ÄÅ¢¨Âô §À¡Ä§Å
ÐýÀì ¸¼ø ÒìÌ ¨ÅÌó¾ý ±ýÀ§¾¡÷ §¾¡½¢
¦ÀÈ¡Ð ¯Æø¸¢ý§ÈÉ55;
±Éò ÐýÀ츼Ģø ÅÕóÐõ ¾ý¨É Á£ð¸ ¨ÅÌó¾É¡¸¢Â §¾¡½¢¨Âì ¸¡½¡Áø ¾Å¢ôÀ¾¡öô À¡Î¸¢È¡û.
¸Æøù ¨Ç : ¾ý¨É Å¢ðÎô À¢¡¢ó¾ ¾¨ÄÅÛ¼ý ¾ý ¦¿ï¨ºÔõ
§À¡¸Å¢ðÎò ¾É¢¨Á¢ø ¸¡¾ø §¿¡Â¡ø ÅÕóÐõ ¾¨ÄÅ¢, «ó§¿¡ÂìÌ
ÁÕ󾡸¢Âò ¾ý ¾¨ÄŨÉì ¸¡½¡Áø ¿¡û§¾¡Úõ ¦ÁÄ¢óÐ ¦¸¡ñÊÕó¾¡û.
«¾É¡ø «ÅÇÐ ¸Ãí¸¨Ç Å¢ðΠŨÇÂø¸û ¸ÆýÚ Å¢Øó¾
¸¡ðº¢Â¢¨Éò ¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷.
Óý¨¸ þ¨È ¿¢ýÈŨÇ56
±Ûõ ÌÈðÀ¡Å¢ø Ţš¢ì¸¢È¡÷. ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý Á£Ð ¾¡ý ¦¸¡ñ¼ «ÇÅüÈ ¸¡¾ø
¾ý ¯ûÇò¨¾ ¯Õ츢. ¯¼Ä¢¨É ¦ÁÄ¢Âî ¦ºöÐ, ¨¸Å¨ÇÂø¸¨Ç ¸ÆýÚ
Å¢Æî ¦ºö¾¾¡ö ¬ñ¼¡û.
±Ø¸ÁÄô âÅƸ¡; ±õÁ¡É¡÷ ±ýÛ¨¼Â
¸ÆøŨǨÂò ¾¡Óõ ¸ÆøŨǧ ¡츢ɧÃ
±Éô À¡Î¸¢È¡û.
Á¼æ÷ò ø : ; ¾Á¢ú «¸ô¦À¡Õû þÄ츢Âí¸Ç¢ø ´Õ ШÈ¡¸ì
¸¡½ôÀÎõ ~Á¼ø| ¾¢ù À¢ÃÀó¾Á¡¸¢Â Àì¾¢ þÄ츢Âò¾¢ø ÒÐò¾¢ÕôÀõ ¦ÀüÚò ¾É¢ þÄ츢 Ũ¸Â¡¸ ÅÇ÷óÐûÇÐ.
¾ý¨É Å¢ÕõÀ¢Â ¾¨ÄÅ¢¨Â «¨¼Âô¦ÀÈ¡¾ ¾¨ÄÅý À¨ÉÁ¼ø¸Ç¡ø ´Õ ̾¢¨Ã¢ý ÅÊÅõ ¦ºöÐ «¾ý Á£§¾È¢ À¢ò¾¨Éô §À¡ø °÷ ¿Î§Å §¾¡ýÈ¢ò ¾ý ¸¡¾¨Ä ¦ÅÇ¢ôÀÎò¾, «Å¨Éì ¸ñÎ þÃì¸õ ¦¸¡ñ¼ °Ã¡÷ ¦Àñ½¢ý ¦Àü§È¡¡¢¼õ À¡¢óÐ §Àº «Å÷¸Ùõ Á¸ð¦¸¡¨¼ìÌ þ¨ºÅ§¾ ~Á¼æ÷¾ø| ±ÉôÀθ¢ÈÐ. ¸¡¾ø ÅÂôÀξġÅÐ ¬ñ, ¦Àñ þÕÅÕì̧Á ¯¡¢Â ´Õ
¦À¡ÐôÀñÀ¡Ìõ. ±ýÈ¡Öõ,
±ò¾¢¨½ ÁÕí¸¢Ûõ Á¸Î¯ Á¼ý§Áø
¦À¡üÒ¨¼ ¦¿È¢¨Á þý¨Á¡ý-±Ûõ ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Â áüÀ¡ Á¸Ç¢÷ Á¼§ÄÚž¢ø¨Ä ±É ¯½÷òи¢ÈÐ.
þì¸Õò¨¾ ÅûÙÅÕõ,
¸¼ÄýÉ ¸¡Á ÓÆóÐõ Á¼§ÄÈ¡ô
¦Àñ½¢ü ¦ÀÕó¾ì¸ ¾¢Ä58;
±É ÅÆ¢ ¦Á¡Æ¢¸¢È¡÷.
þõÁÃÒìÌ Á¡È¡¸ò ¾¢ÕÁ¡ø Á£Ð ¸¡¾ø ¦¸¡ñ¼ ¾¨ÄÅ¢ «Å¨É
«¨¼Âô¦ÀÈ¡¾ ¿¢¨Ä¢ø Á¼§ÄÈò н¢ó¾¾¡¸ò ¾¢ÕÁí¨¸Â¡úÅ¡÷,
°Ã¡÷ þ¸Æ¢Öõ °Ã¡ ¦¾¡Æ¢§Âý ¿¡ý
šá÷âõ ¦Àñ¨½ Á¼ø60 ±ýÚõ
¯Ä¸È¢Â °÷Åý ¿¡ý
ÓýÉ¢ Ó¨Çó¦¾Øó §¾¡í¸¢, ¦äÇ¢ÀÃó¾
ÁýÉ¢Ââô ¦Àñ¨½ Á¼ø61 ±ýÚõ À¡Î¸¢È¡÷.
¿õÁ¡úÅ¡Õõ À¢¡¢Å¡üÈ¡¨Á¡ø ÅÕóÐõ ¾¨ÄÅ¢ Á¼æÃò н¢Å¾¡¸
~Á¡ºÚ§º¡¾¢| ±Ûõ ¾¢ÕÅ¡ö ¦Á¡Æ¢Â¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢È¡÷. þùÅ¡Ú ¬úÅ¡÷¸û ¦Àñ Á¼§ÄÚž¡¸ô Ò¾¢Â º¢ó¾¨É¨Â ¯Õš츢 ÅûÙÅ¡¢Ä¢ÕóÐ §ÅÚÀθ¢ýÈÉ÷.
þøùÅ¡úì¨;¨¸ : ¦À¡ÐÅ¡¸ò ¾Á¢ú Àì¾¢ þÄ츢Âô ÀÛÅø¸Ç¢ý
¾ý¨Á¸¨Ç, þ¨ÈÅ¨É «È¢óÐ «ÅÛ¼ý ´ýÈ¡Ìõ §Åð¨¸Ô¨Ãò¾ø, ¯ûÇò¾¡ø ´ýÚÀð¼Å¡¢ý «ÛÀÅò¨¾ ¦ÅÇ¢ôÀÎò¾ø, ¯Ä¸ô ÀüÚ¸¨Ç ¦ÅÚòШÃò¾ø, ţΧÀȨ¼Ôõ ÅƢӨȸ¨Ç ¬Ã¡ö¾ø ±É Å¡¢¨ºÀÎò¾Ä¡õ.
þùŨ¸Â¢ø ÀÄ À¢ÃÀó¾ô À¡ÍÃí¸û þ¨ÈÂÕ¨Çô ¦ÀÚžüÌõ. ţΧÀüÈ¢¨É «¨¼Å¾üÌõ þøÄÈõ ¾¨¼Â¡Â¢ÕôÀ¾¡¸ì ¸Õи¢ýÈÉ. ±ÎòÐ측𼡸, ¬ñ¼¡ö! ¯¨Éì ¸¡ñÀ§¾¡; «Õ¦ÇÉì ¸ÕÙ¾¢§Âø §Åñ§¼ý Á¨É Å¡ú쨸¨Â - Å¢ñ½¸¡; §ÁÂŧÉ!63 ±Éò ¾¢ÕÁí¨¸Â¡úÅ¡÷ ¾¢ÕÅ¢ñ½¸¡¢ø Å£üÈ¢ÕìÌõ ¾¢ÕÁ¡¨Äô §À¡üÈ¢ô À¡Îõ §À¡Ð ÀòÐô À¡ÍÃí¸Ç¢Öõ À¡Íà þÚ¾¢ «Ê¸Ç¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢È¡÷.
¯Ä¸ô ÀüڸǢø ¯ÆøÅÐ ¯Â÷ó¾ º¢ó¾¨É¸¨Çò ¾ÎìÌõ ±Ûõ
ÁÃÒô À¡÷¨Å¨Â ÅûÙÅ÷ ÁÚì¸Å¢ø¨Ä ±ýÈ¡Öõ ÁÉ¢¾ ¯¼ø ±Îò¾¾¢ý ÀÂÉ¡¸ ´ÕÅý Ðöì¸ìÜÊ «ÇÅ¡É ¯¡¢¨Á þýÀí¸¨Ç «ÛÀÅ¢ì¸ §Å½Îõ ±ý§È ±ñϸ¢È¡÷. þ¾üÌ¡¢Â ¦¿È¢Â¡¸ þøÄÈò¨¾ò §¾¡;ó¦¾ÎìÌõ ÅûÙÅ÷, «È¦ÉÉôÀ𼧾 þøÅ¡ú쨸 ±É þøÄÈò¾¢üÌ þÄ츽õ ÅÌ츢ȡ÷. þù×ĸ¢ø ´ÕÅý «ÈÅƢ¢ø Å¡úóÐ Åó¾¡ø «Åý §ÅÚ¦¿È¢Â¢ø ¦ºýÚ ¦ÀÈò¾ì¸Ð ±Ð×Á¢ø¨Ä ±É×õ À¡Ã¡ðθ¢È¡÷.
'¨Å¾¢¸ ºÁÂí¸û ±øÄ¡ «Èò¨¾Ôõ ţΠ§Àü¨ÈÔõ ÁðΧÁ
§À¡üÈ¢É. «Èõ ±ýÀÐõ ţΠ§ÀüÈ¢üÌ - ¿¢÷Å¡½ò¾¢üÌ - ¸ÕÅ¢ ±É§Å «¨Å¸û ¸Õ¾¢É.
¬É¡Ä ÅûÙÅ÷ «Èõ ¦À¡Õû þýÀí¸¨Çî ºÁÁ¡¸ô §À¡üÈ¢ô §À;¨Äì ÌÈû ¸üÀ¡÷ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ."; 64
«Èý ±ÉôÀ𼧾 þøÅ¡ú쨸65
¦À¡ÕÇ¢øÄ¡÷ìÌ þø×ĸõ þø¨Ä66
¦Áý§¾¡û ТĢý þɢЦ¸¡ø
¾¡Á¨Ãì ¸ñ½¡ý ¯ÄÌ?67
±ýÛõ ¸ÕòÐì¸û þùŨ¸Â¢ø º¡ýÈ¡¸ ¿¢ü¸¢ýÈÉ. ±É§Å þøÄÈò¨¾ô ÀüȢ ÅûÙÅ¡¢ý ¸ñ§½¡ð¼õ ¬úÅ¡÷¸Ç¢¼Á¢ÕóÐ §ÅÚÀθ¢ÈÐ ±ÉÄ¡õ.
Å¡úùÅ¢ÂÈ ; ÜڸǢø ÅûÙ;ÙÅÕõ,;,;, ¬úùÅ¡÷ì¸Ùõ : ´Õ ¾É¢ÁÉ¢¾ Å¡ú쨸¨Âî ºÓ¾¡Â Å¡ú쨸§Â¡Î þ¨½òÐ ÅÇ÷ôÀ§¾ ºÁÂÁ¡Ìõ. «ùÅ¡Ú ºÓ¾¡Âò¨¾ þ¨½òÐ «¨ñ¸ «ýÒõ «ÈÓõ §¾¨Å. ±É§Å ¾¡ý ¾Á¢Æ¢Ä츢Âí¸û ºÓ¾¡Â ´Øí¸¢Â¨Ä ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾¢É. «ò¾¨¸Â Å¡úÅ¢Âü º¢ó¾¨É¸¨Ç ±ÎòÐì ÜÚ¨¸Â¢ø ÅûÙÅÕõ ¬úÅ¡÷¸Ùõ ´ÕÁ¢ò¾ì ¸Õòи¨Çì ¦¸¡ñÎûÇÉ÷ ±ýÀÐ ¦¾Ç¢Å¡¸¢ÈÐ.
¿¢¨Ä¡¨Á : 4:1 ´Å¦; Å¡Õ ¿¡ÙÁ ; ¿¡Á ; ¯¨Æ¾ò ¸¨ÇÀô ¢¨ÉÀ ;
§À¡ìÌõ ¦À¡Õ𧼠¯Èí¸¢ ŢƢ츢§È¡õ. «Ð §À¡Ä§Å À¢ÈôÒõ þÈôÒõ ¦¾¡¼÷¸¢ÈÐ. À¢ÈôÒ Å¢¨É¸¨Ç «ÛÀÅ¢ì¸×õ. þÈôÒ «ì¸¨Çô¨Àô §À¡ìÌžü̧Á «¨ÁóÐûÇÐ. «¾É¡ø ¾¡ý ÅûÙÅ÷, ¯ÈíÌÅÐ §À¡Öõ º¡ì¸¡Î68 ±É Áýò¨¾ Ţš¢ì¸¢È¡÷. þ¾¨É ´ðʧ ¦À¡¢Â¡úÅ¡Õõ,
¸¡Öõ ¨¸Ôõ Å¢¾¢÷ Å¢¾¢÷òÐ ²È¢ì
¸ñ ¯Èì¸ÁÐ ¬Å¾ý ÓýÉÁ69;
±Éì ¸ñ¸û ¿£í¸¡¾ ¯Èì¸ò¨¾ô ¦ÀÚÓýÉ÷ ¸¼ø Åñ½¨É Áɾ¢ø ±ñ½§Åñθ¢È¡÷.
ÁÆ¨Ä þýôÀõ :
ÁÂìÌÚ Áì¸¨Ç þø§Ä¡÷ìÌô
ÀÂìÌ¨È þø¨Äò ¾¡õ Å¡Øõ ¿¡§Ç70
±ýÀÐ À¡ñÊÂý «È¢×¨¼ ¿õÀ¢ ÜüÚ. þøÄÈÁýÈ¢ §ÅÚ ¿øÄÈõ þø¨Ä ±É ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾ Å¢ÕõÀ¢Â ÅûÙÅÕõ Áì¸ð§ÀüÈ¢ý º¢ÈôÀ¢¨Éô ÀøÅ¡È¡¸ Ţš¢ì¸¢È¡÷. «ô§À¡Ð ¾õ Áì¸Ç¢ý º¢Ú ¨¸¸Ç¡ø «Ç¡Åô¦ÀüÈ ¯½× ¦Àü§È¡ÕìÌ «Á¢ú¨¾ Å¢¼ «¾¢¸ þÉ¢¨Áò ¾Õõ ±ý¸¢È¡÷.71
¸ñ½¨É Á¸É¡¸ô ¦Àü¦ÈÎòÐõ ¬Â÷À¡Ê §º¡¨¾¨Âô §À¡ø
«Å¨Éô §À½¢ ¸¡òÐ ÅÇ÷ìÌõ §ÀÈ¢¨Éô ¦ÀÈÅ¢ø¨Ä§Â ±Éò §¾Å¸¢ ÅÕó¾¢ô ÒÄõÒž¡¸ì Ìħº¸Ã¡úÅ¡÷ À¡Ê À¡ÍæÁ¡ýÈ¢ø ÅûÙÅ¡¢ý þì¸ÕòÐ ±¾¢¦Ã¡Ä¢ì¸¢ÈÐ.
Åñ½î ¦ºïº¢Ú ¨¸Å¢Ãø «¨ÉòÐõ
Å¡¡¢ Å¡öì ¦¸¡Êñ¼ «Æº¢Ä¢ý Á¢îº¢ø
¯ñ½ô ¦ÀüÈ¢§Äý µ! ¦¸¡Î Å¢¨É§Âý!72
þôÀ¡ÍÃÅʸû ÌÆó¨¾ì ¸ñ½É¢ý À¢û¨Çò ¾¢ÕÅ¢¨Ç¡¼¨Ä À¼õ À¢ÊòÐì ¸¡ðθ¢ÈÐ.
Å¢ÕóÐ;Ð : Å¢Õ¿ò ¢É¨Ã ÅçÅüÚ ¯Àº¡¢Àô §¾ þÄø Ⱦò ¢É ; º¢È¿ò ¿¢¨Ä¡Ìõ. ¦¾¡ø§Ä¡÷ º¢ÈôÀ¢ý Å¢Õ󦾾¢÷ §¸¡¼Öõ þÆó¾ ±ý¨É!73 ±Éì §¸¡ÅÄý À¢¡¢Å¡ø Å¢Õó¾¢É¨Ã ¯Àº¡¢ì¸ þÂÄ¡¾ ¾ý ¿¢¨Ä¨Â ¿¢¨ÉòÐ ¸ñ½¸¢ ÅÕóи¢È¡û. Å¢Õ󧾡õÀÄ¢ý º¢ÈôÀ¢¨Éì ÜÚ¨¸Â¢ø ÅûÙŧá, Åó¾ Å¢Õó¾¢É¨Ãô §À¡üÈ¢ þÉ¢ ÅÕõ Å¢Õó¾¢É¨Ã ±¾¢÷À¡÷ôÀÅý Å¡Ûĸò §ÐÅ÷ìÌ ¿ø
Å¢Õó¾¡Å¡É74; ±ý¸¢È¡÷. þìÜü¨Èô À¢ýÀüÈ¢ ¾¢ÕÅÃí¸ò
¾¢Õò¾Äò¾¢ý º¢ÈôÒ¸¨Çô À¡Îõ ¦À¡¢Â¡úÅ¡Õõ.
ÅÕÅ¢Õó¨¾ ÂÇ¢ò¾¢ÕôÀ¡÷
º¢ÈôÒ¨¼Â Á¨ÈÅ÷ Å¡ú
¾¢ÕÅÃí¸ ¦ÁýÀЧÅ75
±É Å¢Õ󧾡õÒõ Àñ¨Àô À¡Ã¡ðθ¢È¡÷.
ÓÊרà : À쾢¢ý Å¢¨Ç¿¢Äõ ¨Àó¾Á¢ú¿¡Î. Áɨ¾ô ÀñÀÎò¾¢,
¯½÷׸¨Ç ´ØíÌÀÀÎò¾¢, ¯ûÇò¨¾ ¯Ú¾¢ÀÎò¾¢ Áì¸û Å¡úÅ¡íÌ Å¡Æ ÅÆ¢¸¡ð¼ Åó¾ »¡Éî ¦ºøÅ÷¸§Ç ¬úÅ¡÷¸Ç¡Å÷ ³õ¦À¡È¢¸Ç¡ø À¡÷ì¸ôÀÎõ ÒÈ ¯ÄÌ ±Ûõ ¾¢¨ÃìÌô À¢ýÉ¡ø ¦À¡È¢¸Ç¡ø ¸¡½Å¢ÂÄ¡¾ ¯ûÇò¾¡ø ÁðÎõ ¯½Ãò¾ì¸ Á¡¦ÀÕõ ¬üȨÄò ¾¢ÕÁ¡Ä¢ý ÅÊÅ¢ø ¸ñ¼ «Å÷¸û ¾í¸ÇÐ À¡ºÃí¸Ç¢ý ãÄÁ¡¸ ¬ýÁ¡ ÀÎõ «ÅÄí¸¨Ç ¯½÷ò¾¢, ¬ñ¼Å¨É «È¢óÐ §À¡¢ýÀô ¦ÀÕ¿¢¨Ä¨Âô ¦ÀÚÁ¡Ú «È¢×Úò¾¢É÷.
¦À¡ÐÅ¡¸ ºÁÂí¸û ÅÄ¢ÔÚòÐõ þò¾¨É »¡Éò¨¾ô ¦ÀÚžüÌ ÌÕÅ¢ý ¯ò§¾ºõ §¾¨Å. «ùÅ¡È¢ýÈ¢ ¿ÁìÌ ¿¡§Á »¡Éò¨¾ô ¦ÀÈ ÅÆ¢¸¡ðÎõ ¾¢Èò¾¢ø Ó¾ý¨Á ¦ÀÚõ áø ¾¢ÕìÌȧÇ¡Ìõ. ±É§Å ¸¡Ä󧾡Úõ §¾¡ýÚ¸¢ýÈ Áì¸Ç¢ý ÁÉô§À¡¸¢üÌõ
º¢ó¾¨É ÅÇ÷ìÌõ ²üÈ Ó¨È¢ø Å¢Çì¸õ ¾ÃôÀÂýÀÎõ
¾¢ÕìÌȨÇÔõ ¾¢ÕÁ¡ÄÊ¡áöò ¾¢¸úó¾ ¬úÅ¡÷¸Ç¢ý ¾¢ùÂ
À¢ÃÀó¾ô À¡ÍÃí¸¨ÇÔõ ´ôÀ¢ÎÅÐ ¾Á¢Æý¨ÉìÌî ¦ºöÂôÀÎõ
º¢Èó¾ ¬Ã¡¾¨É§Â¡Ìõ.
«ÊìÌ;ÌÈ¢ôÒ;Ò¸û
1. ~«ñ½¡| ‚ÁòÀ¸Å¾¸£¨¾
(¦À¡Æ¢ôÒ¨ÃÔ¼ý ÜÊÂÐ ‚áÁ¸¢Õ‰½Á¼õ ¦ºý¨É À. ±: 3
2. ~«ñ½¡| ‚ÁòÀ¸Åò ¸£¨¾ (¦À¡Æ¢ôÒ¨ÃÔ¼ý ÜÊÂÐ
‚áÁ¸¢Õ‰½Á¼õ ¦ºý¨É Í. ±:8 À.±:38
3. ´Ç¨Å ¸.Шú¡Á¢ À¢û¨Ç ¯¨Ã ÒÈ¿¡ëÚ ( 201-400 À¡)
¨ºÅº¢ò¾¡ó¾ áø À¾¢ôÒì ¸Æ¸õ 1996 À¡. ±: 397
4. º¢ÄôÀ¾¢¸¡Ãõ »¡. Á¡½¢ì¸Å¡º¸ý
¦¾Ç¢×¨Ã ¯Á¡À¾¢ôÒ ¦ºý¨É À¡:(1.4.11) À.±:238
5. Å¢òÅ¡ý ±õ. ¿¡Ã¡Â½§ÅÖÀ¢ûÇ
³íÌÚáÚ ¿¢ä ¦ºïÝ¢Òì †×Š ¦ºý¨É À¡. ±:387 À.±:243
6. ¦¾ý¦Á¡Æ¢ »¡ÉÀñÊ¾É »¡É ÍôÀÃÁ½¢Âý
¾¢ÕìÌÈû º¢ÈôÀ¢Âø ¸ÇﺢÂõ ÀÌò¾È¢× ¦ÅǢ£Π§¸¡¨Å
À.±:189 À.±:9
7. ¸. §¾Å½ý ¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷ Á¾õ Å¡ö측ø ¬Â측ðξ¡Ã¡;
¿Äîºí¸õ. ¸ûÇ¢ôÀðÊ À.±:72
8. ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âõ, ¦À¡ÕǾ¢¸¡Ãõ,«¸ò¾¢¨½Â¢Âø áüÀ¡ 5
9. ¼¡ì¸¼¡ Ó. ÅþáºÉ¡÷ ¾¢ÕìÌÈû ¦¾Ç¢×¨Ã ¨ºÅº¢ò¾¡ó¾ áüÀ¾¢ôÒì ¸Æ¸õ Ì.±: 10 Ì.±: 423 Ì.±: 358;
10. ¾¢ÕìÌÈû ãÄÓõ À¡¢§ÁÄƸըÃÔõ
¦¾ýÉ¢ó¾¢Â ¨ºÅº¢ò¾¡ó¾ áüÀ¾¢ôÒì¸Æ¸õ 1995 À.±: 1
11. Ì.±:1
12. ¿¡Ä¡Â¢Ã ¾¢ùÂÀ¢ÃÀó¾õ ¾¢Õ§Åí¸¼ò¾¡ý ¾¢ÕÁýÈõ
¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡. (1.1.3)
13. «ñ½¡ ‚Áò À¸Åò ¸£¨¾ ‚áÁ¸¢Õ‰½Á¼õ ¦ºý¨É
Í.±: 3 À.±:89
14. Ù.². ÍÂɾÂÁº¨Ç¡¦Â ÇÂÇź¨Ôʺ¦¿ºÄ ǦÇÁº¨Å-
׫¨¼_ ѦÀ¼¨Ç¡
Û¨ÇŨƦºÄ
Ù¦ÇÁº¨Å ÑÉïÂŨƦ ÙƯ¨ÅÄ
°¡Â¦¦Â¨ À.±:364
15. ¿¡Ä¡Â¢Ã ¾¢ù À¢ÃÀó¾õ ¾¢Õ§Åí¸¼ò¾¡ý ¾¢ÕÁýÈõ
¾¢. Å¡. ¦Á¡ (1-3-5)
16. ¿¡Ä¡Â¢Ã ¾¢ù À¢ÃÀó¾õ ¾¢Õ§Åí¸¼ò¾¡ý ¾¢ÕÁýÈõ
¾¢. Å¡. ¦Á¡ (10-10-9)
17. ¿¡Ä¡Â¢Ã ¾¢ù À¢ÃÀó¾õ ¾¢Õ§Åí¸¼ò¾¡ý ¾¢ÕÁýÈõ
¾¢. Å¡. ¦Á¡ (8-4-2)
18. ¿¡Ä¡Â¢Ã ¾¢ù À¢ÃÀó¾õ ¾¢Õ§Åí¸¼ò¾¡ý ¾¢ÕÁýÈõ
¾¢. Å¡. ¦Á¡ (3-4-7)
19. Ì.±:8
20. Ì. ±:30
21. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡: (1-7-1)
22. Ì.±:4
23. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(1-6-5)
24. Ó. §¸¡Å¢ó¾ º¡Á¢ ¾¢ÕìÌÈÙõ À¢È ¯¨Ã¡º¢¡¢Â÷¸Ùõ
«ñ½¡Á¨Äô Àø¸¨Äì¸Æ¸õ ¦ÅǢ£ΠÀ.±:215
25. Ì.±:5
26. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(1-6-9)
27. Ì.±:7
28. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(2-3-2)
29. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(6-3-9)
30. Ì.±:9
31. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(1-6-7)
32. ¾¢ÕìÌÈû ãÄÓõ À¡¢§ÁÆĸ¡; ¯¨ÃÔõ ¦¾ýÉ¢ó¾¢Â
¨ºÅº¢ò¾¡ó¾ À¾¢ôÒ À.±:6
33. ¼¡ì¼÷ Á¡¼âº¢ Åþáƒý
¨Å½ÅÁÄ÷¸û ‚ «Éóò À¾¢ôÀ¸õ ¾¢ÕôÀ¾¢
2004 À.±:18
34. Ì.±:350
35. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(1-2-5)
36. Ì.±:349
37. Ì.±:365
38. Ì.±:27
39. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(7-8-9)
40. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(6-9-1)
41. ¾¢ÕãÄ÷
¾¢ÕÁó¾¢Ãõ
À¡. ±:2146
42. Ì.±: 610
43. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(7-6-1)
44. ¿¡¸¡;§¸¡Å¢ø ¸¢Õ‰½ý‚Å¢‰ÏÒá½õ ÌÁÃý À¾¢ôÒ ¦ºý¨É À.±:9
45. Ì.±:1103
46. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(2-6-3)
47. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(3-8-8)
48. Ù.¦ƒ¸òÃðº¸ý «‰¼ôÀ¢ÃÀó¾õ À.±:66 À¡.±:72
49. ¾¢.ÃÁ¡ (¬öÅ¡Ç÷)«Æ¸ôÀ¡Àø¸¨Äì¸Æ¸õ¸¡¨ÃìÌÊ
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ¡¢ý¸ÇÅ¢Âø §¸¡ðÀ¡Î¾¢Â¡¸Ã¡³¡ À¾¢ôÒ À.±:73
50. Ì.±:1101
51. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(5-3-4)
52. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(5-3-4)
53. Ì.±:1147
54. Ì.±:1164
55. ¿¡.¾¢Õ.(5-4)
56. Ì.±:1157
57. ¿¡.¾¢Õ. (11-2)
58. ¦¾¡ø¸¡ôÀ¢Âõ ¦À¡ÕǾ¢¸¡Ãõ áüÀ¡.54
59. Ì.±:1130
60. º¢.¾¢Õ.Á «.±:39
61. ¦À.¾¢Õ.Á «.±:77
62. ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡:(5-3-9)
63. ¦À.¾¢.¦Á¡:(6-1-1)
64. Ó¨ÉÅ÷ ¾¢.ÓÕ¸ÃòÉõÅûÙŨà «È¢ó§¾¡Á¡¾Á¢ú¡¨Ä
ÁШà À.±:90
65. Ì.±:49
66. Ì.±:247
67. Ì.±:1103
68. Ì.±:1084
69. ¦À¡¢Â¡. ¾¢.¦Á¡ (4-5-4)
70. ´Ç¨Å.¸.Шú¡Á¢;À¢û¨ÇÒÈ¿¡ëÚ (1.200À¡) À¡.±: 408 À¡.±:188
71. Ì.±:64
72. ¦ÀÕ.¾¢.¦Á¡(7-6)
73. »¡.Á¡½¢ì¸Å¡ºý º¢ÄôÀ¾¢¸¡Ãõ ¯Á¡À¾¢ôÒ ¦ºý¨ÉÀ.±:288 À¡.±:75
74. Ì.±:86
75. ¦À¡¢Â¡.¾¢.¦Á¡.(4-8-2);Å¢Çìì¸ì ÌÈ¢ôÒ;Ò:
76. Í.±. - «Ê ±ñ
77. Í.±. - ͧġ¸ ±½
78. À.±. - Àì¸ ±ñ
79. À¡.± - À¡¼ø ±ñ
80. Ì.±. - ÌÈû ±ñ
81 ¾¢.Å¡.¦Á¡. - ¾¢ÕÅ¡ö¦Á¡Æ¢
82. ¿¡.¾¢Õ. - ¿¡îº¢Â¡÷ ¾¢Õ¦Á¡Æ¢
83. ¦À¡¢Â¡. ¾¢.¦Á¡ - ¦À¡¢Â¡úÅ¡÷ ¾¢Õ¦Á¡Æ¢
84. ¦ÀÕ. ¾¢. ¦Á¡. - ¦ÀÕÁ¡û ¾¢Õ¦Á¡Æ¢
85. º¢.¾¢Õ.Á. - º¢È¢Â ¾¢ÕÁ¼ø
86. ¦À.¾¢Õ.Á - ¦À¡¢Â ¾¢ÕÁ¼ø

[/tscii:3da8b74d73]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:5dad4e9233]ºí¸¾ áø¸û «¨ÉòÐõ ¸¢.À¢. áüÈ¡ñθǢø þÂüÈôÀð¼É ±ýÚ ¿¡õ ¸Õ¾§ÅñÎõ. «¾üÌÓý «¨Å (âì ӾĢÂ) þÂüÈôÀð¼É ±ýÀ¾üÌ ±ó¾ ¬¾¡ÃÓõ þø¨Ä.

ÌÈû ¸¢.Ó.33ø þÂüÈôÀð¼Ð ±ýÀ¡÷ ¯.§Å.º¡Á¢¿¡¨¾Â÷. «Ð§Å ºÃ¢Â¡Ìõ. [/tscii:5dad4e9233]

[devapriya]

U.Ve.Sa time and now we have vast resources to check.

The Dating of Vedas are now dated before Saraswathi River Completely Drying in 1900 BCE and Drying started in 2300BCE.

Linguistic Use of Valluvar cannot be put before 250 CE and latest by 550CE.

[Sudhaama]

[tscii:a79f700520]..
.
. ¯ûÙŦ¾øÄ¡õ ¯Â÷§Å ¯ûÙõ ÅûÙÅý.!!

// «Èý ±ÉôÀ𼧾 þøÅ¡ú쨸65

¦À¡ÕÇ¢øÄ¡÷ìÌ þø×ĸõ þø¨Ä66

¦Áý§¾¡û ТĢý þɢЦ¸¡ø
¾¡Á¨Ãì ¸ñ½¡ý ¯ÄÌ?67

...±ýÛõ ¸ÕòÐì¸û......... ±É§Å þøÄÈò¨¾ô ÀüȢ ÅûÙÅ¡¢ý ¸ñ§½¡ð¼õ ¬úÅ¡÷¸Ç¢¼Á¢ÕóÐ §ÅÚÀθ¢ÈÐ ±ÉÄ¡õ.//

¾Á¢ú ¾¡ò¾¡ ¯.§Å. º¡Á¢¿¡¾ ³Â÷, §ÀẢâÂ÷ á.À¢. §ºÐ À¢û¨Ç, «. ‚¿¢Å¡º á¸Åý §À¡ýÈ ¾Á¢ú §ÀÃÈ¢»÷¸û... ²¨É ¦À¡Ð «È¢»÷¸û ¨Å½ÅÃøÄ¡§¾¡Õõ ŨÃÂÚòÐ ÜÈ¢ ¿¢åÀ¢òÐ ¿¢¨Ä-¿¡ðÊ ¸ÕòÐ....

...¬úÅ¡÷¸Ç¢ý "¿¡Ä¡Â¢Ã ¾¢ùÅ¢Â-À¢ÃÀó¾õ" µ÷ ¯Ââ ¾Á¢ú þÄ츢 ¸ÕçÄõ...

...ÁÉ¢¾-þÉò¾¢ü§¸ ±ý¦ÈýÚõ ¦À¡ÕóÐõ ¾Á¢Æ÷ ÀñÀ¡É "¡ÅÕõ-§¸Ç¢÷" ±ýÛõ «¸¢Ä ¯ÄÌ-º¡÷ó¾ Á¡É¢¼ «ýÒ-¸ñ§½¡ð¼õ...

...¾¢ùÅ¢Â-À¢ÃÀó¾ò¾¢ý «Ê¿¡¾õ... «È¦¿È¢§Â...

...«Ð§Å "¾Á¢ú-Á¨È" ±É ¸Å¢îºì¸ÃÅ÷ò¾¢ ¸õÀÉ¡Öõ ²¨É ¾Á¢ú-«È¢»÷¸Ç¡Öõ Óü¸¡Äò¾¢§Ä§Â ²ü¸ôÀðÎûÇÐ...

...ÌÈ¢ôÀ¡¸ ¾¢ùÅ¢Â-À¢ÃÀó¾ò¾¢ý ¸ñ½¡¸ §À¡üÈôÀÎõ... ¾¢ÕÅ¡ö¦Á¡Æ¢... ¬ú-¦¿È¢ ¿¢¨È-¾Á¢ú-Á¨È§Â...

... ±ýÛõ ¯ñ¨Á¨Â ¬úóÐ «È¢ó§¾¡÷ ¯½ÃÄ¡õ..

...¨Å½Å÷¸û «óá¨Ä ¾ÁÐ ¨ÀÀ¢û §À¡Ä Á¾¢ì¸¢ýÈÉ÷ ±ýÈ ´§Ã ¸¡Ã½ò¾¡ø... «ó¾ ¯Ä¸Ç¡Å¢Â ¾Á¢Æâý «½¢ Á̼-á¨Ä µ÷ ¨Å½Å-¦¿È¢ áø ±ýÚ ÁðΧÁ ÌÚ츢-Å¢¼Ä¡¸¡Ð.

µ÷ «Ã¢Â ¸ÕòÐ ¯¾¡Ã½õ.

¦À¡Õû þøÄ¡÷ìÌ þù×ĸõ þø¨Ä
«Õû þøÄ¡÷ìÌ «ù×ĸõ þø¨Ä....

...±ýÛõ «Õõ¦ÀÕõ ¬ú¦À¡Õû ¾¢ÕìÌ鬂 ÀÄ÷ Àø-Å¢¾Á¡¸ Å¢Àã¾ ¦À¡Õû ¦ºö¸¢ýÈÉ÷.

þìÌÈÇ¢ø... Á¢¸ «Ã¢Â§¾¡÷ Á¡É¢¼ «È-¦¿È¢ ¸ÕòÐ Ò¨¾óÐûÇÐ.

"¦À¡Õû" ±ýÛõ ¦º¡øÖìÌ ÒÅ¢î-¦ºøÅõ ±ýÚ º¢Ä÷ ¸ÕòÐ-¦¸¡û¸¢ýÈÉ÷.

«Ð µÃÇ×ìÌ ¦À¡ÕóÐõ ±ýÈ¡Öõ... ¯ñ¨Á¢ø ÅûÙÅÉ¢ý ¸ñ§½¡ð¼õ «ò¾¨¸Â «ÊÁð¼ ¿¢¨Ä§Â¡Î ¿¢üÀ¾¢ø¨Ä.

"¯ûÙŦ¾øÄ¡õ ¯Â÷§Å ¯ûÙõ ÅûÙÅý"... ±ýÛõ ¯ñ¨Á¨Â ¿¡õ ¿¢¨ÉÅ¢ø ¦¸¡ñÎ ¬ú¸ÕòÐ ¬Ã¡öÅÐ ¿ýÚ.

¦À¡Õû ±ýÀÐ ¦À¡Õû-¦À¡¾¢ó¾ «È¦¿È¢¨Â ÌÈ¢ôÀÐ... ¦À¡Õû-«üÈ Å¡ú×... ¦¸¡û¨¸ÂüÈ Å¡ú× ±ýÚ ¦À¡Õû-ÀÎõ...

±É§Å ¦À¡Õû-þøÄ¡÷ìÌ = ¾ÁÐ Å¡úÅ¢§Ä ¦¸¡û¨¸ ²ÐÁ¢ýÈ¢... Á¡É¢¼-ÀñÀ¢ÆóÐ... «È-¦¿È¢ ÀüÈ¡Ð Å¡ú§Å¡÷ìÌ...

þù×ĸõ þø¨Ä = ÅÇÁ¡É ÒÅ¢-ÍÅ÷ì¸ Å¡ú×... þø¨Ä / ¸¢¨¼Â¡Ð... ±ýÀ§¾ ¸ÕòÐ.

«Õû þøÄ¡÷ìÌ = «Õû-ÀñÒ ±ýÛõ ¬òÁ-¯½÷×... À¨¸ÅÛìÌ "«ÕÙõ" ¿ý¦Éïºõ... À¢÷ Å¡¼ ¸ñÎ ¾¡ý Å¡Îõ ¸Õ¨½-¯ûÇõ... ¾ýÉÄõ §À¡ø À¢È÷ ¿Äõ ¸ÕÐõ «ýÀ¡÷ Å¢ÕôÀõ... þøÄ¡§¾¡÷ìÌ

«ù×ĸõ þø¨Ä = þ¨ÈÅÉ¢ý ¾¢ÕÅÕû ±ÉôÀÎõ ¯ö×... þø¨Ä / ¸¢¨¼Â¡Ð.

¬¸... ¦À¡Õû þøÄ¡÷ìÌ Å¡ú× þø¨Ä... «Õû þøÄ¡÷ìÌ ¯ö× þø¨Ä... ±ýÀ§¾ ¯¸ó¾ ¸ÕòÐ.

¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ý ¯Â÷ ¸ÕòÐ þЧŠ¬úÅ¡÷¸Ç¢ý «È-¦¿È¢ ¸Õò¾¡õ.

§ÁÖõ ¬úÅ¡÷¸Ç¢ý áÄ¢ø... ¸¡ÁòÐô-À¡ø ¸ÕòÐì¸Ùõ Á¢ÌóÐ ¯ûÇÉ..!

¬úÅ¡÷¸Ç¢ý «ÈáÄ¢ø ±í̧Á ÐÈÅÈõ ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾ôÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä... Á¡È¡¸ ÅûÙÅõ ÐÈÅÈò¾¢ý §Áý¨Á¨ÂÔõ ÍðÊì-¸¡ðθ¢ÈÐ.

Á¡È¡¸ ¬úÅ¡÷¸Ç¢ý ¾¢ùÅ¢Â-À¢ÃÀó¾õ ±ýÛõ ¾Á¢ú-Á¨È¢ø... þøÄȧÁ ¦ÀâÐõ ÅÄ¢ÔÚò¾ôÀθ¢ÈÐ. ¯¾¡Ã½Á¡¸×õ ¦ÀâÐõ «Êì¸Ê ¯½÷ò¾ôÀθ¢ÈÐ.

Àø¡Ä-¿¡Â¸¢Â¡¸×õ Àáí̺-¿¡Â¸¢Â¡¸×õ Á¼ø-°÷¾ø ӨȢ§Ä... þÕ§ÅÚ ¬úÅ¡÷¸û þ¨ÈÅý À¡ø Àì¾¢-¸¡¾ø ¯½÷¨Å Áð¼üÚ ¦À¡Æ¢ó¾ ¦¿È¢§Â ±ÎòÐ측ðÎ.

...þЧŠ¾Á¢ú- þÄ츢 ÁýÈí¸Ç¢§Ä ¦ÀÕõ Å¡¾-Ţš¾í¸ÙìÌ «Êò¾Çõ.

Á¼ø-°÷¾ø ¾Å¢Ã... ÀÄ À¾¢¸í¸Ùõ ¾É¢ô-À¡ÍÃí¸Ùõ... ÌÈ¢ôÀ¡¸ ¾¢ÕÁí¨¸-¬úÅ¡÷, ¿õÁ¡úÅ¡÷, ¬ñ¼¡û À¡Ê¨ŠÀ¢§ÃÁ-Àì¾¢ ±ÉôÀÎõ ¸¡¾Ä¢-¸¡¾Äý ¸ñ§½¡ð¼ò¾¢§Ä§Â «ÏÌÀ¨Å.

¯¾¡Ã½Á¡¸ «Ê¡÷¸Ç¢ý §À¨¾¨Á¡ø þ¨Æì¸ôÀÎõ ¾ÅÚ¸¨Ç þ¨ÈÅý ±ôÀÊ ¸Õи¢È¡ý?...±ýÚ §¸ûÅ¢ ±ØôÀ¢ «¾üÌ Å¢¨¼Ôõ ÜÚ¸¢ÈÐ ¾Á¢ú-Á¨È.

"µ÷ ¸¡¾Äý-¸¡¾Ä¢ ºøÄ¡À-ÀÎ쨸¢ø ¯ûǧÀ¡Ð ¸¡¾Äý... «ýÒ ¸¡¾Ä¢Â¢ý Å¢Â÷¨Å Á½ò¨¾ ±ôÀÊ ¸Õи¢È¡ý.?.. §À¡É¡ø §À¡¸ðÎõ.! ¦¸Î¿¡üÈõ ¾¡ý ±ýÈ¡Öõ «Ð þÂü¨¸".. ±ýÚ ¿¢¨ÉòÐ º¸¢òÐì-¦¸¡û¸¢È¡É¡?..

...«øÄ. þýÒÚ¸¢È¡ý. ÁüÈ §Å¨Ç¸Ç¢ø ¦¸Î-¿¡üÈÁ¡¸ §¾¡üÚõ ¸¡¾Ä¢Â¢ý Å¢Â÷¨Å Á½õ... ÀÎ쨸¢ø þÕÅÕõ ¸¡¾ø- źôÀðÎ, ¾ý¨É ÁÈóÐ Ò½Õõ ¿¢¨Ä¢§Ä... «§¾ Å¢Â÷¨Å- ¿¡üÈõ ¿ÚÁ½Á¡¸ «ÅÛìÌ §¾¡üÚ¸¢ÈÐ....

..±É§Å Å¢Ç츦šñ½¡ Ũ¸Â¢§Ä ¸¡¾Äý Üξġ¸ þýÒÚ¸¢È¡ý... ¸ÄŢ¢ý §Å¾¨É¢Öõ þÕÅÕõ º¢üÈ¢ýÀõ ¸¡ñÀÐ §À¡Ä, ¸¡¾Äý ¾ÉÐ ¸¡¾Ä¢Â¢ý Å¢Â÷¨Å¨ÂÔõ Á¢¸ ¯Å츢ȡý.

...Å¢¨ÇÅ¡¸ «ýÒ- ¸¡¾Ä¢Â¢ý Å¢Â÷¨Å ¿¡üÈõ ¸¡¾ÄÛìÌ ¦Áý§ÁÖõ þýÀõ Üðθ¢ÈÐ...

...±ýÛõ ¯Ä¸¢Âø- ¾¡÷ò¾ò¨¾ (Earthly Reality) §À¡Ä§Å...

... þ¨ÈÅý- À¡ø ¸¡¾Ä¡¸¢ ¸º¢óÐ ¸ñ½£÷ Áø¸¢... ¾ý¨É ÁÈóÐ, ¾ýÉÄõ ÐÈóÐ... ¾ý¨É§Â ¸¡¾ÄÛìÌ ÓüÈ¢Öõ «÷ôÀ½¢ò¾ §ÀÕ½÷× ±ýÛõ ¸¡¾ø-Àì¾¢¨Â þ¨ÈÅý ¦ÀâÐõ Á¾¢òÐ...

...¾¨ÄÅ¢ ¸¡¾Ä¢ «Ê¡âý §À¨¾¨Á¡ø ¦ºöÂôÀÎõ ¾ÅڸǢÖõ þýÀõ ¸¡ñ¸¢È¡ý ¾¨ÄÅý ¸¡¾Äý -þ¨ÈÅý".. ±ý¸¢È¡÷ ¬úÅ¡÷.

þÐ §À¡ýÈ ÀüÀÄ Ññ-¸ÕòÐì¸Ùû þÐ µ÷ ±ÎòÐ측ðÎ ¯¾¡Ã½õ.

¬¸§Å ¾¢ÕìÌ鬂 §À¡Ä§Å... ¾Á¢ú-Á¨È ¾¢ùÅ¢Â-À¢ÃÀó¾Óõ...

...þõ¨ÁìÌõ ÁÚ¨ÁìÌõ ¿øÅ¡ú-¦¿È¢ ¯½÷òÐõ µ÷ ¯Ââ ¾Á¢ú þÄ츢 «È-¦¿È¢ á§Ä...
.
[/tscii:a79f700520]

[devapriya]

[tscii:cb54e3016e]¾¢ÕìÌ;ÌÈÙõ ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºÁôô óò¾¡; §¾Å¡ÃÓÁ ;
¾¢ÕÁ¾¢. §¸¡Á¾¢ Ý¡¢Âã÷òò¾¢
¦¾öÅô ÒÄÅ÷ ¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷ «ÕǢö¾ ¾¢ÕìÌÈû ¯Ä¸õ §À¡üÚõ ´ôÀüÈ ¦À¡ÐÁ¨È¡Ìõ. ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀ󾡢ý §¾Å¡Ãõ ¨ºÅ ¯Ä¸õ §À¡üÚõ ¾¢ÕÁ¨È¡Ìõ.
¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ý ¸¡Äõ ÀüÈ¢î ºí¸ þÄ츢Âí¸ðÌ ÓýÉ÷ò §¾¡ýÈ¢ÂÐ ±ýÚõ, À¢ýÉ÷ò §¾¡ýÈ¢ÂÐ ±ýÚõ þÕ§ÅÚ ¸ÕòÐì¸û ¯ûÇÉ. ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀ󾡢ý ¸¡Äõ ¸¢.À¢.²Æ¡õ nuüÈ¡ñÎ. «ÅÕ¨¼Â À¡¼ø¸û ¨ºÅò¾¢ÕӨȸÙû Ó¾øÓýÚ
¾¢ÕӨȡ¸ò ¦¾¡Ì¸¸ôÀð¼Ð ¸¢.À¢. À¾¢¦É¡ýÈ¡õ áüÈ¡ñÊø ¬Ìõ.
¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡;, ¾¢Õ¿¡×ì¸Ãº÷, Íó¾Ã¡; ӾĢ§Â¡÷ «ÕÇ¢î ¦ºö¾ À¡¼ø¸¨Çò §¾Å¡Ãõ ±ýÈ ¦À¡Ðô¦ÀÂáø «¨ÆôÀ÷. þÅ÷¸Ù¨¼Â áø¸û ãÅ÷ ¾Á¢ú ±Éô §À¡üÈôÀθ¢ýÈÐ. ¾¢ÕìÌÈÙõ ãÅ÷¾Á¢Øõ ´ò¾ ¦À¡ÕÙ¨¼ÂÉ ±É ´Ç¨Å¡÷ ¾õ
¿£¾¢áÄ¢ø ÜÈ¢ÔûÇ¡÷.
'§¾Å÷ ÌÈÙõ ¾¢Õ¿¡ýÁ¨È ÓÊ×õ
ãÅ÷ ¾Á¢Øõ ÓÉ¢¦Á¡Æ¢Ôõ - §¸¡¨Å
¾¢ÕÅ¡º¸Óõ ¾¢ÕãÄ÷ ¦º¡øÖõ
´Õ Å¡º¸õ ±ýÚ ¯½÷"
±ýÀÐ ´Ç¨Å¡÷ Å¡ìÌ. þùÅ¢Õ áø¸ðÌÓûÇ ´ôÒ¨Áô À̾¢¸û ÀħÅÚ §¿¡ì¸¢ø þù ¬ö×ì ¸ðΨâø ¬Ã¡öóÐ ÜÈôÀθ¢ýÈÉ.
§Å¾Á ;
'¦ºö¡¦Á¡Æ¢ìÌõ ¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷ ¦Á¡Æ¢ó¾
¦À¡ö¡ ¦Á¡Æ¢ìÌõ ¦À¡Õû ´ý§È" ¾¢ÕÅûÙÅÁ¡¨Ä, ¦ºöÔû, 23)
±ýÚ ¦ÅûǢţ¾¢Â¡÷ ÜÚ¸¢ýÈ¡÷. þíÌî ' ¦ºö¡¦Á¡Æ¢ ±ýÈÐ §Å¾ò¨¾ì ÌÈ¢ìÌõ. §Å¾Óõ, ¾¢ÕìÌÈÙõ ¦À¡ÕÇ¡ø ´ý§È ±É ¯½÷ò¾ôÀΞ¡ø, ¬ý§È¡÷¸û ¾¢ÕìÌ鬂 '¯ò¾Ã§Å¾õ" ±É «¨Æì¸Ä¡Â¢É÷. À¢ý§¾¡ýȢ §Å¾õ
±Éô ¦À¡Õû ( ¯ò¾Ãõ - À¢ý).
§ºì¸¢Æ¡÷ ¦ÀÕÁ¡ý ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¨Ã '§Å¾õ ¾Á¢Æ¡ø Å¢¡¢ò¾¡÷"
(¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡;, ¦º. 289) ±Éô §À¡üÚ¸¢È¡÷. ±É§Å
¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; §¾Å¡ÃÓõ '¾Á¢ú§Å¾õ" ±Éô §À¡üÈôÀÎõ º¢ÈôÒ¨¼ÂÐ ±ýÀÐ ÒÄÉ¡Ìõ.
±ØÐÁ¨È §Å¾õ ²ðÊø ±Ø¾ôÀ¼¡Ð Å¡ö¦Á¡Æ¢Â¡¸§Å ´¾ôÀðÎ Åó¾ ¸¡Ã½ò¾¢É¡ø «¾¨É '±Ø¾¡ì¸¢ÇÅ¢" ±É «¨ÆôÀ¡÷. ¾¢ÕìÌȨÇì §¸¡¾ÁÉ¡÷ ±ýÛõ ÒÄÅ÷,
'¬üÈø «Æ¢Ôõ ±ýÚ «ó¾½÷¸û ¿¡ýÁ¨È¨Âô
§À¡üÈ¢ ¯¨ÃòÐ ²ðÊý ÒÈòÐ ±Ø¾¡÷ - ²ð¦¼Ø¾¢
ÅøÖ¿Õõ ÅøÄ¡Õõ ÅûÙÅÉ¡÷ ÓôÀ¡¨Ãî
¦º¡øÄ¢ÊÛõ ¬üÈø §º¡÷Å¢ýÚ"
(¾¢ÕÅûÙÅÁ¡¨Ä, ¦º. 15)
±ýÚ ÜÚž¡ø ¾¢ÕìÌÈû ±ØÐÁ¨È ±Éô §À¡üÈô Àθ¢ýÈÐ.
§ºì¸¢Æ¡Õõ ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¨Ã, 'Åñ¼Á¢Æ¡ø ±ØÐÁ¨È ¦Á¡Æ¢ó¾ À¢Ã¡ý" (¾¢Õ»¡.
Òá½õ, ¦º. 260) ±ýÚ §À¡üÈž¡ø ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; §¾Å¡ÃÓõ ±ØÐÁ¨È ±É ¬ý§È¡÷¸Ç¡ø §À¡üÈôÀðÎ ÅÕ¸¢ýÈÐ.
ºÁôô óò¾¡ ; §¾Å¡Ã¾òò ¢Ä ; ¾¢Õ¸Ì;Ì; ÈÇ ; §Áü§;§¸¡Çìì Ç:;:;:«¸ÃÓ¾Ä: ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡;
§¾Å¡Ãò¾¢ø ¾¢ÕìÌÈû §Áü§¸¡û¸Ç¡¸ô ÀÄ þ¼í¸Ç¢ø ±Îò¾¡ÇôÀðÎûÇÉ.
Óý§É¡÷ ÜȢ ¦À¡Õ¨Ç «Å÷¾õ ¦º¡øÄ¡Áø ±ÎòÐì ÜÚ¾§Ä §Áü§¸¡û ±ÉôÀÎõ.
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷ þ¨ÈÅ¨É «¸Ã ±ØòÐìÌ µôÀ¢ðÎ,
'«¸Ã Ó¾Ä ±Øò¦¾øÄ¡Áø ¬¾¢
À¸Åý Ó¾ü§È ¯ÄÌ" (¸¼×û Å¡úòÐ, 1)
±ýÚ ÜÚ¸¢È¡÷. ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡;,
'«¸ÃӾġ¨É «½¢ ¬ôÀëá¨É" (1:88:5) ±ýÚ ÜÚ¸¢ýÈ¡÷.
±ñÏ;Ïõ ±ØòÐ;Ðõ ¸½ ;
'±ñ ±ýÀ ²¨É ²Øò¦¾ýÀ þùþÃñÎõ
¸ñ ±ýÀ Å¡Øõ ¯Â¢÷ìÌ" (ÌÈû, 392)
±ý¸¢ýÈ¡÷ ÅûÙÅ÷. ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾Õõ,
'±ñÏõ ´¦ÃØòÐõ þ¨ºÂ¢ý ¸¢ÇÅ¢ §¾¡;Å¡÷
¸ñÏõ Ӿġ ¸¼×û" (2:170:4) ±ý¸¢ýÈ¡¡.;.
®òÐ;ÐÅìÌ;Ìõ þýôÀÁ:; «ÕÇ¡Ç÷¸û ¾õ ¦ºøÅò¨¾
ÅÈ¢ÂÅ÷¸ðÌì ¦¸¡ÎòÐ, «¾É¡ø «Å÷¸û «ÛÀÅ¢ìÌõ þýÀò¾¢¨Éì ¸ñÎ ¾¡Óõ Á¸¢úÅ÷. þùÅ¡Ú ®Å¾¡ø ±öÐõ þýÀò¾¢¨É '®òÐÅìÌõ þýÀõ" ±ýÀ÷.
¾ÁÐ ¦ºøÅò¨¾î §º÷òÐ ¨ÅòÐô À¢ý «¾¨É þÆóÐ §À¡¸¢ýÈ ¦¸¡ÊÂÅ÷, ÅÈ¢ÂÅ÷ìÌì ¦¸¡ÎòÐ «Å÷¸û Á¸¢úž¡ø ¾ÁìÌ ¯ñ¼¡Ìõ þýÀò¨¾ «È¢Â Á¡ð¼¡÷¸û.
'®òÐÅìÌõ þýÀõ «È¢Â¡÷¦¸¡ø ¾¡Ó¨¼¨Á
¨Åò¾¢ÆìÌõ Åý ¸½Å÷" (ÌÈû, 228) ±ý¸¢ýÈ¡÷ ÅûÙÅ÷.
®òÐÅìÌõ þýÀò¨¾ò ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡;
' þý¨Á¡ø ¦ºýÈ¢Ãó¾¡÷ìÌ þø¨Ä ±ýÉ¡Ð ®òÐÅìÌõ
¾ý¨Á¡÷ ¬ìÜ¡¢ø ¾¡ý §¾¡ýÈ¢ Á¡¼§Á" (2:178:9)
±ýÚ ¬ìÜ÷ «ÕÇ¡Ç÷¸Ç¢ý ®¨¸î º¢Èô¨Àô §À¡üÚõ§À¡Ð ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷.
ºÄ¾òò ¡ø ¦À¡Õû ¦ºöö¡¨Á: ÌüÈÁüÈ ¾õÌÄòÐ ÁçÀ¡Î ´òÐ Å¡Æì ¸ÕÐÀÅ÷¸û ÅÚ¨Á ÅóÐüȧÀ¡Ðõ, ¾õ ÌÄòÐìÌô ¦À¡Õ󾡾 ¦¾¡Æ¢ø¸¨Çî ¦ºö¡÷. þ¾¨É ÅûÙÅ÷,
'ºÄõ ÀüÈ¢ º¡÷À¢ø ¦ºö¡÷ Á¡ºüÈ
ÌÄõ ÀüÈ¢ Å¡úÐõ ±ýÀ¡÷" (ÌÈû, 956)
±ý¸¢ýÈ¡÷. ¾£ÂÅƢ¢ø ¦À¡Õû ®ð¼ìܼ¡Ð ±ýÀ¨¾ ´Á¡õâ÷ º¡ý§È¡÷ ¦ºÂÄ¡ø,
' ºÄò¾¢É¡ø ¦À¡Õû¸û §Åñξø ¦ºö¡ò ¾ý¨Á¡÷ ¿ý¨Á¡ø Á¢ì¸ ¯ÄôÀ¢ø ÀøҸơ÷ µÁ¡õÒÅ¢ä÷" (3:380:5)
±É »¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; «È¢×Úòи¢ýÈ¡÷.
¦º¡øøÄ¡ð¸Ç:;:;: ¾¢Õ¸Ì; ÈÇ¢Ä ; ¸¡½Àô ÎÁ ; ¦º¡Äø ¡¼î ¢¸Ç ; º¢Ä, ±À¦; À¡ÕÇ¢Ä ;
¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ø ÀÂýÀÎò¾ôÀðÎûÇɧš «ô¦À¡ÕÇ¢§Ä§Â «î¦º¡ü¸û ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡;
§¾Å¡Ãò¾¢Öõ À¢ÄôÀðÎûÇÉ. ´Õ º¢Ä ±ÎòÐ측ðÎì¸û þì¸ðΨâø ¸¡ð¼ôÀθ¢ýÈÉ.
®Ãõ - «ÉÒ;Ò;Ò: «ý§À¡Î ¸ÄóÐ Åïº¨É þøÄ¡Ð «Èò¨¾ ¯½÷ó¾¡ÃРš¢ɢýÚ ÅÕõ ¦º¡ü¸§Ç þý¦º¡ü¸û ±ÉôÀÎõ.
'þý¦º¡Ä¡ø ®Ãõ «¨Çþô ÀÊÚ þÄÅ¡õ
¦º¡ü¦À¡Õû ¸ñ¼¡÷ Å¡ö¡ø" (ÌÈû. 91)
±ý¸¢È¡÷ ÅûÙÅ÷. þíÌ '®Ãõ" ±ýÀÐ «ýÒ ±Éô ¦À¡ÕûÀÎõ.
'®Ãõ ²Ðõ þÄÉ¡¸¢ ±Øó¾ þáŽý (2:141:8)
±ýÈ ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; À¡¼ÄÊ¢ø '®Ãõ" ±ýÈ ¦º¡ø «ýÒ ±ýÈ ¦À¡ÕÇ¢ø À¢ÄôÀðÎûǨ¾ì ¸¡ñ¸.
ÀÊÚ - ¦À¡Â:;:;:¸ûÇ ÁÉÓ¨¼Â¡É¢ý ¦À¡ö ´Øì¸ò¨¾ô À¢È÷ «È¢ÂÅ¢ø¨Ä ±ýÈ¡Öõ. «ÅÉÐ ¯¼õÀ¢ø ¸ÄóÐûÇ ³óÐ â¾í¸Ùõ ¸ñÎ ¾õÓû§Ç ²ÇÉÁ¡¸î º¢¡¢ìÌõ.
'ÅïºÁÉò¾¡ý ÀÊüÚ ´Øì¸õ â¾í¸û
³óÐõ «¸ò§¾ ¿Ìõ" (ÌÈû.271)
ÀÊüÚ ´Øì¸õ ±ýÀ¾¢ø 'ÀÊÚ" ±ýÈÐ ¦À¡ö ±Éô ¦À¡ÕûÀÎõ.
À¨¼ì¸Äí¸¨Ç ²ó¾¢Â ±ðÎò ¾¢Õì¸Ãí¸¨Ç ¯¨¼Â ¦ÀÕÁ¡ý ¦À¡ö¡¸ô ÀÄ¢§ÂüÀЧÀ¡Äô À¢ÃÁ¸ À¡Äò¨¾ì ¨¸Â¢ø ²ó¾¢ ÅÎP ¸Ç¢ý š¢ø¸Ç¢ø ¦ºýÚ ÀÄ¢§ÂüÚñÏõ ¸ûÅý ±ýÈ ¦À¡ÕÇ¢ø.
'À¨¼Â¢ÄíÌ ¸Ãõ ±ðΨ¼Â¡ý ÀÊÈ¡¸ì ¸Ä§Éó¾¢ì
¸¨¼Â¢ÄíÌ Á¨É¢ø ÀÄ¢ ¦¸¡ñÎ ¯Ïõ ¸ûÅý" (1:3:2)
±ýÚ ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; ÜÚ¸¢ýÈ¡÷. ¯Ä¸¦ÁøÄ¡Åü¨ÈÔõ ¾ÁìÌ ¯¨¼¨Á¡¸ì ¦¸¡ñ¼ þ¨ÈÅý ÀÄ¢ ¦¸¡ñÎ ¯ñ¼¡ý ±ýÀÐ ¦À¡Õó¾¡Ð ¬¾Ä¢ý «·Ð «ÅÕìÌ Å¢¨Ç¡ðÎ@ ¯ñ¨ÁÂýÚ ±ýÀÐ ¦À¡Õû. þíÌô 'ÀÊÚ" ±ýÈÐ ¦À¡ö ±Éô¦À¡ÕûÀÎõ.
¯Îì¨;¨¸ – ¬¨¼: '¯Î쨸 þÆó¾Åý ¨¸§À¡ø ¬í§¸
þÎì¸ñ ¸¨Çž¡õ ¿ðÒ" (ÌÈû. 788)
±ýÈ ÌÈÇ¢ø ¯Î쨸 ±ýÀÐ ¬¨¼¨Âì ÌÈ¢ìÌõ.
¯½¨Å ¯ñÎ ¬¨¼¨Âì ¨¸Å¢ð¼ ºÁ½÷¸¨Ç. '¯ñÎ ¯Î쨸 Å¢ð¼¡÷¸û"
(3:295:9) ±ýÚ ºõÀó¾¡; ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Îž¢ø ¯Î쨸 ±ýÀÐ ¬¨¼ ±Éô¦À¡ÕûÀξø ¸¡ñ¸.
¦ÅÈ¢ ¿¡üüÈÁ ; - ¿ÚÁ½õ
'ÓÈ¢§ÁÉ¢ Óò¾õ ÓÚÅø ¦ÅÈ¢¿¡üÈõ
§Åø ¯ñ¸ñ §Åöò§¾¡û «ÅðÌ" ( ÌÈû 1113)
ãí¸¢ø §À¡Öõ §¾¡û¸¨Ç ¯¨¼ÂÙìÌ ¯¼ø¿¢Èõ. ¾Ç¢÷ ¿¢ÈÁ¡Ìõ. Àü¸û Óò¾¡Ìõ. þÂøÀ¡É Á½õ ¿ÚÁ½Á¡ö þÕìÌõ. ¨ÁÔñ¼ ¸ñ¸û §ÅüÀ¨¼Â¡Ìõ ±ýÀÐ ¦À¡Õû. þìÌÈÇ¢ø '¦ÅÈ¢¿¡üÈõ" ±ýÈÐ Á½õ ¿ÚÁ½ò¨¾ì ÌÈ¢ò¾Ð.
'¦ÅȢ¡÷ ÁÄ÷ò ¾¡Á¨Ã¡ý" (1:39:9)
'¿¡üÈÁÄ÷ Á¢¨º ¿¡ýÓ¸ý" (1:116:9)
±ýÈ ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; À¡¼ÄʸǢø '¦ÅÈ¢, ¿¡üÈõ" ±ýÀÉ ¿ÚÁ½õ
±Éô¦À¡ÕûÀξø ¸¡ñ¸.
¾¢ÕìÌÈû ¸Õò¾¢Õ¸Ì;Ì; ÈÇ ; Ð;иû ¦À¡¾¢¿Ð;Ð; ûûǨÁ: '¸üÚ ®ñÎ ¦Áöô¦À¡Õû ¸ñ¼¡÷" (ÌÈû,
356) ±ýÀ¾¢ø ¸üÚ - ±ýÈÐ ¦Áöáø¸¨Çì ¸üȨÄì ÌÈ¢ìÌõ. ¸üÚ ±ýÀ¾üÌ «ÛÀÅÓ¨¼Â §¾º¢¸¡;À¡ø §¸ðÎ ±ýÚ À¡¢§ÁÄƸ¡; ¯¨Ã ÜÚÅ¡÷.
¦Áöóáø¸¨Çì ¸üÚõ, §¸ðÎõ, ¦ÁöÔ½÷× ¦ÀüÈÅ÷¸§Ç ¦À¡¢Â¡÷ ±ýÀ¨¾ò ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾Õõ,
'¸üÈø §¸ð¼ø ¯¨¼Â¡÷ ¦À¡¡¢Â¡÷" (1:1:1) ±ýÚ ÜÚ¸¢ýÈ¡÷.
¸üüÈÄ¢ý ÀÂÉ:;:;: ¸üÈÄ¢ý ÀÂý ¸¼×Ç¢ý ¾¢ÕÅʸ¨Ç ÅÆ¢ÀξġÌõ.
'¸üȾɡø ¬Â ÀÂý±ý ¦¸¡ø Å¡ÄÈ¢Åý
¿üÈ¡û ¦¾¡Æ¡ «÷ ±É¢ý" (¸¼×û Å¡úòÐ,2) ±ýÈ ¸ÕòÐõ,
'¸üÈÅ÷ ¾¡õ ¦¾¡Ø§¾ò¾ ¿¢ýÈ¡ý" (1:5:9)
'¸üÚ ÓüȢɡ÷ ¦¾¡Øõ ¸ØÁÄõ" (2:234:11)
±ýÈ ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; §¾Å¡Ãô À¡¼ÄÊ¢ø '¦À¡ö¸òÐ ³Ô½÷× ±ö¾¢" ±ýÈÐ
¦À¡Âô ; ¦À¡Õð¸Ç ; Á£Ð ¿¢¨Ä¢øÄ¡¾ ¯Ä¸À ; ¦À¡Õð¸Ç ; ÁÐP ¦ºÄÖ; Á ; «Å¡¨Å «¼ì¸¢ ±Éô ¦À¡Õû. '¦Áö§¾È¢É¡÷" ±ýÈÐ º¢Å§É ÀÃõ ¦À¡Õû ±Éò¦¾Ç¢Ôõ
¦ÁöÔ½÷¨Å ¯½÷ò¾¢üÚ.
§ÅÇ¡Ç÷ì¸û ¾¡Ç¡Ç÷ì¸Ç ;
'¾¡Ç¡ñ¨Á ±ýÛõ ¾¨¸¨Áì¸ñ ¾í¸¢ü§È
§ÅÇ¡ñ¨Á ±ýÛõ ¦ºÕìÌ" (ÌÈû, 613) ±ýÈ ÌÈÙõ,
'§ÅÇ¡Ç÷ ±ýÈÅ÷¸û ÅûÇý¨Á¡ø Á¢ì¸¢ÕìÌõ ¾¡Ç¡Ç÷" (2:178:3)
±ýÈ ¾¢Õ»¡Éºõó¾¡; À¡¼ÄÊÔõ ´ôÀ¢ðÎì ¸¡½ þýÀõ ¯ñ¼¡Ìõ.
«È¸ìì Õ¾Ð;Ð; ìì¸Ç¢ø ´ôÒ;Ò¨Á:¾¢Õ¸Ì; ÈÇ ; «Èáø ±Éô Ð ¯Ä§¸¡¡ ; «È¢¿ò ¯½¨Á.
¾¢Õ»¡É ºõÀó¾¡; §¾Å¡Ãõ Àì¾¢ ¯½÷¨Â ±ØôÀ¢ þ¨ÈŨÉô §À¡üÚõ §¾ò¾¢Ã áÄ¡Ìõ. þôÀì¾¢ áÄ¢Öõ ¾¢ÕìÌÈÙìÌ ´ôÀ¡É «Èì¸ÕòÐì¸û ÀÄ þ¼í¸Ç¢ø °ÎÕÅ¢î ¦ºø¸¢ýÈÉ.
ÒȹÜ;Ü; È¡¨Á: ´ÕÅý «Èò¨¾ §À¡üÈ¡Ð ¾£Â ¦ºÂø¸¨Çî ¦ºö¦¾¡ØÌÀÉ¡É¡Öõ «Åý ÒÈíÜÈ¡¾Åý ±ýÚ ÁüÈÅ÷ ¦º¡øÖõÀÊ ¿¼ò¾ø ¿øÄÐ ±ý¸¢ýÈ¡÷ ÅûÙÅ÷
(ÌÈû, 181). ´ÕÅý À¢Èáø ¦ÀÕÁ¾¢ôÒô ¦ÀÈ §ÅñÎÁ¡É¡ø ÁüÈÅ÷¸Ç¢ý ¿ü¦ºÂĸ¨Ç§Â À¢ÈÃÈ¢Âî ¦º¡øÄ §ÅñÎõ. «Å÷¸Ç¢ý º¢Ú¨Á¨Âô À¢È¡¢¼õ ¦º¡øÄ¡Ð ¸¡ì¸ §ÅñÎõ ±ýÚ ÌÁÃÌÕÀá; «È¢×ÚòÐÅ¡÷ (¿£¾¢¦¿È¢Å¢Çì¸õ, 19).
¿øÄÅ÷¸û ´ÕÅÛ¨¼Â ¿ü¦ºÂø¸¨Ç§Â §ÀÍÅ÷. ¦À¡øÄ¡¾Å÷'¸§Ç ÒÈíÜÚÅ÷
±ýÀ¨¾Ôõ, «È¢Â¡¨ÁÔ¨¼ÂÅ÷¸û «¾¨Éô ÀÄ¡¢¼Óõ ÀÃôÀ¢ô ÀÆ¢
¯ñ¼¡ìÌŨ¾Ôõ,
'¿øÄ¡÷ «È了¡øÄô ¦À¡øÄ¡÷ ÒÈíÜÈ
«øÄ¡÷ «Ä÷ àüÈ” (1:84:10)
±É ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷. þíÌ ‘«ÈÁ’; ±ýÈÐ ¿ü¦ºö¨¸¸¨Çì ÌÈ¢ò¾Ð. ÒÈõ§À;ø ±ùÅÇ× ¾Å§È¡¡, «ùÅÇ× ¾ÅÚ ÒÈõ ÜÚ¾¨Äì §¸ðÀÐõ. þ¾¨Éò ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡;, '¦ºÅ¢ò¦¾¡¨¸¸Ç¡ø ¡×õ §¸Ç¡÷ «Åý ¦ÀÕ¨Á «øÄ¡ø «Ê¡÷¸û ¾¡§Á" (2:251:4) ±ýÀ¾¡ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¡¸ô ÒÄôÀÎòи¢È¡÷ ±ÉÄ¡õ.
ÀÂÉ¢Ä ¦º¡øøÄ¡¨Á: ÀÂÉ¢øÄ¡¾ ¦º¡ü¸¨Çô ÀÄÓ¨ÈÔõ §À͸¢ýÈÅ¨É ÁÉ¢¾ý ±ýÚ ¦º¡øÄ¡¾£÷¸Ç. «Åý Áì¸Ùû À¾¡; ±Éì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷. ÅûÙÅ÷ (ÌÈû, 196).
'§Àɡø ¯ÉìÌ ¬ÅÐ ±ý §À¨¾¸¡û" (2:142:2) ±ýÀ¾¡ø, º¢ÅºõÀó¾Á¢øÄ¡¾ «Åô§Àø ´Õ ÀÂÛÁ¢ø¨Ä. «ùÅ¡Ú §ÀÍÀÅ÷¸û «È¢Å¢Ä¢¸û ±É «È¢×Úòи¢ýÈ¡÷ ¾¢Õ»¡É ºõÀó¾¡;.
'¦º¡øÖ¸ ¦º¡øÄ¢ü ÀÂÛ¨¼Â ¦º¡øÄü¸
¦º¡øÄ¢ü ÀÂÉ¢Ä¡î ¦º¡ø" (ÌÈû, 200) ±ýÚ ÅûÙÅ÷ ÜÚ¸¢È¡÷.
'¦ÀüÈõ «ÁÕõ ¦ÀÕÁ¡¨É «øÄ¡ø
§ÀÍÅÐ Áü§È¡÷ §À§Ä¡§Á" (1:5:9) ±ýÀ¾¡ø ¦ÁöÔ½÷× ¦ÀüÈÅ÷¸û þ¨ÈŨÉô ÀüȢ §ÀîÍ «øÄ¡Áø §ÅÚ
ÀÂÉ¢øÄ¡¾ Å£ñ§ÀîÍô §ÀºÁ¡ð¼¡÷ ±Éò ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡;
«È¢×Úòи¢È¡÷.
º¢Å¦¿È¢ì ¦ º¢Å¦¿È¢¸ ; ¦¸¡Ç¨;¨; ¸¸Ç¢ø ´ÀÒ;Ò; ¨Á: º¢Å¦¿È¢ì¦¸¡û¨¸¸û ÜÚõ þ¨ÈÅý, ¯Â¢÷, ¯Ä¸õ ±ýÈ Óô¦À¡Õð¸û ÀüȢ ¸ÕòÐì¸Ç¢ø þùÅ¢Õáø¸ÙìÌÁ¢¨¼§Â¡É
´ôÒ¨ÁÂ¡É ¸ÕòÐì¸û º¢Ä þôÀò¾¢Â¢ø ¬Ã¡öóÐ ÜÈôÀθ¢ýÈÉ.
þ¨ÈÅý:;: ÅûÙÅ÷ þ¨ÈÅ¨É '¬¾¢À¸Åý" (¸¼×û Å¡úòÐ,) ±Éì
ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷. ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾Õõ,
'¬¾¢ À¡¾§Á µ¾¢ ¯öõÁ¢§É"
'ÀÃÁý À¸Åý ÀçÁîÍÅÃý ÀÆÉ¿¸Ã¡§Ã" (1:67:4) ±É þ¨ÈŨÉì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷. ÅûÙÅ÷ þ¨ÈÅ¨É 'Å¡ÄÈ¢Åý" (¸¼×û Å¡úòÐ, 2) ±Éì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷. Å¡ÄÈ¢Åý ±ýÈ¡ø ࠫȢŢÉý, ¿¢¨Èó¾ »¡ÉÓ¨¼ÂÅý ±Éô ¦À¡Õû.
¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾Õõ, '»¡Éò¾¢ÃÇ¡ö ¿¢ýÈ ¦ÀÕÁ¡ý" (1:69:3) ±É þ¨ÈŨÉô §À¡üÚ¸¢ýÈ¡÷.
¾¢ÕÅûÙù þ¨ÈÅý «ýÀ÷¸Ç¢ý ¦¿ïºÁ¡¸¢Â ¾¡Á¨ÃÁÄ¡¢ø
Å£üÈ¢ÕôÀÅý ±É 'ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ²¸¢É¡ý" (ÌÈû, 3) ±É ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ÎÅÐõ, ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; 'ÁÄ÷Á¢¨º ¦ÂØ¾Õ ¦À¡Õû" (1:21:5) ±ýÚ þ¨ÈÅÉô §À¡üÚÅÐõ ´ôÒ¦¿¡ì¸ò¾ì¸Ð.
¾¢ÕÅûÙÅ÷ þ¨ÈŨÉô '¦À¡È¢Å¡Â¢ø ³ó¾Å¢ò¾¡ý" (ÌÈû, 6) ±ýÚ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ÎÅÐ §À¡Äò ¾¢Õ»¡É ºõÀó¾Õõ,'ÒÄý¸û ¦ÅýÈÅý ±õ þ¨ÈÅý" (3:319:7) ±É þ¨ÈŨÉô §À¡üÚ¸¢ýÈÉ÷.
þ¨ÈÅÛìÌ ´ôÀ¡¸ ±Å¨ÃÔõ ÜÈ ÓÊ¡Р¬¾Ä¡ø ÅûÙÅ÷, '¾ÉìÌŨÁ þøÄ¡¾Åý" (ÌÈû, 7) ±ýÚ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢ÎÅÐ §À¡Äò ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾Õõ '¾ý§É÷À¢È¡¢øÄ¡ý" (2:198:3) ±Éô §À¡üÚ¸¢ýÈ¡÷. þ¨ÈÅý «È츼ġ¸ Å¢ÇíÌŨ¾ ÅûÙÅ÷ '«ÈÅ¡Æ¢" ((ÌÈû, 8) ±ý¸¢ýÈ¡÷.
¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾Õõ þ¨ÈÅý «ÈÅÊÅ¢Éý ±ýÀ¨¾ «È¢×Úòи¢ýÈ¡÷ (1:9:2, 2:199:11).
þ¨ÈÅÉ¢É ; ̽¹ì¸û:;: þ¨ÈÅ¨É '±ñ̽ò¾¡ý" (ÌÈû, 9) ±É ÅûÙÅ÷ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷. ¾ýÅÂò¾É¡¾ø (;ó¾ÃÓ¨¼ÂÅý) ௼õÀ¢ÉÉ¡¾ø, þÂøÀ¡¸§Å À¡ºí¸¨Ç ¿£ì¸¢ÂÅý, þÂü¨¸ ¯½÷Å¢Éý, ÓüÚ½÷Å¢Éý, §ÀÃÕÙ¨¼ÂÅý, ÓÊŢġüÈÖ¨¼ÂÅý, ÅÃõÀ¢Ä¢ýÀÓ¨¼ÂÅý ±É ±ñÌ½í¸¨Çô À¡¢§ÁÄƸ¡; ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷. ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾Õõ þ¨ÈÅý ±ñ̽ò¾¢Éý ±Éì ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷ (1:131:1)
¯Â¢÷ì¸Ç:;: þùÅ¢Õáø¸ðÌõ ¯Â¡¢¸û ÀÄ ±ýÀ¾¢ø ¯¼ýÀ¡Î ¯ñÎ (ÌÈû, 322:
¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; §¾Å¡Ãõ, 1: 53:2, 1:63:4). ¯Â¢÷ þù×¼õÀ¢üÌ §ÅÈ¡ö ¯ûÇÐ ±ýÀÐõ, «Ð ¾¡ý ¦ºöÔõ Å¢¨É츣¼¡¸ §ÅÚ§ÅÚ À¢ÈôÒì¸Ùû ÒÌóÐ ¯ÆýÚ ÅÕõ ±ýÀÐ ÅûÙÅ÷ ¸ÕòÐ. «Å÷,
'̼õ¨À ¾É¢ò ¦¾¡Æ¢Âô ÒðÀÈó¾ü§È
¯¼õ§À¡Î ¯Â¢¡¢¨¼ ¿ðÒ" (ÌÈû, 338) ±ý¸¢È¡÷. þ¾É¡ø Òû (ÀȨÅ), ̼õ¨À¢ý (Ó𨼠«øÄÐ ÜÎ) §Åȡ¢ɡü§À¡Ä ¯Â¢÷ ¯¼õÀ¢ý §ÅÈ¡ÔûÇÐ ±ýÀÐ ¦ÀÈôÀÎõ. ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾Õõ '¯¼ø Ũâý ¯Â¢÷" (3:363:1) ±É ¯¼ø§ÅÚ, ¯Â¢÷§ÅÚ ±É ¯½÷òи¢È¡÷.
'¯ÈíÌÅÐ §À¡Ðõ º¡ì¸¡Î ¯Èí¸¢
ŢƢôÀÐ §À¡Öõ À¢ÈôÒ" (ÌÈû, 339)
±ýÀ¾¡ø ¯Èì¸Óõ, ŢƢôÒõ Á¡È¢ Á¡È¢ ÅÕ¾ø §À¡Ä, ¯Â¢÷¸ðÌ þÈôÒõ, À¢ÈôÒõ Á¡È¢ Á¡È¢ÅÕõ ±É ÁÚÀ¢ÈôÒ ¯ñ¨Á ¦ÀÈôÀÎõ. ¾¢Õ»¡É ºõÀó¾Õõ ÁÚÀ¢ÈôÒ ÀüÈ¢ì ÜÚ¸¢ýÈ¡÷ (2:182:1, 3:353:9).
À¡ºõ:;:¬½Åõ, ¸ýÁõ, Á¡¨Â ӾĢÂÉ À¡ºõ ±ýÈ ¦º¡øÄ¡ø º¢Å ¦¿È¢ì¦¸¡û¨¸¸Ç¢ø ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢¼ôÀÎõ. 'Â¡É ±ÉÐ ±ýÛõ ¦ºÕìÌ" (ÌÈû, 346) ±ýÀ¾¢ø '¦ºÕìÌ" ±ýÈÐ ¬½Åò¨¾ì ÌÈ¢ìÌõ. þù ¬½Å§Á ¯Â÷¸û þ¨ÈÅ¨É ¯½Ã¡ Åñ½õ «ÅüÈ¢ý «È¢¨Å Á¨È츢ýÈÐ. þó¾ Á¨Èò¾ø ºì¾¢ ¸¡Ã½Á¡¸ «·Ð þÕû ±ÉôÀÎõ. ¬½ÅÁÄî §º÷쨸 ¸¡Ã½Á¡¸ ¯Â¢÷¸û ¦ºöÔõ ¦ºÂø¸§Ç Å¢¨É ±ÉôÀÎõ. þŦ¿È¢ì ¦¸¡û¨¸¨Â 'þÕû§º÷ þÕÅ¢¨É" (ÌÈû,
5) ±ýÈ ¦¾¡¼÷ ¯½÷òÐÅÐ ¸¡ñ¸. ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾Õõ '°Éò¾¢Õû" (1:38:3) ±É
¬½Åò¨¾Ôõ, '¿øÅ¢¨É" (2:207:11), ¾£Å¨É (2:207:11) ±É þÕÅ¢¨É¸û ÀüÈ¢Ôõ ÌÈ¢ôÀ¢Î¸¢ýÈ¡÷.
þ¨ÈÅ¨É Å½íÌ;̾Ģý þýüȢ¡¨Á: '§¸¡Ç¢ø ¦À¡È¢Â¢Ä ; ̽Á¢Ä§Å ±ñ̽ò¾¡ý ¾¡¨Ç Å½í¸¡ò ¾¨Ä" (ÌÈû, 9)
±Éò ¾¨Ä ӾĢ ¯ÚôÒ¸û þ¨ÈÅ¨É Å½í¸¡Å¢Êø ¸¡½¡¾ ¸ñ§À¡Ä, §¸Ç¡¾ ¦ºÅ¢§À¡Ä, ÁüÚõ ¾õ ¾õ ÒÄý¸¨Çì ¦¸¡ûÇ¡¾ À¢È ¦À¡È¢¸û §À¡Äô ÀÂÉüȨÅ¡öì ÌüÈÓ¨¼ÂÅÉÅ¡õ ±É ÅûÙÅ÷ ÜÚ¸¢È¡÷.
'¬Á¡òÐ;à÷ «õõÁ¡¨Éì ¸¡½¡¾ ¸ñ¦;¦½øøÄ¡õ ¸¡½¡¾ ¸ñ츧Ç" (2:180:4)
'¬Á¡òÐ; ¡÷ «õõ ¡¨Éì ÜÈ¡¾ ¿¡¦Åøø ¡õ ÜÈ¡¾ ¿¡ì츧Ç" (2:180:7)
; '¬Á¡òà÷ «õÁ¡¨Éì §¸Ç¡î ¦ºÅ¢¦ÂøÄ¡õ §¸Ç¡î ¦ºÅ¢¸§Ç"
(2:180:8) ±ýÈ ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀ󾡢ý §¾Å¡Ã «Ê¸û ÓüÜȢ ¾¢ÕìÌÈû ¸Õòмý ´ôÒ¨¼Â¾¡ö Å¢ÇíÌŨ¾ì ¸¡ñ¸.
þ¨ÈŨÉô Ò¸úùž¡ø ¯ñð¼¡Ìõ ¿ý¨;¨Á: þ¨ÈŨÉô Ò¸úóÐ §À¡üÚÀÅ÷¸¨Ç
þÕÅ¢¨É¸û Å󾨼¡.
'þÕû§º¡ þÕÅ¢¨ÉÔõ §ºÃ¡ þ¨ÈÅý
¦À¡Õû §º÷ Ò¸úâ¢ó¾¡÷ Á¡ðÎ" (ÌÈû,5)
±ý¸¢È¡÷ ÅûÙÅ÷.¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾Õõ,
'¿øæ÷ô ¦ÀÕÁ¡¨Éô À¡Îõ «Ê¡÷¸ðÌ
«¨¼Â¡ À¡Å§Á" (1:86:3)
±ý¸¢ýÈ¡÷.
ÓÊרÃ
1. ¾¢ÕìÌÈû ¯ò¾Ã§Å¾õ ±ýÚõ, ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; §¾Å¡Ãõ ¾Á¢ú§Å¾õ ±ýÚõ §À¡üÈôÀθ¢ýÈÉ.
2. þùÅ¢Õ áø¸¨ÇÔõ ±ØÐÁ¨È ±ý ¬ý§È¡÷¸û §À¡üÈ¢ÔûÇÉ÷.
3. ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; §¾Å¡Ãò¾¢ø ¾¢ÕìÌÈû §Áü§¸¡û¸Ç¡¸ô ÀÄ þ¼í¸Ç¢ø ±Îò¾¡ÇôÀðÎûÇÉ.
4. º¢Ä ¦º¡øġ𺢸û ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ø ±ô¦À¡ÕÇ¢ø ÅÆí¸ôÀð¼É§Å¡, «ô¦À¡ÕÇ¢ø «î¦º¡ü¸û ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; §¾Å¡Ãò¾¢Öõ À¢ÄôÀðÎûÇÉ.
5. ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇÉ¢ý ¸ÕòÐì¸¨Ç ¯ûǼ츢ò ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; §¾Å¡Ã «Ê¸û ÀÄ Å¢Çí̸¢ýÈÉ.
6. âì¸Ç¡ø ¦¾¡Îì¸ôÀð¼ Á¡¨ÄìÌû þ¨Æ¿¡÷ °ÎÕÅ¢î ¦ºøÅÐ §À¡Ä, ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀ󾡢ý §¾Å¡Ãô À¡¼ø¸Ç¢ø ÁÉ¢¾É¢ý ¯ûÇò¨¾ô ÀñÀÎòÐõ ¯Â¡¢Â «Èì¸ÕòÐì¸û ¾¢ÕìÌÈÇ¢ý «Èì¸ÕòÐì¸Ù¼ý þù ¬öÅ¢ø ´ôÀ¢ðÎì ¸¡ð¼ôÀðÎûÇÉ.
7. þùÅ¢Õ áø¸ð¸¢¨¼§Â º¢Å¦¿È¢ì ¦¸¡û¨¸¸Ç¢ø ´ôÒ¨Á¸û ÀÄ ¯ûÇÉ. ¬Â¢Ûõ þ¼ ±ø¨Ä ¸Õ¾¢ ´Õ º¢Ä ´ôÒ¨Á¸û ÁðΧÁ þíÌî ÍðÊì ¸¡ð¼ôÀð¼É.
8. þùÅ¡Ú ¾¢ÕìÌÈÙìÌõ, ¾¢Õ»¡ÉºõÀó¾¡; §¾Å¡Ãò¾¢üÌõ þ¨¼§Â ¸¡½ôÀÎõ ´ôÒ¨Á¸û ÀÄÅ¡Ìõ. þùÅ¢Õ áø¸¨ÇÔõ °ýÈ¢ô ÀÊòÐ ¬Ã¡ö§Å¡÷ìÌ «¨Å ¯ÅôÀ¢Ä¡ ¬Éó¾ò¨¾ ¯ñ¼¡Ìõ.

[/tscii:cb54e3016e]

[RR]

[tscii:1666e6992e]What is unique? Three sided genius.

By A.N.Kandasamy


The final impression that scholars and writers who write on Valluvar leave in the minds of their readers is that he is either an outstanding moralist of the stoic-philosopher type or a didactic poet on ethics. But to me this is a grossly wrong estimation of one of the great thinkers of the world, a secular philosopher with a unique outlook in many ways, not just an author of a few hundreds of ethical aphorisms, but how is it that this well-unintentioned, in fact adolatary under-estimation has gained such currency among writers and readers as well? Perhaps the fact that the early translators of Kural were Christian missionaries like the Rev.G.U.Pope and Rev.W.H.Drew has something to do with it.

It is the opening section of Thirukural ARAM or VIRTUE («Èõ) that has a appealed to these gentlemen as the cream of Valluvar's thought. The Second and Third sections deal with Politics and Love respectively and the vocation of these translators must have had a limiting influence on their appreciation of these sections.

Kural is in fact a three-fold book of ideas. It sets forth the thoughts of a keen intellect on three important subjects, Ethics, Politics (Economics included) and the Psychology of Love. This three-fold nature of the book was well realized by the early Tamil commentators who put particular emphasis on it by calling it the MUPPAAL NOOL (ÓôÀ¡ø áø). The three-sectioned book - and the author himself was referred to as the MUPPAL NOOLAR (ÓôÀ¡ø áÄ¡÷) which means the one to whom belonged the three sectioned book.

THIS THREE SIDED genius of Valluvar makes him appear in my eyes as Marcus Aurelius, a Machiavelli and an Ovid all rolled into one. Or shall we say that he was trinity of penetrating knowledge with three faces, that of Marcus, Aurelius, Kautiliya and Vatsayana?

In all the three fields that Valluvar chose to expound his views he has brought to bear a certain amount of realism and originality unmatched in the thinkers of his time. A quick journey of Thirukkural through all its three sections will easily enable us to see the positive and realistic life and his problems.

FIRST let us take his ethics. Nowhere is his positivism and realism so pronounced as in this field. For example, on the question of marriage and celibacy Valluvar seems to have had a different view form all the thinkers who had lived before him. They all have directly or indirectly expressed the view that a state of unmarried celibacy is higher than a married state. In fact most of them for example, the Buddha, mahavira and Jesus lived the lives of wandering mendicants, thereby creating the impression that better men always preferred a state of homeless celibacy to that of a householder.

However one should admit these leaders of ethical thinking were generous enough to permit their followers to marry if it pleased them. But the point to remember here is that in their eyes the married state was only a permissible one, a second best and not an ideal one. It was to be understood and tolerated with sympathy but not to be looked up to. In point of fact, it was actually to be treated as an excusable crime, a merciful concession that one had to grant to those who cannot overcome the weakness of their flesh.

THIS NEGATIVE attitude towards marriage is well illustrated by the following sentence in the Bible:

"If they cannot contain one, Let them marry, for it is better to marry than burn" (1 Corinthians 7:9)

But Valluvar thought differently. To his positive mind married state was not to be regarded as superior to non-celibacy. The sexual life was worthwhile and worth pursuing. In fact after going through Valluvar one could enter wedlock without what modern psychologists would call guilt feelings, while after pursuing the teachings of the others I have mentioned, one could only enter matrimony as if he or she were committing a dark crime.

Valluvar extols the virtues of married life in two hundred beautiful stanzas. These are found in the second chapter on the section of Virtue and is entitled the Domestic Way of Life (þøÄÈõ). In expounding his theory that marriage is an ideal state for all men and women Valluvar proves that he is a realist in every way. It is in the biological nature of man and animal to mate and bear offsprings and any advice contrary to natural processes would be futile even if it were good. Valluvar accepts reality and looks into the positive aspects of marriage rather than the negative aspects and shows how to make a success of it.

THE FOLLOWING stanzas of the Kural provide a good indication of the robust and clear views he had in the matter of a house-holders life;

If one liveth in proper household life what gaineth he by going into any other way of life?- Kural 46.

If one liveth the householder's life in nature's way, he shall be deemed as the one who leads the best way of life.- Kural 47.

To touch the body of children is pleasure to the body. To hear their words is pleasure to the ears.- Kural 65.

It is those who have not heard the prattle of their children who would say: the lyre is sweet and so is the trumpet. -Kural 66.

In a woman you find joy to all the sensory organs. the eyes, the nose, the ears, the mouth and body. -Kural 1101.

Is the land of the lotus-eyed (the heavens) more pleasurable than embracing the shoulders of one's beloved? - Kural 1103.
[to be continued]

Courtesy: Tribune, Oct. 16, 1965

http://ankanthasamy.blogspot.com/2007/10/valluvar-1-what-is-unique-three-sided.html[/tscii:1666e6992e]

[devapriya]

]திருவள்ளுவமாலை[/b]:

நமக்கு திருவள்ளுவர் பற்றியும் குறள் பற்றியும் பல விவரம் தரும் திருவள்ளுவமாலை பாடல்களை அறிந்து கொள்வோம்.

அறமுப்பத் தெட்டுப் பொருளெழுப(து) இன்பத்
திறபிர்பத் தைந்தால் தெளிய- முறைமையால்
வேத விழுப்பொருளை வெண்குறளால் வள்ளுவனார்
ஓதவழுக் கற்ற்(து) உலகு. மதுரை பெரு மருதனார்.

அறத்துப்பால்-38 அதிகாரங்கள்
பொருட்பால்- 70 அதிகாரங்கள்
இன்பத்துப்பால்- 25 அதிகாரங்கள் என 133 அதிகாரங்களால் வள்ளூவர் வேதங்களின் நற்கருத்துக்களை தன் குறளினால் தர அதனால் உலகம் குற்றங்களினில் இருந்து தப்பியது.


ஐயாறு நூறும் அதிகார மூன்றுமா
மெய்யாய வேதப் பொருள்விள்ங்கப்- பொய்யாது
தந்தான் உலகிறு தான்வள்ளூவனாகி
அந்தா மரைமேல் அயன்.
-காவிரிப்பூம்பட்டிணத்துக் காரிக்கண்ணனார்.


5 x 6 = 30 + 100 + 3 = 133

படைத்தல் தொழில் செய்யும் பிரம்மாவே வள்ளுவனாய் வந்து 133 அதிகாரங்களினால் வேதங்களின் நற்கருத்துக்களை தந்தார்.

[Janar]

I am proud to belong to a race which produces such wonderful works...Yet, why has thiruvalluvar not gained the same universal populatriy the greek and chinese philosophers have..everyone knows plato and confucius..why not thiruvalluvar? I speak this not out of derision but genuine sadness..really what can we do to raise his profile?

[V.Annasamy]

THE NUMBER 133 (adhikArams) is also
2x2x2 + 5x5x5. A great equation involved.

This is also like 7 swaras (2 prakrathi + 5 vikruthi) of music.



Excellent concept.

[devapriya]

[tscii:09363c8a01]திருவள்ளுவமாலை

'செய்யா மொழிக்குந் திருவள் ளுவர்மொழிந்த
பொய்யா மொழிக்கும் பொருளொன்றே--செய்யா
அதற்குரிய ரந்தணரே யாராயி னேனை
யிதற்குரிய ரல்லாதா ரில்.'

-வெள்ளி வீதியார்

'செய்யா மொழி- வேதங்கள்( எழுதப் படாதது)
பொய்யா மொழி- திருக்குறள்.

வேதங்கள் கூறுவதும் திருவள்ளுவர் உரைத்த திருக்குறள்
கூறுவதும் ஒன்றே. வேதங்கள் அந்தணர் மட்டுமே பயன்படுத்த; திருக்குறள் எல்லா மக்களும் படித்து கடைப்பிடிக்க ஆனதாகும்.

---------------------------------
வேதங்கள் பாணினியால் வ.கா.மு. 5ம் நூற்றாண்டில் சமஸ்க்ருத இலக்கணம் வகுக்கப்பட்டது. அதற்கு சில பல நூற்றாண்டின் முன் எழுதப்பட்ட வால்மீகி இராமாயணமும்- வியாசரின் மஹாபாரதமும் அடக்கப் பட்டன.

ஆனால் பாணினிக்கு 1000 ஆண்டுகள் முன்பே வரையப்பட்டிருந்த வேதங்கள் பாணினி சமஸ்க்ருத இலக்கணம வரம்பில் வராது. அதன் சொல் பகுப்புமுறைகள் முன்பிருந்த நடை. எனவே வேதங்கள் எழுதப் படல் கூடாது என்பது வழக்கு. எனவே அவை வடமொழியில் ஸ்ருதி- கேட்கப் படுவது எனப்படுவது எனப் படும்.

சங்க இலக்கியத்தில் வேதங்களை – வேதம். நான்மறை, மறை, புலம், ஓத்து, ஆரங்கம், கேள்வி, எழுதாக் கற்பு, எனப் பல பெயர்களில் வழங்கப் பட்டுள்ளது[/tscii:09363c8a01]

[devapriya]

திருவள்ளுவமாலை:

மாலும் குறளாய் வளர்ந்து இரண்டு மாணடியால்
ஞாலம் முழுதும் நயந்து அளந்தான் - வாலறிவின்
வள்ளுவரும் தம் குறள்வெண்பா அடியால் வையத்தார்
உள்ளுவ எல்லாம் அளந்தார் ஓர்ந்து
-பரணர்

திருமாலும் குள்ளவுருவாய் முதலில் தோன்றிப் பின்னர் திரிவிக்கிரமனாய் வளர்ந்து இரண்டு பெரும் அடிகளால் உலகம் முழுவதையும் நன்றாக அளந்தான். கூரிய அறிவுடைய திருவள்ளுவரும் தம் குறள் வெண்பா அடிகளால் உலகத்தார் எண்ணும் எல்லாவற்றையும் ஆராய்ந்து அளர்ந்தார்.

இங்கே எடுத்துக் கொண்ட உவமை பல நிலைகளிலும் பொருந்துகின்றது. திருமாலை திருவள்ளுவருக்கு உவமையாகச் சொல்கிறார். குறள் வெண்பாக்களுக்கு திருமாலின் குறள் உருவம் (குள்ள வாமன உருவம்) உவமை. திருக்குறள் வெண்பாக்களின் பொருள் விரிவிற்கு திருமாலின் வளர்ந்த திரிவிக்கிரம உருவம் உவமை. குறள் வெண்பாவின் இரண்டு அடிகளுக்கு திருமாலின் இரண்டு பெரும் திருவடிகள் உவமை. உலகத்தார் எண்ணுவதெல்லாம் ஆராய்ந்து அளித்ததற்கு திருமால் உலகமெல்லாம் அளந்தது உவமை

[devapriya]

திருவள்ளுவமாலை:




ஓதற்கு எளிதாய், உணர்தற்கு அரிதுஆகி,
வேதப்பொருளாய், மிகவிளங்கித், தீதுஅற்றோர்
உள்ளுதொறும் உள்ளுதொறும் உள்ளமுருக்குமே
வள்ளுவர் வாய்மொழி மாண்பு. 24
-மாங்குடி மருதனார்.

படிப்போர்ககு எளிதாக, அரிய கருத்துக்களை-வேதங்கள் கூறும் நற்பண்புகளை மிக எளிதாக குற்றமற்றோர் உள்ளங்களில் படிக்கும் போது உள்ளத்தை உருக வைக்கும்வகையில் எழுதப்பட்டதே வள்ளுவர் எழுதியதின் சிறப்பு.

[devapriya]

[tscii:20a710d7ce] திருவள்ளுவமாலை:

அறம்தகளி, ஆன்ற பொருள்திரி, இன்பு
சிறந்தநெய், செஞ்சொல் தீதிதண்டு- குறும்பாவா,
வள்ளுவனார் ஏற்றினார் வையத்து வாழ்வார்கள்
உளிருள் நீக்கும் விளக்கு.
-நப்பாலத்தனார்

திருக்குறள் மக்கள் மன இருட்டை நீக்கும் விளக்காகும். அறத்துப்பால் – அகல்; பொருட்பால்-திரி; இன்பத்துப்பால்-நெய்; அழகிய செந்தமிழ் சொற்கள்-திரிக்கான் தண்டு; இவற்றைக் கொண்டு மன இருட்டை நீக்கும் ஓளி தீபமே திருக்குறள் வெண்பா.
[/tscii:20a710d7ce]

[NVK Ashraf]

I am proud to belong to a race which produces such wonderful works...Yet, why has thiruvalluvar not gained the same universal populatriy the greek and chinese philosophers have..everyone knows plato and confucius..why not thiruvalluvar? I speak this not out of derision but genuine sadness..really what can we do to raise his profile?

The reason is very simple. Tamil is a minority language spoken within India (by and large). Greek has produced great philosophers known to the Western world (because of its proximity) and when we compare with Dravidian history, people like Valluvar are exceptions.

Confucius is definitely more popular than Valluvar for the same reason. China is a large country with a single language. Two ancient works always find special mention: Analects of Confucius and Dao De Jing of Lao Tsu.

But we must realize that the Kural has been translated into more languages than Analects and Tao De Jing. In this regard, the Kural perhaps stands third or fourth in the world. Only after Bible, Koran and possibly also Gita.

[NVK Ashraf]

THE NUMBER 133 (adhikArams) is also
2x2x2 + 5x5x5. A great equation involved.

This is also like 7 swaras (2 prakrathi + 5 vikruthi) of music.

Excellent concept.

More mathematical miracles from Kural:

1. The Kural venba is of SEVEN metrical seer.
2. Thiruvalluvar as a name has SEVEN letters in Tamil
3. Total 133 chapters (divisible seven - 7x19). Also 1+3+3=7
4. Total 1330 verses (divisible by seven, also 1+3++0=7)

More about it at http://nvkashraf.myweb.io/mm/mm-sum.HTM

[Sudhaama]

I am proud to belong to a race which produces such wonderful works...Yet, why has thiruvalluvar not gained the same universal populatriy the greek and chinese philosophers have..everyone knows plato and confucius..why not thiruvalluvar? I speak this not out of derision but genuine sadness..really what can we do to raise his profile?

The reason is very simple. Tamil is a minority language spoken within India (by and large). Greek has produced great philosophers known to the Western world (because of its proximity) and when we compare with Dravidian history, people like Valluvar are exceptions.

Confucius is definitely more popular than Valluvar for the same reason. China is a large country with a single language. Two ancient works always find special mention: Analects of Confucius and Dao De Jing of Lao Tsu.

But we must realize that the Kural has been translated into more languages than Analects and Tao De Jing. In this regard, the Kural perhaps stands third or fourth in the world. Only after Bible, Koran and possibly also Gita.

Besides the above valid reasons... as mentioned by Mr. N.VK.Ashraf... the following also are the other causes.

..a General impression spread amongst the western countries right from the days of evolution of Human-Civilisation was...

..that India is the Land of Tribes... and all the Languages except Sanskrit was of Tribal worth only.

Especially Tamil... which was considered by other Indians themselves... as a mere Tribal-dialect... with no divinity nor Language worth, at par with other Indian-Languages, which are abundantly Sanskrit-based and Sanskrit-linked...

..whereas in Tamil Language, especially Literature... there is neither Vedic pronunciation.. nor noteworthy extent of admixture of Sanskrit words...

..especially in THIRUKKURALH the Tamilians Moral-code Literature.

(2) Tamil-Sangam itself did not recognise Thirukkuralh.. but only after the intervention of Auvaiyaar alongwith divine-pressure...

... this Great Moral- Code in Tamil... was recognised.

(3) Similar to the Zeal and Enthusiasm of the relevant People alongwith the respective Governments...

..for the other Language Literatures...

.. in case of Tamil, there were no noteworthy drive nor Enthusiasm from its people.

So while the Tamil Language itself... could not acquire its due high Throne...

..it is needless to elaborate...

...on Why THIRUKKURALH ... was relegated to the Backyard.
.

[Sudhaama]

[tscii:6404c58c95]
.
- þÎì¸ñ ÅÕí¸¡ø ¿Ì¸.!!

þÐ µ÷ ¯ñ¨Á ºõÀÅõ... ¾Á¢ú ¿¨¸îͨŠ¿Ê¸÷ ¾¢Õ ±ý.±Š. ¸¢Õ‰½ý Å¡ú쨸¢ø ¿¼ó¾Ð.

±ý. ±Š. §¸Ôõ º¢Ä ¾¢¨ÃÔĸ ¿ñÀ÷¸Ùõ ´Õ ¸¡Ã¢ø ÒÈôÀð¼É÷... ¾¢Õ¢ĢÕóÐ ¦ºý¨ÉìÌ.

¦¿Õì¸Ê Á¢Ìó¾ ¦Á¢ý §Ã¡Êø ¦ÅÌ §Å¸Á¡¸ ÀÄ Ä¡Ã¢¸û ÀŠ¸§Ç¡Î §À¡Ã¡Ê ¾¡ý ¦ºøÄ-§ÅñÊ Åó¾Ð.

«ó¿¢¨Ä¢ø ´Õ ¦ÀÕõ ŨÇÅ¢ø §À¡Ìõ§À¡Ð... ¦ÅÌ ¦Å¸Á¡¸ þ¨¼Â¢ø ÌÚ째 ÒÌóÐ µÅ÷§¼ì ¦ºö¾ ´Õ ġâìÌ ÅƢŢΞü¸¡¸ º¢È¢Ð ´Ðí¸¢Â ¸¡÷ ¾¢Ë¦ÃýÚ ºÃ¢Å¢ø þÈí¸¢ µÊ §Ã¡ð¨¼ Å¢ðΠŢĸ¢... ÀûÇò¾¢ø ¾¨Ä ¸£Æ¡¸ ÒÃñΠŢØóРŢð¼Ð.

Á¢¸ ¸‰¼ôÀðÎ ¦ÀÕõ §À¡Ã¡ð¼ò¾¢üÌôÀ¢ý ¾¡ý «Å÷¸û ´ù¦Å¡ÕÅḠ¦ÅÇ¢Åà ÓÊó¾Ð.

¸¡÷ ʨÃÅ÷ ¦¿¡ñÊ즸¡ñ§¼ ÒÈôÀð¼¡÷... Àì¸òÐ °Ã¢Ä¢ÕóÐ §À¡ý ¾¸Åø «ÛôÀ¢ ¯¾Å¢ ¦ÀÈÄ¡õ ±ýÚ.

¿øÄ§Å¨Ç Â¡ÕìÌõ ¦À⾡¸ «ÊÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä.... ¬É¡ø ±ø§Ä¡ÕìÌõ ¯¼õÒ-±íÌõ «ÊÀð¼ ¸¡Âõ, Å£ì¸õ, º¢Ã¡öôÒì¸û... À¢Ç¡Š¾¢Ã¢ ´ðÎì¸û §À¡ðÎ즸¡ñÎ Á¾¸¢ý Á£Ð «Á÷ó¾É÷.

«Ð ´÷ ¦Á¢ý §Ã¡Î... Àð¼ôÀ¸ø ¿Î Áò¾¢Â¡É §Å¨Ç. ±É§Å þÕ ÒÈÓõ º¡Ã¢ º¡Ã¢Â¡¸ ¿¢¨È ¸¡÷¸û ÀŠ¸û §À¡ö즸¡ñ§¼ þÕó¾É.

«ô§À¡Ð ´Õ ÀŠ…¢ø §À¡ö즸¡ñÊÕó¾ º¢Ä÷ ¸ò¾¢É÷ "§¼¡ö «§¾¡ À¡Õí¸¼¡. ¿õÁ ±ý ±Š ¸¢Õ‰½ý ´ì¸¡Õó¾¢Õ측ռ¡.... Ó¸¦ÁøÄ¡õ À¢Ç¡Š¾¢Ã¢ §À¡ðÊÕìÌ.. ²§¾¡ ¬ìº¢¦¼ñÎ §À¡Ä¢Õì̼¡.... ¸¡Õ §Å§È ¸×óÐ ¦¸¼ìÌ.!"

¯¼§É «ó¾ ÀŠ ¿¢ýÈÐ... Üð¼Á¡ö ±ø§Ä¡Õõ ÀÃÀÃì¸ þÈí¸¢ µÊ Åó¾É÷... ±ý¦ÉŠ§¸Â¢¼õ "Žì¸õ ³Â¡. ±ýÉ þôÀ¢Ê ´í¸ÙìÌ ¸¡Õ Å¢ÀòÐ ¬¸¢ô§À¡î§º... ¦Ã¡õÀ «Ê§Â¡.?" ±ýÚ §¸ð¼É÷.

"Å¢Àò¾¡.? ¸¡Õ측.? Â¡Õ ¦º¡ýÉÐ.? ´ñÏÁ¢ø§Ä ¿£í¸ ±øÄ¡õ ¸¡Õí¸¨Ç §ÅÈ Á¡¾¢Ã¢ ¾¡§É À¡ò¾¢Õ츣í¸. þó¾ Á¡¾¢Ã¢ ºì¸Ãí¸ ¬¸¡Âò¾ À¡ò¾ Á¡¾¢Ã¢ §ÁÄ ÅîÍ À¡ò¾¢Õ츣í¸Ç¡.? þø§ÄøĢ¡.? «¾¡ý ¸¡¨Ã þôÀ¢Ê ¦ÀÃðÊ §À¡ðÎ ÅÕ째¡õ... ´í¸Ç Á¡¾¢Ã¢ ¿õÁ ºÉí¸¦ÇøÄ¡õ À¡òÐðÎ §À¡ðΧÁýÛ ¾¡ý." ±ýÈ¡÷ ±ý¦ÉŠ§¸.

ºüÚõ ±¾¢÷À¡Ã¡¾ þó¾ ¿¨¸îͨŠ§¸ðÎ º¢Ä÷ º¢Ã¢ò¾É÷.

§ÅÚ º¢Äáø º¢Ã¢ì¸ ÓÊÂÅ¢ø¨Ä... ´ÕÅ÷ ÜȢɡ÷ "³Â¡ ¿£í¸ ¿¨¸îͨŠ¿Ê¸Õ... º¢Ã¢ôÒ ¾¢Ä¸õ. «¾É¡§Ä þõÒðÎ ¸‰¼òò§ÄÔõ ±í¸Ç º¢Ã¢ì¸ ¦Åì¸ À¡ì¸Ã£í¸. ÒâÔÐ. ¬É¡ ´í¸ ¦Á¡¸Ð§Ä ´¼õÒ§Ä ±øÄ¡õ þù§Ç¡ ¸¡Âò¨¾¨ÂÔõ À¢Ç¡Š¾¢Ã¢¨ÂÔõ À¡ò¾¡ ±í¸ÙìÌ ±ôÀÊ º¢Ã¢ôÒ ÅÕõ.? ¦º¡øÖí¸. §Å¾¨É¡ò§¾í þÕìÌÐ." ±ýÈ¡÷.

"«¼ ¿£í¸ ´ñÏ. ±õ ¦Á¡¸òÐ «Æ§¸ þó¾ Á¡¾¢Ã¢ ±ýɢ측îÍõ À¡òòâ츣í¸Ç¡. «¾¡ý ÒÐ Á¡¾¢Ã¢Â¡ ¦Á¡¸ò¾¢§Ä þôÀÊ À¢Ç¡Š¾¢Ã¢Â¡Ä §¸¡Äõ §À¡ðÎ츢ðÎ ´ì¸ó¾¢Õ째í.... ´í¸ Â¡Õ ¸¢ð§¼Â¡ÅÐ §À¡ð§¼¡ ¸¡Áá þÕì̾¡.? ±í¸Ç §À¡ð§¼¡ ±ÎòÐ Àò¾¢Ã¢¸ìÌ «ÛôÒí¸ ±øÄ¡Õõ À¡ì¸ðÎõ.. ±í¸ÙìÌ þÀ¢ÊÔõ ´Õ «ÇÌ þÕìÌýÛ ¦¾Ã¢ïº¢ì¸¢¼ðÎõ. ±ýÉ.? ºÃ¢¾¡§Éí¸.?" ±ýÈ¡÷....

þÐ §¸ðÎ §ÁÖõ º¢Ä÷ º¢Ã¢ò¾É÷.

¯¼§É þý¦É¡ÕÅ÷ ¦¿Õí¸¢ ÅóÐ §¸ð¼¡÷ "±ý¦ÉŠ§¸ ³Â¡ ¿¡í¸ ÀŠ¨… ¿¢ôÀ¡ðÊô§À¡ðÎðÎ ´í¸ ¸¢ð§¼ «ýÀ¡ À¢Ã¢ÂÁ¡ Å¢º¡Ã¢ì¸¢§È¡õ. ¿£í¸ ±ýɧÁ¡ §ƒ¡ìÌ «Ê츢ȣí¸Ç¡.?.. þø§Ä ±í¸Ç§Â Óð¼¡û ¬ì¸¢È£íìÇ¡.?... ´í¸ §ƒ¡ì¸¡Ä ±í¸ÙìÌ º¢Ã¢ôÒ Åø§Ä. ´í¸ÙìÌ §À¡Â¢ þôÀ¢Ê ¬Â¢ô§À¡î§ºýÛ «Ø¦¸ §¾í ÅÕÐ... ´í¸ÙìÌ ÁðÎõ §Å¾¨ÉÔõ Å¢Àò¨¾Ôõ ¦¿ÉîÍ «Ø¦¸ ÅÃøĢ¡.?" ±ýÚ §¸ð¼¡÷.

"³Â¡ ¦ÀâÂŧà þôÀ¢Ê Å¡í¸. ±õ Àì¸ò¾¢§Ä ´ì¸¡Õí¸. ¯õõ. þôÀ ±ýÉ ¦º¡ýÉ£í¸... ´í¸ÙìÌ «Ø¦¸ ÅÃøĢ¡ýÛ. ¬Á¡ ¿¡í ¦¾Ã¢Â¡Áò¦¾í §¸ì¸§Ãí. ¿¡í¸ «Ù¾¡ ±í¸ §Å¾É¦ÂøÄ¡õ §À¡Â¢ÎÁ¡. ¿¼óÐ ÓÊïº Å¢ÀòÐ þø§ÄýÛ ¬Â¢ÎÁ¡... ¦º¡øÖí¸. «ôÀ¢Ê¡ɡ ¿¡Ûõ ´í¸§Ç¡§¼§Â §º÷óÐ þôÀ§Å ¦À⺡ ´ôÀ¡Ã¢ ¦ÅîÍ «Æ§Èý.. «ÆðÎÁ¡.? ¦º¡øÖí¸. «¾¡í ±ÉìÌ ¿øÄÐýÉ¡ ¿£í¸ ¦º¡øÖí¸.... ºÃ¢ ¿£í¸ ¡Õõ À¾¢ø ¦º¡øÄø§Ä ¿¡ý Òâﺢ¸¢ð§¼ý. þ§¾¡ þôÀ ¿¡ý «Æ§Èý" ±ýÚ ¦º¡øĢŢðÎ...

... µ ±ýÚ ´ôÀ¡Ã¢ ¨Åì¸ ÐÅí¸¢ Å¢ð¼¡÷... "±í ¬ò¾¡ ÁÕ¾¡Â£ ±í ¸¡Õ þôÀÊ ¸×óÐ §À¡îööí... ±í ¾¡Â£ Á¡Ã¢Â¡ò¾¡ ±í ´¼õ¦ÀøÄ¡õ ÅÄ¢ì̧¾" ±ýÚ.

þÐ §¸ðÎ ±ø§Ä¡Õõ º¢Ã¢òРŢð¼É÷.

¯¼§É ±ý. ±Š. ¸¢Õ‰½ý ¦º¡ýÉ¡÷ "À¡ò¾£í¸Ç¡ þÐ ¾¡ý ±ÉìÌ §ÅÏí¸ÈÐ. ¿£í¸ ±øÄ¡Õõ ±ôÀ×õ º¢Ã¢îÍ츢𧼠þÕì¸Èò§¾ ¿¡ý À¡ì¸Ïõ. «¾¡ý ±ÉìÌõ ºó§¾¡„õ ´í¸ÙìÌõ ºó§¾¡ºõ þøÄ¡.? ¿£í¸ ´ù¦Å¡Õò¾ÕìÌõ «Åí¸Åí¸ ¸Å¨Äí¸ À¢Ã¨Éí¸ ±ùÅǧš þÕìÌõ. «§¾¡¼ §ºòÐ ±ý ¸Å¨Ä¨ÂÔõ ¦º¡øÄ¢ ´í¸Ç «¾¢¸Á¡ ¸Å¨ÄôÀ¼ Å츢ÈÐ§Ä Â¡ÕìÌ ±ýÉ À¢Ã§Â¡ºÉõ?...

þ¾üÌû «Å÷¸û «¨ÉÅÕõ ´ýÚ ÜÊ ¸Å¢úóÐ ¸¢¼ó¾ ¸¡¨Ã ¿¢Á¢÷ò¾¢ §À¡ðΠŢð¼É÷.

Àì¸òÐ ¸¢Ã¡Áò¾¢§ÄÕóÐ ´Õ Á¡ðÎ ÅñÊ ¦¸¡½÷ó¾¡÷ ´ÕÅ÷.... Á¡ðÎ ÅñÊ¡ø ¸¡÷ þØòÐ ¦ºøÄôÀð¼Ð. ±ý¦ÉŠ§¸ ÌØÅ¢É÷ ÀŠ…¢ø À½õ ¦ºöÐ «Îò¾ °÷ ¦ºýÈ §À¡Ð ´Õ «ýÀ÷ «ÅÕ측¸ ´Õ ¼¡ìº¢ ²üÀ¡Î ¦ºö¾¡÷. «Å÷¸û À½õ ¦¾¡¼÷ó¾Ð.

±ý¦ÉŠ§¸ ÜȢɡ÷ " þô§À¡ À¡ò¾£í¸Ç¡ ¿¡ý «Ø¾¾¡§Ä ´¾Å¢ Àý½¢É£í¸Ç¡ ¿¡Ûõ º¢Ã¢îÍ ´í¸ÇÔõ º¢Ã¢ì¸ Å¡§Ä ´¾Å¢ Àý½¢É£í¸Ç¡.? ¦º¡øÖí¸

...«¾É¡§Ä ¾¡ý ¦º¡ýÉ¡Õ ¿õÁ ÅûÙÅÕ..."þÎì¸ñ ÅÕí¸¡ø ¿Ì¸" ±ñÏ.

±ùÅÇ× ºí¸¼õ Åó¾¡Öõ º¢Ã¢îº ¦Á¡¸ò¦¾¡§¼ ºÁ¡Ç¢îÍôÀ¡Õí¸ þó¾ ¾¢ÕìÌȧǡ§¼ «÷ò¾õ ¿øÄ¡ ÒâÔõ... «Ð ¾¡ý Å¡ú쨸¢ñÏ...

¬Á¡õ ±ôÀקÁ º¢Ã¢îÍ ÀƸÏõ" ±ýÚ ÜÈ¢ ÓÊò¾¡÷.

.[/tscii:6404c58c95]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:584d2c58df]
.
- þÎì¸ñ ÅÕí¸¡ø ¿Ì¸.!!

þÐ µ÷ ¯ñ¨Á ºõÀÅõ... ¾Á¢ú ¿¨¸îͨŠ¿Ê¸÷ ¾¢Õ ±ý.±Š. ¸¢Õ‰½ý Å¡ú쨸¢ø ¿¼ó¾Ð.

±ý. ±Š. §¸Ôõ º¢Ä ¾¢¨ÃÔĸ ¿ñÀ÷¸Ùõ ´Õ ¸¡Ã¢ø ÒÈôÀð¼É÷... ¾¢Õ¢ĢÕóÐ ¦ºý¨ÉìÌ.

¦¿Õì¸Ê Á¢Ìó¾ ¦Á¢ý §Ã¡Êø ¦ÅÌ §Å¸Á¡¸ ÀÄ Ä¡Ã¢¸û ÀŠ¸§Ç¡Î §À¡Ã¡Ê ¾¡ý ¦ºøÄ-§ÅñÊ Åó¾Ð.

«ó¿¢¨Ä¢ø ´Õ ¦ÀÕõ ŨÇÅ¢ø §À¡Ìõ§À¡Ð... ¦ÅÌ ¦Å¸Á¡¸ þ¨¼Â¢ø ÌÚ째 ÒÌóÐ µÅ÷§¼ì ¦ºö¾ ´Õ ġâìÌ ÅƢŢΞü¸¡¸ º¢È¢Ð ´Ðí¸¢Â ¸¡÷ ¾¢Ë¦ÃýÚ ºÃ¢Å¢ø þÈí¸¢ µÊ §Ã¡ð¨¼ Å¢ðΠŢĸ¢... ÀûÇò¾¢ø ¾¨Ä ¸£Æ¡¸ ÒÃñΠŢØóРŢð¼Ð.

Á¢¸ ¸‰¼ôÀðÎ ¦ÀÕõ §À¡Ã¡ð¼ò¾¢üÌôÀ¢ý ¾¡ý «Å÷¸û ´ù¦Å¡ÕÅḠ¦ÅÇ¢Åà ÓÊó¾Ð.

¸¡÷ ʨÃÅ÷ ¦¿¡ñÊ즸¡ñ§¼ ÒÈôÀð¼¡÷... Àì¸òÐ °Ã¢Ä¢ÕóÐ §À¡ý ¾¸Åø «ÛôÀ¢ ¯¾Å¢ ¦ÀÈÄ¡õ ±ýÚ.

¿øÄ§Å¨Ç Â¡ÕìÌõ ¦À⾡¸ «ÊÀ¼Å¢ø¨Ä.... ¬É¡ø ±ø§Ä¡ÕìÌõ ¯¼õÒ-±íÌõ «ÊÀð¼ ¸¡Âõ, Å£ì¸õ, º¢Ã¡öôÒì¸û... À¢Ç¡Š¾¢Ã¢ ´ðÎì¸û §À¡ðÎ즸¡ñÎ Á¾¸¢ý Á£Ð «Á÷ó¾É÷.

«Ð ´÷ ¦Á¢ý §Ã¡Î... Àð¼ôÀ¸ø ¿Î Áò¾¢Â¡É §Å¨Ç. ±É§Å þÕ ÒÈÓõ º¡Ã¢ º¡Ã¢Â¡¸ ¿¢¨È ¸¡÷¸û ÀŠ¸û §À¡ö즸¡ñ§¼ þÕó¾É.

«ô§À¡Ð ´Õ ÀŠ…¢ø §À¡ö즸¡ñÊÕó¾ º¢Ä÷ ¸ò¾¢É÷ "§¼¡ö «§¾¡ À¡Õí¸¼¡. ¿õÁ ±ý ±Š ¸¢Õ‰½ý ´ì¸¡Õó¾¢Õ측ռ¡.... Ó¸¦ÁøÄ¡õ À¢Ç¡Š¾¢Ã¢ §À¡ðÊÕìÌ.. ²§¾¡ ¬ìº¢¦¼ñÎ §À¡Ä¢Õì̼¡.... ¸¡Õ §Å§È ¸×óÐ ¦¸¼ìÌ.!"

¯¼§É «ó¾ ÀŠ ¿¢ýÈÐ... Üð¼Á¡ö ±ø§Ä¡Õõ ÀÃÀÃì¸ þÈí¸¢ µÊ Åó¾É÷... ±ý¦ÉŠ§¸Â¢¼õ "Žì¸õ ³Â¡. ±ýÉ þôÀ¢Ê ´í¸ÙìÌ ¸¡Õ Å¢ÀòÐ ¬¸¢ô§À¡î§º... ¦Ã¡õÀ «Ê§Â¡.?" ±ýÚ §¸ð¼É÷.

"Å¢Àò¾¡.? ¸¡Õ측.? Â¡Õ ¦º¡ýÉÐ.? ´ñÏÁ¢ø§Ä ¿£í¸ ±øÄ¡õ ¸¡Õí¸¨Ç §ÅÈ Á¡¾¢Ã¢ ¾¡§É À¡ò¾¢Õ츣í¸. þó¾ Á¡¾¢Ã¢ ºì¸Ãí¸ ¬¸¡Âò¾ À¡ò¾ Á¡¾¢Ã¢ §ÁÄ ÅîÍ À¡ò¾¢Õ츣í¸Ç¡.? þø§ÄøĢ¡.? «¾¡ý ¸¡¨Ã þôÀ¢Ê ¦ÀÃðÊ §À¡ðÎ ÅÕ째¡õ... ´í¸Ç Á¡¾¢Ã¢ ¿õÁ ºÉí¸¦ÇøÄ¡õ À¡òÐðÎ §À¡ðΧÁýÛ ¾¡ý." ±ýÈ¡÷ ±ý¦ÉŠ§¸.

ºüÚõ ±¾¢÷À¡Ã¡¾ þó¾ ¿¨¸îͨŠ§¸ðÎ º¢Ä÷ º¢Ã¢ò¾É÷.

§ÅÚ º¢Äáø º¢Ã¢ì¸ ÓÊÂÅ¢ø¨Ä... ´ÕÅ÷ ÜȢɡ÷ "³Â¡ ¿£í¸ ¿¨¸îͨŠ¿Ê¸Õ... º¢Ã¢ôÒ ¾¢Ä¸õ. «¾É¡§Ä þõÒðÎ ¸‰¼òò§ÄÔõ ±í¸Ç º¢Ã¢ì¸ ¦Åì¸ À¡ì¸Ã£í¸. ÒâÔÐ. ¬É¡ ´í¸ ¦Á¡¸Ð§Ä ´¼õÒ§Ä ±øÄ¡õ þù§Ç¡ ¸¡Âò¨¾¨ÂÔõ À¢Ç¡Š¾¢Ã¢¨ÂÔõ À¡ò¾¡ ±í¸ÙìÌ ±ôÀÊ º¢Ã¢ôÒ ÅÕõ.? ¦º¡øÖí¸. §Å¾¨É¡ò§¾í þÕìÌÐ." ±ýÈ¡÷.

"«¼ ¿£í¸ ´ñÏ. ±õ ¦Á¡¸òÐ «Æ§¸ þó¾ Á¡¾¢Ã¢ ±ýɢ측îÍõ À¡òòâ츣í¸Ç¡. «¾¡ý ÒÐ Á¡¾¢Ã¢Â¡ ¦Á¡¸ò¾¢§Ä þôÀÊ À¢Ç¡Š¾¢Ã¢Â¡Ä §¸¡Äõ §À¡ðÎ츢ðÎ ´ì¸ó¾¢Õ째í.... ´í¸ Â¡Õ ¸¢ð§¼Â¡ÅÐ §À¡ð§¼¡ ¸¡Áá þÕì̾¡.? ±í¸Ç §À¡ð§¼¡ ±ÎòÐ Àò¾¢Ã¢¸ìÌ «ÛôÒí¸ ±øÄ¡Õõ À¡ì¸ðÎõ.. ±í¸ÙìÌ þÀ¢ÊÔõ ´Õ «ÇÌ þÕìÌýÛ ¦¾Ã¢ïº¢ì¸¢¼ðÎõ. ±ýÉ.? ºÃ¢¾¡§Éí¸.?" ±ýÈ¡÷....

þÐ §¸ðÎ §ÁÖõ º¢Ä÷ º¢Ã¢ò¾É÷.

¯¼§É þý¦É¡ÕÅ÷ ¦¿Õí¸¢ ÅóÐ §¸ð¼¡÷ "±ý¦ÉŠ§¸ ³Â¡ ¿¡í¸ ÀŠ¨… ¿¢ôÀ¡ðÊô§À¡ðÎðÎ ´í¸ ¸¢ð§¼ «ýÀ¡ À¢Ã¢ÂÁ¡ Å¢º¡Ã¢ì¸¢§È¡õ. ¿£í¸ ±ýɧÁ¡ §ƒ¡ìÌ «Ê츢ȣí¸Ç¡.?.. þø§Ä ±í¸Ç§Â Óð¼¡û ¬ì¸¢È£íìÇ¡.?... ´í¸ §ƒ¡ì¸¡Ä ±í¸ÙìÌ º¢Ã¢ôÒ Åø§Ä. ´í¸ÙìÌ §À¡Â¢ þôÀ¢Ê ¬Â¢ô§À¡î§ºýÛ «Ø¦¸ §¾í ÅÕÐ... ´í¸ÙìÌ ÁðÎõ §Å¾¨ÉÔõ Å¢Àò¨¾Ôõ ¦¿ÉîÍ «Ø¦¸ ÅÃøĢ¡.?" ±ýÚ §¸ð¼¡÷.

"³Â¡ ¦ÀâÂŧà þôÀ¢Ê Å¡í¸. ±õ Àì¸ò¾¢§Ä ´ì¸¡Õí¸. ¯õõ. þôÀ ±ýÉ ¦º¡ýÉ£í¸... ´í¸ÙìÌ «Ø¦¸ ÅÃøĢ¡ýÛ. ¬Á¡ ¿¡í ¦¾Ã¢Â¡Áò¦¾í §¸ì¸§Ãí. ¿¡í¸ «Ù¾¡ ±í¸ §Å¾É¦ÂøÄ¡õ §À¡Â¢ÎÁ¡. ¿¼óÐ ÓÊïº Å¢ÀòÐ þø§ÄýÛ ¬Â¢ÎÁ¡... ¦º¡øÖí¸. «ôÀ¢Ê¡ɡ ¿¡Ûõ ´í¸§Ç¡§¼§Â §º÷óÐ þôÀ§Å ¦À⺡ ´ôÀ¡Ã¢ ¦ÅîÍ «Æ§Èý.. «ÆðÎÁ¡.? ¦º¡øÖí¸. «¾¡í ±ÉìÌ ¿øÄÐýÉ¡ ¿£í¸ ¦º¡øÖí¸.... ºÃ¢ ¿£í¸ ¡Õõ À¾¢ø ¦º¡øÄø§Ä ¿¡ý Òâﺢ¸¢ð§¼ý. þ§¾¡ þôÀ ¿¡ý «Æ§Èý" ±ýÚ ¦º¡øĢŢðÎ...

... µ ±ýÚ ´ôÀ¡Ã¢ ¨Åì¸ ÐÅí¸¢ Å¢ð¼¡÷... "±í ¬ò¾¡ ÁÕ¾¡Â£ ±í ¸¡Õ þôÀÊ ¸×óÐ §À¡îööí... ±í ¾¡Â£ Á¡Ã¢Â¡ò¾¡ ±í ´¼õ¦ÀøÄ¡õ ÅÄ¢ì̧¾" ±ýÚ.

þÐ §¸ðÎ ±ø§Ä¡Õõ º¢Ã¢òРŢð¼É÷.

¯¼§É ±ý. ±Š. ¸¢Õ‰½ý ¦º¡ýÉ¡÷ "À¡ò¾£í¸Ç¡ þÐ ¾¡ý ±ÉìÌ §ÅÏí¸ÈÐ. ¿£í¸ ±øÄ¡Õõ ±ôÀ×õ º¢Ã¢îÍ츢𧼠þÕì¸Èò§¾ ¿¡ý À¡ì¸Ïõ. «¾¡ý ±ÉìÌõ ºó§¾¡„õ ´í¸ÙìÌõ ºó§¾¡ºõ þøÄ¡.? ¿£í¸ ´ù¦Å¡Õò¾ÕìÌõ «Åí¸Åí¸ ¸Å¨Äí¸ À¢Ã¨Éí¸ ±ùÅǧš þÕìÌõ. «§¾¡¼ §ºòÐ ±ý ¸Å¨Ä¨ÂÔõ ¦º¡øÄ¢ ´í¸Ç «¾¢¸Á¡ ¸Å¨ÄôÀ¼ Å츢ÈÐ§Ä Â¡ÕìÌ ±ýÉ À¢Ã§Â¡ºÉõ?...

þ¾üÌû «Å÷¸û «¨ÉÅÕõ ´ýÚ ÜÊ ¸Å¢úóÐ ¸¢¼ó¾ ¸¡¨Ã ¿¢Á¢÷ò¾¢ §À¡ðΠŢð¼É÷.

Àì¸òÐ ¸¢Ã¡Áò¾¢§ÄÕóÐ ´Õ Á¡ðÎ ÅñÊ ¦¸¡½÷ó¾¡÷ ´ÕÅ÷.... Á¡ðÎ ÅñÊ¡ø ¸¡÷ þØòÐ ¦ºøÄôÀð¼Ð. ±ý¦ÉŠ§¸ ÌØÅ¢É÷ ÀŠ…¢ø À½õ ¦ºöÐ «Îò¾ °÷ ¦ºýÈ §À¡Ð ´Õ «ýÀ÷ «ÅÕ측¸ ´Õ ¼¡ìº¢ ²üÀ¡Î ¦ºö¾¡÷. «Å÷¸û À½õ ¦¾¡¼÷ó¾Ð.

±ý¦ÉŠ§¸ ÜȢɡ÷ " þô§À¡ À¡ò¾£í¸Ç¡ ¿¡ý «Ø¾¾¡§Ä ´¾Å¢ Àý½¢É£í¸Ç¡ ¿¡Ûõ º¢Ã¢îÍ ´í¸ÇÔõ º¢Ã¢ì¸ Å¡§Ä ´¾Å¢ Àý½¢É£í¸Ç¡.? ¦º¡øÖí¸

...«¾É¡§Ä ¾¡ý ¦º¡ýÉ¡Õ ¿õÁ ÅûÙÅÕ..."þÎì¸ñ ÅÕí¸¡ø ¿Ì¸" ±ñÏ.

±ùÅÇ× ºí¸¼õ Åó¾¡Öõ º¢Ã¢îº ¦Á¡¸ò¦¾¡§¼ ºÁ¡Ç¢îÍôÀ¡Õí¸ þó¾ ¾¢ÕìÌȧǡ§¼ «÷ò¾õ ¿øÄ¡ ÒâÔõ... «Ð ¾¡ý Å¡ú쨸¢ñÏ...

¬Á¡õ ±ôÀקÁ º¢Ã¢îÍ ÀƸÏõ" ±ýÚ ÜÈ¢ ÓÊò¾¡÷.

.[/tscii:584d2c58df]

மிகவும் சுவையான நிகழ்வு.

வள்ளுவரை நன்கு அறிந்தவர்.

[aanaa]

[tscii:c5b72e74cd]
.
- þÎì¸ñ ÅÕí¸¡ø ¿Ì¸.!!

.[/tscii:c5b72e74cd]

:ty:

எல்லோராலும் முடியுமா?

ம்ம்

[bis_mala]

கவி டாக்டர் உளுந்தூர்ப்பேட்டை சண்முகம் என்.எஸ். கிருஷ்ணனைப் பற்றி இப்படிப் பாடியுள்ளார்:

சொல்லுக்குச் சொல் இன்ப மழை -- தேன்
சொரிந்து நிற்கும் இனியபொருள்.
வல்லவர் யார் அவரைப்போலே - நல்
வழிகாட்டிட இனிமேலே?

கலைவளர்த்த கலைவாணா
நகைச்சுவையின் அரசே
கனிவான சொல்வல்லோய்
கருணைமிகும் என்.எஸ்.கே.

[bis_mala]

More mathematical miracles from Kural:

1. The Kural venba is of SEVEN metrical seer.
2. Thiruvalluvar as a name has SEVEN letters in Tamil
3. Total 133 chapters (divisible seven - 7x19). Also 1+3+3=7
4. Total 1330 verses (divisible by seven, also 1+3++0=7)

More about it at http://nvkashraf.myweb.io/mm/mm-sum.HTM

excellent!

[lathaji]

Tirukural is the expression of Indian Ethos in just seven words of 1.5 couplets expressing all Vedic Tradition.

Stands Tallest in the world.

[Sudhaama]

.
- இடுக்கண் வருங்கால் நகுக.!!

.

:ty:

எல்லோராலும் முடியுமா?

ம்ம்
.

."முடியாது" என்று நினைப்பவன் வாழ-தெரியாதவன்.!.. "முடியும்" என்று நம்பி, முயல்பவனே மனிதன்.!

முடிய-செய்வதே வாழ்வு.!!!


தெய்வத்தால் ஆகாது-எனினும் முயற்சி தன் மெய் வருந்த கூலிதரும்.!

வெள்ளத்து-அனையது மலர்-நீட்டம் மாந்தர்-தம் உள்ளத்து-அனையது உயர்வு.!

பொருள் இல்லார்க்கு இவ்வுலகு இல்லை.! அருள் இல்லார்க்கு அவ்வுலகு இல்லை.!

[பொருள் = அர்த்தம் / Sense / Meaning..... அருள் = அருள்-மனம் / மனித-பண்பு / -Graceful Propensity in Man...

அவ்வுலகு = கடவுளின் அருள் / தலை-நிமிர்ந்த ராஜ-வாழ்க்கை (Royal Life of Human-Values) ]

.

[devapriya]

http://www.thirukkural.com/

Has
தமிழ் உரை எழுதியவர்கள்

* திரு மு.கருணாநிதி
* திரு மு.வரததாசனார்
* திரு சாலமன் பாப்பையா

ஆங்கில உரை எழுதியவர்கள்

* Rev. Dr. G. U. Pope

[lathaji]

குறள் 259:

அவிசொரிந் தாயிரம் வேட்டலின் ஒன்றன்
உயிர்செகுத் துண்ணாமை நன்று.

கலைஞர் உரை:

நெய் போன்ற பொருள்களைத் தீயிலிட்டு ஆயிரம் வேள்விகளை நடத்துவதைவிட உண்பதற்காக ஓர் உயிரைப் போக்காமலிருப்பது நல்லது.

மு.வ உரை:

நெய் முதலியப் பொருள்களைத் தீயில் சொரிந்து ஆயிரம் வேள்விகள் செய்தலை விட ஒன்றன் உயிரைக்கொன்று உடம்பைத் தின்னாதிருத்தல் நல்லது.

சாலமன் பாப்பையா உரை:

(மந்திரம் சொல்லித் தேவர்களுக்கு இடும் உணவாகிய) அவிகளைத் தீயில் போட்டு ஆயிரம் வேள்வி செய்வதைக் காட்டிலும் ஓர் உயிரைப் போக்கி அதன் உடம்பை உண்ணாமல் இருப்பது நல்லது.

Translation:

Than thousand rich oblations, with libations rare,
Better the flesh of slaughtered beings not to share.

Explanation:

Not to kill and eat (the flesh of) an animal, is better than the pouring forth of ghee etc., in a thousand sacrifices.


NONE OF THE ABOVE COMMENTRARIES really tell proper explanation. Many Anti Indian- Tamil Scholars have used this Kural to defame ThiruValluvar.

Can this kural be analysed in depth - by friends.

[bis_mala]

[tscii:7d7cebc46e]þýÛõ ¸¡Ç¢í¸÷ ¯¨Ã, Àâ§ÁÄƸ÷ ¯¨Ã, Á½ì̼Å÷ ¯¨Ã, þýÉ À¢È ¯¨Ã¸¨ÇÔõ ¾¢ÃðÊ þíÌ þð¼¡ø ¿ÄÁ¡¸ þÕìÌõ. ¡áÅÐ ¯¾Å §ÅñÎõ.[/tscii:7d7cebc46e]

[sar]

Dear friends,

For past few years I have been kept wondering about what would be the eight Godly characters described in KuRalh as 'எண்குணத்தான்'. I have read article comparing and discussing about this in Savism (சைவ சித்தாந்தம்), but I would like to discuss this in a communal point of view, not just pertaining to any one relegion as described in their holy scriptures.

Let me put forth a few upfront in my mind...

Almighty(எல்லாம் வல்ல இறைவன் - omni potent),
சர்வ வியாபி(All-permeating, omni present),
Al-perfect,
Infinite compassinate (தனிப் பெருங் கருணையாளன்/கிருபையாளன்)
Great Wisdomite (பேரறிவாளன் திரு, வாலறிவன்)
In a Joyful State (பேரின்பப் பெரு நிலையில் இருப்பவன்)
purity (தூய்மையானவன்)
peaceful and loveful (நீடிய சாந்தமும் பேரன்பும் உடையவன்)

(Any additions please welcome.. thanks)

like these you could find about Godly characters in relegious and holy scriptures and sometimes in normal usage... but what KuRaL might refer to is the main point here..

கோளில் பொறியின் குணமிலவே எண்குணத்தான்
தாளை வணங்காத் தலை.

Translation :
Before His foot, 'the Eight-fold Excellence,' with unbent head,
Who stands, like palsied sense, is to all living functions dead.
Explanation :
The head that worships not the feet of Him who is possessed of eight attributes, is as useless as a sense without the power of sensation.
Translation by Rev. Dr. G. U. Pope, Rev W. H. Drew,Rev. John Lazarus and Mr F. W. Ellis

[bis_mala]

Dear friends,

For past few years I have been kept wondering about what would be the eight Godly characters described in KuRalh as 'எண்குணத்தான்'. I have read article comparing and discussing about this in Savism (சைவ சித்தாந்தம்), but I would like to discuss this in a communal point of view, not just pertaining to any one relegion as described in their holy scriptures.

Let me put forth a few upfront in my mind...

Almighty(எல்லாம் வல்ல இறைவன் - omni potent),
சர்வ வியாபி(All-permeating, omni present),
Al-perfect,
Infinite compassinate (தனிப் பெரும் கருணை/கிருபையாளன்)
Great Wisdomite (பேரறிவாளன் திரு, வாலறிவன்)
In a Joyful State (பேரின்பப் பெரு நிலையில் இருப்பவன்)
purity (தூய்மையானவன்)
peaceful and loveful (சாந்தமும் அன்பும் உடையவன்)

(Any additions please welcome.. thanks)

like these you could find about Godly characters in relegious and holy scriptures and sometimes in normal usage... but what KuRaL might refer to is the main point here..

கோளில் பொறியின் குணமிலவே எண்குணத்தான்
தாளை வணங்காத் தலை.

Translation :
Before His foot, 'the Eight-fold Excellence,' with unbent head,
Who stands, like palsied sense, is to all living functions dead.
Explanation :
The head that worships not the feet of Him who is possessed of eight attributes, is as useless as a sense without the power of sensation.
Translation by Rev. Dr. G. U. Pope, Rev W. H. Drew,Rev. John Lazarus and Mr F. W. Ellis 9
================================================== ========================
[tscii:c006ea9361]¾¢Õ º¡÷ «Å÷¸§Ç:

±ñ̽ò¾¡ý ±ýÈ¡ø ±ðÎì Ì½í¸¨Ç ¯¨¼ÂÅý ±ýÚ ÁðΧÁ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ûÇ ÓÊÔÁ¡? [/tscii:c006ea9361]

[sar]

================================================== ========================
[tscii:0d573e0cf0]¾¢Õ º¡÷ «Å÷¸§Ç:

±ñ̽ò¾¡ý ±ýÈ¡ø ±ðÎì Ì½í¸¨Ç ¯¨¼ÂÅý ±ýÚ ÁðΧÁ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ûÇ ÓÊÔÁ¡? [/tscii:0d573e0cf0]

I think Its what being meant in urai-noolgal.. I have also seen some of them listing the qualities...

see these also...

கலைஞர் உரை:

உடல், கண், காது, மூக்கு, வாய் எனும் ஐம்பொறிகள் இருந்தும், அவைகள் இயங்காவிட்டால் என்ன நிலையோ அதே நிலைதான் ஈடற்ற ஆற்றலும் பண்பும் கொண்டவனை வணங்கி நடக்காதவனின் நிலையும் ஆகும்.

மு.வ உரை:


கேட்காதசெவி, பார்க்காத கண் போன்ற எண் குணங்களை உடைய கடவுளின் திருவடிகளை வணங்காதவரின் தலைகள் பயனற்றவைகளாம்.


சாலமன் பாப்பையா உரை:


எண்ணும் நல்ல குணங்களுக்கு எல்லாம் இருப்பிடமான கடவுளின் திருவடிகளை வணங்காத தலைகள், புலன்கள் இல்லாத பொறிகள்போல, இருந்தும் பயன் இல்லாதவையே.

[bis_mala]

இப்போது தமிழறிஞர் கீ. வீரராகவ முதலியாரின் உரையைக்(1933) காண்போம்.

மதித்தற்குரிய இயல்பினை யுடைய கடவுளது அடிகளைத் தொழாத தலைகள் அறிதல் அற்ற பொறிகளைப் போலப் பயனற்றவையே. (குறள் - 9 உரை)

திருக்குறள் - மூலமும் உரையும். கீ. வீரராகவ முதலியார்.
பதிப்பாசிரியர்: காஞ்சி த. குப்புசாமி முதலியார்.

எண்குணம் = மதித்தற்குரிய இயல்பு.

குறிப்புகள் மதிப்புரை: கோவிந்தப்ப நாயகர் பாடசாலைத் தலைமை ஆசிரியர் மணி கோடீஸ்வரன். பீ.ஏ. எல்.டி.
தமிழ்த் தென்றல் திரு வி க அவர்கள் இவ்வுரையைத் தம் "நவ சக்தி" (1933) இதழில் போற்றி எழுதியுள்ளார்.

[bis_mala]

================================================== ========================
[tscii:601a9ed702]¾¢Õ º¡÷ «Å÷¸§Ç:

±ñ̽ò¾¡ý ±ýÈ¡ø ±ðÎì Ì½í¸¨Ç ¯¨¼ÂÅý ±ýÚ ÁðΧÁ ¦À¡Õû ¦¸¡ûÇ ÓÊÔÁ¡? [/tscii:601a9ed702]

I think Its what being meant in urai-noolgal.. I have also seen some of them listing the qualities...

see these also...

மு.வ உரை:


கேட்காதசெவி, பார்க்காத கண் போன்ற எண் குணங்களை உடைய கடவுளின் திருவடிகளை வணங்காதவரின் தலைகள் பயனற்றவைகளாம்.

.

Pardon me, thiru Sar avarkaLE!

இதில் வரும் "போன்ற" என்ற சொல் தவறு. மு.வ. ஒரு தமிழ் மேதை. அப்படியவர் எழுதியிருக்க மாட்டார். "கேட்காதசெவி, பார்க்காத கண் போன்ற எண் குணங்களை " என்றால் செவிட்டுக் காது, குருட்டுக் கண் போன்ற எட்டுக் குணங்களை உடையவர் கடவுள் என்று பொருள் பட்டுவிடும். இது போருந்தாது. திரு சார் அவர்கள் மேற்கண்ட பதிவை மு.வ அவர்கள் உரையுடன் ஒப்பிட்டுச் சரியான உரையை மறு பதிவு செய்து உதவவேண்டும். நன்றி.

[bis_mala]

மேலும் கவனிக்க வேண்டியது:

"எண்குணத்தான்" என்ற வள்ளுவனாரின் சொல்லாட்சிக்கு, "எண்குணங்களை யுடைய கடவுள்" என்று அதே "எண்குணம்" என்ற சொல்லைப் பயன்படுத்தி, எண்குணமென்பது எட்டுக் குணங்களா அல்லது அச்சொல்லுக்கு வேறு பொருளுண்டா என்ற சர்ச்சையிலிருந்து விலகிவிட்டார் மு.வ.
அவர்தம் உரையின் மூலம் அவர் நமக்குத் தெரியப் படுத்துவது, எண்குணத்தான் என்றால் கடவுள் என்று பொருள் கொள்ளவேண்டும் என்பதுதான்.
ஆகவே எட்டுக் குணங்களைப் பட்டியலிட்டுக் காட்டுவதற்கு மு.வ அவர்களின் உரை பயன்படவில்லை. அதற்கு வேறு உரைகளைத்தாம் தேடிப் பிடிக்கவேண்டும்.

[bis_mala]

ஒரு நூலின் ஆசிரியர் காலத்திலேயே அதற்கு உரை அமைந்திருப்பின் இத்தகைய மாறுபாடுகள் உண்டாகக் காரணமில்லை.

பிற்காலத்தில் வந்த உரையாசிரியர்கள் நூலாசிரியருடைய கொள்கையை முற்றும் உணர்தல் இயலாது. ஆதலின் அவர்களுடைய உரைகளிற் சில மாறுபாடுகள் இருத்தல் கூடும்.

அவர்கள் செய்த பனைத்துணை நன்றியினால் தினைத்துணையாகிய அம்மாறுபாடுகளை நாம் மறந்துவிடுகின்றோம்.

கட்டுரை: "திருவள்ளுவரும் திருக்குறளும்"

டாக்டர் உ.வே. சாமிநாத ஐயர்.

[sar]

dEAR THIRU SELVI BISMALA AVARGALE....

iF THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EIGHT SUPER-NATURAL QUALITIES WHAT ELSE THE MEANING WOULD YOU SUPPOSE....?

EAGER TO LEARN ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION FOR எண்-குணன் AS YOU WOULD EXPLAIN...


இதில் வரும் "போன்ற" என்ற சொல் தவறு. மு.வ. ஒரு தமிழ் மேதை. அப்படியவர் எழுதியிருக்க மாட்டார். "கேட்காதசெவி, பார்க்காத கண் போன்ற எண் குணங்களை " என்றால் செவிட்டுக் காது, குருட்டுக் கண் போன்ற எட்டுக் குணங்களை உடையவர் கடவுள் என்று பொருள் பட்டுவிடும். இது போருந்தாது. திரு சார் அவர்கள் மேற்கண்ட பதிவை மு.வ அவர்கள் உரையுடன் ஒப்பிட்டுச் சரியான உரையை மறு பதிவு செய்து உதவவேண்டும். நன்றி.


IT WAS SOURCED FROM WWW.THIRUKURAL.COM.... IF THEY HAVE PROVIDED THE RIGHT URAI ACCURATELY.. THEN WOULD IT BE... OTHERWISE... MY HUMBLE APOLOGIES FOR MISTAKES OUT OF MY CONTROL...


ONE MORE THING TO NOTE IS THIRUKURAL IS NOT THE ONLY DIVINE TEXT TO NOTIFY THE AL-MIGHTY GOD IN THIS WAY.... THERE ARE FEW OTHER SACRED TEXT DOING THAT..
FOR EXAMPLE... KANDHAR ANUBOOTHI ABOUT MURUGAN SAYS GOD AS எண்குண பஞ்சரன்... WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN ABOUT IS NEXT QUESTION...? AS IN EVERY STANZA IT IS PRAISING ABOUT THE GODLY QUALITIES..

BUT TAMIL STUDIES WOULD CONSIDER BOTH WOULD DENOTE TO THE SAME ORIGINAL MEANING...


THANKS

[jaaze]

what's with the H at the end? numerology ah? :?

[bis_mala]

dEAR THIRU SELVI BISMALA AVARGALE....

iF THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT EIGHT SUPER-NATURAL QUALITIES WHAT ELSE THE MEANING WOULD YOU SUPPOSE....?

EAGER TO LEARN ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION FOR எண்-குணன் AS YOU WOULD EXPLAIN...


இதில் வரும் "போன்ற" என்ற சொல் தவறு. மு.வ. ஒரு தமிழ் மேதை. அப்படியவர் எழுதியிருக்க மாட்டார். "கேட்காதசெவி, பார்க்காத கண் போன்ற எண் குணங்களை " என்றால் செவிட்டுக் காது, குருட்டுக் கண் போன்ற எட்டுக் குணங்களை உடையவர் கடவுள் என்று பொருள் பட்டுவிடும். இது போருந்தாது. திரு சார் அவர்கள் மேற்கண்ட பதிவை மு.வ அவர்கள் உரையுடன் ஒப்பிட்டுச் சரியான உரையை மறு பதிவு செய்து உதவவேண்டும். நன்றி.


IT WAS SOURCED FROM WWW.THIRUKURAL.COM.... IF THEY HAVE PROVIDED THE RIGHT URAI ACCURATELY.. THEN WOULD IT BE... OTHERWISE... MY HUMBLE APOLOGIES FOR MISTAKES OUT OF MY CONTROL...


ONE MORE THING TO NOTE IS THIRUKURAL IS NOT THE ONLY DIVINE TEXT TO NOTIFY THE AL-MIGHTY GOD IN THIS WAY.... THERE ARE FEW OTHER SACRED TEXT DOING THAT..
FOR EXAMPLE... KANDHAR ANUBOOTHI ABOUT MURUGAN SAYS GOD AS எண்குண பஞ்சரன்... WHAT WOULD THIS MEAN ABOUT IS NEXT QUESTION...? AS IN EVERY STANZA IT IS PRAISING ABOUT THE GODLY QUALITIES..

BUT TAMIL STUDIES WOULD CONSIDER BOTH WOULD DENOTE TO THE SAME ORIGINAL MEANING...


THANKS

Thiru Sar avl:

கேட்காத செவி முதலியவை "கோளில் பொறி"யுள் அடங்கும். அவை "எண்குணங்களு"க்கு உரியவை அல்ல.

[Sudhaama]

.

'பெய்' என்று சொன்னவுடன் எங்கே மழை அஞ்சி, நடுங்கிப்பெய்கிறது? கெஞ்சினால் கூட நடக்காது. ஆனால், கணவனே கண் கண்ட தெய்வம் என இருக்கும் தமிழ்ப்பெண்டிருக்குக்கணக்கே இல்லை.

Everyone in TN knows the difficulty of getting timely rain and that has even been the topic of worship in many villages. Where is the question of virtuous women being compared to "easy rain"? Funny!

மு.க.வின் விளக்கம் குதர்க்கம். Illogical interpretation. நகைக்கத்தக்கது :-) I'm surprised he acknowledges கொழுநன் as husband and not something else :-)

What was originally intended by ThiruvaLLuvar is definitely closer to the traditional one, with "uyarvu naviRchi aNi" highlighting the elevated status of கற்புடைப்பெண்டிர்!






கருணாநிதிக்கு கடவுள் நம்பிக்கை இல்லாமல் இருக்கலாம் .ஆனால் வள்ளுவர் சொல்வதை மறுப்பதல்ல உரை .

மேலும் ,கடவுள் என்பது உண்மையாக இருப்பவரானால் (அது தான் வள்ளுவர் நம்பிக்கை) ,படைப்பிற்கே மூலமான கடவுளுக்கு மனிதன் (ஆண் ,பெண் இருவரும்) கட்டுப்பட்டவர்கள் என்பதில் 'அடிமைத்தனம்' இருப்பதாக நான் கருதவில்லை.

I totally agree with you, Joe on both the points.
(My pulling in "slavery to God" is only to have some vambu by commenting on the so-called-atheism of MK :-) Personally I strongly believe we all owe our existence to a grand creator and are mere dust in front of him - much less than adimaikaL)

Having observed Karunanidhi's political conveniences for decades, I don't think it will be unusual for him to get into "word play" to push his agenda - feminism in this case - rather than the original intention of the poet.

The interesting part is as the theism of Valluvar is so clearly and openly stated in a number of places (starting from the first adhikAram), Karunanidhi doesn't have much opportunity to twist around and push his agenda in that case (so unfortunate for him - or may be he is just a hypocrite atheist whose inner self believes in a superhuman being. I haven't read all his writings and it's possible he could have conveniently brought in Anna's "oruvanE dEvan" at some point as needed).

OTOH, the "subjection of woman to man" (a key concept in many religions) may not be so explicit in kuRaL (though the idea is intrinsic in places, IMO, like the one in discussion). So, Karunanidhi exploits a little bit there and enjoys the opportunity in at least attacking some religious belief :-) As PR says, quite smart of him.
.

[bis_mala]

what's with the H at the end? numerology ah? :?

ஒரு வேளை "ள்" என்று உச்சரிக்கவேண்டும், "ல்" அன்று என்று தெரிவிக்கவோ? எனக்கும் புரியவில்லையே!

[Sudhaama]

.

. வலி - வளி - வழி.!




what's with the H at the end? numerology ah? :?

ஒரு வேளை "ள்" என்று உச்சரிக்கவேண்டும், "ல்" அன்று என்று தெரிவிக்கவோ? எனக்கும் புரியவில்லையே!

சுமார் ஐந்து வருடங்களுக்கு முன்பு... இந்த இழையை நான் துவக்கியபோதே... நீங்கள் கேட்ட இதே கேள்வியை தமிழ் இலக்கிய-அன்பர் திரு ஹரிகிருஷ்ணன் கேட்டிருந்தார்..

அவருக்கு விவரமாக விளக்கம் அளித்திருக்கிறேன். முடிந்தால் புரட்டி பாருங்கள்.

..இருப்பினும் சுருக்கமாக மீண்டும் விளக்குகிறேன்..

தமிழ்ச் சொல்லை ஆங்கில எழுத்தாக்கம் (Transliterate) செய்கையிலே. திருக்குறள்... என்னும் சொல்லில்... "குரலுக்கும்" "குறளுக்கும்" .. வித்தியாசம் காட்டவே இவ்வாறு "H" என்னும் எழுத்தைப்
பயன்படுத்துவது... சுமார் 500 ஆண்டுகளாக... 1940-ஆம் ஆண்டுக்கு முந்தைய கால மதுரை தமிழ்ச்சங்க மரபு....

[ஆனால் வேறு முறைகளும்... ஆங்கிலேயர்களால் புதிதாக உண்டாக்கப்பட்டு புகுத்தப்பட்டன... என்பது தனிச்செய்தி.]

மதுரை தமிழ்ச்சங்கம் வகுத்த முறையில்... தற்காலத்தைய புதிய மரபு போல... ஆங்கில தலைப்பு-எழுத்து வகைகளான R, L, A, E, U, I, O போன்றவை... ஏனைய எழுத்துக்களினின்றும் அதிக
முக்கியத்துவம் கொண்டு கொட்டை கொட்டையாக நம் கண்களை உறுத்தும் வகையில்... பயன்படுத்தப்படுவது 1940-ஆம் ஆண்டுக்கு முன்பு, அக்காலத்தில் இல்லை....

உதாரணமாக ஒரு வாக்கியம்:---.... "ஓடி வந்த கள்ளழகரிடம்... ராஜாராமன் ஏக்கத்துடன் சொன்னார்... "கற்றது கை-மண் அளவே" என்று.

New Style:--- Odi vantha kaLLazakaritam... rAjArAman, Ekkathutan sonnAr... "kaRRathu kai-maN aLavE"... enRu.

Traditional Tamil-Sangam Style:--- Oadi vandha Kalhlhazhaharidam... Raajaaraaman yaekkaththudan sonnaar... "katradhu Kai-manh Alhavae" yenrhu.

வட-இந்திய மொழிகளில்... தலை, தளை, தழை.. போன்ற சொற்கள் கிடையா.. எல்லாம் ஒரே உச்சரிப்பு தான் "தலை" என்று மட்டுமே.

ஆனால் தமிழில்... வலிக்கும், வளிக்கும், வழிக்கும் பெருத்த வித்தியாசம் உள்ளது.... மேலும் ... கொல்லை-கொள்ளை,...குளம்பு-குழம்பு... வலம்-வளம்...

எனவே தான்... தமிழ்-மொழிக்கு சிறப்பு- தேவைகளான... "ழ" = "ZHA"... ... "ற" = RHA .... "ள" = LHA.... என்று நெறி வகுக்கப்பட்டது.

ஆகவே தான் ஆங்கிலேயர் காலத்திலேயே... சுமார் 500 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்பிருந்தே மேற்கண்ட தமிழ்ச்சங்க எழுத்தாக்கம் (Transliterate) முறை கடைப்பிடிக்கப்பட்டு... முற்கால தமிழ் இலக்கியங்கள் யாவும்... திருக்குறள், கம்ப-ராமாயணம், ஐம்பெரும் காப்பியங்கள் போன்றவை ஆங்கில-எழுத்து வடிவில் மூல-நூல்கள் எழுத்தாக்கம் செய்யப்பட்டு உலகு எங்கும் புத்தகங்கள் வெளி வந்தன.

ஆகவே அவ்வகையிலே... திருக்குறள் = THIRUK-KURHALH.... என எழுத்தாக்கம் (Transliterate)் செய்யப்படுகிறது.

தமிழிலும் ஆங்கில-மொழியிலும் மெத்தவும் புலமை கொண்ட முற்காலத்து வல்லுனர்களான... பேராசிரியர் திரு ரா.பி. சேதுப்பிள்ளை,... பேராசிரியர் திரு. அ. சீனிவாச ராகவன் போன்ற பேரறிஞர்கள்
கையாண்ட முறையும் இதுவே.... நானும் கடைப்பிடிப்பது...

...தற்கால "திருதிரு உறுத்தல்" எழுத்தாக்க முறை உங்களுக்கு மனம் ஒப்புகிறதா.?
..
.

[bis_mala]

.

. வலி - வளி - வழி.!




what's with the H at the end? numerology ah? :?

ஒரு வேளை "ள்" என்று உச்சரிக்கவேண்டும், "ல்" அன்று என்று தெரிவிக்கவோ? எனக்கும் புரியவில்லையே!

சுமார் ஐந்து வருடங்களுக்கு முன்பு... இந்த இழையை நான் துவக்கியபோதே... நீங்கள் கேட்ட இதே கேள்வியை தமிழ் இலக்கிய-அன்பர் திரு ஹரிகிருஷ்ணன் கேட்டிருந்தார்..

அவருக்கு விவரமாக விளக்கம் அளித்திருக்கிறேன். முடிந்தால் புரட்டி பாருங்கள்.

..இருப்பினும் சுருக்கமாக மீண்டும் விளக்குகிறேன்..

தமிழ்ச் சொல்லை ஆங்கில எழுத்தாக்கம் (Transliterate) செய்கையிலே. திருக்குறள்... என்னும் சொல்லில்... "குரலுக்கும்" "குறளுக்கும்" .. வித்தியாசம் காட்டவே இவ்வாறு "H" என்னும் எழுத்தைப்
பயன்படுத்துவது... சுமார் 500 ஆண்டுகளாக... 1940-ஆம் ஆண்டுக்கு முந்தைய கால மதுரை தமிழ்ச்சங்க மரபு....

[ஆனால் வேறு முறைகளும்... ஆங்கிலேயர்களால் புதிதாக உண்டாக்கப்பட்டு புகுத்தப்பட்டன... என்பது தனிச்செய்தி.]

மதுரை தமிழ்ச்சங்கம் வகுத்த முறையில்... தற்காலத்தைய புதிய மரபு போல... ஆங்கில தலைப்பு-எழுத்து வகைகளான R, L, A, E, U, I, O போன்றவை... ஏனைய எழுத்துக்களினின்றும் அதிக
முக்கியத்துவம் கொண்டு கொட்டை கொட்டையாக நம் கண்களை உறுத்தும் வகையில்... பயன்படுத்தப்படுவது 1940-ஆம் ஆண்டுக்கு முன்பு, அக்காலத்தில் இல்லை....

உதாரணமாக ஒரு வாக்கியம்:---.... "ஓடி வந்த கள்ளழகரிடம்... ராஜாராமன் ஏக்கத்துடன் சொன்னார்... "கற்றது கை-மண் அளவே" என்று.

New Style:--- Odi vantha kaLLazakaritam... rAjArAman, Ekkathutan sonnAr... "kaRRathu kai-maN aLavE"... enRu.

Traditional Tamil-Sangam Style:--- Oadi vandha Kalhlhazhaharidam... Raajaaraaman yaekkaththudan sonnaar... "katradhu Kai-manh Alhavae" yenrhu.

வட-இந்திய மொழிகளில்... தலை, தளை, தழை.. போன்ற சொற்கள் கிடையா.. எல்லாம் ஒரே உச்சரிப்பு தான் "தலை" என்று மட்டுமே.

ஆனால் தமிழில்... வலிக்கும், வளிக்கும், வழிக்கும் பெருத்த வித்தியாசம் உள்ளது.... மேலும் ... கொல்லை-கொள்ளை,...குளம்பு-குழம்பு... வலம்-வளம்...

எனவே தான்... தமிழ்-மொழிக்கு சிறப்பு- தேவைகளான... "ழ" = "ZHA"... ... "ற" = RHA .... "ள" = LHA.... என்று நெறி வகுக்கப்பட்டது.

ஆகவே தான் ஆங்கிலேயர் காலத்திலேயே... சுமார் 500 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்பிருந்தே மேற்கண்ட தமிழ்ச்சங்க எழுத்தாக்கம் (Transliterate) முறை கடைப்பிடிக்கப்பட்டு... முற்கால தமிழ் இலக்கியங்கள் யாவும்... திருக்குறள், கம்ப-ராமாயணம், ஐம்பெரும் காப்பியங்கள் போன்றவை ஆங்கில-எழுத்து வடிவில் மூல-நூல்கள் எழுத்தாக்கம் செய்யப்பட்டு உலகு எங்கும் புத்தகங்கள் வெளி வந்தன.

ஆகவே அவ்வகையிலே... திருக்குறள் = THIRUK-KURHALH.... என எழுத்தாக்கம் (Transliterate)் செய்யப்படுகிறது.

தமிழிலும் ஆங்கில-மொழியிலும் மெத்தவும் புலமை கொண்ட முற்காலத்து வல்லுனர்களான... பேராசிரியர் திரு ரா.பி. சேதுப்பிள்ளை,... பேராசிரியர் திரு. அ. சீனிவாச ராகவன் போன்ற பேரறிஞர்கள்
கையாண்ட முறையும் இதுவே.... நானும் கடைப்பிடிப்பது...

...தற்கால "திருதிரு உறுத்தல்" எழுத்தாக்க முறை உங்களுக்கு மனம் ஒப்புகிறதா.?
..
.

தலைப்பு THIRUK-KURHALH. என்றில்லாமல், THIRUKKURALH என்றே போடப்பட்டுள்ளது, அதாவது, ரகர றகர வேறுபாடு போற்றப்படவில்லை என்று கூறுவது சரி எனலாமா?

இம்முறையில், TH=த ; அப்படியானால், ( T = ? t = ?) என்றும் அறிந்துகொள்ளலாமா? ்

tks.

[Sudhaama]

.



.

. வலி - வளி - வழி.!




what's with the H at the end? numerology ah? :?

ஒரு வேளை "ள்" என்று உச்சரிக்கவேண்டும், "ல்" அன்று என்று தெரிவிக்கவோ? எனக்கும் புரியவில்லையே!

சுமார் ஐந்து வருடங்களுக்கு முன்பு... இந்த இழையை நான் துவக்கியபோதே... நீங்கள் கேட்ட இதே கேள்வியை தமிழ் இலக்கிய-அன்பர் திரு ஹரிகிருஷ்ணன் கேட்டிருந்தார்..

அவருக்கு விவரமாக விளக்கம் அளித்திருக்கிறேன். முடிந்தால் புரட்டி பாருங்கள்.

..இருப்பினும் சுருக்கமாக மீண்டும் விளக்குகிறேன்..

தமிழ்ச் சொல்லை ஆங்கில எழுத்தாக்கம் (Transliterate) செய்கையிலே. திருக்குறள்... என்னும் சொல்லில்... "குரலுக்கும்" "குறளுக்கும்" .. வித்தியாசம் காட்டவே இவ்வாறு "H" என்னும் எழுத்தைப்
பயன்படுத்துவது... சுமார் 500 ஆண்டுகளாக... 1940-ஆம் ஆண்டுக்கு முந்தைய கால மதுரை தமிழ்ச்சங்க மரபு....

[ஆனால் வேறு முறைகளும்... ஆங்கிலேயர்களால் புதிதாக உண்டாக்கப்பட்டு புகுத்தப்பட்டன... என்பது தனிச்செய்தி.]

மதுரை தமிழ்ச்சங்கம் வகுத்த முறையில்... தற்காலத்தைய புதிய மரபு போல... ஆங்கில தலைப்பு-எழுத்து வகைகளான R, L, A, E, U, I, O போன்றவை... ஏனைய எழுத்துக்களினின்றும் அதிக
முக்கியத்துவம் கொண்டு கொட்டை கொட்டையாக நம் கண்களை உறுத்தும் வகையில்... பயன்படுத்தப்படுவது 1940-ஆம் ஆண்டுக்கு முன்பு, அக்காலத்தில் இல்லை....

உதாரணமாக ஒரு வாக்கியம்:---.... "ஓடி வந்த கள்ளழகரிடம்... ராஜாராமன் ஏக்கத்துடன் சொன்னார்... "கற்றது கை-மண் அளவே" என்று.

New Style:--- Odi vantha kaLLazakaritam... rAjArAman, Ekkathutan sonnAr... "kaRRathu kai-maN aLavE"... enRu.

Traditional Tamil-Sangam Style:--- Oadi vandha Kalhlhazhaharidam... Raajaaraaman yaekkaththudan sonnaar... "katradhu Kai-manh Alhavae" yenrhu.

வட-இந்திய மொழிகளில்... தலை, தளை, தழை.. போன்ற சொற்கள் கிடையா.. எல்லாம் ஒரே உச்சரிப்பு தான் "தலை" என்று மட்டுமே.

ஆனால் தமிழில்... வலிக்கும், வளிக்கும், வழிக்கும் பெருத்த வித்தியாசம் உள்ளது.... மேலும் ... கொல்லை-கொள்ளை,...குளம்பு-குழம்பு... வலம்-வளம்...

எனவே தான்... தமிழ்-மொழிக்கு சிறப்பு- தேவைகளான... "ழ" = "ZHA"... ... "ற" = RHA .... "ள" = LHA.... என்று நெறி வகுக்கப்பட்டது.

ஆகவே தான் ஆங்கிலேயர் காலத்திலேயே... சுமார் 500 ஆண்டுகளுக்கு முன்பிருந்தே மேற்கண்ட தமிழ்ச்சங்க எழுத்தாக்கம் (Transliterate) முறை கடைப்பிடிக்கப்பட்டு... முற்கால தமிழ் இலக்கியங்கள் யாவும்... திருக்குறள், கம்ப-ராமாயணம், ஐம்பெரும் காப்பியங்கள் போன்றவை ஆங்கில-எழுத்து வடிவில் மூல-நூல்கள் எழுத்தாக்கம் செய்யப்பட்டு உலகு எங்கும் புத்தகங்கள் வெளி வந்தன.

ஆகவே அவ்வகையிலே... திருக்குறள் = THIRUK-KURHALH.... என எழுத்தாக்கம் (Transliterate)் செய்யப்படுகிறது.

தமிழிலும் ஆங்கில-மொழியிலும் மெத்தவும் புலமை கொண்ட முற்காலத்து வல்லுனர்களான... பேராசிரியர் திரு ரா.பி. சேதுப்பிள்ளை,... பேராசிரியர் திரு. அ. சீனிவாச ராகவன் போன்ற பேரறிஞர்கள்
கையாண்ட முறையும் இதுவே.... நானும் கடைப்பிடிப்பது...

...தற்கால "திருதிரு உறுத்தல்" எழுத்தாக்க முறை உங்களுக்கு மனம் ஒப்புகிறதா.?
..
.

தலைப்பு THIRUK-KURHALH. என்றில்லாமல், THIRUKKURALH என்றே போடப்பட்டுள்ளது, அதாவது, ரகர றகர வேறுபாடு போற்றப்படவில்லை என்று கூறுவது சரி எனலாமா?

இம்முறையில், TH=த ; அப்படியானால், ( T = ? t = ?) என்றும் அறிந்துகொள்ளலாமா? ்

tks.


- Unique Language Tamil. How.?
http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=1905643#1905643

.

[bis_mala]

எண்குணங்கள்:

மேலும் இவ் வெண்குணங்களையே பரிமேலகழரும் தம் உரையில் கூறினார். வேறுபல "எண்குணங்களும் உள' என்பார்போல் உரை உள்ளதாயினும் அவை பரிமேலழகியார்க்கு உடன்பாடில்லை போலும். அதனாலோ என்னவோ அவர் விரித்துரைத்திலர்.

"உருவிலாராகிய" கடவுட்கு "உடம்பு" யாங்ஙனம் கூறப்பட்டதென்று
பரிமேலழகர்க்கு ஐயமெழுந்ததாய்த் தெரியவில்லை. இக்குணங்கள் சைவாகமங்களிலிருந்து பெறப்பட்டவையென்று அவர் தம் உரையில் தெரிவித்துள்ளார் அவர் காலத்திருந்த சைவாகமங்களில் நாம் இதன் விரிபெருளைத் தேடிக்கண்டுபிடிக்கவேண்டும்.

[Sudhaama]

[tscii:e7fd0d5b06]

¸¼×Ç¢ý ±ñ̽í¸Ç¡ÅÉ:

.... à ¯¼õÀ¢Éý ¬¾ø.... ÓüÚõ ¯½÷¾ø

--- «È¢»÷ ¸¢.Å¡.ƒ¸ó¿¡¾ý

[/tscii:e7fd0d5b06]

நன்று.

தூய உடம்பினன் ஆதல்:-- கடவுளுக்கு உருவம் உண்டு என்ற ஒரே கண்ணோட்டத்தில் மட்டுமே இவ்வாறு வரையறுப்பது பொருந்துமா.?

அவ்வாறே கொண்டாலும்... தூய்மை என்பது உடலால் மட்டும் தானா.?...

உள்ளம், அறிவு, பரமாத்ம- தூய்மைகள் கிடையாதா.?

[tscii:e7fd0d5b06]ÓüÚõ ¯½÷¾ø[/tscii:e7fd0d5b06]: இறைவன் முற்றும் உணர்ந்தவன் மாத்திரம் அல்ல.... கடந்த காலம், நிகழ்-காலம், வருங்காலம் ஆகிய மூவகையிலும்....

...ஏனையோர் எவருமே அறியவோ உணரவோ இயலாதவற்றையும் அறிந்தவன், உணர்பவன் அன்றோ.?... முற்றும் அறிந்தவனும் அவன் ஒருவனே.! (சர்வக்ஞன் / Omniscient)

..அந்த உயர்வுஅற உயர் நலம் உடையவன் ஒருவனான உலகாளும் ஈசன் பரம்பொருள்.?

.

[bis_mala]

[tscii:5f68820eae]

¸¼×Ç¢ý ±ñ̽í¸Ç¡ÅÉ:

.... à ¯¼õÀ¢Éý ¬¾ø.... ÓüÚõ ¯½÷¾ø

--- «È¢»÷ ¸¢.Å¡.ƒ¸ó¿¡¾ý

[/tscii:5f68820eae]

நன்று.

தூய உடம்பினன் ஆதல்:-- கடவுளுக்கு உருவம் உண்டு என்ற ஒரே கண்ணோட்டத்தில் மட்டுமே இவ்வாறு வரையறுப்பது பொருந்துமா.?

அவ்வாறே கொண்டாலும்... தூய்மை என்பது உடலால் மட்டும் தானா.?...

உள்ளம், அறிவு, பரமாத்ம- தூய்மைகள் கிடையாதா.?

[tscii:5f68820eae]ÓüÚõ ¯½÷¾ø[/tscii:5f68820eae]: இறைவன் முற்றும் உணர்ந்தவன் மாத்திரம் அல்ல.... கடந்த காலம், நிகழ்-காலம், வருங்காலம் ஆகிய மூவகையிலும்....

...ஏனையோர் எவருமே அறியவோ உணரவோ இயலாதவற்றையும் அறிந்தவன், உணர்பவன் அன்றோ.?... முற்றும் அறிந்தவனும் அவன் ஒருவனே.! (சர்வக்ஞன் / Omniscient)

..அந்த உயர்வுஅற உயர் நலம் உடையவன் ஒருவனான உலகாளும் ஈசன் பரம்பொருள்.?

.

[tscii:5f68820eae]
வட நூல்களிலும் இந்த எட்டுக் குணங்களும் எடுத்துச் சொல்லப்படுகின்றன என்பர்.

தூய உடம்பினன் ஆதல் = விசுத்ததேகம்,
முற்றுமுணர்தல் = சர்வஞ்ஞத்துவம்.

In divinity, there is purity and it is one of the 8 aspects of divinity.

( I am not a theologian but I believe every aspect of divinity is pure. The purity of "body" does not exclude purity of the other aspects. It is, I think merely highlighting purity of body )

By the way, the fact that we are not able to see the "body" does not prove the absence of such "body"

In the book :"The Chariot of the Gods" (1968) , the author Erich von Däniken.also says beings like God, Devas, Angels, Devils, Ghosts etc exist but in a different plane of existence. We are not in their plane of existence and we cannot "know" through our sense perceptions. Our senses (sight, hearing etc) are limited. Humans have learnt to overcome some of these limitations, such as by sending signals to Chandrayan in the moon and even repairing it by ground control. Even so, I think we humans are still far behind.

At first sight, it does seem that these divine characteristics are not entirely convincing. But upon further thought, I think we can realise the truth behind such concepts.


ஸ்ரீ ராமகிருஷ்ண பரமஹம்சர் காளிமாதாவின் தரிசனம் அடைந்தாரே - அதாவது கண்ணால் கண்டாரே, அப்போது அவர் கண்ணுக்குப் புலன் ஆனாளன்றோ அம்மை? அவளுக்கு உடம்பு இல்லையென்று எப்படிச் சொல்வது? இயல்பு நிலையில் நமக்குத் தெரிவதில்லை... அவ்வளவுதான்.

"அருவாய், உருவாய் வருவாய் குகனே" என்பதன்றோ பாடல்வரி,

கடவுள் is at once அரு and உரு.

Does this answer the doubt raised?. I hope.....[/tscii:5f68820eae]

[bis_mala]

[tscii:cc1d050f17]±ñ̽í¸û:

§ÁÖõ þù ¦ÅñÌ½í¸¨Ç§Â Àâ§ÁĸÆÕõ ¾õ ¯¨Ã¢ø ÜȢɡ÷. §ÅÚÀÄ "±ñ̽í¸Ùõ ¯Ç' ±ýÀ¡÷§À¡ø ¯¨Ã ¯ûǾ¡Â¢Ûõ «¨Å Àâ§ÁÄƸ¢Â¡÷ìÌ ¯¼ýÀ¡Êø¨Ä §À¡Öõ. «¾É¡§Ä¡ ±ýɧš «Å÷ ŢâòШÃò¾¢Ä÷.

"¯ÕŢġḢÂ" ¸¼×ðÌ "¯¼õÒ" ¡í¹Éõ ÜÈôÀ𼦾ýÚ
Àâ§ÁÄƸ÷ìÌ ³Â¦ÁØ󾾡öò ¦¾Ã¢ÂÅ¢ø¨Ä. þì̽í¸û ¨ºÅ¡¸Áí¸Ç¢Ä¢ÕóÐ ¦ÀÈôÀð¼¨Å¦ÂýÚ «Å÷ ¾õ ¯¨Ã¢ø ¦¾Ã¢Å¢òÐûÇ¡÷ «Å÷ ¸¡Äò¾¢Õó¾ ¨ºÅ¡¸Áí¸Ç¢ø ¿¡õ þ¾ý Ţâ¦ÀÕ¨Çò §¾Êì¸ñÎÀ¢Ê츧ÅñÎõ.[/tscii:cc1d050f17]

[NVK Ashraf]

Dear friends,

For past few years I have been kept wondering about what would be the eight Godly characters described in KuRalh as 'எண்குணத்தான்'. I have read article comparing and discussing about this in Savism (சைவ சித்தாந்தம்), but I would like to discuss this in a communal point of view, not just pertaining to any one relegion as described in their holy scriptures.

Let me put forth a few upfront in my mind...

Almighty(எல்லாம் வல்ல இறைவன் - omni potent),
சர்வ வியாபி(All-permeating, omni present),
Al-perfect,
Infinite compassinate (தனிப் பெரும் கருணை/கிருபையாளன்)
Great Wisdomite (பேரறிவாளன் திரு, வாலறிவன்)
In a Joyful State (பேரின்பப் பெரு நிலையில் இருப்பவன்)
purity (தூய்மையானவன்)
peaceful and loveful (சாந்தமும் அன்பும் உடையவன்)

(Any additions please welcome.. thanks)

like these you could find about Godly characters in relegious and holy scriptures and sometimes in normal usage... but what KuRaL might refer to is the main point here..

கோளில் பொறியின் குணமிலவே எண்குணத்தான்
தாளை வணங்காத் தலை.

Translation :
Before His foot, 'the Eight-fold Excellence,' with unbent head,
Who stands, like palsied sense, is to all living functions dead.
Explanation :
The head that worships not the feet of Him who is possessed of eight attributes, is as useless as a sense without the power of sensation.
Translation by Rev. Dr. G. U. Pope, Rev W. H. Drew,Rev. John Lazarus and Mr F. W. Ellis

For a comprehensive discussion on "eN guNathaan" please follow the following link and move to "5.8. Who is the one with eight qualities?"

http://nvkashraf.co.cc/valluvar/jaina5b.htm

[Sudhaama]

.



[tscii:f804038277]ÅûÙÅÕõ ¨Å½ÅÓõ

- ¦ºªó¾÷

http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?t=13455&highlight=
.[/tscii:f804038277]



.

[sar]

That was a wonderful comparison Thiru NVK Ashraf... MANY thanks
But friends, I am also getting intrigued by phrase in relegious texts stating God as 'நிர்குணன்' - which means God has no particular qualities!? How come that can be possible for the GOD when it is being compared with superior natural qualities by various relegious?

Please look at this source : http://www.brahmintoday.org/issues/issues-001/bt0806_man.php

உத்தம புருஷன், பரமாத்மா, எல்லாம் வல்லவன், எங்கும் நிறைந்தவன், மூவுலகினுள்ளும் புகுந்து அதைத் தாங்குபவன், சச்சிதானந்த ஸ்வரூபன், நித்ய சுத்த, முக்த போதன் (absolute Reality, All-in-all) ஆனால் நிர்குணன், நிராகாரன். ஆகவே உலகத் தோற்றத்திற்கு நிர்குண பிரும்மம் காரண மாயினும் உலக நிர்வாகத்திற்கும் பஞ்ச பூதங்களை அடக்கி ஆளுவதிலும் நிர்குண பிரும்மம் இயங்காது. ஏனெனில், அதுதான் நிர்குணமாயிற்றே. அதற்கு சங்கல்பமேது...........

[Sudhaama]

.
உன் கடமையை செய்.... பலனை எதிர்பார் - நடிகர் ரஜினிகாந்த்.

.... பலனை எதிர்பாராதே - திருக்குறள், கீதை & தமிழ்-மறை திருவாய்மொழி


பற்றுக பற்று-அற்றான் பற்றினை பற்றுக பற்று அவ்விடத்து - திருக்குறள்.


http://forumhub.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=1942516#1942516


.

[tsdurai]

Thirukkural as VILLUPATTU

This program is telecasted in MAKKAL TV daily morning 6.30pm Tamilnadu Standard Time.

I am recording and uploading to my blog.

Please do see this .

http://villuppaattu-tamil.blogspot.com/

www.youtube.com/tsdurai



Thanks

Senthil Durai T

[lathaji]

Thirukural as Villupattu. Good. Let me visit your site and view them. Very good way to take it to public.

[lathaji]

Writes Devapriya:
"NVKji accepts that Valluvar refers Creator God in Kural 43 and also his selection of Translation: Couplet: 1062. If some must beg and live, let the Creator of the world Himself roam and perish - These are against Jainism".

I wonder what here is against Jainism. Is cursing or praising a Creator
God against Jainism? Here Valluvar curses God! I had touched upon this controversial issue in my posting on May 27, 2006 (Post subject: Creator of the world...) addressed to Sivamaalaa, but Mr. Devapriya seem to have not read it. Let me reproduce that again.

//
"In this posting I will reproduce here the part that deals controversy regarding the reference to "Creator of the World" (உலகியற்றியான்) in couplet 1062:

Valluvar did not hesitate to use these beliefs about God and gods as similes and superlatives while composing a couplet to give that extra punch to drive home his message. Two couplets would suffice to cite such instances in Kural:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Jainism
Jainism rejects the idea of any creator, mentor or destroyer God. According to Jainism, any enlightened human being who has achieved the state of godliness is considered to be a God. There could be many Gods but the quality or state or consciousness of godliness is only one. Thus, Mahavira was God but he was not the only God, there were many other Gods too. However, the quality of godliness is one and the same in all of them. Thus, Jainism is polytheist, monotheist, nontheist and atheist all at the same time.
Godliness, according to Jainism, is the inherent quality of any soul characterizing infinite bliss, infinite power, infinite knowledge and infinite peace. However, these qualities of a soul are subdued due to Karmas of the soul. One who achieves this state of soul through right belief, right knowledge and right conduct becomes God. This perfection of soul is called Kaivalya or Bodhi. A God thus becomes a liberated soul- liberated of miseries, cycles of rebirth, world, Karmas and finally liberated of body as well. This is called Nirvana or Moksha.
Gods can be thus categorized into embodied gods also known as Tīrthankaras and Arihantas or ordinary Kevalin, and non-embodied formless gods who are called Siddhas. Jainism considers the Devīs and Devas to be demi-goddesses and demi-gods who dwell in heavens owing to meritorious deeds in their past lives. These souls are in heavens for a fixed lifespan and even they have to undergo reincarnation as humans to achieve liberation.

[devapriya]

நல்ல தொடுப்பு lathaji.

வரலாற்று ரீதியில் உண்மையைக் காட்டினீர்கள்

[bis_mala]

நுண்ணிய நூல்பல கற்பினும் மற்றும்தன்
உண்மை அறிவே மிகும்.

உண்மை அறிவு = சுபாவம் என்கிறார் கண்ணதாசன்.

[bis_mala]

மலர்மிசை ஏகினான் மாணடி சேர்ந்தார்
நிலமிசை நீடுவாழ் வார்.

கடம்ப மலர் அமர் செல்வன்.

முருகன் கடம்ப மலரில் அமர்ந்தவன் என்னும் பொருளில் பரிபாடலிலும் ("கடம்பமர் செல்வன்") பொருநராற்றுப் படையிலும் ("கடம்பமர் நெடுவேள்") என்று வருவதனால்., அவன் "மலர்மிசை ஏகினான்" என்று திருக்குறளில் குறிக்கப்படுகின்றான் என்பது ஒப்பு நோக்கின் தெளிவாகிறது.

அமர்ந்தான் எனில் அது மேலிருந்தான் என்று பொருள்படுவதாம். இதற்குச் சூடினான் என்று பொருள் கூறுவது பொருத்தமாயின், "மிசை ஏகினான்" என்ற திருக்குறள் தொடருக்கும் "சூடினான்" என்றெ பொருளுரைத்தலில் இழுக்கொன்றுமில்லை.

[bis_mala]

நுண்ணிய நூல்பல ,,,,,உண்மை அறிவே மிகும்.
kuRaL 373.

உண்மை அறிவு = இயற்கை அறிவு.
மிகும் = மேற்படும்.

இது வீரராகவன் உரை. (காஞ்சீபுரம், 1935).

நவசக்தி இதழில், திரு வி.க அவர்கள் பாராட்டிய உரை.

[bis_mala]

முந்து கிளத்தல்



நன்றென்ற வற்றுள்ளும் நன்றே முதுவருள்
முந்து கிளவாச் செறிவு. (715)

முதுவர் = இங்கு மூத்தோர் கூடியிருக்கும் அவை. அறிவிலும் கல்வியிலும் அகவையிலும்(வயதிலும்) நம்மிலும் மிகவும் உயர்ந்தோரை இங்ஙனம் குறிப்பிடுகின்றார் வள்ளுவர்.

முதுவருள் = அத்தகையோர் கூடியிருக்கும் அவையில்.

முந்து கிளத்தல் = முந்திக்கொண்டு பேசுதல். எதையும் அமைதியாகக் கேட்டு ஆழ்ந்து சிந்தித்து
தெளிவுடன் பேசவேண்டுமேயன்றி, முந்திக்கொண்டு பேசலாகாது.

முந்து கிளவா = முந்திக்கொண்டு பேசாத

செறிவு - இது ஒரு மனிதனிடம் உள்ளீடு உள்ள நிறை நிலையைக் குறிக்கிறது.

முன்னதாகப் பேசாத அடக்கமானது, நன்றென்று சொல்லப்பட்டவற்றுளெல்லாம் மிக்க நன்றென்கிறது, வீரராகவனுரை.(பக்.134)

[bis_mala]

பொருள் - பொய்யா விளக்கு.

பொருளென்னும் பொய்யா விளக்கம் இருளறுக்கும்
எண்ணிய தேயத்துச் சென்று. 753

பொருள் என்னும் = பொருள் என்று சொல்லப்படுவது,பொய்யா விளக்கம் = அதை உடையவரைக் கைவிடாத விளக்கானது, இருள் அறுக்கும் = ஒருவனை வந்து சூழும் இருளைப் போக்கிவிடும்; எண்ணிய தேயத்துச் சென்று = அவன் நினைக்கும் இடத்திற்குப் போய்.

உடையவனைக் கைவிடாத விளக்கான பொருள் என்று சொல்லப்படுவது அவன் நினைக்கும் இடத்திற்குப் போய்,
அவனை வந்து சூழும் இருளைப் போக்கிவிடும்;

அந்த இருள் வரும் தோற்றுவாய் வெளியில் ஒரு தேயத்தில் இருந்தாலும், பொருள் அங்கும் சென்று செயல் பட்டு வெற்றியை ஈட்டித் தரவல்லது என்கிறார் நாயனார்.

பொய்யா: - பொருளைப் பயன்படுத்துங்கால், அது தன் வேலையை கெடாது செய்தே தீரும் ஆகையால் பொய்யா என்றார். பொய்யா விளக்கம் = மெய் விளக்கம் என்கிறார் உரையாசிரியர் வீரராகவனார்.

பொருள், யாக்கை முதலிய நிலையானவை அல்ல என்றாலும், அவை இவ்வுலக வாழ்க்கைக்கு வேண்டிய கருவிகள் என்பதையும் நாயனார் நன்கு எடுத்துக் கூறியுள்ளார். இதுவே நடுநிலை பிறழாத நல்ல கொள்கை.

பிறரைக் காட்டிலும் ஒரு சைவ சமயப் பெரியாருக்கே இத்தகைய நடுநிலை நெறி கைவரும் என்பது கருதத்தக்கது.

[bis_mala]

தமக்கு வந்த துன்பம்போல் கருதிச் செயல்படாதவிடத்து.....



அறிவினான் ஆகுவ துண்டோ பிறிதின் நோய்
தம் நோய்போல் போற்றாக் கடை.
(315)

அறிவினான் = அறிவினால்; ஆகுவது = விளையும் பயன்;
உண்டோ = ஏதும் உள்ளதோ; பிறிதின் நோய் =
வேறோர் உயிரின் நோயை; தம் நோய் போல் = தமக்கு வந்த துன்பம்போல், போற்றாக்கடை = கருதிச் செயல்படாதவிடத்து எ-று.

எனவே, பிற உயிர்கட்கு இன்னா செய்தலாகாது , அதுவே அறிவுடைமை என்கிறார் நாயனார்.

[sar]

எதனால் திருக்குறள் சைவ சமயச்சார்புடையது/போன்மையுடையது? என்பதே இங்கு பெரிய விவாதமாக இருக்கிறது...


பொருள், யாக்கை முதலிய நிலையானவை அல்ல என்றாலும், அவை இவ்வுலக வாழ்க்கைக்கு வேண்டிய கருவிகள் என்பதையும் நாயனார் நன்கு எடுத்துக் கூறியுள்ளார். இதுவே நடுநிலை பிறழாத நல்ல கொள்கை.

பிறரைக் காட்டிலும் ஒரு சைவ சமயப் பெரியாருக்கே இத்தகைய நடுநிலை நெறி கைவரும் என்பது கருதத்தக்கது.

யாக்கை நிலையாமை, செல்வம் நிலையாமை, இளமை நிலையாமை - ஆதலால் காம ஆசையைத் துறக்கச் சொல்கிறது சைவ சமயம்... பெண்ணாசயைத் துறக்கச் சொல்வது தவிர இன்புற அனுபவிக்கச் சொல்லவில்லையே சமயங்கள் நேரடியாக... திருக்குறளைப் போன்று? அதில் தான் வேறுபாடு விளக்கமாக வெளிவருகிறது.. மற்றபடி அறத்துப் பாலில் வரும் நடுவு நிலைமை இரண்டிலும் உண்டு அல்லவா?
ஏதோ என் அறிவுக்குப் பட்டதை கேள்வி எடுத்துரைத்துள்ளேன்... ஆனால் என் வாக்கு வாதம் முற்றிலும் சரி என்று கூற இயலாது...

[bis_mala]

இடும்பைக்கே கொள்கலம்


இடும்பைக்கே கொள்கலம் கொல்லோ குடும்பத்தைக் // குற்றம் மறைப்பான் உடம்பு.
1029


நாயனார் பெரிய குடும்பக்கலை வல்ல அரும்பெரியார்.
ஒரு குடும்பக்காரனுக்குத்தான் எத்தனை அல்லல்கள்? எதையெதையெல்லாம் அவன் சரிசெய்துகொண்டு இவ்வுலகில் வாழ்க்கையைத் தொடரவேண்டியுள்ளது?
அக்குடும்பத்துக்கு ஒரு வீழ்ச்சி ஏற்பட்டுவிடக்கூடாது என்று கண்ணுங் கருத்துமாகச் செயல்படவேண்டி யுள்ளதே! அதனால், மன அழுத்தம் மிகுந்து, அவனுடலும் வெகுவாகப் பாதிக்கப்படும் நிலை உண்டாகிவிடுகிறதே!
மன அழுத்தத்தின் காரணமாக, மாரடைப்புமுதல் புற்று நோய்வரை வந்த நோய்களேதும் மிகுவனவே தவிர , அவற்றுள் ஏதும் குறைந்து நலம்பெறுவதாய்க் காண முடியவில்லையே!

குடும்பத்தைக் குற்றம் மறைப்பான் = குடும்பத்துக்கு ஏற்படும் இடர்களைச் சரிப்படுத்திக்கொள்ள முயன்று உழலும் அவன் ,
உடம்பு இடும்பைக்கே கொள்கலம் கொல்லோ = துன்பங்களையே உள்வாங்கிச் சுமக்கும் பாத்திரமோ (அவன்) உடம்பு?

இப்படி குடும்பத்தலைவன்பால் மனமிரங்கும் உள்ளம், நாயனாரின் உள்ளம்.

துன்பம் வருங்கால் நகுக என்கிறாரே, துறவு பூண்டு ஓடிவிடு என்கிறாரோ!! மனம் இரங்கவும் செய்கிறார் அல்லவா?

[bis_mala]

எதனால் திருக்குறள் சைவ சமயச்சார்புடையது/போன்மையுடையது? என்பதே இங்கு பெரிய விவாதமாக இருக்கிறது...


பொருள், யாக்கை முதலிய நிலையானவை அல்ல என்றாலும், அவை இவ்வுலக வாழ்க்கைக்கு வேண்டிய கருவிகள் என்பதையும் நாயனார் நன்கு எடுத்துக் கூறியுள்ளார். இதுவே நடுநிலை பிறழாத நல்ல கொள்கை.

பிறரைக் காட்டிலும் ஒரு சைவ சமயப் பெரியாருக்கே இத்தகைய நடுநிலை நெறி கைவரும் என்பது கருதத்தக்கது.

யாக்கை நிலையாமை, செல்வம் நிலையாமை, இளமை நிலையாமை - ஆதலால் காம ஆசையைத் துறக்கச் சொல்கிறது சைவ சமயம்... பெண்ணாசயைத் துறக்கச் சொல்வது தவிர இன்புற அனுபவிக்கச் சொல்லவில்லையே சமயங்கள் நேரடியாக... .

எப்படி, சைவ சமயம், துறவை முன் நிறுத்துகிறது என்று கருதமுடியும்?

சிவனார், பார்வதியுடன் திகழ்கின்றார். முருகப்பெருமான், வள்ளி தெய்வானையுடன் அருள் பாலிக்கிறார்.கணேசருக்கும் இரு மனைவியர் உள்ளனர் என்று கூறப்படுகிறது.சைவ சமயத்தில் தெய்வங்களே இல்லற வாழ்வுக்கு எடுத்துக்காட்டுகளாக விளங்குகின்றன.

இல்லறத் துறவும் உள்ளது. ( இராமகிருஷ்ண பரம அம்சரைப்போல).

இல்லறத்திலிருந்து துறவு மேற்கொண்டோரும் உளர்.

துறவறம் முன் நிறுத்தப்படவில்லை.

வள்ளுவனாரும் இல்லறவாழ்வில் இணைந்திருந்ததாகவே சொல்லப்படுகிறது.

வள்ளுவர் சைவப்பெரியார் என்றே பேரா, டாக்டர் ரா.பி. சேதுப்பிள்ளை* சொல்கிறார்.

Pl also read my post Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:32 am Post subject: malar misai EkinAn - in this thread.

Note

*Prof. R.P.Sethu Pillai, D.Lit., "திருவள்ளுவர் நூல்நயம்", சைவ சித்தாந்த நூற்பதிப்புக் கழகம், சென்னை.

Asceticism is not a prescription for the general public in saivism, it is a matter of individual choice. It is a calling. Anyone is free to renounce. Compare sufism is Islam, or celibacy of the priesthood and religious orders in Catholicism.

[sar]

காமம் வெகுளி மயக்கம் இவை மூன்றும் குற்றங்கள் அல்லவா...?
சைவ சமயத்தின் படி... ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/சைவ_தத்துவங்கள்

திருக்குறளிலும் காமம் வெகுளி மயக்கம் இவை மூன்றும் நோய் அறிகுறிக்கான காரணங்கள் என்றும் குறிப்பிடப் பட்டும் உள்ளது...

காமம் வெகுளி மயக்கம் இவ்முன்றன்
நாமம் கெடக்கெடும் நோய்

பொருள்: காமம், வெகுளி, மயக்கம் என்னும் இவை மூன்றின் பெயர்களைக்கூட உள்ளத்திலிருந்து அறவே நீக்கிவிட்டால், பிறவித் துன்பமும் கெடும்.
http://thatstamil.oneindia.in/art-culture/kural/36.

மற்ற படி... கடவுளே இல்லற வாழ்விற்கு எடுத்துக் காட்டி விளங்குகிறார்கள் என்பதை மறுக்க முடியாது.... மேலும் காதல் உணர்ச்சி கட்டுப்படுத்தப் பட வேண்டியது என்றாலும் அது தான் இயற்கையும் கூட... அதனால் தான் காமத்துப் பால் இருக்க்கிறது...
சக்தி இல்லையேல் சிவம் இல்லை... சிவம் இல்லையேல் சக்தி இல்லை.... ஒவ்வொரு ஆணின் வெற்றிக்குப் பின் பெண் இருக்கிறாள்... இல்லறம் அல்லது நல்லறம் அன்று... போன்றவை ஆண்பெண் வாழ்க்கைத் துணைக்கு இல்லற வாழ்விற்கு உகந்தவை...

...ஆனாலும் சமயங்கள் காம இச்சையை ஆதரிக்காதது போலவே அபிமானம் எனக்கு இது வரைக்கும் ஏனோ இருந்து வந்துள்ளது... 'குடும்பத்தில் எப்படி இருக்க வேண்டும்' என்ற புத்தகத்தில் இந்து மதத் துறவி சாமியார் ஒருவர் (சுவாமி சித்பாவனந்தர்??!! என்ற சந்தேஹம்) இல்லற வாழ்வில் பிள்ளைகள் பெற்ற பின் ஒரு சில ஆண்டு நிலைக்குப் பின் காம சுகத்தில் நாட்டம் கொள்ளலாகாது என்று கூறியபடிததது போல் ஞாபகம் உள்ளது...

சில சமய இலக்கியங்களிலோ காமத்தைப் புறந்தள்ளுவதே கடவுள் பக்தியின் லட்சிய நோக்கம் போன்று படித்திருக்கிறேன்...

மிக்க நன்றி... சற்று தெரிந்த வரை எடுத்துரைத்தால் நலம்...

[bis_mala]

The Sociology of Savism in particular and other concepts in general


It is actually a matter of what I would like to call "social engineering": The aim has always been to strike a delicate balance between opposing forces. The prevention of overindulgence in anything that brings about its ugly consequences.

At a time when there was no police, no courts, no written law, what else could mankind do? Those in charge of society or social groups had the duty, which was abundantly theirs, to allow what should be allowed and to prescribe the point at which the brakes should be applied.

Different societies at different times had tried different methods, with results sometimes differing and sometimes similar. Society allowed love, but not sensual indulgence in it, which is called lust (or kaamam) which if left unchecked, would definitely carried certain people who were unable to control themselves into committing rapes and assaults with intent to outrage modesty of women. Or otherwise producing unwanted children, who grew up and became a menace to society. The rulers themselves promoted and rewarded poets who specialised in composing on aram (or virtues). The poets had an important place in society in this respect. Religion too had its important place in the history of social development.

Saivam had and does have its own way of dealing with development of society.

But unfortunately, in order to confirm themselves in their calling and check themselves from slipping into kaamam, ascetics of India often unleashed an unwarranted attack on women. It is their struggle with their inner selves, and often was symptomatic of some sort of weakness in them. Such attacks brought about some consolidation and steadiness in them. A better method was shown by Sri Ramakrishna, allowing annai Saaradadevi to be with him and yet not despising her gender to steady oneself nor indulging in her feminine attraction in any covert manner. But if one was not able to rise up to that standard, it may be deplorable albeit considered acceptable to achieve in asceticism somehow by attacking those "allurements" in life. It would be worse to deceive oneself by practising stealth to enjoy sensual pleasures, in a double-faced manner. These may then be considered different methods of achieving it. Different methods may bear fruit in the case of different persons.

Note that Karaikkaal Ammaiyaar did not have to invoke masculine gender hostility to achieve her goal. This I would say is a better method.

Gender is installed by the creator herself or himself, who has no gender herself or himself. In another view, both genders are in her or him. Gender is divine. It is natural. We deeply respect it.

Nothing comes without a struggle. The struggle is within oneself. The various theories and propositions to achieve in the struggle and attain, are just manifestations of that inner struggle.

Swami Chitpavananda's advice? He probably never got married in the first place. He is repeating what Mahatma advised in his book.
Do you know some people are accusing the Mahatma of neglecting his wife and of having beaten her in the process. I know of a case where the husband became too religious and kept away from his wife, the wife ran way with a neighbour, in the end the husband committed suicide out of shame or whatever......Ensure that you have proper safeguards in place before following any advice....Life is that not that simple.......Books are books....Anybody can publish anything....( other than what is prohibited by the municipal laws in place). Of course we respect the Swami ji and also the Mahatma. Practicality of advice is a different matter.

Population control in the old world of bygone days was achieved by taking the husband away and putting him in a monastery after a betrothal. He became released after serving his "internment". Read history of other countries as well.... The Chinese and the Muslims realised the benefit of having a very large population, with expansion in view. Nabi liberalised marriage laws. In countries where Hindus are a minority, the democratic process will ensure that their rights are eroded, unless the non-Hindu majority population is willing to share....

Well, I will stop here.

[sar]

திரு செல்வி சிவமாலா அவர்களே,
நிச்சயம் நீங்கள் கருத்துரைத்த வண்ணம் மிகவும் பாராட்டுக்குரியது... ஆண் பெண் அபிலாசைகளைக் கட்டுப் படுத்த வேண்டிய அவசியமே ஒழிய காமத்தை அறவே ஒழித்தாகவேண்டும் என்ற அவசியம் இல்லை... இயல்பான வாழ்க்கையில் இணைந்து இருந்து கடவுளை அடைவதே வாழ்க்கையின் லட்சியம்... அதற்கு துறவிகள் துணை புரிகிறார்கள்... எல்லோரும் துறவிகள் என்பது சாத்தியமே இல்லை... எல்லோர்க்கும் பங்கு உண்டு சமுதாய முன்னேற்றத்தில்... அதனாலே தான் இல்லறவியல் துறவறவியல் என்று இரண்டுமே இருக்கிறது... முக்கியமாக காமம் வெகுளி மயக்கம் இக்குறட்பா துறவறவியலில் வருகிறது என்பது தான் கவனிக்க வேண்டியது...சமுதாயக் கட்டுப்பாடு... அவ்வளவு தான்... அதையும் மதங்கள்/ சமயங்கள் தங்கட்குள் வைத்திருக்கின்றன... அது காலத்திற்கு எவ்வாறு ஏற்றது என்பதே இங்கு கேள்விக் குறி... தங்கள் விளக்கம அறிவார்ந்தது மிகவும் நன்றி..

[bis_mala]

திரு செல்வி சிவமாலா அவர்களே,
நிச்சயம் நீங்கள் கருத்துரைத்த வண்ணம் மிகவும் பாராட்டுக்குரியது... .................................................. .......... தங்கள் விளக்கம அறிவார்ந்தது மிகவும் நன்றி..

You are welcome.

[sar]

பின் வரும் குறட்பாவில் உள்ள வார்த்தைகளில் சந்தேஹம் உள்ளது...

அமைச்சு
636. மதிநுட்பம் நூலோடு உடையார்க்கு அதிநுட்பம்
யாவுள முன்நிற் பவை.

Translation :
When native subtilty combines with sound scholastic lore,
'Tis subtilty surpassing all, which nothing stands before.
Translation by Rev. Dr. G. U. Pope, Rev W. H. Drew,Rev. John Lazarus and Mr F. W. Ellis
Explanation :
What (contrivances) are there so acute as to resist those who possess natural acuteness in addition to learning ?.


my understood MEANING (OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION):

FOR THOSE HAVING MENTAL INTELLECT (BRAIN ABILITY) THAT TOO WITH GOOD BOOKS AS GUIDANCE, WHAT ELSE STANDING INFRONT COULD BE MORE CHALLENGING TO THEM...?

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY ENCOURAGING WORDS FOR HUMANITY THAT YOU COULD DO... DONT SLIP BEHIND.. ESPECIALLY WHEN YoU POSSESS GOOD INTELLECTUAL & READING CAPABILITIES U CAN WIN ANYTHING UPFRONT - thats a good preaching, no doubt abt it;

ஆனால் இச்சொற்கள் எதைக் குறிக்கப் பயன்பட்டிருக்கின்றன...?

மதிநுட்பம் = brain intelligence, mental thinking solving capability;
அதிநுட்பம் = which is more subtle/indepth (than mental abilities);

அவ்வாறே ஆகின் 'நுட்பமான மதி' என்ற சொல் வழக்கில் 'intelligent' ஆன 'mind' என்று பொருள் கொண்டால்
'நுட்பமான விடயம்' என்ற சொல் வழக்கில் 'intelligent things' என்ற பொருள் ஒத்து வராது... அதே சமயம்
minute/subtle things என்று பொருள் கொண்டால்... minute/subtle brain என்ற வழக்கு ஒத்து வராது...

உண்மையில் நுட்பம் என்னும் சொல் intelligent என்ற பதத்திற்கும் minute என்ற பதத்திற்கும் பொதுவாகவே பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

எவ்வாறு இது பொருந்தும் என்று சற்று புரிந்தால் தேவலை... நுட்பமான விஷயம், it would be better if we could understand this subtle thing... நன்றி

[bis_mala]

This incongruity arises from your own substitution of words and interpretation. You should find another word which can be used suitably in both instances if you need one which can be interchangeably used in both.

மதி என்ற சொல், மதித்தல் என்ற வினையடியாகப் பிறப்பது. முதனிலைத் தொழிற்பெயர்.

'இது இத்தகையது', 'இதற்கு எத்துணை "கனம்" இருப்பதாகக் கணிக்கலாம்' , 'இதனோடு அதை ஒப்பிட்டால், அது எத்தகையது என்று முடிவு செய்யலாம்', 'ஒவ்வொன்றையும் எப்படித் "தூக்கி" வினைசெய்வது', ---என்றெல்லாம் உள்ளனவற்றை அறிந்துகொள்ளும் அறிவைத்தான் மதி என்று சொல்லவேண்டும்.


அப்படி அறிந்து அதைப் பயன்படுத்திக் கொள்ளமுடிந்தாலும் அந்தப் பொருளுக்குள் இன்னோர் உட்பொருள் ஒளிந்துகொண்டிருக்கும். அதையும் அறிந்துகொள்ளவும் அதையும் எடைபோடவும் திறம் இருக்கவேண்டும். அந்தப் பொருள், முன் உள்ள வெளிப்பொருளை நோக்க, ஒரு நுண்பொருள். இங்கு நுண் என்பது, வெளிப்படையாக இல்லாமல் ஒளிந்துகொண்டிருக்கும் பொருள் என்று அறியவேண்டும்.

நுண் என்பது (in this context) அளவுபற்றியது அன்று. உரு பற்றியதும் அன்று. அதன் உள்ளில் இது, இதனுள்ளில் இன்னொன்று, இப்படியே பற்பல, மற்றப் பசங்களுக்குத் தெரியவில்லை, நீங்கள் கண்டுபிடித்து அதை "அடக்கியாளத்" தெரிந்துகொண்டீர் என்று வைத்துக்கொள்வோம்.உங்களை மதி நுட்பமுடையவர் என்று சொல்லத்தகும்.

Language is never complete without figurative usage and figurative extension of meanings in words including word development, The principle applies to all languages, to some: less, to others: more, but all the same as to application of the principle,


விரிவஞ்சி இத்துடன் நிறுத்துகிறேன். ஐயப்பாடுகள் இருந்தால் தொடர்வோம்.

[bis_mala]

அரும் பிழைகள்


போற்றின் அரியவை போற்றல்; கடுத்தபின்,
தேற்றுதல் யார்க்கும் அரிது.
693.

போற்றின் = காத்துக்கொள்ள வேண்டுமென்றால்;

அரியவை = அரும் பிழைகள் (நேராவண்ணம்);

போற்றல்= காத்துக்கொள்ள வேண்டும்;

கடுத்தபின் = அத்தகைய பிழைகளில் ஏதேனும் ஒன்று நேர்ந்துவிடுமானாலும்;

தேற்றுதல் = அப்புறம் போய் அதைத் தெளிய வைப்பது;

யார்க்கும் = எவருக்கும்;

அரிது= கடினமாகப் போய்விடும்

என்றவாறு.


அரிது என்று ஒருமையில் முடிந்ததனால், "பிழைகளில் ஏதேனும் ஒன்று நேர்ந்தாலும்" என்று உரைக்கப்பட்டது.


நீர் ஒரு பொறுப்பான வேலையில் இருக்கிறீர். உமக்குக் கீழிருப்பவர் சில பரிந்துரைகளைச் செய்கிறார். அதை நன்கு ஆராய்ந்து, " இதனால் தொல்லைகள் ஏதும் விளையுமா?" என்று நன்கு சிந்தித்து, பிறகு அப்பரிந்துரையை ஏற்றுச் செயல் படுவதா, அல்லது தள்ளுபடி செய்துவிடுவதா என்று முடிவு செய்ய வேண்டும்.

அப்படி ஆய்ந்து ஓய்ந்து பாராமல், பிழைபடும் ஒரு காரியத்தைச் சிந்திக்காமல் செய்துவிட்டு, பிறகு அதைச் சரிப்படுத்தி விடலாம் என்றால், அது எளிதன்று. அது முயற்கொம்பாகிவிடும்.

ஸ்பெக்றம் விவகாரம் இதற்கோர் எடுத்துக்காட்டு.

Here Naayanaar is not concerned with common or routine faults. Ariyavai = those faults which may lead to dire consequences....
Even one such fault will be enough to destroy you!!

[bis_mala]

ஊணுடை எச்சம் உயிர்க்கெல்லாம் வேறல்ல;
நாணுடைமை மாந்தர் சிறப்பு.1011



ஊண் = உணவு; உடை = ஆடை; எச்சம் =( உயிர்களுக்கு) உரிய பிற; உயிர்க்கெல்லாம் = உயிர்களுக்கெல்லாம்; வேறு அல்ல = ஒன்றேதான்;

நாணுடைமை = தகாதவை மனம், மொழி, மெய்களில் தொடர்பு படுதலை எண்ணி வெட்கி விலகுவது;

மாந்தர் = மக்கள் ஆவார்தம் ;

சிறப்பு = வேறுபடுத்திக் காட்டும் உயர்வு ஆகும்.

சில ஓலைச்சுவடிகளில் எச்சம் என்பது அச்சம் என்று உள்ளதாகக் கூறுவர் ஆய்வாளர்

[bis_mala]

ஒரு நாளைக்கு ஒன்று என்று குறளை ஓதலாம் என்றாலும், வாழ்வின் அன்றாட செயல்பாட்டு நெருக்கடிகளால், அதுகூட முடியவில்லை. ஆகவே நல்ல நூல்களை மிக முயன்று படிக்கவேண்டியுள்ளது.

இப்போது ஒரு குறளை ஓதியறிவோம். உடம்பில் உயிர் எங்கே இருக்கின்றது என்று அறிய முடிவதில்லை. நெஞ்சிலா? தலைப் பகுதியிலா? வேறு எவ்விடம்...என்று தேடிப் பார்க்கிறோம்.

உடலில் இருந்துவிட்டு, என்றாவது ஒருநாள் ஓடிவிடுகிறது...எங்கே போய் விடுகிறது?

இதையும் அறிய முடிவதில்லை.

நிலையான வீடு அமையவில்லை, உயிருக்கு!

புக்கில் அமைந்தின்று கொல்லோ உடம்பினுள்
துச்சில் இருந்த உயிர்க்கு. 340.

[bis_mala]

இன்பம் விழையான் இடும்பை இயல்பென்பான்
துன்பம் உறுதல் இலன் - 628

இன்பம் எனும் ஒன்றை விரும்ப மாட்டான்; துன்பம் என்பது என்றும் எங்கும் எவர்க்கும் வருவதுதான் என்பான்; அத்தகையவன் என்றும் துன்புறுவதில்லை.

துன்பம் என்பது வாழ்வில் இயல்பானது என்பதறிந்தால், பிறகு துன்புறுதல் இல்லையே!.

"பிறந்தோர் உறுவது பெருகிய துன்பம், பிறவார் உறுவது பெரும்பேரின்பம்" என்கிறார் மணிமேகலையில், சாத்தனார். அது வேறு கருத்து அன்றோ? (just from memory....). Check the book for accuracy.

[bis_mala]

மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும்; பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கம் குன்றக் கெடும்.

ஓத்து = ஓதுதலை;
மறப்பினும் = மறந்துவிட்டாலும்;
கொளல் ஆகும் = அதனை ஏற்றுக்கொள்வது கூடும்;
பார்ப்பான் = கோயிற்காரியங்கள் அல்லது நூல்கள் பார்ப்ப-
வன்;
பிறப்பொழுக்கம் = பிறந்த ( குடியின் )் ஒழுக்கத்தினை;
குன்ற = குறைவுபட விட்டுவிட்டால்;
கெடும் = (அது மாற்றவியலாத ) கெடுதலை உண்டுபண்ணிவிடும்.

இதனால், ஒழுக்கத்தின் இன்றியமையாமை உரைக்கப்பட்டது.

ஓதுதலை மறத்தல் : ஓதும் தொழிலையே நிறைவேற்ற மறத்தல்
ஒன்று; மற்று, ஓதுகையில் சொற்களையும் (மந்திரத்தையும்)
சொற்பொருளையும் மறந்துவிடுதல் இன்னொருவகை மறப்பாகும்.


குன்றக் கெடும் = குன்றினால், கேடுகள் பலவும் உண்டாகும்
என்பதாம். குன்ற = குன்றினால்.

[lakshmirad]

how to install tamil fonts?

[lathaji]

குறள் 134:
மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கங் குன்றக் கெடும்.

Translation:
Though he forget, the Brahman may regain his Vedic lore;
Failing in 'decorum due,' birthright's gone for evermore.
Explanation:
A Brahman though he should forget the Vedas may recover it by reading; but, if he fail in propriety of conduct even his high birth will be destroyed.
கலைஞர் உரை:
பார்ப்பனன் ஒருவன் கற்றதை மறந்துவிட்டால் மீண்டும் படித்துக் கொள்ள முடியும்; ஆனால், பிறப்புக்குச் சிறப்பு சேர்க்கும் ஒழுக்கத்திலிருந்து அவன் தவறினால் இழிமகனே ஆவான்.
மு.வ உரை:
கற்ற மறைப் பொருளை மறந்தாலும் மீண்டும் அதனை ஓதிக் கற்றுக் கொள்ள முடியும்; ஆனால் மறை ஓதுவனுடைய குடிப்பிறப்பு, ஒழுக்கம் குன்றினால் கெடு்ம்.
சாலமன் பாப்பையா உரை:
பார்ப்பான் தான் கற்ற வேதத்தை மறந்து போனாலும் பிறகு கற்றுக் கொள்ளலாம்; ஆனால், அவன் பிறந்த குலத்திற்கு ஏற்ற, மேலான ஒழுக்கத்திலிருந்து தாழ்ந்தால் அவன் குலத்தாலும் தாழ்வான்.

[bis_mala]

பார்ப்பான் என்ற சொல்லுக்கு, பெரும்பேராசிரியர் மறைம-
லையடிகளார் சொன்ன பொருள் , கோயிற்காரியங்கள் பார்-
ப்பவன் என்பது.

ஓரிரண்டு ஆண்டுகளின்முன் நம் நேயர்கள் இவ் விணையதள-
த்தில் கூறியது: "நூல்களைப் பார்ப்பவன்" என்பது.

இரண்டையும் அணைத்துச் செல்கிறது என் உரை.

திருவள்ளுவர் காலத்தில், நூல்கள் ஏட்டுருவை இன்னும்
அடையவில்லை என்பது மெய்ப்பிக்கப் பட்டால், நூல்கள்
பார்ப்பவன் என்ற பொருளில் மாற்றம் தேவைப்படலாம்.

பொய்யும் வழுவும் தோன்றிய பின்னர், ஐயர் யாத்தனர்
கரணம் என்ப என்பது தொல்காப்பியம், அது நினைவுக்கு
வருகிறது. பொய்யும் வழுவும் தோன்றாது மக்களை மேற்பார்-
ப்பவர் "பார்ப்பார்" என்று சுட்டப்பட்டிருத்தலும் கூடும்.
மறையோதுவோர் மக்களை நன்னெறிப்படுத்துவோர் அல்லது
அக்கடமை உடையோர் என்பதனால் இப்பெயர் வந்திருப்பி-
ன் சாலப் பொருத்தமே.

[lathaji]

ஜன்மநா ஜாயதே ஸூத்ர: ஸம்ஸ்காராத் த்விஜ:
வேத பாடாத் பவேத் விப்ர: பிரம்ம ஜாநா நீதி பிராம்மண:

என்பது புராண வாக்கியம். பிறப்பினால் எல்லோரும் சூத்திரர்களே. உபநயன ஸம்ஸ்காரத்தினால் த்விஜன் ஆகிறான். வேதங்களைப் படிப்பதினால் விப்ரன் ஆகிறான். பிரம்மத்தை உணர்ந்தவன் பிராமணன் ஆகிறான். இதில் த்விஜன் என்ற ஸம்ஸ்கிருதப் பதத்திற்குத்தான் தமிழில் 'இரு' பிறப்பாளன் 'பார்ப்பனன்' என்று சொல்லப்படுகிறது. நக்கீரர் திரு முருகாற்றுப் படையில் "இருபிறப்பாளன் பொழுதறிந்து நுவல" என்று பிராமணர்களின் சந்தியா வந்தனத்தைக் குறிப்பிடுகிறார். "ஒரு பிறப்பும் எய்தாமை யுடையார் தமை உலகியப் பின் இருபிறப்பின் நிலமையினைச் சடங்கு காட்டி" என்று உபநயனச் சடங்கினைச் சேக்கிழார் சுட்டுகிறார். அதேபோன்று தான் த்விஜன் என்ற சொல்லுக்கு நேர் தமிழ் பார்ப்பான்-பார்ப்பனன் என்பதும்.

பிராமணன் வேதத்தை மறந்தாலும் பின் கற்றுக்கொள்ளலாம். ஆனால், குல ஓழுக்கத்தைவிட்டால் எல்லாமே கெடும் என்று சொல்ல வரும் பொழுது,

மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப் பொழுக்கம் குன்றக் கெடும்.

என்று திருவள்ளுவர் கூறுகிறார். இங்கே பிராமணரைக் குறிப்பிடும்பொழுது பார்ப்பான் என்ற சொல்லைப் பயன்படுத்துகிறார்.

"இன்னா ஓத்தில்லாப் பார்ப்பான் உரை"

என்று இன்னா நாற்பது என்ற நூல் கூறுகிறது.

(ஓத்து = வேதம் = ஓதுவது ஓத்து)

பார்ப்பார்த் தப்பிய கொடுமையோர்க்கும் அதாவது பிராமணனுக்குச் செய்த கொடுமை "பார்ப்பார்த்த புதலும்" என்று புறநானூற்றில் வருகிறது. பிறர் பொருளை வஞ்சித்துக் கொள்ளக் கருதி அவரது சோர்வு பார்ப்பார் மாட்டு உண்டாது என்று சொல்லவரும்பொழுது "பார்ப்பார்" என்ற சொல்லைப் பயன் படுத்துகிறார். ஆகையினால், பார்ப்பனன் என்ற சொல் உயர்ந்த கௌரவமான (degnified) சொல்லே. அது derogatory இழிவுபடுத்துகிற சொல்லே அல்ல.

அடுத்து விப்ரன் என்று பதத்திற்குத்தான் தமிழில் மறையோன் என்ற சொல்லைப் பயன்படுத்துகிறார்.

"மறையென மொழிதல் மறையோர் ஆறே"

என்று தொல்காப்பியம் கூறுகிறது.

நிகண்டு திவாகரம் (தமிழ் அகராதி) Tamil Laxicon

"மந்திரி-ஆசான்-மறையோன்-வியாழம்"

என்று கூறுகிறது.

அடுத்து பிராமணன் என்ற பதத்திற்குத் தமிழில் "அந்தணன்" என்ற சொல்லால் குறிப்பிடுகிறார்.

"அந்தணன்" என்போர் அறவோர் மற்றெவ்வுயிர்க்கும்
செந் தண்மை பூண்டு ஓழுகலான்"

என்ற குறளால் குறிப்பிடுகிறார்.

[lathaji]

// For the Benefit of all Viewers - I take from Madurai Kamarajar University’s Kural Peedam established by
Dr. Mu.Varadarajanar, and Peedam selected Lecturer. Selvi.Kamatchi Sinivasan, who was born in a Saivite family in Srilanka, came to India, served various collages before Joining the Kural Peedam. She had converted to Christianity also. She was of highest repute for integrity, and Peedam asked her to bring Books

1. குறள் கூறும் சமுதாயம்
2. திருகுறளும் விவிலியமும் (Tirukural and Bible)
3. குறள் கூறும் சமயம் ( Religion of Tirukural) and One more also.

The books were published by Peetam after the death of the Author, i.e., the views represented edited by A team of Experts who made final Edition.
The Author was selected for Her Strict Integrity, being a Christian Convert- as that was the time Deivanayagam was making with the political support of DMK rule and Pavanar links that Tiruvalluvar was Christian and Tirukural is a book based on Bible. The end result was that the Author Madam lost her beliefs on Christianity on researching Bible. Now let me come to the references of Anthanar in this.


அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர்மற் றெவ்வுயிர் க்கும்
செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுக லான். 30

The author of the book analysises the Relligious situation in Tholkappiyam to and takes all references of every song in Sangam Literature, Tholkappiyam, Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai and confirms the research view.

I QUOTE:
அந்தணர் நு¡ற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் தியாய்
நின்றது மன்னவன் கோல். 543

அந்தணர் என்னும் சொற்கு எவ்வுயிர்கும் செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுகுவோர் என வள்ளுவர் கூறினாராயினும் இங்கு அச்சொல் பிரமாணரைக் குறிப்பதாகக் கொள்வதெ பொருந்தும். அந்தணர் நூல் என்பதும் வேதம் முதலிய சமயனூல்களையே எனலாம். இவ்வாறே பழைய உரையாசிரியர்கள் அனைவரும் பொருள் கொண்டனர்.
அறுதொழிலோர் என சிரியர் குறிபிட்டதும் பிரமாணர்களையே யாதால் வேண்டும். ஓதல், ஓதுவித்தல், வேட்டல், வேட்பித்தல், ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்னும் று தொழில்கள் அவர்க்குரிய என்பது சங்க காலத்தில் முன்பெ வகுக்கப்பட்டது. இவ்வாறு தொழில்கள் பதிற்றுபத்தினுள்ளும் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ளன.

ஓதல் வேட்டல் அவைபிறர்ச் செய்தல்
ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்று றுபுரிந்து ஒழுகும்
அறம் புரி அந்தணர் .. .. பதிற்றுபத்தது 24.
தொல்காப்பியரும்
“ அறுவகைப்பட்ட பார்ப்பனப் பக்கமும் சொல்-75
எனப் பார்ப்பனரின் அறுதொழிலைக் குறிப்பிட்டார். வேதம் முதலிய சமயநூல்களைக் கற்பது சிறப்பாக அந்தணர் (பிரமாணர்) கடமை என அக்காலத்து நிலவிய கருத்தை வள்ளுவரும் ஏற்றுக் கொண்டார் போலும்.
ஓதுவித்தலும் அவர்கள் தொழில் கையினால் அந்தணர் அல்லாத பிறர்க்கும்
(மன்னவர் வணிகர் குலத்தவரா?) வேதம் முதலிய நூல்களைக் கற்பித்த்வர் எனக் கருதலாம்.

பயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நு¡ல்மறப்பர்
காவலன் காவான் எனின். 560

மக்கள் வாழ்க்கையில் வேதம் முதலிய சமையநூற்கல்விக்கு இடம் உண்டு, அவை மக்கட்கு நன்மை பயப்பன என்ற கருத்து ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளப் படுவதனாலேயே அவற்றை தரிப்பது மன்னனின் கடமையாயிற்று.
காவலன் காவானெனின் அறுதொழிலோர் நு¡ல்மறப்பர் என எச்சரிக்கப் படுவதும் சமய நூல்கள் மறக்கப் படுதல் சமுதாயத்திற்கு கேடு எனக் கருதப் படுவதனாலேயே.

மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கங் குன்றக் கெடும். 134

இக்குறள் பார்ப்பாரையும் அவர் ஓதும் வேதத்தையுமே குறிக்கிறதென்பது தெளிவு. “மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும்” (134) என்ற தொடரும் பார்ப்பான் ஓத்தை(வேதம் ஓதக்கற்றதை) மறத்தலாகாது. ஒருகால் மறப்பினும் விரைவில் திரும்ப ஓதிக் கற்றுக் கொள்ளல் வேண்டும் என்ற் கருத்தைத் தரும்
பக்கம்-194,195.

On Kural which was interpreted as Valluvar being against Vedas, the Peedam Author again confirms

அவிசொரிந் தாயிரம் வேட்டலின் ஒன்றன்
உயிர்செகுத் துண்ணாமை நன்று. 259
தீ மூட்டி செய்யப் படும் வேள்வியைக் ரிய வழிபாடு முறையையே குறிப்பிடப் படுகின்றது. தேவர்களுக்கு உணவாகத் தீயிலிடபடும் பொருளையே வடமொழியில் ஹவிஸ் என்பர், அதுவே தமிழில் “அவி” யாயிற்று, .. அவிப்பொருள்களை நெருப்பில் சொரிந்து யிரம் வேள்வி செய்வதை விட ஒன்றின் உயிர் செகுத்து அதன் ஊனை உண்ணாமை நன்று என வள்ளுவர் இங்கு கூறினார். இதனால் வேள்வி தீயது என வள்ளுவர் கருதினார் எனல் குமா? வேள்வியையும் நல்லதாகக் கருதித்தானே வேள்வி செய்தலை விடக் கொல்லாமை நன்று என்றார். .. .. ரிய வேள்விக்களத்திலுமே உயிர்க்கொலையும் விலங்குபலியும் இல்லை. பசுயாகம் எனப்படும் சில வேள்விகளில் மட்டுமே விலங்குபலியளிப்பர். நெய், பால், தானியங்கள் தானியங்களினால் செய்யப்பட்ட உணவுப் பொருட்கள் கியவற்றை நெருப்பிலிட்டும் வேள்விகள் செய்வர் ( Author quotes this from " INDIA OF THE AGE OF THE BRAMANAS" book-iii, CHAP-2, The forms of Sacrifice- by Basu, Dr.Jogiraj.). எனவே உயிர்க் கொலையின்றி இவ்வாறு செய்யப்படும் வேள்விகள் வள்ளுவர்க்கு உடன்பாடு என்றே கொள்ளலாம். பக்கம் - 192,193.//
From Page-14 by Devapriya

[San_K]

how to install tamil fonts?

for what purpose?

[bis_mala]

வைத்தான்வாய் சான்ற பெரும்பொருள் அஃதுண்ணான்
செத்தான் செயக்கிடந்தது இல். 1001.

வாய் சான்ற = இடம் நிறைந்த ; பெரும்பொருள் = அதிகச்
செல்வத்தை; அஃதுண்ணான், வைத்தான் = அதை நுகராது,
சேமிப்பில் கிடத்தினான் ஒருவன்; செத்தான் = அவன்
இறந்தவனுக்கு ஒத்தவனே; செயக்கிடந்தது = (பின்னர்,
அப்பொருளைக் கொண்டு ) அவன் செய்தற்கு உள்ளவை; இல்
=ஒன்றுமில்லை என்றவாறு.

செத்தான் - செத்தபின்னர் என்றும் உரை கூறுவதுண்டு.

[leons0133]

kavathai is very superb

[bis_mala]

kavathai is very superb

Thank you.


A review of kuRaL (supra), sufficiently referenced below:

இக்குறளை வேறு வகையாகவும் சிந்திக்கலாம்.

குறள்:

மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்.
பிறப்பொழுக்கம் குன்றக் கெடும்.

இதில் இரண்டு வாக்கியங்கள் உள்ளன. முதல் வாக்கியம்:
பார்ப்பான் மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் என்பது.

நூல்களைப் பார்ப்பவ னொருவன், அவற்றில் ஓதற்குரிய ஒன்றை மறந்துவிட்டாலும், அதனை அறிஞர் பொருட்படுத்தமாட்டார்; (காரணம், அதனை யவன் திருத்திக்கொள்ளலாமே!)

அடுத்த வாக்கியம்: "பிறப்பொழுக்கம் குன்றக் கெடும்". இந்த இரண்டாவது வாக்கியத்துக்குப் பார்ப்பான் என்ற சொல்லை மீண்டும் துணைக்கழைக்க வேண்டியதில்லை. குடிக்குரிய ஒழுக்கம்
என்பது யார்க்கும் உண்டு, ஆதலால்், யாரென்றாலும், குடிக்குரிய ஒழுக்கத்தினின்று திறம்பி நடந்தால், அந்த நடத்தை, திருத்திக் கொள்ள முடியாத பெரும் பேரிடர்களை வாழ்வில்
விளைத்துவிடும்.

இதுவே சிறந்த விளக்கம் எனலாம்.

திருவள்ளுவர் காலத்தில் ";" குறி இல்லை. இப்போது அச்சிடப்பட்டவற்றில் அது இருக்கிறதென்பதை உணர்க. பிறப்பொழுக்கம் என்பது எச்சாதியானுக்கும் உண்டு. ஒவ்வொருவனும் ஒவ்வொருத்தியும் ஒரு குடியில் பிறத்தலால், அக்குடிக்குரிய ஒழுக்கமே அந் ந(ண்)பருக்குப் பிறப்பொழுக்கமாகும்.

[bis_mala]

(Puram 166) it is clear that the word “paarppaan” can also refer to “uurpaarppan”, a person who looks after a village or region of several villages.

One has to be careful in interpreting.

[bis_mala]

பிறப்பொழுக்கம் - பிறந்த குடிக்குரிய ஒழுக்கம் என்று பல உரையாசிரியன்மார் உரைத்துள்ளனர். அவர்களை ஒருவகை-
யில் பின்பற்றியே நானும் " பிறப்பு ஒழுக்கம்" - குடிப்பிறப்புக்குரிய ஒழுக்கம் என்று உரைத்துள்ளேன்.

இதிலும் நாம் சற்று கருத்தைச் செலுத்தலாம்.

குடிக்குரிய ஒழுக்கம் என்று தமிழ் நாட்டில் ஓர் ஒழுக்க நெறி கடைப்பிடிக்கப்பட்டு வந்தது என்பது நிறுவப்படுதல் வேண்டும்்.

குடிக்குரிய ஒழுக்கம், சாதிக்குரிய ஒழுக்கம், பிறப்புக்குரிய ஒழுக்கம் என்பவெல்லாம் ஒரு பொருளனவா என்பதும்
தெளிவுறுத்தப்படுதல் வேண்டும். வள்ளுவர் ஒவ்வொரு சாதிக்கும் அல்லது குடிக்கும் அல்லது பிறப்புக்கும் ஒரு விதந்து கூறத்தக்க
ஒழுக்கம் இருந்தது என்று நம்பினாரா அல்லது அவ்வாறு இருந்ததா என்பதும் ஆய்ந்து நிறுவப்படுதல் வேண்டும்.

பிறப்பொக்கும் என்பது வள்ளுவர் கருத்தாகலின், பிறப்பொழுக்கம் என்பது ஏன் ஒத்த பிறப்பினரான மக்களிடையே
பொதுவாக நிலவிய ஒழுக்க நெறிகளின் தொகுப்பு என்று பொருள் படலாகாது என்பதையும் தெளிவு படுத்தவேண்டும்.
"சிறப்பொவ்வா செய்தொழில் வேற்றுமையான்" என்றதனால், ஏன் சிறப்பொழுக்கம் என்ற தொடர் ஆளப்பெறவில்லை என்றும்
கடாவ வேண்டும். குடிக்கும் செய்தொழிலுடையோருக்கும் இடையே வழங்கி வரும் ஒழுக்க நெறிகள் எனின் சிறப்பொழுக்கம்
குன்றக் கெடும் என்று குறளில் ஏனோ வரவில்லை என்றும் குடைய வேண்டும்.

(குடி என்று இங்கே கூறப்பட்டது ஒரே தொழிலில் அல்லது அக்கறைக்குரிய நடவடிக்கைகளில் ஈடுபட்டு இணைந்தியங்கும்
குடும்பங்கள் என்று பொருள்படும். )

்

[bis_mala]

இருவகையில் பொருள் கொள்ளுதல்.

பிறப்பொழுக்கம் குன்றக் கெடும் என்பதை:

1. பிறப்பு, ஒழுக்கம் குன்ற, கெடும் அதாவது: பிறப்பானது, ஒழுக்கம் குன்றுமாயின், கெட்டுப் போகும் என்று கொள்ளுதல். இங்கு, பிறப்பு ஒழுக்கம் என்பன தனித்தனியாக நிற்கும்படி பொருள்கொள்ளப்பட்டது. பிறப்பு (எழுவாய்), கெடும் (பயனிலை). எப்போது கெடும்? என்ற கேள்விக்கு, ஒழுக்கம் குன்றினால் கெடுமென்றவாறு. இதைத் தற்கால உரைநடை இலக்கணத்தில், "கிளவியம்" (clause ) என்பர். இங்ஙனம் கொள்ளுங்கால், "பிறப்பொழுக்கம்" என்று ஒன்று விதந்து கூறுவதற்கு இல்லையாயிற்று.

2. அடுத்து, "பிறப்பொழுக்கம்" என்பதை ஒரு கூட்டுச்சொல்லாகக் கொண்டு, பிறப்பொழுக்கம் குன்றக்கெடும் எனக் கொள்ளுதல். இப்படிக் கொண்டால், பிறப்பொழுக்கம் குன்றினால், (எது) கெடும்? என்று கேள்வியை எழுப்பி, அதற்கு உரையாசிரியர் விடை சொல்வார். எது கெடும் என்றால் அவன் குலம் கெட்டுப்போகும், மேற்குலத்தினின்று கீழிறக்கப் பெறுவான்.. என்பார். ஆகவே, குலம் என்பதை வருவித்து உரைகூறுவார். கெடும் என்ற பயனிலை மட்டும் இருக்கிறது, எழுவாய் இல்லை. அதைப்படிப்பவரே வழங்கிக்கொள்ளவேண்டும். இப்படியும் உரை கூறலாம்.

சரியான உரை என்று எதுவும் இல்லை. சரியில்லாத உரையும் எதுவும் இல்லை. வள்ளுவர் காலத்தின்பின் ஈராயிரம் ஆண்டுகள் ஓடி மறைந்த நிலையில், அவரை முற்றும் அறிந்தவர் யார்? அவரே உரை வகுத்திருந்தால் இத்தகைய தொல்லைகள் இரா. ஆனால் அவரெழுதிய காலத்தில் மொழி நிலை மேம்பட்டு நின்று விளங்கிய காரணத்தால், உரை தேவைப்பட்டிருக்காது. ஈராயிரம் ஆண்டுகளின் பின் வாழும் நமக்குத் தேவைப்படுகிறது. உரையாசிரியர் அனைவருக்கும் நன்றி நவிலும் அதே வேளையில், வேறுபடும் உரைகளில் எது உங்கள் அறிவிற்கும் பொருத்தமாகப் படுகிறதோ, அதையே நீங்கள் மேற்கொள்வது, உங்கள் பொறுப்பும் கடனுமாகும்.

[bis_mala]

Other things being equal, reasons for my interpretation of the word paarppaan in kuRaL.

நிற்க, யான் ஏன் "பார்ப்பான்" என்ற சொல்லுக்குப் பிராமணன் என்று பொருள்கூற வில்லை என்று கேட்கக்கூடும். பிராமணன் என்பது பொருளாயின், அக்காலத்தில் சரியாகப் பயிற்சி பெறாத பிராமணர் பலர் இருந்தனர் என்றும் அவர்களில் பலர், அடிக்கடி மறதிவாய்ப்பட்டு மந்திரங்களை மீண்டும் பயின்று வந்து தம்மைத் திருத்திக்கொண்டனர் என்றும் பொருள்படக் கூடும். முறையான பயிற்சி முற்றுப்பெறாமல் களமிறக்கப் பட்டனர் என்பதாம். இது தேவையும் ஆதாரமும் அற்றதாகும்.

அடுத்து, பிறப்பொழுக்கம் பிராமண சாதியாரின் பிறப்பொழுக்கம் என்று எடுத்துக்கொண்டால், பிறருக்கு ஒழுக்கம் என்பது விதிக்கப்படவில்லை, அவர்கள் ஒழுக்கம் தவறினால் ஒன்றும் இல்லை என்று கொள்ளவேண்டியிருக்கிறது. எனவே, பார்ப்பான் என்ற சொல், இக்குறளில் பிராமணனைக்குறிக்கவில்லை என்பதே நேர்படுகிறது. ஒழுக்கம் என்பது யாவர்க்கும் உரியது, பிறப்பு என்பதும் உயர்திணையாகிய அனைத்து மக்களுக்குமே உரியது என்று கோடலே பொருத்தமும் சிறப்பும் அமைந்ததாம்.

[devapriya]

Thanks Lathaji for your bringing the truths.

// For the Benefit of all Viewers - I take from Madurai Kamarajar University’s Kural Peedam established by
Dr. Mu.Varadarajanar, and Peedam selected Lecturer. Selvi.Kamatchi Sinivasan, who was born in a Saivite family in Srilanka, came to India, served various collages before Joining the Kural Peedam. She had converted to Christianity also. She was of highest repute for integrity, and Peedam asked her to bring Books

1. குறள் கூறும் சமுதாயம்
2. திருகுறளும் விவிலியமும் (Tirukural and Bible)
3. குறள் கூறும் சமயம் ( Religion of Tirukural) and One more also.

The books were published by Peetam after the death of the Author, i.e., the views represented edited by A team of Experts who made final Edition.
The Author was selected for Her Strict Integrity, being a Christian Convert- as that was the time Deivanayagam was making with the political support of DMK rule and Pavanar links that Tiruvalluvar was Christian and Tirukural is a book based on Bible. The end result was that the Author Madam lost her beliefs on Christianity on researching Bible. Now let me come to the references of Anthanar in this.


அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர்மற் றெவ்வுயிர் க்கும்
செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுக லான். 30

The author of the book analysises the Relligious situation in Tholkappiyam to and takes all references of every song in Sangam Literature, Tholkappiyam, Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai and confirms the research view.

I QUOTE:
அந்தணர் நு¡ற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் தியாய்
நின்றது மன்னவன் கோல். 543

அந்தணர் என்னும் சொற்கு எவ்வுயிர்கும் செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுகுவோர் என வள்ளுவர் கூறினாராயினும் இங்கு அச்சொல் பிரமாணரைக் குறிப்பதாகக் கொள்வதெ பொருந்தும். அந்தணர் நூல் என்பதும் வேதம் முதலிய சமயனூல்களையே எனலாம். இவ்வாறே பழைய உரையாசிரியர்கள் அனைவரும் பொருள் கொண்டனர்.
அறுதொழிலோர் என சிரியர் குறிபிட்டதும் பிரமாணர்களையே யாதால் வேண்டும். ஓதல், ஓதுவித்தல், வேட்டல், வேட்பித்தல், ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்னும் று தொழில்கள் அவர்க்குரிய என்பது சங்க காலத்தில் முன்பெ வகுக்கப்பட்டது. இவ்வாறு தொழில்கள் பதிற்றுபத்தினுள்ளும் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ளன.

ஓதல் வேட்டல் அவைபிறர்ச் செய்தல்
ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்று றுபுரிந்து ஒழுகும்
அறம் புரி அந்தணர் .. .. பதிற்றுபத்தது 24.
தொல்காப்பியரும்
“ அறுவகைப்பட்ட பார்ப்பனப் பக்கமும் சொல்-75
எனப் பார்ப்பனரின் அறுதொழிலைக் குறிப்பிட்டார். வேதம் முதலிய சமயநூல்களைக் கற்பது சிறப்பாக அந்தணர் (பிரமாணர்) கடமை என அக்காலத்து நிலவிய கருத்தை வள்ளுவரும் ஏற்றுக் கொண்டார் போலும்.
ஓதுவித்தலும் அவர்கள் தொழில் கையினால் அந்தணர் அல்லாத பிறர்க்கும்
(மன்னவர் வணிகர் குலத்தவரா?) வேதம் முதலிய நூல்களைக் கற்பித்த்வர் எனக் கருதலாம்.

பயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நு¡ல்மறப்பர்
காவலன் காவான் எனின். 560

மக்கள் வாழ்க்கையில் வேதம் முதலிய சமையநூற்கல்விக்கு இடம் உண்டு, அவை மக்கட்கு நன்மை பயப்பன என்ற கருத்து ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளப் படுவதனாலேயே அவற்றை தரிப்பது மன்னனின் கடமையாயிற்று.
காவலன் காவானெனின் அறுதொழிலோர் நு¡ல்மறப்பர் என எச்சரிக்கப் படுவதும் சமய நூல்கள் மறக்கப் படுதல் சமுதாயத்திற்கு கேடு எனக் கருதப் படுவதனாலேயே.

மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கங் குன்றக் கெடும். 134

இக்குறள் பார்ப்பாரையும் அவர் ஓதும் வேதத்தையுமே குறிக்கிறதென்பது தெளிவு. “மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும்” (134) என்ற தொடரும் பார்ப்பான் ஓத்தை(வேதம் ஓதக்கற்றதை) மறத்தலாகாது. ஒருகால் மறப்பினும் விரைவில் திரும்ப ஓதிக் கற்றுக் கொள்ளல் வேண்டும் என்ற் கருத்தைத் தரும்
பக்கம்-194,195.

On Kural which was interpreted as Valluvar being against Vedas, the Peedam Author again confirms

அவிசொரிந் தாயிரம் வேட்டலின் ஒன்றன்
உயிர்செகுத் துண்ணாமை நன்று. 259
தீ மூட்டி செய்யப் படும் வேள்வியைக் ரிய வழிபாடு முறையையே குறிப்பிடப் படுகின்றது. தேவர்களுக்கு உணவாகத் தீயிலிடபடும் பொருளையே வடமொழியில் ஹவிஸ் என்பர், அதுவே தமிழில் “அவி” யாயிற்று, .. அவிப்பொருள்களை நெருப்பில் சொரிந்து யிரம் வேள்வி செய்வதை விட ஒன்றின் உயிர் செகுத்து அதன் ஊனை உண்ணாமை நன்று என வள்ளுவர் இங்கு கூறினார். இதனால் வேள்வி தீயது என வள்ளுவர் கருதினார் எனல் குமா? வேள்வியையும் நல்லதாகக் கருதித்தானே வேள்வி செய்தலை விடக் கொல்லாமை நன்று என்றார். .. .. ரிய வேள்விக்களத்திலுமே உயிர்க்கொலையும் விலங்குபலியும் இல்லை. பசுயாகம் எனப்படும் சில வேள்விகளில் மட்டுமே விலங்குபலியளிப்பர். நெய், பால், தானியங்கள் தானியங்களினால் செய்யப்பட்ட உணவுப் பொருட்கள் கியவற்றை நெருப்பிலிட்டும் வேள்விகள் செய்வர் ( Author quotes this from " INDIA OF THE AGE OF THE BRAMANAS" book-iii, CHAP-2, The forms of Sacrifice- by Basu, Dr.Jogiraj.). எனவே உயிர்க் கொலையின்றி இவ்வாறு செய்யப்படும் வேள்விகள் வள்ளுவர்க்கு உடன்பாடு என்றே கொள்ளலாம். பக்கம் - 192,193.//
From Page-14 by Devapriya//

I further add

நாம் எல்லா நூல்களை படித்து ஓதி கற்கிறோம். ஆனால் வேதங்கள் ஏட்டில் எழுத்ப்படுவது கிடையாது. இது ஏன் எனில், bce 5000 -bce 1000 இடையே எழுத்ப்பட்டவை வேத உபநிஷதங்கள். வால்மிகி இராமாயணம் bce1000, மகாபாரதம் bce 600 வாக்கில், இதன் பின் வரையப்பட்ட பாணினியின் அஷ்டாத்யாயி மேலுள்ள இதிகாசங்களை அதில் அடக்கினார், ஆனால் இதன் வரைமுறையில் வேதங்கள் இல்லை, எனவே குரு பரம்பரையாக வாய்வழியே சொல்லித்தர இவை ஓதப்படும். ஓதாமல் ஒத்து சொல்லி தருவதாலும் பலரும் சேர்ந்து ஒத்து இவற்றை ஓதுவதாலும் வேதங்கள் ஓத்து என்னும் அற்புதமான தமிழ்பெயர் கொண்டது.

நாட்டிற்கு மழையின்மையை விட அறுதொழிலர் நூல்-வேதங்களை மறப்பர் எனவும் வள்ளுவர் தமிழர் மேன்மைக் கூற எதற்காக இப்படி பல தேவையற்ற பொருந்தாத விளக்கங்கள்.

[bis_mala]

கற்க கசடற கற்பவை; கற்றபின்
நிற்க அதற்குத் தக.

பொருள்: ஒருவன் கற்கும்போது, ஐயப்பாடுகள் நீங்கும்படியாக, தெளிந்த கல்வியைப் பெறவேண்டும்; அதன்பின், கற்ற கல்விக்கு ஏற்பச் செயல்படுதல் வேண்டும். .

என்னதான் கசடறக் கற்றுவிட்டதாகக் கூறிக்கொண்டாலும், ஐயப்பாடுகள் சிலருக்குத் தலைகாட்டவே செய்கின்றன. அவற்றை அவர்கள் பேச்சிலும் எழுத்திலும் கண்டுகொள்வது
எளிது. "அப்படிக் கருதலாம்", "இப்படித் தோன்றுகிறது". "இப்படிப் போலும்", "என்று கொள்ளலாம்" என்பனவெல்லாம் ஐயத்தின் அறிகுறிகள். கூறுவோர் ஐயமுறக் கூறியதை, நாம்
திட்டவட்டமாகக் கருதவும் வழியில்லை. ஓர் ஆசிரியன் ஐயுறவுடன் அறைந்ததை, இன்னொருவன்
தெளிவுரையாகக் கொள்வானானால், அந்த இன்னொருவனை உலகோரும் ஏற்பது கடினமே ஆகும்.

[bis_mala]

பார்ப்பான் = படைப்புக் கடவுளான பிரம்ம தேவன்;
மறப்பினும்= பிரணவ மந்திரத்தின் பொருளை மறந்துவிட்டா-
லும்;
ஓத்து = அவன் தந்த வேதங்களானவற்றை';
கொளலாகும் = உலகம் ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளுதலே ஆகும்;

பிறப்பு = மக்கட்பிறப்பாகிய நாம்;
ஒழுக்கம் = ஒழுக்கத்தை (மறந்து)
குன்ற = குறைவுபட்டால்;
கெடும்= புவி வாழ்வு பாழ்படும்.

கருத்து: பிரம்மன் வேதப்பொருளை மறந்தாலும், மக்கள்
ஒழுத்தினின்று நீங்கலாகாதென்றபடி.

இது சமயச் சார்பான விளக்கம்.

பார்ப்பான் = படைப்புத் தொழிலைப் பார்ப்பவனாகிய பிரம்-
மதேவன்.

[Uppuma]

Thanks Lathaji for your bringing the truths.

// For the Benefit of all Viewers - I take from Madurai Kamarajar University’s Kural Peedam established by
Dr. Mu.Varadarajanar, and Peedam selected Lecturer. Selvi.Kamatchi Sinivasan, who was born in a Saivite family in Srilanka, came to India, served various collages before Joining the Kural Peedam. She had converted to Christianity also. She was of highest repute for integrity, and Peedam asked her to bring Books

1. குறள் கூறும் சமுதாயம்
2. திருகுறளும் விவிலியமும் (Tirukural and Bible)
3. குறள் கூறும் சமயம் ( Religion of Tirukural) and One more also.

The books were published by Peetam after the death of the Author, i.e., the views represented edited by A team of Experts who made final Edition.
The Author was selected for Her Strict Integrity, being a Christian Convert- as that was the time Deivanayagam was making with the political support of DMK rule and Pavanar links that Tiruvalluvar was Christian and Tirukural is a book based on Bible. The end result was that the Author Madam lost her beliefs on Christianity on researching Bible. Now let me come to the references of Anthanar in this.


அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர்மற் றெவ்வுயிர் க்கும்
செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுக லான். 30

The author of the book analysises the Relligious situation in Tholkappiyam to and takes all references of every song in Sangam Literature, Tholkappiyam, Silapathikaram and Manimekhalai and confirms the research view.

I QUOTE:
அந்தணர் நு¡ற்கும் அறத்திற்கும் தியாய்
நின்றது மன்னவன் கோல். 543

அந்தணர் என்னும் சொற்கு எவ்வுயிர்கும் செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுகுவோர் என வள்ளுவர் கூறினாராயினும் இங்கு அச்சொல் பிரமாணரைக் குறிப்பதாகக் கொள்வதெ பொருந்தும். அந்தணர் நூல் என்பதும் வேதம் முதலிய சமயனூல்களையே எனலாம். இவ்வாறே பழைய உரையாசிரியர்கள் அனைவரும் பொருள் கொண்டனர்.
அறுதொழிலோர் என சிரியர் குறிபிட்டதும் பிரமாணர்களையே யாதால் வேண்டும். ஓதல், ஓதுவித்தல், வேட்டல், வேட்பித்தல், ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்னும் று தொழில்கள் அவர்க்குரிய என்பது சங்க காலத்தில் முன்பெ வகுக்கப்பட்டது. இவ்வாறு தொழில்கள் பதிற்றுபத்தினுள்ளும் குறிப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ளன.

ஓதல் வேட்டல் அவைபிறர்ச் செய்தல்
ஈதல் ஏற்றல் என்று றுபுரிந்து ஒழுகும்
அறம் புரி அந்தணர் .. .. பதிற்றுபத்தது 24.
தொல்காப்பியரும்
“ அறுவகைப்பட்ட பார்ப்பனப் பக்கமும் சொல்-75
எனப் பார்ப்பனரின் அறுதொழிலைக் குறிப்பிட்டார். வேதம் முதலிய சமயநூல்களைக் கற்பது சிறப்பாக அந்தணர் (பிரமாணர்) கடமை என அக்காலத்து நிலவிய கருத்தை வள்ளுவரும் ஏற்றுக் கொண்டார் போலும்.
ஓதுவித்தலும் அவர்கள் தொழில் கையினால் அந்தணர் அல்லாத பிறர்க்கும்
(மன்னவர் வணிகர் குலத்தவரா?) வேதம் முதலிய நூல்களைக் கற்பித்த்வர் எனக் கருதலாம்.

பயன் குன்றும் அறுதொழிலோர் நு¡ல்மறப்பர்
காவலன் காவான் எனின். 560

மக்கள் வாழ்க்கையில் வேதம் முதலிய சமையநூற்கல்விக்கு இடம் உண்டு, அவை மக்கட்கு நன்மை பயப்பன என்ற கருத்து ஏற்றுக் கொள்ளப் படுவதனாலேயே அவற்றை தரிப்பது மன்னனின் கடமையாயிற்று.
காவலன் காவானெனின் அறுதொழிலோர் நு¡ல்மறப்பர் என எச்சரிக்கப் படுவதும் சமய நூல்கள் மறக்கப் படுதல் சமுதாயத்திற்கு கேடு எனக் கருதப் படுவதனாலேயே.

மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் பார்ப்பான்
பிறப்பொழுக்கங் குன்றக் கெடும். 134

இக்குறள் பார்ப்பாரையும் அவர் ஓதும் வேதத்தையுமே குறிக்கிறதென்பது தெளிவு. “மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும்” (134) என்ற தொடரும் பார்ப்பான் ஓத்தை(வேதம் ஓதக்கற்றதை) மறத்தலாகாது. ஒருகால் மறப்பினும் விரைவில் திரும்ப ஓதிக் கற்றுக் கொள்ளல் வேண்டும் என்ற் கருத்தைத் தரும்
பக்கம்-194,195.

On Kural which was interpreted as Valluvar being against Vedas, the Peedam Author again confirms

அவிசொரிந் தாயிரம் வேட்டலின் ஒன்றன்
உயிர்செகுத் துண்ணாமை நன்று. 259
தீ மூட்டி செய்யப் படும் வேள்வியைக் ரிய வழிபாடு முறையையே குறிப்பிடப் படுகின்றது. தேவர்களுக்கு உணவாகத் தீயிலிடபடும் பொருளையே வடமொழியில் ஹவிஸ் என்பர், அதுவே தமிழில் “அவி” யாயிற்று, .. அவிப்பொருள்களை நெருப்பில் சொரிந்து யிரம் வேள்வி செய்வதை விட ஒன்றின் உயிர் செகுத்து அதன் ஊனை உண்ணாமை நன்று என வள்ளுவர் இங்கு கூறினார். இதனால் வேள்வி தீயது என வள்ளுவர் கருதினார் எனல் குமா? வேள்வியையும் நல்லதாகக் கருதித்தானே வேள்வி செய்தலை விடக் கொல்லாமை நன்று என்றார். .. .. ரிய வேள்விக்களத்திலுமே உயிர்க்கொலையும் விலங்குபலியும் இல்லை. பசுயாகம் எனப்படும் சில வேள்விகளில் மட்டுமே விலங்குபலியளிப்பர். நெய், பால், தானியங்கள் தானியங்களினால் செய்யப்பட்ட உணவுப் பொருட்கள் கியவற்றை நெருப்பிலிட்டும் வேள்விகள் செய்வர் ( Author quotes this from " INDIA OF THE AGE OF THE BRAMANAS" book-iii, CHAP-2, The forms of Sacrifice- by Basu, Dr.Jogiraj.). எனவே உயிர்க் கொலையின்றி இவ்வாறு செய்யப்படும் வேள்விகள் வள்ளுவர்க்கு உடன்பாடு என்றே கொள்ளலாம். பக்கம் - 192,193.//
From Page-14 by Devapriya//

I further add

நாம் எல்லா நூல்களை படித்து ஓதி கற்கிறோம். ஆனால் வேதங்கள் ஏட்டில் எழுத்ப்படுவது கிடையாது. இது ஏன் எனில், bce 5000 -bce 1000 இடையே எழுத்ப்பட்டவை வேத உபநிஷதங்கள். வால்மிகி இராமாயணம் bce1000, மகாபாரதம் bce 600 வாக்கில், இதன் பின் வரையப்பட்ட பாணினியின் அஷ்டாத்யாயி மேலுள்ள இதிகாசங்களை அதில் அடக்கினார், ஆனால் இதன் வரைமுறையில் வேதங்கள் இல்லை, எனவே குரு பரம்பரையாக வாய்வழியே சொல்லித்தர இவை ஓதப்படும்.

ஓதாமல் ஒத்து சொல்லி தருவதாலும் பலரும் சேர்ந்து ஒத்து இவற்றை ஓதுவதாலும் வேதங்கள் ஓத்து என்னும் அற்புதமான தமிழ்பெயர் கொண்டது.

நாட்டிற்கு மழையின்மையை விட அறுதொழிலர் நூல்-வேதங்களை மறப்பர் எனவும் வள்ளுவர் தமிழர் மேன்மைக் கூற எதற்காக இப்படி பல தேவையற்ற பொருந்தாத விளக்கங்கள்.

நேர்மையான விளக்கங்கள். நன்றி.

[bis_mala]

(" INDIA OF THE AGE OF THE BRAMANAS" - by Basu, Dr.Jogiraj.).
is based on the now-discredited ARYAN INVASION THEORY?

[bis_mala]

Re: Lecturer. Selvi.Kamatchi Sinivasan,

Was she a subscriber to the ARYAN INVASION THEORY as well?

[devapriya]

பண்டைய தமிழகதிதில் வாழ்க்கை நிலை ந்ன்ன என்பதையும் அன்றிலிருந்து என்று வரை இறைவனால் அருஅளபட்ட வேதங்களை ஓதி வருவதை கூறினால் இதில் இந்தியர்களை பிரிக்க பொய்யாக ஆங்கிலேயர்களும் பாதிரியார்களும் பரப்பிய ஆரியர் கட்டுக்கதை ஏன் குழப்புகிறீர்கள்

[bis_mala]

Selvi K Seenivasan's interpretations were succinctly yet very deeply coloured by the AIT that if you conform to her opinions, you would have agreed with her on the theory of foreign Aryan/Brahmin infiltrations of the Tamil society of Valluvar era. Something inherently bitter but sugar-coated for you by saying Valluvar accepted it and it was a welcome development. Would you fall into the trap set up by X under the name of KuRaL peedam?

[devapriya]

The Kural Peedam was formed on instruction from world Ist Tamil conference held by C.N.Annadurai then CM, and this was formed by joining all Tamilnadu Universities and headed by Mu.Varadarasanar.

Mrs.Kamatchi Srinivasan was a Srilankan by Tamil and Saiva Pillai by Caste, was physically challenged and She had converted to Christianity when she had treatment in CMC Vellore, and was given to compare Kural and Bible, because she was known for Integrity.

She died before publishing of book, and after death and edited by various scholars these books came, and every scholar of repute and just thinking knows what Sangam Literature agrees with her views.

[bis_mala]

Those subscribing to AIT may follow Selvi K Srinivasan. God bless them.

Mu Va wrote a book. "ThiruvaLLuvar allathu Vaazkkai ViLakkam". Did he support or quote her in his book?

KuRaL Peedam - just vacation lectures for undergraduates? All universities hold such lectures on various topics from time to time. NBD.

Views expressed on such lectures are more for feedback and to stimulate further discussion. The readers or lecturers hardly lay down rules of finality.

[devapriya]

பேராசிரியர் சாமி சிதம்பரனார் மாபெரும் தமிழறிஞர். பெரியாரின் வரலாற்றை முதன் முதலில் பெரியார் உயிருடன் இருந்தபோது எழுதி, பெரியரால் சரிபார்க்கப்பட்டு வெளியிடப்பட்டது. அந்த அளவிற்கு பெரியாருக்கும் - அவரது இயக்கத்தோடும் தொடர்ந்த செயல்பூர்வமான தொடர்பை வைத்திருந்தவர்.

இறுதியில் பெரியாரின் திராவிட இயக்கத்தில் இருந்து வெளியேறி பொதுவுடைமை இயக்கத்தில் தன்னை இணைத்துக் கொண்டார். தமிழகத்தில் இவரது வரலாறும் - இவர் எழுதிய பல புத்தகங்களும் மறைக்கப்பட்டும் - மறக்கப்பட்டும் வருகிறது. இவரது எழுத்துக்கள் மிக எளிமையானது. இலக்கியம் அறியாதவர்கள் கூட, மிக எளிமையாக இவரது எழுத்தின்பால் கவர்வர். அந்த அளவிற்கு இவரது எழுத்திற்கு வலிமையுள்ளது.

“தமிழர்களைப் பற்றித் தமிழ் இலக்கிய உண்மைகளை உணராதவர்களால் எழுதப்பட்ட வரலாறுகளே இன்று மலிந்து கிடக்கின்றன. தமிழர் வரலாற்றைப் பற்றி வெளிநாட்டினர் பலவாறு கூறுகின்றனர். பழந்தமிழ் இலக்கியங்களிலே பயிற்சியில்லாத சரித்திரக்காரர்கள் என்னென்னவோ சொல்கின்றனர். இவர்கள் கூறுவதைவிடப் பழந்தமிழ் நூல்களைக் கொண்டு தமிழர் நாகரிகத்தை ஆராய்ந்தறிவதே சிறந்த முறையாகும்.”

“தொல்காப்பியர் காலத்துத் தமிழர் வாழ்வைப்பற்றி அனைவரும் அறிந்துகொள்ள வேண்டும். குறிப்பாகத் தமிழ்மக்கள் தெரிந்துகொள்ள வேண்டும். இதனால் பழந்தமிழர் வாழ்வைப் பற்றித் தெரிந்து கொள்ளலாம்; பழந்தமிழர் வரலாறு, நாகரிகம் ஆகியவைகளைப் பற்றி அறிந்து கொள்ளலாம். தமிழ் இலக்கியத்தின் சிறப்பைப் பற்றியும், வளர்ச்சியைப் பற்றியும் புரிந்துகொள்ள முடியும். இதுவே இந்நூலை எழுதியதின் நோக்கம்.”

“தமிழகத்திலே இன்று இனவெறுப்பு தலைவிரித்தாடுகிறது. மொழிவெறுப்பு முறுக்கேறி நிற்கின்றது. நாகரிக வெறுப்பு நடனமாடுகின்றது. வரலாறு, நாகரிகம், பண்பாடு என்ற பெயர்களைச் சொல்லித் தமிழ்மக்களிடையே கலகத்தீயை மூட்டிவிடுகின்றனர் சிலர். இத்தகைய வெறுப்புத்தீ அணைக்கப்பட வேண்டும். அப்போதுதான் தமிழர் முன்னேற்றமடைவர்; தமிழ்மொழி வளர்ச்சியடையும்.”

“இன்று நடப்பது விஞ்ஞான யுகம். விஞ்ஞானவளர்ச்சி காரணமாகப் பண்டைய பழக்கங்கள் சிலவற்றைத் தவறு என்று சொல்லுகின்றோம். பண்டைய மக்கள் கொண்டிருந்த நம்பிக்கைகள் சிலவற்றை மூடநம்பிக்கைகள் என்று மொழிகின்றோம். விஞ்ஞான அறிவுக்கு ஒத்துவராத சில பழக்கங்களும் நம்பிக்கைகளும் பண்டைக்கால மக்களிடம் இருந்தன. நாகரிகம் பெற்ற எல்லா இனத்தினரிடமும் இவைகள் இருந்தன. தமிழர்களிடமும் இத்தகைய பழக்கங்களும், நம்பிக்கைகளும் இருந்தன என்பதில் வியப்பில்லை.”

“தமிழ் இலக்கியங்கள் நன்றாகக் கற்றவர்களுக்கு இவ்வுண்மை தெரியும். இவ்வுண்மையை உணர்ந்த புலவர்களில் கூடச் சிலர் இதை மறைக்கின்றனர். 'தமிழர்களிடம் எவ்விதமான பொருந்தாப் பழக்கமும் இருந்ததில்லை. எந்தக் குருட்டு நம்பிக்கையும் இருந்ததில்லை. இன்றைய விஞ்ஞான அறிவுபெற்ற பகுத்தறிவாளர்களைப் போலவே அன்றும் வாழ்ந்தனர். தமிழ்நாட்டிலே புகுந்த ஆரியர்கள்தாம் பொருந்தாப் பழக்கவழக்கங்களையும், குருட்டு நம்பிக்கைகளையும் தமிழர்களிடம் புகுத்தினர் ' என்று கூறுகின்றனர். இவர்கள் கூற்று வெறுப்பையே அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்டது. இவர்கள் வடமொழியில் கொண்டிருக்கும் வெறுப்பும் இதற்கொரு காரணம்.”

“ஆரியர்கள்தாம் பொருந்தாப் பழக்கவழக்கங்களையும் மூடநம்பிக்கைகளையும் தமிழரிடையே புகுத்தினர் என்பது உண்மையன்று.”

“தொல்காப்பியர் காலத்திலேயே தமிழர்களிடையே இருந்த நாகரிகம் தமிழர் நாகரிகம் என்றுதான் எண்ண வேண்டும். அந்த நாகரிகம் ஆரியருக்கும், தமிழருக்கும் ஒத்த நாகரிகமாகத்தான் காணப்படுகின்றது. தொல்காப்பியத்தில் ஆரியர் என்ற பெயரோ, திராவிடர் என்ற பெயரோ காணப்படவில்லை.”

சாமி சிதம்பரனார் மேலும் சொல்கிறார்:

“இந்தியாவின் அடிப்படை நாகரிகம் ஒன்றுதான் என்று கூறும் சரித்திராசிரியர்கள் உண்டு. 'இந்தியமக்கள் வணங்கும் தெய்வங்கள், பிறப்பு, இறப்பு பற்றிய நம்பிக்கைகள், நீதி, அநீதி இவைகளைப் பற்றிய முடிவுகள், பாவபுண்ணியம், மோட்சம், நரகம் பற்றிய கொள்கைகள் இவைகள் எல்லாம் ஒன்றாகவே இருக்கின்றன. இந்திய மக்கள் அனைவருக்கும் இவைகளைப் பற்றிய கருத்து ஒன்றுதான். இவைகள்தாம் பண்பாட்டுக்கு அடிப்படையானவை. அவரவர்கள் வாழும் இடத்தைப் பொறுத்து நடை, உடை, பாவனைகளும், மொழிகளும் வேறுபட்டிருக்கலாம். இதனால் இந்தியமக்களின் பண்பாடு வெவ்வேறு என்று சொல்லிவிட முடியாது ' என்பதே இச்சரித்திராசிரியர்களின் கொள்கை. இந்தக் கொள்கைக்குத் தொல்காப்பியம் ஆதரவளிக்கிறது.”

“இந்த நூலில் விளக்கப்படும் செய்திகள் கற்பனையோ, ஊகமோ அன்று. ஒவ்வொரு செய்தியும், தொல்காப்பியச் சூத்திரத்தின் மேற்கோளுடன் எழுதப்பட்டிருக்கிறது. ஒவ்வொரு சூத்திரத்தின் இறுதியிலும் அச்சூத்திரத்தின் எண், அதிகாரம், இயல் ஆகியவை குறிக்கப்பட்டிருக்கின்றன.” - என்றும் முன்னுரையின் இறுதியில் அழுத்தமாய்க் குறிப்பிடுகிறார் சாமி சிதம்பரனார்.

இந்த நூலில் திராவிடஸ்தான் அரசியல்வியாதிகள் காலம்காலமாய் அப்பாவித் தமிழ்மக்களை ஏமாற்றி ஏய்ப்பதற்குச் சொல்லிவரும் பல பொய்கள் உடைத்தெறியப்பட்டுள்ளன.

1. நால்வகை வகுப்புப்பிரிவுகள் வெளிநாட்டினர் கொண்டுவந்ததல்ல என்ற உண்மையை புறத்திணை இயல்சூத்திர ஆதாரத்தைக் கொண்டு நிரூபிக்கிறார் ஆசிரியர். (பக்கம் - 55,56)
2. தொல்காப்பியர் 'அந்தணர் மறைத்தே ' என்று குறித்திருப்பதும், எட்டுவகை (கந்தருவம் உள்ளிட்ட) மணங்களைக் குறிப்பிட்டிருப்பதும் அவை (தொல்காப்பியர் சொல்லும் மறை என்பது) வடமொழி வேதங்கள்தாம் என்பதற்குப் போதுமான சான்றாகும். அவை தமிழ்வேதங்கள் என்பது பொருந்தாது. (பக்கம் - 81-84)
3. தொல்காப்பியம் கடவுளையும் வேறுபல தெய்வங்களையும் மறுக்கவில்லை. தொல்காப்பியர் கடவுள் நம்பிக்கை உள்ளவர் என்று துணிந்து கூறலாம். (பக்கம் - 86)
4. தொல்காப்பியர் காலத்திலே திருமால், சேயோன், வருணன், வேந்தன், கொற்றவை, சூரியன், சந்திரன், அக்கினி முதலிய தெய்வங்கள் வணங்கப்பட்டன. இன்னும் கூற்றுவன், தேவர்கள், பேய்பிசாசுகளும் இருப்பதாகவும் தமிழர்கள் நம்பினர். தெய்வ வணக்கம் தமிழ்நாட்டிலிருந்தது. தமிழர்கள் பல தெய்வங்களை வணங்கி வந்தனர் என்பதற்கு இவை போன்ற பல ஆதரவுகள் தொல்காப்பியத்திலே காணப்படுகின்றன. இவ்வழக்கம் தமிழர்களிடம் இயற்கையாகவே தோன்றியதாகும். வேறு எவராலும் புகுத்தப்பட்டதும் அன்று. போதிக்கப் பட்டதும் அன்று. (பக்கம் - பக்கம் 92,93)
5. 'பண்டைத் தமிழகத்திலே உருவ வணக்கம் இருந்ததில்லை; அது இந்நாட்டிலே குடிபுகுந்த ஆரியரால் புகுத்தப்பட்ட வழக்கம் ' என்று சிலர் சொல்லுகின்றனர். இதற்கு ஆதரவு ஒன்றுமில்லை. இது வெறுப்பைத் தூண்டும் வீணான கூற்று. உருவ வணக்கமுறை எல்லா நாடுகளிலும் இருந்தது. பழைய பைபிளைப் படிப்போர் இதைக் காணலாம். பல நாட்டு வரலாறுகளிலும் இதைக் காணலாம். தமிழ்நாட்டிலும் உருவ வணக்கமுறை தொன்றுதொட்டே ஏற்பட்டிருந்தது என்பதைத் தொல்காப்பியத்தால் அறியலாம். (பக்கம் - 94)
6. தமிழ்மொழி தொல்காப்பியத்துக்கு முன்பாகவே பிறமொழிச் சொற்களை ஏற்று வளர்ந்து வந்திருக்கிறது என்பதையும் ஆதாரத்துடன் காட்டுகிறார்: பழந்தமிழ்ச் செல்வமாகிய தொல்காப்பியத்திலேயே பல வடசொற்கள் கலந்திருப்பதைக் காணலாம். திசை, பூதம், பிண்டம், ஏது (ஹேது), பயம், மந்திரம், நிமித்தம், தாபதம், அவிப்பலி, அமரர், மங்கலம், மாயம், காரணம், கருமம், கரணம், அந்தம், அந்தரம், புதல்வன், வதுவை, பதி, மாத்திரை, படலம், அதிகாரம், வைசிகள் இவைகள் எல்லாம் வடசொற்கள் என்று கருதப்படுகின்றன. இன்னும் பல வடசொற்களும் தொல்காப்பியத்தில் பலவிடங்களில் காணப்படுகின்றன. இன்றுள்ள தமிழ்நூல்களிலே தலைமையான நூல் என்று எண்ணப்படும் தொல்காப்பியத்திலேயே இவ்வாறு வடசொற்கள் கலந்திருப்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது. (பக்கம் - 130)

இறுதியாய் இன்றைய தமிழர்களுக்கு சாமி சிதம்பரனார் மிகுந்த வருத்ததுடன் கூறுவது:

“இன்று குறிக்கோளைப்பற்றிக் கொஞ்சமும் கவலைப்படாமல் அடுக்குச் சொற்களைச் சேர்த்து எழுதுவதையே இலக்கியம் என்று எண்ணுகின்றனர். மற்றொரு சாரார் மறுமலர்ச்சி இலக்கியங்கள் என்ற பெயரில் எழுதும் வெறும் காமவிகாரத்தை வளர்க்கும் கட்டுக்கதைகளே இப்பொழுது மலிந்து வருகின்றன. தமிழர் நாகரிகம், தமிழர் பண்பாடு என்று எதை எதையோ எழுதிக் குவித்து வருகின்றனர். தனித்தமிழ் அன்பர்களும், காதல் வெறியர்களும் எழுதி வெளியிடும் புத்தகங்களிலே பெரும்பாலானவை தமிழையோ, தமிழ் இலக்கியங்களையோ வளர்ப்பதற்கு வழிகாட்டவேயில்லை. இவைகளிலே பெரும்பாலான புத்தகங்கள் மொழிவெறி, சாதிவெறி, இனவெறி இவைகளையே அடிப்படையாக வைத்துக்கொண்டு எழுதப்படுவன. மக்களிடம் இன்று வேரோடியிருக்கும் இத்தகைய வெறிகள் எல்லாம் அழிந்துபட வேண்டும் என்னும் ஆர்வத்தில் எழுதப்படும் புத்தகங்கள் மிகச்சிலதான்.


இதே போன்று இவர் சிலப்பதிகாரக் காலத்து தமிழ் நாடு என்ற நுல்லையும் எழுதியுள்ளார். அதிலும் இது போன்ற கருத்துக்களை அழுத்தமாகச் சொல்லியுள்ளார் என்பது குறிப்பிடத்தக்கது.


நூல் வெளியீடு:

தொல்காப்பியத் தமிழர் - சாமி சிதம்பரனார்,
நியூசெஞ்சுரி புக் ஹவுஸ் (பி) லிட்.,
41-பி, சிட்கோ இண்டஸ்டிரியல் எஸ்டேட்,
அம்பத்தூர், சென்னை - 600 098.

[bis_mala]

There is no problem in adopting the foregoing post as mutatis mutandis correct appraisal.
But how does that affect the interpretation of KuRaL, "மறப்பினும்......"?
Even old kuRaL commentators vary among themselves in interpretation of the various couplets.

Did Mu Va who administered the Peedam, expressly adopt Selvi Kamatchi's interpretation anywhere in his books on kuRaL? Did Kamatchi pronounce her views to be final in the world of Tamil literature? She favoured a certain interpretation, that is all, isn't it? She was a confirmed believer in AIT! This theory is now discarded and any interpretation in its light must be approached with extreme caution.

காளிங்கர் உரை மற்றும் மணக்குடவர் உரை (பழைய உரைகள் ) கிடைத்தால் அவர்கள் என்ன சொல்கிறார்கள் என்றும் பார்க்கலாமே!



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History teaches us that even great people can make mistakes.
Vasco da Gama arrived at Calicut in 1498 with the help of an Arab pilot. . He thought Calicut was a Christian city and returned to Portugal with the impression that the temples he had prayed in were churches. Catholic historians still argue that he saw two hundred thousand Christians on his first visit to Malabar, when in fact he had seen only Hindus whose piety he had unwittingly praised

[mms]

//சாமி சிதம்பரனார் சொல்கிறார்:
“தமிழ் இலக்கியங்கள் நன்றாகக் கற்றவர்களுக்கு இவ்வுண்மை தெரியும். இவ்வுண்மையை உணர்ந்த புலவர்களில் கூடச் சிலர் இதை மறைக்கின்றனர். 'தமிழர்களிடம் எவ்விதமான பொருந்தாப் பழக்கமும் இருந்ததில்லை. எந்தக் குருட்டு நம்பிக்கையும் இருந்ததில்லை. இன்றைய விஞ்ஞான அறிவுபெற்ற பகுத்தறிவாளர்களைப் போலவே அன்றும் வாழ்ந்தனர். தமிழ்நாட்டிலே புகுந்த ஆரியர்கள்தாம் பொருந்தாப் பழக்கவழக்கங்களையும், குருட்டு நம்பிக்கைகளையும் தமிழர்களிடம் புகுத்தினர் ' என்று கூறுகின்றனர். இவர்கள் கூற்று வெறுப்பையே அடிப்படையாகக் கொண்டது. இவர்கள் வடமொழியில் கொண்டிருக்கும் வெறுப்பும் இதற்கொரு காரணம்.”

“ஆரியர்கள்தாம் பொருந்தாப் பழக்கவழக்கங்களையும் மூடநம்பிக்கைகளையும் தமிழரிடையே புகுத்தினர் என்பது உண்மையன்று.”

“தொல்காப்பியர் காலத்திலேயே தமிழர்களிடையே இருந்த நாகரிகம் தமிழர் நாகரிகம் என்றுதான் எண்ண வேண்டும். அந்த நாகரிகம் ஆரியருக்கும், தமிழருக்கும் ஒத்த நாகரிகமாகத்தான் காணப்படுகின்றது. தொல்காப்பியத்தில் ஆரியர் என்ற பெயரோ, திராவிடர் என்ற பெயரோ காணப்படவில்லை.”//

Even Today Anti Indian views are spread like venom

[bis_mala]

From what has been written on Sami Chidambaranaar, one may be led to believe that he also believed in AIT or AMT.His comments, however, as quoted appear to be quite general and not directly relevant to the interpretation of the particular KuRaL,
மறப்பினும் ஓத்துக் கொளலாகும் ...................134.
So far, I am yet to see any passage from Mu Va cited by anyone here in support of Selvi Kamatchi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ஆரியர் என்பவர் யாரும் இத்தேயத்தை்
அண்மியதும் இல்லை ஐயனே!-- இந்த
ஆரியர் என் பதம் ஓரினம் சுட்டாதே
அறிந்திடுவாய் என தையனே!.

Notes:

பிராமணர் என்பதற்கு நேரான சொல் அவஸ்தான் மொழியில் இல்லை. ஆகவே அது ஓர் இந்தியச் சொல் என்பது தெளிவு. அது சிந்துக்கரை நிலங்களில் வந்தேறிய அயலாரால்
கொண்டுவரப்பட்ட சொல்லன்று. துணைக்கண்டத்தின் மேற்கிலிருந்து வந்து கங்கைக் கரைப் பகுதிகளில் குடிபுகுந்தோர் சிறுதொகையினர்், அங்கு வாழ்ந்த திராவிடப் பிராமணர்களால் (பூசாரிகளால்) தங்கள் செல்வாக்குக்கு உட்படுத்தப்பட்டு ஒடுக்கப்பட்டனர். ஆகவே பிராமணர் என்பது ஒரு தமிழ்ச் சொல்லினின்று பிறந்ததாயிருக்கவேண்டும். அவஸ்தான் மொழியில் பூசாரிக்கு அத்ரவன் எனப்படும்.
ஆகவே பார்ப்பான், பிராமணன் என்பவை சாதிக்குறிப்புச் சொற்களாக வரும்போது, திராவிடப் பூசாரிகளைக் குறித்தவை. டாக்டர் குருப்தேஷ் சிங்கின் வரலாற்று நூல் காண்க.
மேல் நாம் ஆய்ந்துவரும் குறளில் வரும் பார்ப்பானென்னும் பதம், ஒரு சாதிக்குறிப்பு அன்று..
Moreover, central Gangetic religious texts like the Mahabharta and VarnaAshramDharma of Manu call the Vedic Aryans in Saptha Sindhva 'mlechas', 'sudras' and 'vratyas'; 'forbid Brahmins' from even visiting the northwest country ('Vahika-desa').

(Those who came into the sub-continent, in successive groups).....................by now expanded far into India, their old home in the Punjab, Sind and the north-west was practically forgotten. Later Vedic literature mentions it rarely, and then usually with disparagement and contempt, as an impure land where sacrifices are not performed.” (The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham)

The problem is, we are looking at a construct which is, say, 50-100 years old wherein the castes are by and large static and stable. But if we take a construct of, say, 2000 years, we would find several castes rechristening / reinventing themselves as different castes, intermarrying, merging, dividing, and moving in all directions. >Thanks to the writer.Correct opinion
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/137-not-tamil-brahmins-tamilians-13.html

சாதிமுறைகள் பிற்கால அரசர்கள் ஆட்சியில் இறுக்கமடைந்-
தன என்பதே வரலாற்றாசிரியன்மார் கூற்றாகும். இதற்குக்கா-
ரணம், அகமணமுறை பிற்காலத்தில் முழுமையாகப் பின்பற்ற-
ப்பட்டதே. இதையுணராமல், பழைய நூல்களில் வரும் "பார்-
ப்பான்" "அந்தணர்" முதலிய சொற்களுக்கு, இற்றைப் பொரு-
ளைக் கொண்டு பொருத்துதவது, அறியாமையாம்.
பொருள் மாறின சொல்: எடுத்துக்காட்டாக, "நாற்றம்" என்ற
சொல் : சங்க காலத்தில் இதற்கிருந்த பொருள் வேறு; இற்றைப்
பொருள் வேறு. தொழிலின் பெயர்களாய் வழங்கிய பல சொற்கள்
இப்போது சாதிப்பெயர்கள் ஆய்விட்டன.

Feel free to comment but please maintain relevance to the kuRaL being discussed.

[bis_mala]

"அந்தணர் என்போர் அறவோர் மற்றெவ்வுயிர்க்கும்
செந்தண்மை பூண்டொழுகலான்."

எவ்வுயிர்க்கும் எங்ஙனம் செந்தண்மை பூண்டு நடப்பது? இதற்குப் பதில்: உயிர்க்கொலை செய்யாமல் ஒழுகினால், அதுவே "செந்தண்மை".அங்ஙனம் நடந்தோரை அறவோராகிய அந்தணர் என்றார்.
கபிலர் முதலான சங்கப் புலவர்கள், கொல்லாமை , புலால் உண்ணாமை ஆகிய நோன்புகள் மேற்கொண்டொழுகினர் என்று தெரிகிறது. கோயிலைப் பார்த்துக்கொண்டவர்களும் பிறரும் இதிலடங்குவர். அப்போது *அகமணமுறை இருந்திருந்தால் ஐயரையும் இது உள்ளடக்கும்: கொல்லாமை போற்றிய காரணத்தால்.!
அகமணம் புரியும் முறை இருந்ததற்கான ஆதாரம் ? ஆய்விற்குரியது.**

notes:

*அகமணமுறை - endogamy
( =Marriage within a particular group in accordance with custom or law. Fertilization resulting from pollination among flowers of the same plant. Reproduction by the fusion of gametes of similar ancestry )


**
Gonzalo Alvarez and his colleagues at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain calculated what is called the inbreeding coefficient for each individual across 16 generations indicating the likelihood that an individual would receive two identical genes at a given position on a chromosome because of the relatedness of their parents, increasing considerably down through the generations, almost as high as would be expected for the offspring of an incestuous marriage (parent-child or brother-sister See G Alvarez (. Research on Inbreeding.)

அகவாழ்வினை நமக்குப் படம்பிடித்துக்காட்டும் அகநானூறு முதலிய சங்க இலக்கியங்களும் திருக்குறளும் காதல் மணமுறையையே போற்றியதாகத் தெரிகிறது. இத்தகைய சமூக (குமுகாயச்) சூழலில், இன்று சாதிப்பெயர்களாய் உள்ளவை அன்று வெறும் தொழிலடிப்படைப் பெயர்கள் மட்டுமே என்று கொள்ளவேண்டும்.

[bis_mala]

அந்தணர் என்போர் ................................

எவ்வுயிர்க்கும் ...............................ஆய்விற்குரியது.

further notes and references:


... It seems particularly doubtful if the evolution and spread of the caste system can be attributed primarily to Brahminical inspiration.As far as the main Vedas are concerned, the varna system lacks the two elements that give it is a distinctive characteristic as far as jatis were concerned: occupational fixity and endogamy (marrying within your own caste). The term jati itself has not been traced to in the Vedic corpus Rig Veda shows that there was no notion of permanently fixed occupations.
… it is clear that it is a simple declaration of social hierarchy, the class of priests, warriors, the masses and the menials being placed in descending order. This description would have fitted any ancient or medieval society and by itself hardly implied the existence of the caste system.
Prof. Irfan Habib , "Religion in Indian History",


அகமணமுறை இருந்ததற்கான ஆதாரமும் செய்தொழில் மாற்றக் கட்டுப்பாடும் ரிக் வேதத்தில் காணப்படவில்லை. வேதத்தின் சாரங்களைப் பின்பற்றியே வள்ளுவரும் நூல் செய்தனர் என்கின்றனரே! அங்ஙனமாயின், வள்ளுவத்தில் மட்டும் சாதிகளைப் பற்றிக் கூறப்படுவதாக எப்படிக் கொள்ளமுடியும்? அகமணமுறையும் செய்தொழில் கட்டுப்பாடும் பிற்காலத்தில் (விஜய நகரப் பேரரசு ) இறுக்க மடைந்து வலிவுபெற்றவை என்பது தெளிவு. எனவே, குறளில் சாதிப் பெயர்களாய்த் தோன்றுபவை உண்மையில் தொழிலர் பற்றிய குறிப்பீடுகளே.

[lathaji]

திருக்குறளையும் பாரதப் பண்பாட்டையும் போற்றுவோம். பொய்யான உளறல்களை நிறுத்துவோம்

//Certainnly Casteism in Hinduism is not a Pleasant one and I quote GILBERT Slater- who gives from Maxmuller, and I Quote from Tamil Translation by PanmozhiPulavar Appadurai.

மனுவில் குறிக்கப்பட்டு இன்று வழக்கிலுள்ள சாதி முறை வேதங்களின் மிகப் பழமையான சமயத் தத்துவங்களில் இடம் பெறுகிறதா? "இல்லை" என்ற ஒரேசொல்லில் நாம் அதை அழுத்தமாக மறுட்துவிடலாம். பெருஞ்சிக்கல் வாய்ந்த சாதி அமைப்பு முறைத் திட்டத்துக்கு வேத சூக்தங்களில் எத்தகைய தரமும் இல்லை. அது போலவே சூத்திரரின் இழிதகை நிலைமைக்கு தாரமோ; பல்வேறு வகுப்பினர் ஒருங்கே குழுமி வாழ, ஒருங்கே உண்ணப் பருகத் தடை விதிக்கும் எந்தச் சட்டமோ; பல்வேறு சாதியினர் தம்முள் ஒருவருக்கொருவர் மண உறவு கொள்வதைத் தடுக்கும் முறைமையோ; அத்தகைய மண உறவால் வரும் பிள்ளைகளுக்கு விலக்க முடியாத தீக்குறியிட்டுட் தீண்ல்த்தகாதவராக ஒதுக்கி வைக்கும் கட்டுப்பாடோ; எதுவும் அவற்றில் இல்லை. அத்துடன் சிவன், காளி கியவர்களின் அச்சந் தரும் செயல் முறைகளைப் பற்றீயோ; கண்ணனின் சிற்றின்பக் களியாட்டம் பற்றியோ; .. ... வேத்த்தில் ஒரு சுவடு கூடக் கிடையாது. கடவுளுக்குரிய மதிப்பைத் தமெதெனக் கொண்டு பழிசூழும் ஒரு குருமார் குழுவின் வீம்புரிமைகள், மனித இனத்தின் இல்லங்களை விலங்கினங்களினும் கிழாக இழிவு படுத்தும் முறை கியவற்றை தரிக்கும் எந்தச் சட்டமும் அவற்றில் இல்லை. குழந்தை மணத்திற்கு தரவோ, குழந்தை விதவைகள் மணத்தைத் தடைசெய்யவோ கணவன் பிணத்துடன் உயிருள்ள கைம்பெண்ணின் உடலையும் வைத்தெரிக்கும் பொல்லாப் பழக்கத்தை தரிவிக்கவோ அதில் ஒரு வாசகங் கூடக் கிடையாது. இவை யாவும் வேதத்தின் சொல்லுக்கும் பொருளுக்குமே மாறுபட்டவை." Quote frm Maxmuler “இந்திய நாகரிகத்தில் திராவிடப் பண்பு”- கில்பர்ட் சிலேட்டர், தமிழ் கா.அப்பாதுரை. பக்கம் 40,41.

Now Tholkapiyam has in depth of Varna System. It denies Education to the Fourth, Fourth cannot enter trade at any time etc., Sangam Literature names many Sub-castes even such as “ Irular, Villiar, Pallar, Vettuvar, Aayar, barathavar, maravar, kuravar etc., Sangam Lit. mentions even Many Gotras of Brahmins such as “Kasiyaba, Vathula, Aathreya, Koutinya, Kousika” etc, and as per Vedic practice calling them “Twice Born” etc.,



Bible has extensive Racism even practiced by Jesus, but that is not discussed always but ..
We have a Pratice of Telling our Problems to Religion and Missionaries have taught like that Barathiyar condemens it in his Short ARTICLE called மதிப்பு
இந்தியாவை வெளியுலகத்தார் பாமரதேசம் என்று நினைக்கும்படி செய்த முதற் குற்றம் நம்முடையது. புறக்கருவிக ள் பல. முதலாவது, கிறிஸ்துவப் பாதிரி. அமெரிக்காவிலும் ஐரோப்பாவிலும் சில கிறிஸ்துவப் பாதிரிகள், தங்கள் மத விஷயமான பிரசாரத்தை உத்தேசித்து நம்மைக் குறித்துப் பெரிய பெரிய பொய்கள் சொல்லி, இப்படிட் தாழ்ந்து போய் மகட்தான அநாகரிக நிலையில் இருக்கும் ஜனங்களைக் கிறிஸ்து மடத்திலே சேர்த்து மேன்மைப்படுத்தும் புண்ணியத்டைச் செய்வதாகச் சொல்லுகிறகள். இந்துக்கள் குழந்தைகளை நதியிலே போடுகிறார்கள் என்றும், ஸ்த்ரிகளை (முக்கியமாக, அநாதைகளாய்ப் புருஷர்களை இழந்து கதியில்லாமல் இருக்கும் கைம்பெண்களை) நாய்களைப் போல நடத்துகிறர்கள் என்றும் பலவிதமான அபவாதங்கள் சொல்லுகிறார்கள். நம்முடைய ஜாதிப் பிரிவுகளிலெ இருக்கும் குற்றங்களையெல்லாம் பூதக்கண்ணாடி வைத்துக் காட்டுகிறார்கள். இந்தக் கிறிஸ்துவப் பாதிரிகளாலே நமக்கு நேர்ந்த அவமானம் அளவில்லை. Barathiyar, கட்டுரை- மதிப்பு

So Vedas which as per Panmozi Arignanar Jaggannatha Raja- in his Book “Tamilum Pragiruthamum” published by TN Govts. International Tamil Studies- dated 5000-1000BCE, has much superior Science and Maths etc., is ignored.//
quoted from http://www.mayyam.com/talk/showthread.php?3714-charu-nivedita-s-comments-on-veda/page5

Let us value Literaure for its positives please.

[bis_mala]

இவை எல்லாம் அந்தத் திரியில் நன்கு ஆராயப்பட்டு நம் நேயர்கள் மன நிறைவு அடைந்துவிட்ட நிலையில் ,மீண்டும் தருக்கம் செய்யத் தேவையில்லாதவை.
தொல்காப்பியர் காலத்தில் தொழிலடிப்படையில் பிரிவுகள் இருந்தன. இப்போதுள்ள சாதிமுறைகள் இல்லை. மீனவனான வேத வியாசன் பிராமணனாகி பாரதம் பாடத் தடையிருக்கவில்லை அல்லவா? எனவே குறளில் வரும் பார்ப்பான், தொழிலடைப்படையில் பார்ப்பான். சாதி யடிப்படையில் அல்ல.

[bis_mala]

To prove there were castes during Sangam Age, just adduce evidence from Sangam Lit. on:

1. Endogamy. (That it existed at the time).

2. Fixity of occupation. (That people were prohibited from pursuing other than their usual occupations).

Once you have done it satisfactorily, I will readily agree with you

A paarpaan during Sangam Age could originate in any caste; once he entered the occupation as paarpaan, he underwent an "investiture" or "initiation" ceremony and assumed his post. Hence he was called "twice-born". Prior to the ceremony, he was not a paarppan. That there was such a ceremony indicates his previous non-status. There were (and are) other castes who wore the "sacred thread" on certain occasions at least. The mention of twice-born does not prove existence of jati.

Note: Other writers in this or another forum in the past have written how priests were recruited in by-gone days from other castes. Please find and read it. You may also refer to history books as to how Brahmins or new Brahmins were "created" in Bengal. You yourself said that all were shudras at birth and some were elevated to Brahminhood. The Sangam age were the formative years. Things were not as rigid as today.

[devapriya]

Tolkappiyam and Manu Smriti A Comparative study
http://www.mayyam.com/talk/viewlite.php?t=8496

[bis_mala]

No evidence from the study cited.

[bis_mala]

இருளர், வில்லியர், பள்ளர், வேட்டுவர், பரதவர், மறவர், குறவர் என்னும் தொழிலாளியரைத் தொல்காப்பியம் குறிப்பிடுகிறதென்பது : (translated)

தொல்காப்பியர் காலத்தில் இவை சாதிகளல்ல. அகமண முறையினால், இவை சாதிகளாக இப்போது தோன்றுகின்றன. முன் இவை தொழிலாளர் பெயர் மட்டுமே.

`சீனாவில்கூட, தச்சன், பொற்கொல்லன், முடி திருத்துவோன், இரும்புவிற்போன் என்று பலர் உள்ளனர். இதைப் படித்துவிட்டு அங்கு சாதி இருப்பதாகச் சொல்வது தப்பு.