Some comments on the kural # 37
Sundara Pandian
(1) This is with regard to a posting in the net on misinterpreta-
tions of the kural # 37. Selva and Kathiravan have given their
meanings of this kural and I like to comment on what is the correct
meaning of this kural.
(2) Earlier I had a long discussion with Selva with regard to the
chapter `peNvazhichchERal' in Thirukkural and I like to repeat here
some of what I said in that series of articles. I think we have to
look at Tamil works from the time period when they were written for
translation, commentaries or understanding. We have to look at the
history, culture, beliefs, practices, myths of the people in the
time peiod when such works were written to understand the meanings
of the words used and to interpret the views of the authors. Some
of the views in the ancient works may be bad in today's standards.
But it would be unethical in the part of translators or commenta-
tors to twist their meanings so that it sound better in today's
standards. We will not only miss what the author intended to say
but also the beliefs of the people in the culture the author lived
in. Ancient works have historical and cultural values and a study
on them with an understanding of the time period when they were
written would result in good translations and commentaries in my
opinion. As noted by Sundaramoorthy, extravagent claims have been
made on Thirukkural and many people acclaim it like it holds for
all time periods. A short reading of Thirukkural would convince one
that we are not living in the culture in the time period this work
was written and we cannot take everything written in the Thirukkur-
al. It takes little for one to see male chauvinism expressed in
Thirukkural in the chapter `peN vazhich chERal'. After reading one
of my earlier articles on this chapter, someone exclaimed,
"Valluva! Why have you cheated us?". Obviously we cannot hold
Valluvar responsible for our extravagant views as he did not claim
in his Thirukkural that his moral work is applicable to all time
periods. I think it is too much to expect that Thirukkural is a
"poyyaa mozhi" in the twentieth century or in the future centuries.
(3) Now I quote the kural under discussion, the kural #37 :
"aRaththaaRu ithuvena vENdaa sivikai
poRuththaanOdu oornthaan idai."
Translation :-
aRaththaaRu = aRaththu + aaRu
[ aRam = dharma, aaRu = vazhi, path. ]
ithuvena = ithu + ena = this one
vENdaa = no telling needed
sivikai = pallakku, palanquin
poRuththaanOdu = poRuththaan + Odu = with the carrier
[ The carrier was called `poRuththaan',
as he "bears" the weight of the
palanquin he is lifting. The word
`poRu' has `bear' as one of its
meanings. ]
oornthaan = the one who rides
idai = between them
(4) The meaning of this Thirukkural has been debated. What do
others say about it ?
Kamaliah's comments (from Kathiravan's posting)
"There is no need to know from the works what the effect of
virtue is. It is there for one to witness in the sight of one
riding on the palanquin and in the other carrying him".
VVS Aiyar's commentary:
"Ask me not, what will profit a man if he is righteous. Look at
the bearer of the palanquin and him that rideth it.- It is the
rightoeus deeds done in the past births that have made the one in
the rider, and the unrighteous deeds done in his past births that
have made the other the bearer of the palanquin"
V Kalyaana Sundara Mudaliyaar translates it as (from
Kathiravan's posting)
"Virtuous conduct cannot shrink while carrying the palanquin nor
does it expand while riding"
Selva translates this kural as
"Don't point out the planquin-bearer and the rider and say that
that is the difference between following 'aRam' and not! "
(5) Selva comments on the translation given by V.V.S. Iyer and
others as
"I agree. Valluvar could not have meant it based on his
overall philosophy."
What is Valluvar's overall philosophy ? Kamil Zvelebil, after
siting the various claims of Valluvar's religion, observes
" While the hypothesis of Christian influence is based on
vague impressions, it is a fact that we find in the text several
purely Jaina technical terms; and it seems that Tiruvalluvar had
been "cognizant of the latest develpments" of the Jaina system."
[ `Smile of murugan', page 157 ]
The "aRam" that Valluvar stresses in his Thirukkural is `dharma'.
It is not the varna-ashrama-dharma of the brahminism in his days.
The Thirukkural # 972
"piRappokkum ellaa uyirkkum chiRapovvaa
ceythozhil vERRumai yaan."
is against the codes of Manu's dharma. Also, Valluvar's chapters
"kollaamai" (non-violence) "pulaal maRuththal" (vegetarianism)
elucidate the `ahimsa' (non-violence) teachings of the Jainism and
Buddhism, which hold non-violence as their principal dharma, `ahim-
sa paramO dharma:'. The kural # 259
"avicorindhu aayiram vEttalin onRan
uyircekuth thuNNaamai nanRu. "
[ Tr. Rather than performing one thousand animal sacrifices with
pouring ghee in the fire, it would be praiseworthy not to kill an
animal and eat its flesh. ]
criticizes the cruel animal sacrifices in the vedic yagnas of the
brahminism in his period. `vEttal' means `animal sacrifice'. Brah-
minism does not consider that the animal sacrifices in the vedic
yagnas are bad. Kanchi Sankaracharya defends animal sacrifices in
vedic yagnas in his `Divine Voice' (3 volumes). He says,
" Our religion has not made any injunction on non-violence like
the Jainism and Buddhism which hold non-violence as their principal
dharma, `ahimsa paramO dharma:' It was made mandatory only to the
sanyasis, but not to others. Ahimsa was relaxed in the wars and in
the vedic yagnas. Animals were sacrificed to please some devas in
the vedic yagnas for the welfare of the world. It is our belief
that the animals sacrificed in the vedic yagnas go to heaven .." (I
have translated from "dheyvaththin kural", Vol 1, page 294 )
Sankaracharya also provides some references from `ThEvaaram' to
point out that animal sacrifices in vedic yagnas were praised by
Appar, Sambandhar and others. Sankaracharys quotes from Sambandhar
ThEvaaram,
"parappaip paduththengum pasu vEttu eri Ombum.."
[ "dheyvaththin kural", Vol 2, page 414 ] to point out that the
animal sacrifices in the vedic yagnas were not considered bad in
those days. ( pasu vEttu = animal sacrifice, parappu = sacrificical
arena)]
Though Jainism and Buddhism criticized the varna-ashrama-dharma
and cruel animal sacrifices in the vedic yagnas, they did not
reject the `karma' doctrine of Brahminism and both believe it to be
the root-cause of cycle of births. We see Valluvar's faith in the
cycle of births in many places in `Thirukkural'. Valluvar implies
this in his kural # 339
" uRangu vathu_pOlum saakkaadu uRangi
vizhippadhu pOlum piRappu ".
[ Tr. Death is like going to sleep and birth is like awakening
from the sleep. ]
There are also many occurences of the word `ezhupiRappu' in
Thirukkural meaning `a cycle of births'. Also, the `paayiram' of a
later day Jainistic Tamil work `chilappathikaaram' says that
`oozhvinai uruththuvandhu oottuvadhu' [fate is iminent] is one of
the three main messages of the epic and we also find that the
unjust murder of Kovalan in the epic is due to the events in his
past birth. We also find these `karma' and `rebirth' stories in the
Buddhist work `maNimEkalai'. To give some Thirukkurals on `karma'
doctrine, I like to mention the kural # 169
" avviya nenchaththaan aakkamum chevviyaan
kEdum ninaikkap padum. "
[Tr. A jealous minded man's wealth and a good man's sufferings are
to be recalled from their past births. ]
(6) It is my opinion that Valluvar writes on the lines of `karma'
doctrine in the kural # 37,
" aRaththaaRu idhuvena vENdaa civikai
poRuththaanOdu oorndhaan idai. "
I think a correct translation of this kural is
" There is no need to know from the works what the effect of
`karma' is. It is there for one to witness in the sight of one
riding on the palanquin and in the other carrying him" (Kamaliah)
and is based on his overall philosophy. One may also compare this
this kural with the kural #169 that I mentioned in (5).
(7) Your comments/replies welcome.
- SP
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>
> (1) This is with regard to a posting in the net on misinterpreta-
>tions of the kural # 37. Selva and Kathiravan have given their
>meanings of this kural and I like to comment on what is the correct
>meaning of this kural.
>
> (2) Earlier I had a long discussion with Selva with regard to the
>chapter `peNvazhichchERal' in Thirukkural and I like to repeat here
I would like to pursue this. After you quoted Subramaniam's
(??) passage more fully it was very evident that he had not
understood even by his own admission. peNvazhichchERal is
grossly misunderstood as I had tried to explain.
>some of what I said in that series of articles. I think we have to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>look at Tamil works from the time period when they were written for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>translation, commentaries or understanding. We have to look at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, I completely agree. We also have to understand the
original authors words in relation to other things s/he says
in her/his work.
>history, culture, beliefs, practices, myths of the people in the
>time peiod when such works were written to understand the meanings
>of the words used and to interpret the views of the authors. Some
^^^^^^
>of the views in the ancient works may be bad in today's standards.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes. But it has to be first carefully understood before
passing judgements.
>But it would be unethical in the part of translators or commenta-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>tors to twist their meanings so that it sound better in today's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>standards. We will not only miss what the author intended to say
^^^^^^^^^^^^
I entirely agree. It would also be unethical to twist the meanings
to suit the commentators whims and fancies.
>but also the beliefs of the people in the culture the author lived
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in. Ancient works have historical and cultural values and a study
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>on them with an understanding of the time period when they were
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>written would result in good translations and commentaries in my
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Important point ! I agree.
>opinion. As noted by Sundaramoorthy, extravagent claims have been
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>made on Thirukkural and many people acclaim it like it holds for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>all time periods. A short reading of Thirukkural would convince one
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A vast majority of what thiruvaLLuvar said holds today and
is likely to hold for a long time. However, it can not be said
that this view should be acceptable to all people !!!
In many societies, many different 'social/moral' experimetns
have been done and some have been popular for sometime ( a few
decades) but 'soon' reverts to closer to earlier standards.
I can cite the Danish Mega families ( where a group of
men and women live with free sexual relationship), hippy culture
etc.. When there is so much freedom in america they don't
let people to marry more than one spouse. These moral/social
standards may change but then it does not mean that kuRaL had
become irrelaevant !! kuRaL says a few things which might be
considered good even when the society had changed; how can one
question that ? One day telling lies might be 'allright' and might be
in vogue in some society but still his views might not be
considered invalid ! I think instead of throwing bricks at
thiruvaLLuvar, it might be more sensible to discuss which
are the kuRaLs which are not valid and why one thinks so, then
one can discuss. I don't think there was any extravagant claims
about thiruvaLLuvar or his kuRaL. In fact if it was in English
or in Sanskrit it would have been acclaimed the world over
and it is my view that its glory is extremely poorly spread.
>that we are not living in the culture in the time period this work
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>was written and we cannot take everything written in the Thirukkur-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sure, at the time vaLLuvar must have been living, there were
no plastic cards like Visa/Master but borrowing/debt are
there even today. His words are extremely valuable even today
( probably govt. of United States and Canada should listen to him)
vaLLuvar says:
aagaaRu aLavitti thaayinum kEdu illai
pOgaaRu agalaa kadai
[ not written with proper seer, intentionally, in order to
see the words]
'aagaaRu' is the __rate__ of income and 'pOgaaRu' is the __rate__ of
expenditure. He says what matters is that the rate of expenditure
should not exceed the rate of income even if the rate of income
is tremendous ( aLavitti = aLavu illaathathu > tremedous).
It is not the deficit per se that is important, it is the
rate at which income-expenditure are planned that is important.
>al. It takes little for one to see male chauvinism expressed in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Thirukkural in the chapter `peN vazhich chERal'. After reading one
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of my earlier articles on this chapter, someone exclaimed,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"Valluva! Why have you cheated us?". Obviously we cannot hold
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In our discussion, it was clearly brought out that there was
gross misunderstanding on the part of those whom you quoted.
Precisely because some people began to accuse thiruvaLLuvar
as advocating male chauvanism following your 'example', I
said you are doing serious disservice. You had brought in
Auwvaiyaar's words in support and I thought you were convinced
of my arguments ( you also said this in an e-mail) .
If anyone as you do think vaLLuvar was male chauvisnist, s/he
does not know a vie bit of thiruvaLLuvar's outlook or philosophy.
>Valluvar responsible for our extravagant views as he did not claim
>in his Thirukkural that his moral work is applicable to all time
>periods. I think it is too much to expect that Thirukkural is a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"poyyaa mozhi" in the twentieth century or in the future centuries.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, I see ! Just as you claim certain things, some others have
claimed that it is 'poyyaa mozhi'. I too hold thirukkuRaL as
'poyyaa mozhi' but let us discuss if you think some kuRaLs are
poyykkum or poyyththa mozhi. I have an open mind. For example
the kuRaL about 'theyvam thozhaaL.. peyyena peyyum mazhai'
appears quite impracticable, but I dare not say that it is
'poy mozhi'. If you don't believe, its fine and thats understandable.
I also don't think that it is easy to achieve such a state.
It might be a 'uyarvu naviRchchi aNi' or such things are possible
in actuality. There are people who believe in the powers of the
mind. If you don't believe you have to read some history.
When the adyar yogi said he will stop his 'pulse' at will
the britishers didn't believe, brought their doctors and
monitored him ( these are discussed in Paul Bruntons book;
I don't remember the title). Medically he had to be declared
dead. Then they coined words like 'suspended animation' etc.
Whether rain can be brought at will, I don't know; but
it does sound crazy for sure. While I can say within my limits
that 'such and such look crazy', I can not declare that
vaLLuvar propagated poy mozhi, vaLLuvan cheated me etc.
Even then such kuRaLs are quite a small number. Why don't you
folks ( Sundaramoorthy, Sundara Pandian, Sornam Sankarapaandi
and the person who acclaimed that vaLLuvar cheated him ( was it
B.Raghu ?)) list the 'porundhaa' or 'poy mozhi' kuRaLs before
making extravagant claims about vaLLuvar?
>
>
> The "aRam" that Valluvar stresses in his Thirukkural is `dharma'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nope ! aRam is _not_ dharma and I have argued why.
>It is not the varna-ashrama-dharma of the brahminism in his days.
>The Thirukkural # 972
>
> "piRappokkum ellaa uyirkkum chiRapovvaa
> ceythozhil vERRumai yaan."
>
>is against the codes of Manu's dharma. Also, Valluvar's chapters
>"kollaamai" (non-violence) "pulaal maRuththal" (vegetarianism)
>elucidate the `ahimsa' (non-violence) teachings of the Jainism and
>Buddhism, which hold non-violence as their principal dharma, `ahim-
>sa paramO dharma:'. The kural # 259
>
> "avicorindhu aayiram vEttalin onRan
> uyircekuth thuNNaamai nanRu. "
>
> [ Tr. Rather than performing one thousand animal sacrifices with
>pouring ghee in the fire, it would be praiseworthy not to kill an
>animal and eat its flesh. ]
>
>criticizes the cruel animal sacrifices in the vedic yagnas of the
>brahminism in his period. `vEttal' means `animal sacrifice'. Brah-
>minism does not consider that the animal sacrifices in the vedic
>yagnas are bad. Kanchi Sankaracharya defends animal sacrifices in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>vedic yagnas in his `Divine Voice' (3 volumes). He says,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
He does not defend, but he is truthfully acklowledging the
past in this matter.
>
> " Our religion has not made any injunction on non-violence like
>the Jainism and Buddhism which hold non-violence as their principal
>dharma, `ahimsa paramO dharma:' It was made mandatory only to the
>sanyasis, but not to others. Ahimsa was relaxed in the wars and in
>the vedic yagnas. Animals were sacrificed to please some devas in
>the vedic yagnas for the welfare of the world. It is our belief
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that the animals sacrificed in the vedic yagnas go to heaven .." (I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this is the stong and weak point !!
I think your/Kamaliah's translation is quite incorrect.
>
>and is based on his overall philosophy. One may also compare this
>this kural with the kural #169 that I mentioned in (5).
>
> (7) Your comments/replies welcome.
>
>
> - SP
>
anbudan
- Selva
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>>
>>
>> The "aRam" that Valluvar stresses in his Thirukkural is `dharma'.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Nope ! aRam is _not_ dharma and I have argued why.
aRam and dharma are different in origin, meaning and practice.
aRam comes from pruning. dharma comes from holding together.
I had posted an article on this before quoting poorNalingam piLLai's
work.
>>to be recalled from their past births. ]
>>
>> (6) It is my opinion that Valluvar writes on the lines of `karma'
>>doctrine in the kural # 37,
>>
>> " aRaththaaRu idhuvena vENdaa civikai
>> poRuththaanOdu oorndhaan idai. "
>>
>> I think a correct translation of this kural is
>>
>> " There is no need to know from the works what the effect of
>>`karma' is. It is there for one to witness in the sight of one
>>riding on the palanquin and in the other carrying him" (Kamaliah)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I first posted kamaliaah's transl following thiru. vee kaa's
urai.
Kamaliaah's trans. "there is no need to point this for the effect of
aRam. It is both with the palanquin bearer and the rider".
I feel it is correct.
anban
Kathiravan
Rajarama Krishnan
>In article <930302060...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>>
>>of the words used and to interpret the views of the authors. Some
> ^^^^^^
>>of the views in the ancient works may be bad in today's standards.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Yes. But it has to be first carefully understood before
> passing judgements.
Yes, both by the people who praise it and by people who criticise it.
>>opinion. As noted by Sundaramoorthy, extravagent claims have been
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>made on Thirukkural and many people acclaim it like it holds for
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>all time periods. A short reading of Thirukkural would convince one
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> about thiruvaLLuvar or his kuRaL. In fact if it was in English
> or in Sanskrit it would have been acclaimed the world over
> and it is my view that its glory is extremely poorly spread.
Usual knee-jerk reaction. Say something bad about Thirukkural and you get NO
SANSKRIT IS BAD. Why should you go out of the context. The discussion doesnt
have anthing to do with Sankrit.
> aagaaRu aLavitti thaayinum kEdu illai
> pOgaaRu agalaa kadai
> [ not written with proper seer, intentionally, in order to
> see the words]
> 'aagaaRu' is the __rate__ of income and 'pOgaaRu' is the __rate__ of
> expenditure. He says what matters is that the rate of expenditure
> should not exceed the rate of income even if the rate of income
> is tremendous ( aLavitti = aLavu illaathathu > tremedous).
> It is not the deficit per se that is important, it is the
> rate at which income-expenditure are planned that is important.
Do you really say that this applies. It looks like you dont know much about
global economy. Japan didnt come up withoyut being in debt for a long. And this
debt is government's debt and not the country's debt. Most of this debt is
within the country itself. ie. Govt has issued bonds and got money from the
country's own people. In opening up an economy and to boost productivity govts
often work up a temporary debt. This is perfectly fine as long as the debt
servicing is below 5% of the GDP. This is the problem with US and Canada. Its
debt servicing cost is very large (US -- 200 b$). So thanks for pointing
out one Kural which is not applicable to mordern times.
>>Valluvar responsible for our extravagant views as he did not claim
>>in his Thirukkural that his moral work is applicable to all time
>>periods. I think it is too much to expect that Thirukkural is a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>"poyyaa mozhi" in the twentieth century or in the future centuries.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Oh, I see ! Just as you claim certain things, some others have
> claimed that it is 'poyyaa mozhi'. I too hold thirukkuRaL as
> 'poyyaa mozhi' but let us discuss if you think some kuRaLs are
> poyykkum or poyyththa mozhi. I have an open mind. For example
> the kuRaL about 'theyvam thozhaaL.. peyyena peyyum mazhai'
> appears quite impracticable, but I dare not say that it is
> 'poy mozhi'. If you don't believe, its fine and thats understandable.
> I also don't think that it is easy to achieve such a state.
> It might be a 'uyarvu naviRchchi aNi' or such things are possible
> in actuality. There are people who believe in the powers of the
> mind. If you don't believe you have to read some history.
> When the adyar yogi said he will stop his 'pulse' at will
> the britishers didn't believe, brought their doctors and
> monitored him ( these are discussed in Paul Bruntons book;
> I don't remember the title). Medically he had to be declared
> dead. Then they coined words like 'suspended animation' etc.
Please dont believe this kind of para-science junk. No claims on ESP, Telepathy
and stuff like this has been verified under experimental conditions. On the
other hand several such claims have been thrashed. Read books by Douglas
Hofstaeder or Martin Gardner which talk about these. All these wild claims
are purely for making money from gullible people.
> Whether rain can be brought at will, I don't know; but
> it does sound crazy for sure. While I can say within my limits
> that 'such and such look crazy', I can not declare that
> vaLLuvar propagated poy mozhi, vaLLuvan cheated me etc.
You seem to work with the fundamental assumption that Valluvar was right. You
are even willing to accept that "Rain can be brought at will" but will not
accept that Valluvar was wrong. If you are going to be that obstinate then
there is really no point in arguing.
> Even then such kuRaLs are quite a small number. Why don't you
> folks ( Sundaramoorthy, Sundara Pandian, Sornam Sankarapaandi
> and the person who acclaimed that vaLLuvar cheated him ( was it
> B.Raghu ?)) list the 'porundhaa' or 'poy mozhi' kuRaLs before
> making extravagant claims about vaLLuvar?
I dont claim that Valluvar cheated me. But I do claim that what he wrote was
good in form but doesnt have much contents. I said that earlier also. Many of
you refuted me. But no one has come out and given me an example where you think
he has thought of something very original which you or I havent thought about.
Kathiravan quoted KuraLs where he shows excellent poetic abilities. Once again
I agree that he had very good poetic abilities, his work was very broad in
scope. But please show me one instance of original thought.
You ask us to show instances where Valluvar has said something wrong. But most
of what Valluvar said are statements about how a man should be or how a society
should be. These cannot be verified to be true or untrue. For eg if I say
"Respect your mother. You may even kill others to save the respect of your
mother" (Note -- this is my own concoction. I am not quoting the meaning
of any KuraL). Where is the truth in this, where is the falsity in this. This
is a subjective statement. One cant judge whether this is true or not. This
is the kind of statement that Thiruvalluvar has made in all his KuraLs. Selva
give me one instance where he has gone beyond making vacuous subjective
statements like this and said anything objective that is not immediately
obvious to everyone.
>>the vedic yagnas for the welfare of the world. It is our belief
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that the animals sacrificed in the vedic yagnas go to heaven .." (I
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> this is the stong and weak point !!
If you can believe that rain can be got by just strongly wishing for it. You
might as well believe in this also. :)
>>
>> (6) It is my opinion that Valluvar writes on the lines of `karma'
>>doctrine in the kural # 37,
>>
>> " aRaththaaRu idhuvena vENdaa civikai
>> poRuththaanOdu oorndhaan idai. "
>>
>> I think a correct translation of this kural is
>>
>> " There is no need to know from the works what the effect of
>>`karma' is. It is there for one to witness in the sight of one
>>riding on the palanquin and in the other carrying him" (Kamaliah)
>
>
> I think your/Kamaliah's translation is quite incorrect.
You didnt say why. I personally found Sundara Pandian's translation much more
meaningful.
>> - SP
>>
>
>
> anbudan
> - Selva
>
If you are working with the assumption that what Valluvar says is correct,
and will rather believe that rain can be got by wishing for it than saying
Valluvar is wrong, just press 'n' on this posting. There is really no point
otherwise. I dont assume that Valluvar was totally correct. So we will be
working with different assumptions.
Rajaram
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>>
>> (1) This is with regard to a posting in the net on misinterpreta-
>>tions of the kural # 37. Selva and Kathiravan have given their
>
>
>>
>>
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Nope ! aRam is _not_ dharma and I have argued why.
A correct rendering of aRam in English would be
'a tamil code of virtues/morals'. Why do you
insist that it is 'dharama' when it is _not_.
what is wrong in rendering as 'aRam' in English ?
I had earlier argued that such rederings using sanskrit
words can lead to misunderstanding and it is unacceptable
as translation. If one says 'sin' it has very specific
meaning which might not be what is meant by 'paavam'
or other words. I earlier gave the example of 'satyamEva
jayatE' and how 'vaaymaiyE vellum' might _not_ be
an exact equivvalent. We have words like 'vaaymai',
'meymai' and 'uNmai' etc. The problem with the word
dharma for aRam is a geniune one. aRuthi ittathu aRam.
aRuthi = finality, end, ultimate. The tamil word
aRam also has very special meaning among a group of
Tamils ( Saivaites) for whom 'aRam' is the first
'maRai' of the 'naan maRai' given by Lord Siva.
[ appar says 'aRam muthalaaya naan maRai..' ]
But the word 'aRam' is a non-religious word which
is used in Tamil in a very different sense from 'dharma'.
>
>
>
>>It is not the varna-ashrama-dharma of the brahminism in his days.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Very true. It is only one of the reasons.
>>The Thirukkural # 972
>>
>> "piRappokkum ellaa uyirkkum chiRapovvaa
>> ceythozhil vERRumai yaan."
>>
>>is against the codes of Manu's dharma. Also, Valluvar's chapters
>>"kollaamai" (non-violence) "pulaal maRuththal" (vegetarianism)
>>elucidate the `ahimsa' (non-violence) teachings of the Jainism and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Buddhism, which hold non-violence as their principal dharma, `ahim-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>sa paramO dharma:'. The kural # 259
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the sense of 'ahimsa paramO dharma' aRam will fit very well.
vaLLuvar says 'kollaamai' as 'aRavinai', 'nallaaRu' etc.
But still it is one of the virtues.
>>
>> "avicorindhu aayiram vEttalin onRan
>> uyircekuth thuNNaamai nanRu. "
>>
>> [ Tr. Rather than performing one thousand animal sacrifices with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>pouring ghee in the fire, it would be praiseworthy not to kill an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>animal and eat its flesh. ]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The main message of this kuRaL is: Not eating non-vegtarian
food is far better than doing 1000s of yaagas for various
'goods'. Actually thiruvaLLuvar condemns the practice of
yaagas where killing innocent animans or humans are involved.
Sri Sankaracharyar explains ( Deivaththin kural)that
vaLLuvar does _not_ condemn
but only says that one is better than the other. This is
a serious distorion because vaLLuvar says 'aayiram' vEttalin'
precisely to show the worthlessness of such yaagas.
vaLLuvar says one-thousand ( a commonly used idiom to mean
innumerable) yaagas is nothing compared to not killing
_one_ uyir and eating it.
>>
>>criticizes the cruel animal sacrifices in the vedic yagnas of the
>>brahminism in his period. `vEttal' means `animal sacrifice'. Brah-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, this is animal sacrifice but it also contains the meaning
of 'with a purpose to obtain a good'. vEtppu means 'request'.
Common words are vENdum, vENduvathu.. In election times
you might hear 'vEtppu' or 'vEtppu maNu', or 'vEtppaaLar'
>>minism does not consider that the animal sacrifices in the vedic
>>yagnas are bad. Kanchi Sankaracharya defends animal sacrifices in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>vedic yagnas in his `Divine Voice' (3 volumes). He says,
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> He does not defend, but he is truthfully acklowledging the
> past in this matter.
>>
>> " Our religion has not made any injunction on non-violence like
>>the Jainism and Buddhism which hold non-violence as their principal
>>dharma, `ahimsa paramO dharma:' It was made mandatory only to the
>>sanyasis, but not to others. Ahimsa was relaxed in the wars and in
>>the vedic yagnas. Animals were sacrificed to please some devas in
>>the vedic yagnas for the welfare of the world. It is our belief
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>that the animals sacrificed in the vedic yagnas go to heaven .." (I
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> this is the stong and weak point !!
It is a strong point because we don't know whether they go to
heaven or not and it is a 'belief' ( like our Ayodhya patriots
who believe that Sri Rama was born there and our vaLLuvar
who proclaims that 'thozhuthezhuvaaL peyyena peyyum mazhai'.. )
The weak point is that like ayodhya and vedic yaagas these are
destructive. Some one can come and kill you and say that it is
good for you. In the case of vaLLuvar's injunction there is no
negative impact ( as long as maamiyaar comes and tortures
a daughter -in- law, being very keen to get rain :) :) )
>
>>have translated from "dheyvaththin kural", Vol 1, page 294 )
>>
>> Sankaracharya also provides some references from `ThEvaaram' to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>point out that animal sacrifices in vedic yagnas were praised by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Appar, Sambandhar and others. Sankaracharys quotes from Sambandhar
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>ThEvaaram,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have seen Sankaracharyas using kuRaL or thEvaaram almost
exclusively to support some narrow views which are usually
difficult to defend but
using sanskrit slokas almost exclusively to expound
philosophy ( very rarely they quote from outstanding tamil works
like thiruvaasagam, thirumandhiram, thEvaaram, thaayumaanar
songs, pattinaththaar songs, vaLLalaar songs, thirukkuRaL,
kanthar anupoothi, kanthar alangaaram, thiruppugazh,
and many more works). Now, to quote 'moovar' to support
vedic sacrifice killing animals is interesting. I would like
to hear the whole song to see whether thEvaaram _supported_
this. I notice 'Ombum' which refers to 'upholding with
great enthusiasm' but the reference might be to a group of
vedic followers just to refer to them.
>>
>> "parappaip paduththengum pasu vEttu eri Ombum.."
>>
>>[ "dheyvaththin kural", Vol 2, page 414 ] to point out that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>animal sacrifices in the vedic yagnas were not considered bad in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>those days. ( pasu vEttu = animal sacrifice, parappu = sacrificical
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not bad in those days !! ThiruNYana Sambandhar and Thirunaavukkarasar
were spearheading the battle against buddhists and jainists.
( although most of the credit is given to Sankarachara for
reviving hinduism. If the tamil bakthi movement had not taken
place, Adi Sankaras efforts would not have made a dent except
some Sanskrit pundits carefully reading his commentaries and
debating among themselves. Popular hinduism owes a great
debt to the efforts and inspirations of tamil saints.)
>>arena)]
>>
>> Though Jainism and Buddhism criticized the varna-ashrama-dharma
>>and cruel animal sacrifices in the vedic yagnas, they did not
>>reject the `karma' doctrine of Brahminism and both believe it to be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>the root-cause of cycle of births. We see Valluvar's faith in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What makes you conclude that 'karma' doctrine is from
brahminism ? Many scholars say that 'cycle of births' is a native
indian or dravidian concept alien to vedic aryans.
'oozh vinai' is tamil/native indian doctrine as well.
['oozhi' is very much a tamil concept. ]
>>the root-cause of cycle of births. We see Valluvar's faith in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>cycle of births in many places in `Thirukkural'. Valluvar implies
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
**This has nothing to do with brahminism !!**
>>this in his kural # 339
>>
>> " uRangu vathu_pOlum saakkaadu uRangi
>> vizhippadhu pOlum piRappu ".
>>
>> [ Tr. Death is like going to sleep and birth is like awakening
>>from the sleep. ]
>>
>> There are also many occurences of the word `ezhupiRappu' in
>>Thirukkural meaning `a cycle of births'. Also, the `paayiram' of a
>>later day Jainistic Tamil work `chilappathikaaram' says that
>>`oozhvinai uruththuvandhu oottuvadhu' [fate is iminent] is one of
>>the three main messages of the epic and we also find that the
>>unjust murder of Kovalan in the epic is due to the events in his
>>past birth. We also find these `karma' and `rebirth' stories in the
>>Buddhist work `maNimEkalai'. To give some Thirukkurals on `karma'
>>doctrine, I like to mention the kural # 169
>>
>> " avviya nenchaththaan aakkamum chevviyaan
>> kEdum ninaikkap padum. "
>>
>> [Tr. A jealous minded man's wealth and a good man's sufferings are
>>to be recalled from their past births. ]
Why don't you quote the very next kuRaL and substantiate the
above meaning ? [ the kuRaL starting as 'azhukkaRRu aganRaarum illai..']
The kuRaL you have quoted comes in 'azhukkaaRaamai'. The meaning of
the kuRaL you have quoted above is :
avviya nenchathtaan aakkamum = poRaamai koNdavan selvamum
chevviyaan kEdum = the poverty of good ( = chevviyaan)
[ here 'good' meaning one who deos not
have 'poRaamai' = jealousy ]
ninaikkap padum = onRaaga karutha(p) padum
Thus the meaning is the wealth of a jealous man is just
useless ( since he can not enjoy { due to the feeling of jealousy})
as the poverty of the 'non-jealous' man.
Please remember that kuRaL occurs in a particular chapter devoted to
show the 'badness' of jealousy. Even if you have wealth you can not
enjoy and you're like a poor man _if_ you have jealousy. I don't
understand how the meaning you have give fits the chapter or the
particular kuRaL. The meaning you've given is completely incorrect.
>>
>> (6) It is my opinion that Valluvar writes on the lines of `karma'
>>doctrine in the kural # 37,
>>
>> " aRaththaaRu idhuvena vENdaa civikai
>> poRuththaanOdu oorndhaan idai. "
I have already explained this and don't want to repeat.
>>
>> I think a correct translation of this kural is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No. What is given below as a translation is _not_ correct.
>>
>> " There is no need to know from the works what the effect of
>>`karma' is. It is there for one to witness in the sight of one
>>riding on the palanquin and in the other carrying him" (Kamaliah)
>
>
> I think your/Kamaliah's translation is quite incorrect.
>>
>>and is based on his overall philosophy. One may also compare this
>>this kural with the kural #169 that I mentioned in (5).
>>
>> (7) Your comments/replies welcome.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have give some.. for your/valaiNYars _consideration_.
>>
>>
>> - SP
>>
>
>
> anbudan
> - Selva
>
anbudan
-Selva
Sundara Pandian
>In article <930302060...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
[....]
>
>> (2) Earlier I had a long discussion with Selva with regard to the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>chapter `peNvazhichchERal' in Thirukkural and I like to repeat here
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I would like to pursue this. After you quoted Subramaniam's
> (??) passage more fully it was very evident that he had not
> understood even by his own admission. peNvazhichchERal is
> grossly misunderstood as I had tried to explain.
I will write about this in a different thread. Raghunadhan also
opines that `peN vazhich chERal' is male chauvinistic. As I did not have
his book `baarathi: sila paarvaikaL' , I referred to him only from
memory when I was writing my articles on `peN vazhich chERal' earlier.
I misquoted him about the saying `thaiyal sol kELEl' in `aaththichchoodi'
and I apologize here for my error. I read his book lately and found he
does not say that Auwaiyaar is the pseudonym of a male poet as I misquoted
him earlier. He says that the female poet Auwaiyaar or any other female
poet could not have written `aaththichchoodi' and only a male poet
could have written it and put that in Auwaiyaar's name. I will write
more on this in the other thread.
>>some of what I said in that series of articles. I think we have to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>look at Tamil works from the time period when they were written for
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>translation, commentaries or understanding. We have to look at the
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Yes, I completely agree. We also have to understand the
> original authors words in relation to other things s/he says
> in her/his work.
As I wrote earlier, VaLLuvar lived in a male chauvinistic society
and I wrote about the male chavuvinism in his society in the earlier
thread. When I look back, I see that I wrote mostly about queens or royal
women in the earlier thread on the `peN vazhich chERal'. I would write
about the women in the society, their life, etc. in a differnt thread.
[...]
>
>>al. It takes little for one to see male chauvinism expressed in
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Thirukkural in the chapter `peN vazhich chERal'. After reading one
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>of my earlier articles on this chapter, someone exclaimed,
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>"Valluva! Why have you cheated us?". Obviously we cannot hold
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> In our discussion, it was clearly brought out that there was
^^^^^^^^^
> gross misunderstanding on the part of those whom you quoted.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Precisely because some people began to accuse thiruvaLLuvar
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> as advocating male chauvanism following your 'example', I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> said you are doing serious disservice.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The SCT nettors are entitled to their opinions and I hope they make
their own opinions. I write about my opinions on KuraL, status of women
in the sangam culture etc. and I give references for them for getting
more details, if they are interested. I quoted mostly from the book
by Subramaniam on Sangam culture, and I will give some more references
later.
> You had brought in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Auwvaiyaar's words in support and I thought you were convinced
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of my arguments ( you also said this in an e-mail) .
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> If anyone as you do think vaLLuvar was male chauvisnist, s/he
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> does not know a vie bit of thiruvaLLuvar's outlook or philosophy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I am of the opinion that VaLLuvar wrote male chauvinism in the
chapter `peN vazhich chERal'. You are entitled to your criticism on
me or others (Raghunadhan, etc.) who believe that `peN vazhich chERal'
is male chauvinistic. I brought in Auwaiyaar's saying `thaiyal
sol kELEl' as it is in similar lines with the chapter `peN vazhich
chERal' and I think the poet is echoing VaLLuvar's `peN vazhich chERal'
in his/her saying `thaiyal sol kELEl' [Don't listen to women.]
I remember well what I wrote in my e-mail that I sent you when someone
posted a nasty flame on your articles in the `Ancient Indian culture'
the Dravidian/Aryan discussion. In that mail, I criticized those people
who claim that `Sanskrit gave birth to all Indian languages'. I brought
in our discussion on `Women in Sangam culture' in the net in that mail,
but I didn't write I was convinced of your arguments. I wrote something like
" I am reading a book by Kailasapathy on Heroic Tamil Poetry and I find
it interesting. I may revise my opinions after reading this book.. "
When I was reading that book, I found his references on the bravery of
women in the wars/battles interesting and I was thinking about revising
my opinions on my views in the thread `Women in Sangam culture', as I did
not write about a sect of women, `maRap peNkaL', Kailasapathy mentions
in his book. If what I wrote in my mail sounded like I was convinced of
your arguments, then it is a misunderstanding in your part and also a
mistake in my part in not writing what I might revise in my opinions on
women in Sangam culture we discussed in the net, after reading that book.
[....]
>
> anbudan
> - Selva
- SP.
Sundara Pandian
In a previous article, selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) says:
[...]
> I think instead of throwing bricks at
> thiruvaLLuvar, it might be more sensible to discuss which
> are the kuRaLs which are not valid and why one thinks so, then
> one can discuss.
One is not throwing bricks at ThiruvaLLuvar in pointing out that
ThirukkuRaL is not a "poyyaamozhi" or a "timeless" work as upheld by
some people. No moral work can conquer time, as the morals keep on
changing with time. Our culture, our morals, our traditions, our
philosophy evolves with time and it is absurd to hold one moral work
as "poyyamozhi" or "timeless". Though there is a tendency among some
Tamils to quote from Sangam Tamil works and to talk in pride about the
ancient Tamil culture, their sea-trade etc., it should be obvious that
we are not living in the Sangam culture. Our morals have changed with
time. I have heard some Tamil speakers proudly proclaiming in the
Tamil gatherings on Tamil women as "muRaththaal puliyaith thuraththiya
maRap peN irundha thamizhk kudi". While one could use such high praises
from the "puRam" literature in Tamil to study the bravery of the "maRap
peNkaL", a sect of sangam women, it should be obvious that we are living
in a culture where a rumor overheard in a circus stadium that a tiger
has escaped from its cage results in people running madly out of the
stadium in fear and I have read some factual accounts in newspapers and
in news magazines about deaths that occurred as a result of people running
madly out of the stadium ground in circus when a tiger or lion jumps out of
the center stage. What happened to those brave women who drove away the tigers
just using their "muRams" ? What happened to the "puRa naanooRRu veeram" ?
I like to pose this simple question to the people who acclaim that
ThirukkuraL is a "timeless" work: Can we go back in time and live in the
morals, beliefs and traditions of the Sangam culture or other ancient
cultures in India ? As the Sangam culture is more of a male-chauvinistic
society, it would make more sense to put this question to women who upheld
ThirukkuRaL as a "poyyaamozhi" or praise the ancient Tamil culture as a
very ideal culture. The widows were very affected in that society. They
either committed `sati' or led a ascetic life, devoting their life to
god and it was a hard life. The child marriages were common in those days
and the women did not enjoy freedom as men in the ancient culture. They
were expected to lead a life as "illaththarasi". Though there are some
cases of women poets in sangam culture like Auwaiyaar, Kaakkai Paadiniyaar,
and some brave women, the "maRap peNkaL", who were praised to have driven
out tigers using "muRams", we cannot make a general opinion of the women
in the Sangam society with Auwaiyaar or "maRap penkaL". How many of us
have thought about what a life Paanjaali had to live being a wife for
five men ? While our vedic or gita scholars talk for hours narrating
the playful acts of Krishna with gopis, they avoid mentioning the male
chauvinism in the early society that allows a woman to be married to
five men. As our society has gone into many reforms, and we had made many
laws banning sati, child marriages, devathaasi in temples and lately
dowry, our women do not quite see the hard life the women in the past
centuries or in the early culture had gone through. It should be clear
from above that our morals are changing. I don't think any moral book
could be timeless.
Also I don't think one needs to take the exercise of going through
all the Kurals and listing what are "poymozhi" and what are "poyyaamozhi".
Different people have different ideologies, they follow different
religions, take different cultures and one cannot divide KuraLs into
"poymozhi" and "poyyaamozhi" for the present applicable to all. Also,
there is this question, why should one go back to the ancient Tamil culture
and dig their morals to find answers to today's moral problems, as
the two cultures are different. It was possible in those days to proclaim
"anbE sivam' ( Love is God ) on one hand and, torture and hung Jain monks
on the other hand. We are living in a time period when people could voice
their criticisms when some religious fanatics do attrocities, demolition,
violence in the name of God or their religion. Times are changing..
[...]
S. Sankarapandi
has assumed that I am throwing bricks at Tiruvalluvar and I reply only portions
of his article for which I have comments. - Sankarapandi)
In article <C3Mq...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.
R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>
> A vast majority of what thiruvaLLuvar said holds today and
> is likely to hold for a long time. However, it can not be said
> that this view should be acceptable to all people !!!
I agree. If you hold this view, then there is no difference of opinion
among us. (I am not speaking for Sundarapandian or Sundaramoorthy though
they have expressed similar opinions like me). I only criticize the people who
claim that Tirukkural should be acceptable for all societies at all times.
> considered invalid ! I think instead of throwing bricks at
> thiruvaLLuvar, it might be more sensible to discuss which
> are the kuRaLs which are not valid and why one thinks so, then
> one can discuss. I don't think there was any extravagant claims
> about thiruvaLLuvar or his kuRaL. In fact if it was in English
> or in Sanskrit it would have been acclaimed the world over
> and it is my view that its glory is extremely poorly spread.
>
I am not throwing bricks at Tirukkural. Prabably you should appreciate
that I am trying to follow the Kural :-)
epporuL yaaryaarvaayk ketpinum apporuL
meipporuL kaaNpath aRivu
> For example
> the kuRaL about 'theyvam thozhaaL.. peyyena peyyum mazhai'
> appears quite impracticable, but I dare not say that it is
> 'poy mozhi'. If you don't believe, its fine and thats understandable.
> I also don't think that it is easy to achieve such a state.
> It might be a 'uyarvu naviRchchi aNi' or such things are possible
> in actuality. There are people who believe in the powers of the
> mind. If you don't believe you have to read some history.
>
It is not uncommon to use `uyarvu naviRchchi aNi' to stress the importance
of the actual meaning. Whether it rains or not, that is not the point of
controversy.
The main point is that the kuRaL `theyvam..' is a just a reflection of the
soceity Tiruvalluvar lived, i.e. it was a male chauvunistic society. Nobody is
singling out Tiruvalluvar for writing this kuRaL because Tiruvalluvar did not
come across the terms like `male chauvunism' or `faminism' as he did not hear
about Green card or Visa/Master card. But no doubt, that kuRaL relfects the
male chauvunism of the ancient society.
The criticism is not about Tiruvalluvar or Tirukkural. The criticism is
against the people who glorify him (or Thirukkural) as 100 % perfect for
todays's society. We still hold that most of the kuRaLs have relevence to the
present day society.
> folks ( Sundaramoorthy, Sundara Pandian, Sornam Sankarapaandi
> and the person who acclaimed that vaLLuvar cheated him ( was it
> B.Raghu ?)) list the 'porundhaa' or 'poy mozhi' kuRaLs before
> making extravagant claims about vaLLuvar?
>
This is what I was doing.
> anbudan
> - Selva
>
S. Sankarapandi
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>In a previous article, selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) says:
>[...]
>> I think instead of throwing bricks at
>> thiruvaLLuvar, it might be more sensible to discuss which
>> are the kuRaLs which are not valid and why one thinks so, then
>> one can discuss.
>in news magazines about deaths that occurred as a result of people running
>madly out of the stadium ground in circus when a tiger or lion jumps out of
>the center stage. What happened to those brave women who drove away the tigers
>just using their "muRams" ? What happened to the "puRa naanooRRu veeram" ?
What we have witnessed in eezham is more than puRanaanooRu.
It is puthiya naanooRu. puRanaanooRil peN pOraadavillai.
>I like to pose this simple question to the people who acclaim that
>ThirukkuraL is a "timeless" work: Can we go back in time and live in the
>morals, beliefs and traditions of the Sangam culture or other ancient
>cultures in India ? As the Sangam culture is more of a male-chauvinistic
>society, it would make more sense to put this question to women who upheld
>ThirukkuRaL as a "poyyaamozhi" or praise the ancient Tamil culture as a
>very ideal culture. The widows were very affected in that society. They
>either committed `sati' or led a ascetic life, devoting their life to
>god and it was a hard life. The child marriages were common in those days
>and the women did not enjoy freedom as men in the ancient culture. They
>were expected to lead a life as "illaththarasi". Though there are some
>cases of women poets in sangam culture like Auwaiyaar, Kaakkai Paadiniyaar,
>and some brave women, the "maRap peNkaL", who were praised to have driven
>out tigers using "muRams", we cannot make a general opinion of the women
>in the Sangam society with Auwaiyaar or "maRap penkaL". How many of us
>have thought about what a life Paanjaali had to live being a wife for
>five men ? While our vedic or gita scholars talk for hours narrating
We should take out thamizh culture separately when we go to sangam
times. Aryan influence in language and culture was minimal.
There was no child marriage. Thamizhs understood nature very well.
peN arumbi, poovaaki, kaayaaki pin kanivathai iyaRkkai yOdu paadiuLLaarkaL.
12 years was the appropriate age for marriage. Only after she blossoms.
The coincidence of kuRinji flower blossoming once in 12 years and
the heroine being referred to as kuRinji malar and the mood of
kuRinji being love-making is all so resonant with nature. kapilan
in one kuRinji paattu mentions 63 different flowers
"oN seng kaanthal anichcham
.........."
This poetry was composed by kapilar to explain an aryan king
about thamizh poetic tradition. I have the poem somewhere [shall
dig it up]. The botany knowledge and classification in sangam
times is amazing. I shall quote tolkaapiyam on the life forms.
In fact megesthenes in Indica mentions paaNdiya kingdom
[the first of the three] founded by a woman. koRRavai was
the Goddess of war and mother of murugan[murugu-azhagu in thamizh]
Later influence of vEdic religion changed the name of murugan
.
>the playful acts of Krishna with gopis, they avoid mentioning the male
>chauvinism in the early society that allows a woman to be married to
>five men. As our society has gone into many reforms, and we had made many
>laws banning sati, child marriages, devathaasi in temples and lately
>dowry, our women do not quite see the hard life the women in the past
>centuries or in the early culture had gone through. It should be clear
>from above that our morals are changing. I don't think any moral book
>could be timeless.
paandiar . You are right about sati, cm, devadaasi[prostitution in
the name of god]. All these came in the middle.
>>
>> anbudan
>> - Selva
>- SP
anban.
Kathiravan
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>>> "parappaip paduththengum pasu vEttu eri Ombum.."
>>>
>>>[ "dheyvaththin kural", Vol 2, page 414 ] to point out that the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>animal sacrifices in the vedic yagnas were not considered bad in
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>those days. ( pasu vEttu = animal sacrifice, parappu = sacrificical
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Not bad in those days !! ThiruNYana Sambandhar and Thirunaavukkarasar
> were spearheading the battle against buddhists and jainists.
> ( although most of the credit is given to Sankarachara for
> reviving hinduism. If the tamil bakthi movement had not taken
> place, Adi Sankaras efforts would not have made a dent except
> some Sanskrit pundits carefully reading his commentaries and
> debating among themselves. Popular hinduism owes a great
> debt to the efforts and inspirations of tamil saints.)
thamizh is the first indian language in which pakthi was expressed
in the language of the mass. [thamizh vEda: by Carman, Univ. of Harvard
] is a good treatment of thamizh contribution to hindu pakthi.
It is almost 100% in the beginning.
>>>arena)]
>>>
>>> [ Tr. Death is like going to sleep and birth is like awakening
>>>from the sleep. ]
>>>
>>> There are also many occurences of the word `ezhupiRappu' in
ezhupiRappu is not 7 births. It is ezhukinRa piRappu.
>>>Thirukkural meaning `a cycle of births'.
Cycle of births is explained better by none other than maaNikkavaasagar.
"pullaaki poodaaki palvirugamaai
paampaai-------------munivaraai thingee"
I shall quote correctly. swami will say piRanthiLaiththEn. tired of
the cycle! O Lord.
anban
Kathiravan
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>>>the Jainism and Buddhism which hold non-violence as their principal
>>>dharma, `ahimsa paramO dharma:' It was made mandatory only to the
>>>sanyasis, but not to others. Ahimsa was relaxed in the wars and in
>>>the vedic yagnas. Animals were sacrificed to please some devas in
>>>the vedic yagnas for the welfare of the world. It is our belief
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>that the animals sacrificed in the vedic yagnas go to heaven .." (I
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> this is the stong and weak point !!
>
> It is a strong point because we don't know whether they go to
> heaven or not and it is a 'belief' ( like our Ayodhya patriots
> who believe that Sri Rama was born there and our vaLLuvar
> who proclaims that 'thozhuthezhuvaaL peyyena peyyum mazhai'.. )
> The weak point is that like ayodhya and vedic yaagas these are
> destructive. Some one can come and kill you and say that it is
> good for you. In the case of vaLLuvar's injunction there is no
> negative impact ( as long as maamiyaar comes and tortures
> a daughter -in- law, being very keen to get rain :) :) )
It should have been as follows: 'as long as maamiyaar does _not_
come and torture her daughter-in-law about
'thozuthu ezhuthal', being very keen to get rain
using her daughter-in-law's powers it is okay. :)'
- Selva
P.S. I've noticed many spelling and grammatical errors
in my postings. I feel rather stupid for my careless
ness. Many of these errors don't get noticed by me because
I don't get sufficient time to read and correct them
in my hurry to post. I request our valaiNYars to forgive me.
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>aRam. It is both with the palanquin bearer and the rider".
>
>I feel it is correct.
Kathiravan, the important thing is to cite the kuRaL lines
and argue how this meaning is obtained. I don't understand
how Kamaliah gets the meaning 'it is both with the planquin
bearer and rider'. I also don't understand why Sundara Pandian
quotes different words for Kamaliah ( were there two Kamaliahs
or these are two translations given by the same K in
different books ? Please explain - thanks).
>
>anban
>Kathiravan
anbudan
- Selva
"vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>In article <C3Mq...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>In article <930302060...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>>>
>>>of the words used and to interpret the views of the authors. Some
>> ^^^^^^
>>>of the views in the ancient works may be bad in today's standards.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Yes. But it has to be first carefully understood before
>> passing judgements.
>
>Yes, both by the people who praise it and by people who criticise it.
>
>>>opinion. As noted by Sundaramoorthy, extravagent claims have been
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>made on Thirukkural and many people acclaim it like it holds for
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>all time periods. A short reading of Thirukkural would convince one
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> about thiruvaLLuvar or his kuRaL. In fact if it was in English
>> or in Sanskrit it would have been acclaimed the world over
>> and it is my view that its glory is extremely poorly spread.
>
>Usual knee-jerk reaction. Say something bad about Thirukkural and you get NO
>SANSKRIT IS BAD. Why should you go out of the context. The discussion doesnt
>have anthing to do with Sankrit.
Rajaram, please read for yourself what you have writen.
I think you have not understood the words like 'usual'
'knee-jerk' etc.
Out of context ? No. The claim was that ThiruvaLLuvar's work
was blown out of proportion and extravagant claims have been
made and too much acclaim is there etc. etc. My point was that
ThiruvaLLuvar's work had _not_ been suitably acclaimed and
if it had been in in _English_ or Sanskrit it would have
gained more attention consdering the number of scholars working
and writing about these languages/language works. Where did
I say Sanskrit is bad ? Why don't you try to understand what is
said before you comment ?
>
>
>> aagaaRu aLavitti thaayinum kEdu illai
>> pOgaaRu agalaa kadai
>> [ not written with proper seer, intentionally, in order to
>> see the words]
>> 'aagaaRu' is the __rate__ of income and 'pOgaaRu' is the __rate__ of
>> expenditure. He says what matters is that the rate of expenditure
>> should not exceed the rate of income even if the rate of income
>> is tremendous ( aLavitti = aLavu illaathathu > tremedous).
>> It is not the deficit per se that is important, it is the
>> rate at which income-expenditure are planned that is important.
>
>Do you really say that this applies. It looks like you dont know much about
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>global economy. Japan didnt come up withoyut being in debt for a long. And this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>debt is government's debt and not the country's debt. Most of this debt is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>within the country itself. ie. Govt has issued bonds and got money from the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rajaram, it seems you have not understood what I have said above.
I don't know much about world economy but I do know that
it is better if the rate of income is more than rate of expenditure.
If you argue that this is not correct, please provide some
arguements. The main import of the kuRaL is that in trying to
expand the economy in various ways this goal should not be lost
sight of.
>country's own people. In opening up an economy and to boost productivity govts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>often work up a temporary debt. This is perfectly fine as long as the debt
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>servicing is below 5% of the GDP. This is the problem with US and Canada. Its
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The crux of the point is 'temperory' debt. In order for you to
determine that it is a temperory debt you have to ensure that
you have some areas of economy that are so strong that _overall_
the economy will change the 'rate' of income _to_off_set
the accumulated debt _in a reasonable_ timespan.
There are several pitfalls in these. You have to show how
a part of the money that goes for debt servicing can not be
better utilized ( to be economically more productive)
if there was no debt. Your argument that governments 'often'
does something is not a very convincing arguement.
>debt servicing cost is very large (US -- 200 b$). So thanks for pointing
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>out one Kural which is not applicable to mordern times.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:) Rajaram, I pointed out a kuRaL which seems to be quite
applicable even today. If you had a positive balance
you can do your economy building better than with negative
balance ( and rate) with part of the money going for debt
servicing. Your arguement that 5% debt is okay is unconvincing
to me. ( I'm not an economist, I've heard of deficit
financing, but am not convinced of its merits).
>
>>>Valluvar responsible for our extravagant views as he did not claim
>>>in his Thirukkural that his moral work is applicable to all time
>>>periods. I think it is too much to expect that Thirukkural is a
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>"poyyaa mozhi" in the twentieth century or in the future centuries.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Oh, I see ! Just as you claim certain things, some others have
>> claimed that it is 'poyyaa mozhi'. I too hold thirukkuRaL as
>> 'poyyaa mozhi' but let us discuss if you think some kuRaLs are
>> poyykkum or poyyththa mozhi. I have an open mind. For example
>> the kuRaL about 'theyvam thozhaaL.. peyyena peyyum mazhai'
>> appears quite impracticable, but I dare not say that it is
>> 'poy mozhi'. If you don't believe, its fine and thats understandable.
>> I also don't think that it is easy to achieve such a state.
>> It might be a 'uyarvu naviRchchi aNi' or such things are possible
>> in actuality. There are people who believe in the powers of the
>> mind. If you don't believe you have to read some history.
>> When the adyar yogi said he will stop his 'pulse' at will
>> the britishers didn't believe, brought their doctors and
>> monitored him ( these are discussed in Paul Bruntons book;
>> I don't remember the title). Medically he had to be declared
>> dead. Then they coined words like 'suspended animation' etc.
>
>Please dont believe this kind of para-science junk. No claims on ESP, Telepathy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and stuff like this has been verified under experimental conditions. On the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I said it might be 'uyarvu naviRchchi aNi'. You seem to have
ignored it. About powers of
mind, you have to experiment and find out by yourself.
( it might be of interest to you that a special issue of
Proceedings of IEEE devoted to Telepathy etc. It was in early
80s I think. There are psychological journals devoted to
para psycology.. The powers of mind and brain have _not_ been
adequately studied to assert much. If you don't know don't
say it is junk :) If you are uncomfortable, say so :))
>other hand several such claims have been thrashed. Read books by Douglas
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Hofstaeder or Martin Gardner which talk about these. All these wild claims
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>are purely for making money from gullible people.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hofstadter and Martin Gardener are my favorites too, but
there are others who have done more to expose Uri Geller
type magic and psychic phenomena.
I know that many aspects of mind and brain are not yet
fully understood and it is not wise to dismiss them without
considering. I am not therefore asking you to accept
that 'rain will come' if some one were so devoted to her
husband. It might just be 'uyarvu naviRchchi aNi' .
>
>> Whether rain can be brought at will, I don't know; but
>> it does sound crazy for sure. While I can say within my limits
>> that 'such and such look crazy', I can not declare that
>> vaLLuvar propagated poy mozhi, vaLLuvan cheated me etc.
>
>You seem to work with the fundamental assumption that Valluvar was right. You
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
epporuL yaar yaar vaaykkEtpinum apporuL meypporuL kaaNpathu
aRivu- this is what I believe.
I also believe ThiruvaLLuvar's words 'epporuL eththanmaiththaayinum
apporuL meypporuL kaaNpathu aRivu'. So even if it is ESP or
Telepathy, examine, research, reason, find out ..
>are even willing to accept that "Rain can be brought at will" but will not
>accept that Valluvar was wrong. If you are going to be that obstinate then
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hey, it is easy to say someone was wrong. I am trying to understand
what he had said and I've articulated my thoughts. I have _not_
claimed that 'rain can be brought at will' is the literal sense
of that line ( I had expressed my own doubts about such possibilities)
but if that is what he really meant, I dare not say he is wrong
without fully verifying. This is born out of my faith in his words
based on his work. If something he had said is wrong and I know it
I'll not hesitate to say so but without being sure I am not
willing to declare that he is wrong as you think is fit.
I am obstinate in being truthful to myself.
>there is really no point in arguing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please don't if don't want to. :)
>
>> Even then such kuRaLs are quite a small number. Why don't you
>> folks ( Sundaramoorthy, Sundara Pandian, Sornam Sankarapaandi
>> and the person who acclaimed that vaLLuvar cheated him ( was it
>> B.Raghu ?)) list the 'porundhaa' or 'poy mozhi' kuRaLs before
>> making extravagant claims about vaLLuvar?
>
>I dont claim that Valluvar cheated me. But I do claim that what he wrote was
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>good in form but doesnt have much contents. I said that earlier also. Many of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rajaram, you had said that you have not read much and still
you claimed that there was not much in ThrirukkuRaL. I did not
think it was worthwhile to argue with someone who is ignorant
about a particular work and still makes some strong statements.
Only a person utterly ignorant will claim that ThrirukkuRaL
doesn't have much contents but only good in form.
>you refuted me. But no one has come out and given me an example where you think
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>he has thought of something very original which you or I havent thought about.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The above lines show your shallow understanding of ThiruvaLLuvar.
First define original and then let us see we can proceed.
Your words 'which you and I haven't thought about' is quite
silly. You ask 'where he has thought of something very original'.
To me almost every kuRaL is the answer if only you know what is
original. You must be capable of recognizing the original !
It is not without reason Auwayaar and others have acclaimed
his work as 'aNuvai(th) thuLaiththEzh kadalai.. kuruga thatiththa
kuRaL' If you think only you have a correct perception of
ThrirukkuRaL I don't want to challenge your perception.
Tell me how many works have talked about the following
prior to ThiruvaLLuvar:
[1] kadavuL vaazhththu without referring to any
'names' of gods like siva, Indra, Vishnu etc.
[2] 'vaan siRappu' as an athikaaram and the
contents of this Chapter. There was the
concept of 'varuNan' etc. but please try
and compare the content
of each kuRaL and its depth ( plus rationality etc.)
and tell me where such thoughts are expressed before.
( either in Tamil/Sanskrit/Pali)
[3] Defining pEraaNmai the 'aaN kaRppu'.
[4] The ThrirukkuRaLs in vaazhkkai thuNai nalam.
Who had said for example 'siRai kaakum kaappu..'?
Are there authors who have expressed this thought ?
or 'manai maatchi illaaLkaN..' thought ?
or 'illathen..'
[5] Who had emphasized truth as he had done in
'vaaymai' ? I think if you compare the literature
about moral codes like manu Smrithi, Hmmurabi
Yangyavalkya, and other relavant one prior to
ThiruvaLLuvar it might be useful to see what
is that ThiruvaLLuvarhad said that is so unique.
It may appear that 'telling' truth is a basic
well known moral in every society ( yes!) but
let us compare what is said in differnt sources
prior to ThrirukkuRaLa.
[6] Who had said like 'aRaththiRkkE anbu saarbu enbar
maRaththiRkkum ahkthE thuNai' ?
[7] Take the chapter on 'payanil sollaamai'. Has any one
said those said by ThiruvaLLuvar there ? I can
more or less
ask similar question about every one of the 133 chapters.
[ Has any one talked about 'idan aRithal, kaalam aRithal,
vali aRithal, therinthu seyal vagai etc. etc..prior to
ThiruvaLLuvar as he had said ?
Has anyone talked about the need to
obtain _independent_ spy reports and having
'oRRanukku oRRan' ?
.......
.......
To believe that 'anyone' ( in your words 'you and I') can
say all that ThiruvaLLuvar had said in his exquisitely
concise form and still packing so much depth of thought
is too naive or simply silly. I had composed 160 plus kuRaLs
when I was 14-15 years old ( all grammatically correct and some
quite good in content, even to my more mature mind of today)
and I named it 'aRak kuRaL' and it was
my ambition to write more number of kuRaLs than ThiruvaLLuvar
( because I figured out that I can write more than 1330 easily)
and on topics I thought he had not written like 'mozhippaRRu'
'naattuppaRRu' etc. If I post some of my aRakkuRaL some of you
might not notice much difference but for those who know the
depth of ThrirukkuRaL it will be obvious like day and night.
( some might be okay as isolated ideas but sketching a field
like ThiruvaLLuvar did is amazing)
ThiruvaLLuvar's ahievement is his outstanding understanding of
life in all its aspects.
>Kathiravan quoted KuraLs where he shows excellent poetic abilities. Once again
>I agree that he had very good poetic abilities, his work was very broad in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Your agreement is not anything of value because you said that
you don't understand poetry much ( correct me if I am wrong).
>scope. But please show me one instance of original thought.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is a good exhibition of ignorance ! One instance ?!
Almost every one of his ThrirukkuRaLs are original if you
at all understand what is original in these matters.
>
>You ask us to show instances where Valluvar has said something wrong. But most
>of what Valluvar said are statements about how a man should be or how a society
>should be. These cannot be verified to be true or untrue. For eg if I say
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
agreed. This is where 'wisdom' comes in. Often it is not
true or untrue, but whether it is 'good' or 'bad'.
It is one of judgement.
>"Respect your mother. You may even kill others to save the respect of your
>mother" (Note -- this is my own concoction. I am not quoting the meaning
>of any KuraL). Where is the truth in this, where is the falsity in this. This
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See my comments above.
In fact some laws as in Manu realy say what you say.
One can do things like stealing etc. if one is in dire
need ( like ones mother is sick etc.). ThiruvaLLuvar
says don't do saanROn pazhikkum vinai *even* if you
end up seeing your mother starving. The "reason" behind
such stipulation is if you let some misdeed in some
circumstances, it can continue to get diluted. For example
one can say 'If I don't and steal and store some food
my mother might starve tomorrow.. .. my kids next generation
etc.'. If you there is food, it can be obtained by honest
means otherwise it is better even to die than to do
'saanROn pazhikkum vinai'. ofcourse these might make
sense only for those who have some 'maanam' ( like some
things can be understood only when you have the background
for it like in music, dance, reasoning, science etc.)
>is a subjective statement. One cant judge whether this is true or not. This
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
True or false is not the sole criterion for everything.
There are such things as 'it is beautiful' or not,
'it is enchanting or not', 'this sugar is sweet this much'
>is the kind of statement that Thiruvalluvar has made in all his KuraLs. Selva
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have never seen such display of nonsense !
>give me one instance where he has gone beyond making vacuous subjective
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>statements like this and said anything objective that is not immediately
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>obvious to everyone.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Once something is said it sounds obvious esp. if it is a vital
truth !! Since ThiruvaLLuvar had said many such you think they
are 'obvious'. Read the ThrirukkuRaLs in 'vaan siRappu'. See the
chapter on 'marundhu'.
[ When I was at IIT Madras I had illustrated this
apparently 'obvious' with some of the brightest persons
If you can find out about V. Anantharam. He and I
discussed this very same point. Since we are 'given'
a 'coordinate system' like cartesian we find the eqn.
of a straight line or a circle straight forward.
Prior to the invention of this coordinate system
it must have been inconceivable to think that
a line or circle can be 'descibed' by an eqn.
Although I had cooked up my own original coordinate
system; and unique curves which are very simply
described in my coordinate system you have no easy
of describing these curves if you don't know the
coordinate system. It is a simple thing; let us see
you can figure out. You might have heard of
Cartesian, Spherical and Cylindrical cordinates and
it is very useful to switch from one coordinate
system to another in some situations. Now if I
tell you that there is _one_ more coordinate system
( let me call it Selva system )
which is _fundementally_ related to these three
and yet _radically_ different in a sense. Can you
discover Selva system ? [ first note that you did not
know such a system "exists" ]. If you do succeed in
in finding this Selva system, can you write the
eqn. of a straight line in this ? If you do this
you might understand the import of my first sentence
about 'obvious'.]
ThiruvaLLuvar's vacuous subjective statements ?!! All his
statements are extremely loaded with meaning and significance
and thats why people say 'kadugai thuLaiththu Ezh kadalai
puguththinaar' etc. You seem to think otherwise ( inpite of the
fact that you admitted that you have not read much !!)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't either. See my approach 'epporuL..' which is anyway
ThiruvaLLuvars.
>working with different assumptions.
>
>Rajaram
- Selva
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
I thought about the kuRaL. en siRRavikku ettiyathu.
I am more comfortable explaining in thamizh about
how I see the kuRaL.
aRaththaaRu ithuvena vENdaa: ithu thaan aRaththin pOkku
enRu sollaatheerkaL aiyaah/ammaah
seevikai poruththaanOdu oorthaan idai:Odu-together, sErnthu-as simple
as that. seevikai thookupavanOdu oornthu varupavanidamum neengaL
aRam kaaNalaam.
> anbudan
> - Selva
> "vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
anbudan
aRappiththan
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>
>In a previous article, selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) says:
>
>[...]
>
>> I think instead of throwing bricks at
>> thiruvaLLuvar, it might be more sensible to discuss which
>> are the kuRaLs which are not valid and why one thinks so, then
>> one can discuss.
>
> One is not throwing bricks at ThiruvaLLuvar in pointing out that
>ThirukkuRaL is not a "poyyaamozhi" or a "timeless" work as upheld by
Please first point out and then we can discuss. :)
There might be a few which may seem to be not applicable
or sensible today, but why don't we try to list such
ThrirukkuRaLs and discuss ? If you are not willing to do it,
I think it is nothing but throwing bricks .
>some people. No moral work can conquer time, as the morals keep on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>changing with time. Our culture, our morals, our traditions, our
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:) Is this a moral ?
>philosophy evolves with time and it is absurd to hold one moral work
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>as "poyyamozhi" or "timeless". Though there is a tendency among some
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I agree that changes are there in morals, culture, traditions
philosophy etc. But most of what ThiruvaLLuvar says are
about moral/social _constants_. In science the goal is to
discover the unchanging from the changing and they are called
laws, fundemental constants etc. ThiruvaLLuvar did a similar thing
about moals/social issues. Although Newton was shown to be wrong
in some ways his theories are still very good for most purposes.
I would say that ThiruvaLLuvar defined a very useful
moral coordinates for Tamils. It does _not_ mean everyone has to
agree with it. If you don't agree that Turners paintings of
skys and clouds are not beautiful or that Rajaratnam PiLLai's
naaagasuram is sweet, I can't force to accept these conclusions.
It is upto you to examine and try. If you think ther are
'poymozhi's and 'anachronous statements please let valaiNYars
know and it might be possible to discuss.
>Tamils to quote from Sangam Tamil works and to talk in pride about the
>ancient Tamil culture, their sea-trade etc., it should be obvious that
>we are not living in the Sangam culture. Our morals have changed with
>time. I have heard some Tamil speakers proudly proclaiming in the
>Tamil gatherings on Tamil women as "muRaththaal puliyaith thuraththiya
>maRap peN irundha thamizhk kudi". While one could use such high praises
>from the "puRam" literature in Tamil to study the bravery of the "maRap
>peNkaL", a sect of sangam women, it should be obvious that we are living
>in a culture where a rumor overheard in a circus stadium that a tiger
>has escaped from its cage results in people running madly out of the
>stadium in fear and I have read some factual accounts in newspapers and
>in news magazines about deaths that occurred as a result of people running
>madly out of the stadium ground in circus when a tiger or lion jumps out of
>the center stage. What happened to those brave women who drove away the tigers
>just using their "muRams" ? What happened to the "puRa naanooRRu veeram" ?
>I like to pose this simple question to the people who acclaim that
Inspirational deeds and thoughts are quite in order. If
"Tamil culture produced excellent bronze statues and excellent
dances etc." it does not mean that _everyone_ is good at these !!
As for the comments about 'maRappeN' it is in my honest opinion
a cheap shot [ should I adopt fafatological approaches to
counter such remarks ? :) ]. I think the female cadres of
Sri Lankan Tamil freedomfighters/terrorists have established
a new record I think. Also I want to say that recently
a brave action of a woman who plunged into fire ( caused by
cooking gas mishandling) to close the valve while her son
and father watched helplessly, was widely acclaimed in the press
( I don;t have exact details). There are many brave women and
their deeds are spoken of highly as they are inspirational.
You ridicule 'puRa naanooRu veeram', why don't you factually
assess the heroic fight carried out by SriLankan Tamil fighters.
I or some of us might not agree with the approach or even the
goals of these Tamil Fighters but that should not prevent us
from honestly assessing their struggle/bravery their capacity
to fight ( women particularly) etc.
>ThirukkuraL is a "timeless" work: Can we go back in time and live in the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>morals, beliefs and traditions of the Sangam culture or other ancient
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why, has any valaiNYars advocated to go back and live the
life as we did during sangam age ? :)
If someone said that at Sangam days Tamil society was
free of varnaashrama dharma would be bad to consider adopting
it ? :)
>cultures in India ? As the Sangam culture is more of a male-chauvinistic
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think this is an unsupported claim. For all I know
about 15 out of roughly 450 poets were females. This still
a small fraction. However from the available literature etc.
it appears that Sangam Age was more fair to women than today.
There is hardly evidence from which you can claim that Sangam
culture was 'male-chauvinistic'.
Why don't you support your statement with some facts ?
>society, it would make more sense to put this question to women who upheld
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ThirukkuRaL as a "poyyaamozhi" or praise the ancient Tamil culture as a
>very ideal culture. The widows were very affected in that society.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>They either committed `sati' or led a ascetic life, devoting their life to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>god and it was a hard life. The child marriages were common in those days
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>and the women did not enjoy freedom as men in the ancient culture. They
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can you support these claims using Sangam age evidences ?
>were expected to lead a life as "illaththarasi". Though there are some
>cases of women poets in sangam culture like Auwaiyaar, Kaakkai Paadiniyaar,
>and some brave women, the "maRap peNkaL", who were praised to have driven
>out tigers using "muRams", we cannot make a general opinion of the women
>in the Sangam society with Auwaiyaar or "maRap penkaL". How many of us
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The fact that people of both sexes were considered saanROr
and held postion of respect in public should tell one that
it was not male-chauvisnistic.
>have thought about what a life Paanjaali had to live being a wife for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Paanjaali was _not a Tamil or was she from Sangam age.
I had always wondered how a story like mahabharatam can gain
respect in tamil society ! Most of the contents are
very alien to tamil sense of morality and justice.
>five men ? While our vedic or gita scholars talk for hours narrating
>the playful acts of Krishna with gopis, they avoid mentioning the male
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>chauvinism in the early society that allows a woman to be married to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you are digressing.
>five men. As our society has gone into many reforms, and we had made many
>laws banning sati, child marriages, devathaasi in temples and lately
>dowry, our women do not quite see the hard life the women in the past
>centuries or in the early culture had gone through. It should be clear
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>from above that our morals are changing. I don't think any moral book
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are mixing up a lot of things. It is not clear.
I think you had not substantiated your point.
>from above that our morals are changing. I don't think any moral book
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>could be timeless.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
May be; but it is your judgement; is this judgement timeless ?
Point out ThrirukkuRaLs which support your viewpoint and
let us see how many are in that category. Shall we do
'kuNam naadi kuRRam naadi avaRRuL migai naadi mikka koLLal' ? :)
>
> Also I don't think one needs to take the exercise of going through
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>all the Kurals and listing what are "poymozhi" and what are "poyyaamozhi".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This plainly shirking your responsibility. It would be better
if you support what you want to say.
>Different people have different ideologies, they follow different
>religions, take different cultures and one cannot divide KuraLs into
>"poymozhi" and "poyyaamozhi" for the present applicable to all. Also,
Sure, diff peopl have diff ideo etc. I am trying to
say that ThiruvaLLuvar presented tamils with a fine
moral reference coordinates and excellent moral/socail
constants and laws. [ the subtle import of 'law' is
something essentially constant, although state laws
can be amended etc.]. Why don't you be fair enough
to list 'poymozhis' and 'anachronous' kuRaLs ?
So that we can prepare an amendment list ?
>there is this question, why should one go back to the ancient Tamil culture
>and dig their morals to find answers to today's moral problems, as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the two cultures are different. It was possible in those days to proclaim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See my comments above.
>"anbE sivam' ( Love is God ) on one hand and, torture and hung Jain monks
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>on the other hand. We are living in a time period when people could voice
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the Jains and Saivites agreed before the debate I don't understand
your charge ! Suppose if the Saivites had lost, the previously
agreed upon 'punishment' would have been given to Saivites, no?
Also, please cite the authentic info on these. I think it is
unfair to charge that Saivites 'tortured' some jains.
>their criticisms when some religious fanatics do attrocities, demolition,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>violence in the name of God or their religion. Times are changing..
^^^^^^^^^^^^(1)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^(2)^^^^^^^
For (1), see above, I think your charge is devoid of substance.
For (2): Yes, times are changing, now we are destroying some
masjids and in the future some old tombs like Taj Mahal :(
>
>[...]
>
>>
>> anbudan
>> - Selva
>
>- SP.
>
anbudan
-Selva
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
>In article <1nimbp...@copland.cs.unc.edu> kris...@cs.unc.edu (Rajarama Krishnan) writes:
>>In article <C3Mq...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>>In article <930302060...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
>>>>
> Rajaram, you had said that you have not read much and still
> you claimed that there was not much in ThrirukkuRaL. I did not
> think it was worthwhile to argue with someone who is ignorant
> about a particular work and still makes some strong statements.
> Only a person utterly ignorant will claim that ThrirukkuRaL
> doesn't have much contents but only good in form.
vaLLuvanai nanRaakap padithaal
thaan arumai viLangkum. eththanai pEr kuRaLaip padiththu inpam anupavithuLLanar.
GU Pope was initially uncomfortable to touch the topic of kaama because
he was a missionary. But he found even in kaamathupaal vaLLuvan is
philosophical, mild and poetic.
He is a great poet:
"paalodu thEn kalanthaRRE paNimozhiyaal
vaaleyiR ooRiya neer"
uvamaiyai koNdu viLayaadiuLLaan.
vaarthaikaLai sithara ithu puthuk kavithai alla.
kuRaL venpaa! arumaiyaaka kaiyaaNduLLaan.
>>you refuted me. But no one has come out and given me an example where you think
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>he has thought of something very original which you or I havent thought about.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The above lines show your shallow understanding of ThiruvaLLuvar.
> First define original and then let us see we can proceed.
> Your words 'which you and I haven't thought about' is quite
thEn eduppathu thEni thaan. naam thEnai suvaikkalaam. ellOrum
thEneekaL aaka mudiyaathu. ellOraalum thEnai suvaikka mudiyum.
vaLLuvanO antha thEni. avan samaiththa kuRaL enum thEnai suvaippOm.
nichchayamaaka inikkum aiyaah![guarantee]
ellOrukkum pakirnthu koduththu naamum uNpOm!
nanRi
kuRaLanban
Sundara Pandian
[...]
> aRaththaaRu ithuvena vENdaa: ithu thaan aRaththin pOkku
> enRu sollaatheerkaL aiyaah/ammaah
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You translate "vENdaa" = Do not (say)
Earlier, when I gave you my translation for the KuRaL
"puNarchchi pazhakudhal vENdaa uNarchchithaan
natpaam kizhami tharum"
pointing out that "vENdaa" means "need not" (thEvai illai) in the
kuRaL #37 and in the above kuRaL on "natpu", you wrote that you
agree with the meaning "need not" for "vENdaa" for both kuRaLs.
But now you give a different meaning (Do not) for "vENdaa". What
do you now think is the meaning for "puNarchchi pazhakudhal vENdaa" ?
( I translated it as
"Contacts or frequent meetings are not needed for friendship;
True love and feelings would stake the claim for friendship." )
If you take the menaning "do not" for "vENdaa", you may get the meaning
"Contacts and frequent meetings should be avoided for friendship.
Only true love and feeelings would stake the claim for friendship."
But, is it the correct meaning for the kuRaL on natpu quoted above??
> seevikai poruththaanOdu oorthaan idai:Odu-together, sErnthu-as simple
> as that. seevikai thookupavanOdu oornthu varupavanidamum neengaL
> aRam kaaNalaam.
The "aRam" in this kuRaL is "karma".
> aRappiththan
^^^^^^^^^^^^
- SP.
PS: yaam piththanum illai, siththanum illai. em peyar Paandian.
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>(I did not want to participate in this discussion because of time. But Selva
>has assumed that I am throwing bricks at Tiruvalluvar and I reply only portions
>of his article for which I have comments. - Sankarapandi)
>
>In article <C3Mq...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> selv...@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca (C.
>R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering) writes:
>>
>> A vast majority of what thiruvaLLuvar said holds today and
>> is likely to hold for a long time. However, it can not be said
>> that this view should be acceptable to all people !!!
>
> I agree. If you hold this view, then there is no difference of opinion
>among us. (I am not speaking for Sundarapandian or Sundaramoorthy though
>they have expressed similar opinions like me). I only criticize the people who
>claim that Tirukkural should be acceptable for all societies at all times.
I too. I don't understand how anyone can make such an obviously
euntenebale claim.
ThiruvaLLuvar provided a moral coordinate/reference-framework
for Tamils which might not be considered worth following by
several Tamils. It is upto the individuals to decide for themselves.
Suppose we discuss : whether it is better or not to speak truth
we can come to several conclusions. Some may be convenient
some may be practical, some may be too hard to follow etc.
What ThiruvaLLuvar has given are a set of goals which look
tremendously attractive to _some_ people. If the moral principle
one decides to follow is 'one can tell lies only if his/her
interests are at stake otherwise one should speak only truth'.
Who is to come and say this is 'wrong' or 'not acceptable'.
There is a subtle undercurrent among us humans which
Einstein talks about ( in one of his essays; I think it is
in a memorial volume dedicated to Bertrand Russell but
I am not sure.) which is intuitive 'relationship' and
a capacity to understand each other. If this is not there
no two persons can talk and 'understand' each other.
right and wrong; good and bad ; 'high and low are highly
debatable concepts.
Suppose I state the following as a principle, tell me what
will be your reaction: "one can steal, it is not anything wrong.
If someone steals from me thats fine. I deserve it because
I did not protect it. So anyone can steal. If you don't want to
lose something, protect it." Next replace 'kill' for 'steal'
or replace 'rape' for 'steal'. Please answer and we will
>
>
>> considered invalid ! I think instead of throwing bricks at
>> thiruvaLLuvar, it might be more sensible to discuss which
>> are the kuRaLs which are not valid and why one thinks so, then
>> one can discuss. I don't think there was any extravagant claims
>> about thiruvaLLuvar or his kuRaL. In fact if it was in English
>> or in Sanskrit it would have been acclaimed the world over
>> and it is my view that its glory is extremely poorly spread.
>>
>
>
> I am not throwing bricks at Tirukkural. Prabably you should appreciate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that I am trying to follow the Kural :-)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:) Please understand what I am trying to say. Read what I have
said above. If one follows the following kuRaL and it is
mirrored in the society he/she lives then that society will be
quite be quite 'rich' :) May I ask, have you applied this to
kuRaL theme to other kuRaLs ?
>
> epporuL yaaryaarvaayk ketpinum apporuL
> meipporuL kaaNpath aRivu
>
>
>
>> For example
>> the kuRaL about 'theyvam thozhaaL.. peyyena peyyum mazhai'
>> appears quite impracticable, but I dare not say that it is
>> 'poy mozhi'. If you don't believe, its fine and thats understandable.
>> I also don't think that it is easy to achieve such a state.
>> It might be a 'uyarvu naviRchchi aNi' or such things are possible
>> in actuality. There are people who believe in the powers of the
>> mind. If you don't believe you have to read some history.
>>
>
> It is not uncommon to use `uyarvu naviRchchi aNi' to stress the importance
>of the actual meaning. Whether it rains or not, that is not the point of
>controversy.
>
> The main point is that the kuRaL `theyvam..' is a just a reflection of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>soceity Tiruvalluvar lived, i.e. it was a male chauvunistic society. Nobody is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why don't you support it with facts and evidences instead of
merely asserting. I had argued with Sundara Pandian that if
what you say is so the elderly ladies in the family will not
get their respect. I had pointed out that because a husband
is usually older than his wife ( for sound reasons; man can father
a child when he is 65 or even 70 but a mother rarely can give
birth to an offspring beyond 50s and the girls mature earleir
than boys...etc.) and because we usually have respect for
elderly people there is some congfusion. Suppose the eldest
member of a family is a lady does she get the "respect" over
men of lower age ? To call tamil society is to uncritically
subscribing to some 'western' thoughts ( in the west it might have
been true) I don't buy the arguement that tamil society was
male-chauvinistic during the times of ThiruvaLLuvar.
>singling out Tiruvalluvar for writing this kuRaL because Tiruvalluvar did not
>come across the terms like `male chauvunism' or `faminism' as he did not hear
>about Green card or Visa/Master card. But no doubt, that kuRaL relfects the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>male chauvunism of the ancient society.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why don't you read 'piRan il vizhaiyaamai' and see what he
had said for men ? Also, why don't you look at 'vaazhkkai thuNai
nalam' chapter and then talk. Because of a wife a man gets
'ERu pOl peedu nadai'. ThiruvaLLuvar talks of relationship
not servility. In that kuRaL 'thozhuthal' is about love
and devotion and _not_ servility.
>
> The criticism is not about Tiruvalluvar or Tirukkural. The criticism is
>against the people who glorify him (or Thirukkural) as 100 % perfect for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>todays's society. We still hold that most of the kuRaLs have relevence to the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>present day society.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The ideas change with time even for a single individual.
When one is a child many things look very important ( a shiny
paper, a smooth stone, a toy..) and as s/he ages his
ideas/importance/priorities and relevance change. ThiruvaLLuvar
has given us a priceless jwell, may be some of us have
not seen it in some angles or under proper light.. just
my opinion. Consider it or throw it the loss or gain is yours :)
>
>
>
>> folks ( Sundaramoorthy, Sundara Pandian, Sornam Sankarapaandi
>> and the person who acclaimed that vaLLuvar cheated him ( was it
>> B.Raghu ?)) list the 'porundhaa' or 'poy mozhi' kuRaLs before
>> making extravagant claims about vaLLuvar?
>>
>
> This is what I was doing.
>
>> anbudan
>> - Selva
>>
>
>
>S. Sankarapandi
anbudan
- Selva
"VaLLuvam uyirkkuL thevittaathu inikkum oLirththEn"
Sundara Pandian
>In article <930309233...@cec1.wustl.edu> s...@cec1.wustl.edu (Sundara Pandian) writes:
[...]
>> No moral work can conquer time, as the morals keep on
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>changing with time. Our culture, our morals, our traditions, our
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> :) Is this a moral ?
Our past history shows that this is a fact. It is not a moral fixed
by heavenly beings or celestial gods. It is a result of the evolution
of the human society. There is a big difference between the "culture"
of the cave man and the "culture" of the modern man. The culture, morals
and beliefs change with time. The moral works, code of laws that are in
effect now are for our time period. Some new laws may replace some of
the existing laws. Some of the morals yesterday are immorals today.
Sati, child marriages, devadasi in temples, were not considered immoral
before the British came to India. After the British rule, a social
revolution came in India and some reformary measures on the Hindu society
have started taking place. Of course, I don't attribute all changes to
British people, many Hindu leaders themselves led reformery measures in
Hinduism ( sati etc. ) [ Rajaram Mohan Roy etc. ] Devadasi system was
banned in temples in the days of Periyaar. I mentioned some changes in
the orthodox Hinduism in India. The morals change with time. This is true
not only with Indian cultures, but also in other countries. The rate of
this change in morals varies with different cultures, different countires
on various grounds, but change in morals is inevitable. It is due to
evolution.
[...]
> I would say that ThiruvaLLuvar defined a very useful
> moral coordinates for Tamils. It does _not_ mean everyone has to
> agree with it.
There was a time period ( just a few centuries ago ) when people used
bullock-carts or horse-carts for travelling. Palenquins were also used
for religious Acharyas etc. Even now they are in use in villages, and in
many cities, but their usage is dropping down. People have started using
bi-cycles, scooters, bikes, TVS 50 ( "paNditharkaL munnERiya kaalam" with
a Shastri riding TVS -50 is a TV ad ), buses, trains, etc. Such vehicles
came with us in time and we won't be throwing bricks on bullock-carts or
horse-carts by using the bicycles, TVS 50 or buses for our daily usage.
ThirukkuRaL was a great Tamil work and has many wise sayings. I read
ThirukkuRaL myself. But it is not everything. It is for a different time
period and for a different culture. In our current culture, we do have some
new philosophies, new ideologies, new theories that are open for us.
I don't think it is wrong to keep in touch with new ideologies, new
theories, modern literature to know the things happenings in our time
period.
[...]
> Inspirational deeds and thoughts are quite in order. If
> "Tamil culture produced excellent bronze statues and excellent
> dances etc." it does not mean that _everyone_ is good at these !!
I don't object to talks on Tamil sculpture or Carnatic music etc.
Tamil contribution to arts and music is something worth to talk about.
I found your articles on RMIC about history of Carnatic music interesting
and I am reading the books by Sambamoorthy on the history of South Indian
music that are in many parts. The talks that I referred to are rhetorics
I hear that are more in the lines of "engaL thaaththaavukku yaanai irundhathu".
[...]
> You ridicule 'puRa naanooRu veeram', why don't you factually
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> assess the heroic fight carried out by SriLankan Tamil fighters.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I like to make a correction here. I did not ridicule the wars in the
ancient Sangam culture in my last article, but referred to the rhetorics
of some Tamil speakers. Some of the political leaders praise their anti-Hindi
agitations in Tamil Nadu as "puRa naanooRRu veeram". I do think there
are many reasons to oppose imposition of Hindi in TN schools or in the
offices, but one can register or voice his objections in a non-violent
way. Buses were burnt down, the boards carrying Hindi in post offices,
Railway stations, etc were attacked, and the "soda bottle, cycle chain"
elements took over. As a result, schools and colleges were closed, some
of the bus services in some places were affected and the normal life of
the public was affected. This was called as "puRa naanooRRu veeram"
by one political party. I referred to such praises for the happenings
in Tamil Nadu in my last article. About Sri Lankan Tamil struggle, we
have to look at their history, their problems and what made them to take
arms in their fight. As I don't understand Sri Lankan Tamil problem well,
I cannot comment much on them.
[...]
> If someone said that at Sangam days Tamil society was
> free of varnaashrama dharma would be bad to consider adopting
> it ? :)
The Sangam culture was not free of caste discriminations.
>>cultures in India ? As the Sangam culture is more of a male-chauvinistic
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I think this is an unsupported claim. For all I know
> about 15 out of roughly 450 poets were females. This still
> a small fraction. However from the available literature etc.
> it appears that Sangam Age was more fair to women than today.
> There is hardly evidence from which you can claim that Sangam
> culture was 'male-chauvinistic'.
> Why don't you support your statement with some facts ?
I will write on this later.
>>very ideal culture. The widows were very affected in that society.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>They either committed `sati' or led a ascetic life, devoting their life to
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>god and it was a hard life. The child marriages were common in those days
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>and the women did not enjoy freedom as men in the ancient culture. They
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Can you support these claims using Sangam age evidences ?
Some quotes from "Sangam polity" by N. Subramanian [ Page 302 ]
" The life of a widow was to be that of an ascetic. It was a life
of "nOnbu" (penance). It was a degraded life; for to a woman life was
`worthwhile and full only while the husband was alive', so it was
called `kaimmai', the condition of being reduced or bereaved; and a
woman so bereaved was a `kaimpeN'.
She was prescribed a kind of diet which was austere in the extreme.
`the boiled vElai leaves and cold rice' are spoken of by PerunkOppendu,
the lily flowers fried or boiled were a kind of food prescribed for
them (Puram:247); the white lily is mentioned by Taayan Kannanaar; the
last mentioned poet has a detailed description of what happens to a
surviving wife; "Her head is shaven clean; the short bangles are
removed from her hands; the `alli' (lily) with rice is her food; this
is her condition after her son's father had departed (Puram:245).."
[...]
> The fact that people of both sexes were considered saanROr
> and held postion of respect in public should tell one that
> it was not male-chauvisnistic.
Women were expected to possess the four `kuNaas' charactersitics -
"achcham, madam, naaNam and payirppu" and they are referred in Sangam
books as "makadoovukkuNa naanku.." Is there any set of `kuNaas' like
that for the men in Sangam culture ?
>
>>have thought about what a life Paanjaali had to live being a wife for
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Paanjaali was _not a Tamil or was she from Sangam age.
> I had always wondered how a story like mahabharatam can gain
> respect in tamil society ! Most of the contents are
> very alien to tamil sense of morality and justice.
I was referring to the Aryan culture in India. Since you commented
on that, I like to mention here, there are "pancha paaNdavar" statues
in some villages in Tamil Nadu.
[...]
>>.. I don't think any moral book
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>could be timeless.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> May be; but it is your judgement; is this judgement timeless ?
Whether my opinion, namely "No moral work could be timeless" is
timeless, depends on the evolution. Our past history and the evolution
that has made the current culture, leads me to say that no moral work
could be timeless as our morals change with time.
> Point out ThrirukkuRaLs which support your viewpoint and
> let us see how many are in that category. Shall we do
> 'kuNam naadi kuRRam naadi avaRRuL migai naadi mikka koLLal' ? :)
It is simpler than that. I will say to others, "Take the ones you
find as good and don't take the ones you find as bad, but, never, never
take things for granted, whether it is VaLLuvar, Sankaracharya, Selva
or SP. "
[...]
> anbudan
> -Selva
- SP.
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>In article <kat.731700427@riker> k...@doe.carleton.ca (Kathiravan Krishnamurthi) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> aRaththaaRu ithuvena vENdaa: ithu thaan aRaththin pOkku
>> enRu sollaatheerkaL aiyaah/ammaah
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You translate "vENdaa" = Do not (say)
> Earlier, when I gave you my translation for the KuRaL
>
> "puNarchchi pazhakudhal vENdaa uNarchchithaan
> natpaam kizhami tharum"
>
>pointing out that "vENdaa" means "need not" (thEvai illai) in the
>kuRaL #37 and in the above kuRaL on "natpu", you wrote that you
>agree with the meaning "need not" for "vENdaa" for both kuRaLs.
>But now you give a different meaning (Do not) for "vENdaa". What
>do you now think is the meaning for "puNarchchi pazhakudhal vENdaa" ?
This is a good example of misquoting !!
Note ThiruvaLLuvar says '..vENdaa uNaRchchithaan....'.
If you claim you understand Tamil why don't you
explain 'uNaRchchithaan' ? Especailly the part '-thaan'.
In the kuRaL on aRaththaaRu..
ithuvena vENdaa there is no '-thaan' to give you the
meaning you are improperly inferring. Every one knows the word
'vENdaa' ! The fact that ThiruvaLLuvar says 'ithuvena
vENdaa' should be clear enough to understand that he means
'don't say that _this is_'.
>( I translated it as
>
> "Contacts or frequent meetings are not needed for friendship;
>True love and feelings would stake the claim for friendship." )
>
>If you take the menaning "do not" for "vENdaa", you may get the meaning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You can take the meaning as above _only_ because ThiruvaLLuvar
says 'uNaRchchithaan' with the characteristic '-thaan' ending
to impart the correct emphasis and meaning. If this part
'-thaan' is missing this kuRaL will mean something else (
for example see your own translation given below).
>
> "Contacts and frequent meetings should be avoided for friendship.
>Only true love and feeelings would stake the claim for friendship."
>
>But, is it the correct meaning for the kuRaL on natpu quoted above??
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes,
provided '-thaan' is not there ( and therefore you may have to remove
'only' in your translation too)
>
>> seevikai poruththaanOdu oorthaan idai:Odu-together, sErnthu-as simple
>> as that. seevikai thookupavanOdu oornthu varupavanidamum neengaL
>> aRam kaaNalaam.
>
> The "aRam" in this kuRaL is "karma".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nope !
>
>> aRappiththan
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> - SP.
>
>PS: yaam piththanum illai, siththanum illai. em peyar Paandian.
>
anbudan
-Selva
"VaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
Sundara Pandian
[....]
>>
>> "puNarchchi pazhakudhal vENdaa uNarchchithaan
>> natpaam kizhami tharum"
[....]
> This is a good example of misquoting !!
> .......... The fact that ThiruvaLLuvar says 'ithuvena
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> vENdaa' should be clear enough to understand that he means
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 'don't say that _this is_'.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>( I translated it as
>>
>> "Contacts or frequent meetings are not needed for friendship;
>>True love and feelings would stake the claim for friendship." )
>>
>>If you take the menaning "do not" for "vENdaa", you may get the meaning
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You can take the meaning as above _only_ because ThiruvaLLuvar
> says 'uNaRchchithaan' with the characteristic '-thaan' ending
> to impart the correct emphasis and meaning. If this part
> '-thaan' is missing this kuRaL will mean something else (
> for example see your own translation given below).
>>
>> "Contacts and frequent meetings should be avoided for friendship.
>>Only true love and feeelings would stake the claim for friendship."
>>
>>But, is it the correct meaning for the kuRaL on natpu quoted above??
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Yes,
^^^^
> provided '-thaan' is not there ( and therefore you may have to remove
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 'only' in your translation too)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Removing `only' from the second (wrong) meaning, one gets
"Contacts or frequent meetings should be avoided for friendship;
love and true feelings would stake the claim for friendship".
I let the netters think about whether this meaning that Selva has
suggested is a "poyyaa mozhi" or not. I don't see the rationality behind
why contacts should be avoided for friendship. Hope Selva or Kathiravan
throw some light on this meaning, as they say this is the correct meaning
of the kural on natpu Kathiravan has brought for discussion.
I think a correct meaning of this kural is
" Of constant meeting among friends there is no need,
Union of hearts is true friendship indeed. "
[ Translated by K. Srinivasan ]
I think that VaLLuvar means by the word "vENdaa", "need not".
Selva and Kathiravan translate "vENdaa" to " do not". They are
in error. In our common usage also, we mean by "vENumaa?"
"Do you want?".
> anbudan
> -Selva
> "VaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
SP
Kathiravan Krishnamurthi
> The "aRam" in this kuRaL is "karma".
>
>> aRappiththan
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> - SP.
>PS: yaam piththanum illai, siththanum illai. em peyar Paandian.
pagudi yaaka ezhuthinEn.
em peyar ki. kathiravanE.
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>
> "Contacts or frequent meetings should be avoided for friendship;
> love and true feelings would stake the claim for friendship".
>
> I let the netters think about whether this meaning that Selva has
I don't know why you did not understand what I said.
I am _not_ saying the emphasis '-thaan' _can_ be removed!!
That is the whole point !
In the expression "..vENdaa uNaRchchithaan', the meaning
"need not .." applies _because_ the emphasis imparting
'-thaan' occurs. ____Ifff____ you remove
the '-thaan' the meaning changes ( I didn't imagine
that one can misunderstand this !!). I said 'only' will be
removed from the translation _ifff_ you remove '-thaan'.
( and the meaning of 'need not' can not be matter of
factly applied to 'vENdaa')
Thus you can clearly see that _without_ the emphasis
'-thaan' the meaning changes. In the ThrirukkuRaL
satarting as "aRaththaaRu ithuvena vENdaa.." this
'-thaan' is not present and the emphatic 'ithuvena'
is present. Hence your arguement does not hold.
> suggested is a "poyyaa mozhi" or not. I don't see the rationality behind
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> why contacts should be avoided for friendship. Hope Selva or Kathiravan
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> throw some light on this meaning, as they say this is the correct meaning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please read what is said above. You've misunderstood
my words. I am not claiming that 'only' should be removed!!
I said _iff_ you remove '-thaan' then you may have to
remove 'only' and the meaning 'need not' for 'vENdaa' is not
straight forward.
> of the kural on natpu Kathiravan has brought for discussion.
>
> I think a correct meaning of this kural is
>
> " Of constant meeting among friends there is no need,
> Union of hearts is true friendship indeed. "
>
>[ Translated by K. Srinivasan ]
>
> I think that VaLLuvar means by the word "vENdaa", "need not".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, this is correct in this kuRaL _because_ he
uses 'uNaRchchithaan'. Without the '-thaan' you can not
routinely assume vENdaa means 'need not' as in the other kuRaL.
>Selva and Kathiravan translate "vENdaa" to " do not". They are
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in error. In our common usage also, we mean by "vENumaa?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"Do you want?".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are misquoting me ! I translated 'don't say that'
for 'ithuvena vENdaa' in a different kuRaL in which
'-thaan' does _not_ occur. I am not in error ( willing
to be corrected if proved otherwise).
You say 'vENumaa' = do you want ? I agree.
What would you understand by 'vENdaamaa' ?
Will I be wrong if said 'don't want ?'
>
>> anbudan
>> -Selva
>> "VaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
>
>
> SP
>
Rajarama Krishnan
postings on this topic. As Sundaramoorthy and Sudalai Madan did I am also
signing off after this posting. I think most of the points have been made
already. It will be meaningless to keep thrashing the subject further.
However it will be good if people who think very highly of kuraLs continue
posting stuff from it for the benefit of people whose knowledge of it can
certainly be improved.
The following were points made by Selva. Here are my replies to them.
First some clarification about my ignorance level which Selva was very
persistent in pointing out (I say persistent because he has said that at least
5 times in his postings). I certainly dont have the knowledge enough to
quote KuraLs offhand. But I have read and understood the meanings of a few
hundred KuraLs. I think that is sufficient to form a judgement of the work.
To judge an author one needs to read a few of his works which I think I have
done in this case. But I havent memorised his works. I havent read all his
works. I havent several versions of its interpretations by other authors.
... I said my knowledge of KuraLs were very limited and I once again say that
it is true. But I feel I have read enough to form an opinion about it.
It is exactly because my knowledge was limited that I asked you people to give
me examples that are contrary to my opinions. But the examples given so far
are not convincing at all.
>>>>opinion. As noted by Sundaramoorthy, extravagent claims have been
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>made on Thirukkural and many people acclaim it like it holds for
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>all time periods. A short reading of Thirukkural would convince one
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> about thiruvaLLuvar or his kuRaL. In fact if it was in English
>>> or in Sanskrit it would have been acclaimed the world over
>>> and it is my view that its glory is extremely poorly spread.
>>
>>Usual knee-jerk reaction. Say something bad about Thirukkural and you get NO
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>SANSKRIT IS BAD. Why should you go out of the context. The discussion doesnt
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>have anthing to do with Sankrit.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Rajaram, please read for yourself what you have writen.
>
> I think you have not understood the words like 'usual'
> 'knee-jerk' etc.
>
> Out of context ? No. The claim was that ThiruvaLLuvar's work
> was blown out of proportion and extravagant claims have been
> made and too much acclaim is there etc. etc. My point was that
I still say your reation was knee-jerky. I dont see any reason why you had
to bring in Sanskrit.
Anyway this has no relevance to the topic. If you maintain that it wasnt
knee-jerky, I take back what I said.
>> aagaaRu aLavitti thaayinum kEdu illai
>> pOgaaRu agalaa kadai
>> [ not written with proper seer, intentionally, in order to
>> see the words]
>> 'aagaaRu' is the __rate__ of income and 'pOgaaRu' is the __rate__ of
>> expenditure. He says what matters is that the rate of expenditure
>> should not exceed the rate of income even if the rate of income
>> is tremendous ( aLavitti = aLavu illaathathu > tremedous).
I have a doubt. By rate of income, do you mean the rate of change of income.
ie. the d(income)/ dt (t is time) ?
> Rajaram, it seems you have not understood what I have said above.
> I don't know much about world economy but I do know that
> it is better if the rate of income is more than rate of expenditure.
> If you argue that this is not correct, please provide some
> arguements. The main import of the kuRaL is that in trying to
> expand the economy in various ways this goal should not be lost
> sight of.
If you didnt mean the rate in the sense I used and only meant income and
expenditure, then as I said earlier this is certainly not the case. I will
once again repeat what I said. The debt
in the case of US or Canada is the Govts' debt and not the country's debt.
ie. The govt by selling bonds and other such things gets money from the
public. This is the debt. The divident payed on this is the debt servicing.
(Obviously this is a lot more complicated than what I have said here. But
the details arent reqd here). Therefore to increase the GDP of the country
the govt may go into debt. ie. get lot of money from the public and spend it
"wisely". To increase the GDP many countries adopt this strategy. Lots of
countries have been very successful in this too like Japan and many other
growing countries in East Asia. So a sweeping statement like Thiruvalluvar
made certainly needs to be revised. The problem with his view point was, in his
times the country and govt were much more united. Trade wasnt so free that you
could view a persons possesion as not a part of the country's possesion.
So the govt's debt and country's debt werent very different. Anyway as I always
said his ststement that one should earn more than one speands is too obvious.
I am sure it would have been obvious even to a stone-age man. He shouldnt
use up his stone menhirs (like ones Obleix uses in Asterix) faster than he can
make them.
If you did mean the rate of income and rate of expenditure, even then most
of what I said holds. The rate at which the income increases can be slower
than the rate at which the expenditure increases as far as the GDP increase
proportionately to the deficit so that the debt servicing rate remains about
the same. Once again what he said will be just as obvious to the stone-age
man as it is to me. To quote the menhir example -- the increase in his menhir
consumption should be balanced by an increase in menhir production.
I hope I made myself clear. Selva can you now tell me what was not so obvious
in what Valluvar said.
> :) Rajaram, I pointed out a kuRaL which seems to be quite
> applicable even today. If you had a positive balance
> you can do your economy building better than with negative
> balance ( and rate) with part of the money going for debt
> servicing. Your arguement that 5% debt is okay is unconvincing
> to me. ( I'm not an economist, I've heard of deficit
> financing, but am not convinced of its merits).
As I pointed out this KuraL is not at all applicable today. I cant help it
if you are not convinced about the merits of deficit financing. It might help
you if I point out one thing -- in present day economy what is most important
is the flow of money than the static money itself. For eg if everybody earns
a lot they will spend a lot. HGence the others will earn a lot too. This
becomes a cycle. On the other hand if everybody spends little then everybody
will earn lesser too and this also forms a cycle. How does one move from a
cycle at a lower GDP to a cycle at higher GDP. Only by getting the money from
the people and spending it for them. ie. take the static money and make it
flow. This is what is accomplished by deficit financing. This is what getting
a debt brings in. Anyway that is besides the point. Whether you are convinced
or not this is acknowledged as a good method for improving the economy of
a country by several experts. So I wont go into defending it.
> I said it might be 'uyarvu naviRchchi aNi'. You seem to have
> ignored it. About powers of
> mind, you have to experiment and find out by yourself.
> ( it might be of interest to you that a special issue of
> Proceedings of IEEE devoted to Telepathy etc. It was in early
> 80s I think. There are psychological journals devoted to
> para psycology.. The powers of mind and brain have _not_ been
> adequately studied to assert much. If you don't know don't
> say it is junk :) If you are uncomfortable, say so :))
Lot of "otherwise" sane people believe in this para-science junk. That
still wouldnt make me believe in it. I am not uncomfortable with it. I am
fully comfortable with the fact that it is junk. Anyway this is a moot
subject. You will keep claiming that lots of people believe in it and that
thousands of people claim that they have performed it or seen it being
performed. I will maintain that there is no basis for it. For it to be
acknowledged as a proper fact it should be established under experimental
conditions and more importanly it should be explained by people who claim
that they can perform these things. I will also keep pointing out that
lots of these claims have been proven to be shams under scrutiny. So I dont
want to continue this argument.
Anyway if you say that it was only "uyarvu naviRchchi aNi", I will accept it.
In that case what is there in this kuraL. Once agauin a vacuous generality.
>>you refuted me. But no one has come out and given me an example where you think
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>he has thought of something very original which you or I havent thought about.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The above lines show your shallow understanding of ThiruvaLLuvar.
> First define original and then let us see we can proceed.
I have described my exposture to ThirukkuraL earlier in the posting. I
think that is enough to form a judgement about an author. One doesnt need to
read all the James Hardley Chase or Mills and Boon books to read that they
are pulp trash. Reading one or at most 5 of them will be enough to convince
you about that.
Anyway I clearly remember defining "original" when we talking about the same
topic earlier. I define it as
-------- Something other people could not have thought about ------
I will respect it if others in his same period could not have thought about
the same facts that he has talked about. I will call it really profound and
great if even now people cannot come up with the ideas that he came up with
after so many thousand years. According to me ThirukkuraL fails in even the
first count. As I keep remarking what he said were generalities which
would have been obvious to people even of his age.
> [1] kadavuL vaazhththu without referring to any
> 'names' of gods like siva, Indra, Vishnu etc.
I consider the evolution of god belief as from Polytheism to Monotheism
to Monism (or Holism). All thios progress has been been made even in
RigVeda (I think it came before KuraL -- Books I have read fix the time as
somewhere around 15th century BC and I think Valluvar lived bet 5th and 1st
century BC). "Indian Philosophy" by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan talks about this
in the first chapter. So I find Valluvar's monotheism quite primitive. Anyway
these ideas have been in existence even in ancient Greece (10th to 5th
centuries BC).
> [2] 'vaan siRappu' as an athikaaram and the
> contents of this Chapter. There was the
> concept of 'varuNan' etc. but please try
> and compare the content
> of each kuRaL and its depth ( plus rationality etc.)
> and tell me where such thoughts are expressed before.
> ( either in Tamil/Sanskrit/Pali)
I read it once again just now. So what are the points he is making
a. Rain sustains the Earth and it should be looked at as amirtham.
b. Every food is because of rain and it itself is a food too.
c. If there is no rain famine will rage over the Earth.
d. IF there was no rain the ploughers cant plough.
...
I have been very cryptic. Anyway I dont see anything which any other man who
lived then wouldnt have know here.
I noted all the points you made about ThirukkuraL. But as I said earlier,
they are all generalities which are not verifiable and which are things that
everyone could have thought about. I dont want to start objecting to every
one of the points you made as it will be very cumbursome and boring (for me and
for other readers).
> agreed. This is where 'wisdom' comes in. Often it is not
> true or untrue, but whether it is 'good' or 'bad'.
> It is one of judgement.
I fully agree with this. But "good" or "bad" is highly subjective. That is
exactly why I cant give much respect to a work that keeps telling this is
"good" and this is "bad". If you call being opinionated as being wise, I will
not agree. Where is the "poyyaa mozhi" in KuraL when not a single thing of
what he said bears scrutiny. ie. None of what he said is "true" though lot of
what he said may be "good".
> True or false is not the sole criterion for everything.
> There are such things as 'it is beautiful' or not,
> 'it is enchanting or not', 'this sugar is sweet this much'
True or False is not the criterion for everything. But for me to say that
the contents of a book is profound, that it is a "poyyaa mozhi", that
the world would be better if everyone would follow it, just being beautiful
is not enough. It has to be True. That is why I have maintained that the
form is good but there is nothing original or profound in the contents.
> Once something is said it sounds obvious esp. if it is a vital
> truth !! Since ThiruvaLLuvar had said many such you think they
I would not agree with that. There are several vital truths that are not
so obvious. For eg.
1. Pythogoras theorem. Can you prove it immediately? Even though we have all
studied it in 6th or 7th std, the proof still is reasonably non-trivial.
2. Archimedes priciple.
3. The concept of zero and negative nos. They do seem obvious now. But I
can clearly see that it wouldnt have been so obvious before they were thought
about.
4. World is spherical and it is not the center of the Universe.
5. As you pointed out the coordinate system.
6. All the mordern stuff like speed of light, space time continuum, relativity
etc.
...
You may now say that these are in objective sciences and I cant find such
examples in less Objective subjects likes Philosophy. There are quite a
few of those too.
1. Discussions by Socrates on what is "good" and what is "bad" with his
disciple Phaedrus. (You might have seen the famous quote that appears in the
beginning of "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintanance" -- " ... And dear
Phaedrus, what is good and what is bad. Who will tell us about these things".
2. The fact that man is a inseparable part of the Universe and the view that
each person is separate is not valid. (Holism).
3. Universe came from nothing.
...
Please note that many of what I hjave quoted here are from the times of
Valluvar or even earlier.
> Although I had cooked up my own original coordinate
> system; and unique curves which are very simply
> described in my coordinate system you have no easy
> of describing these curves if you don't know the
> coordinate system. It is a simple thing; let us see
> you can figure out. You might have heard of
> Cartesian, Spherical and Cylindrical cordinates and
> it is very useful to switch from one coordinate
> system to another in some situations. Now if I
> tell you that there is _one_ more coordinate system
> ( let me call it Selva system )
> which is _fundementally_ related to these three
> and yet _radically_ different in a sense. Can you
> discover Selva system ? [ first note that you did not
> know such a system "exists" ]. If you do succeed in
> in finding this Selva system, can you write the
> eqn. of a straight line in this ? If you do this
> you might understand the import of my first sentence
> about 'obvious'.]
That was a pretty bad example. What you have done is like hold something
in your hand and ask me to guess it. When I come to see what is there in
your hand, I will immediately know it but till then I wont know it. This doesnt
prove anything.
Anyway I can give you infitine "Selva" like systems. Basically point have this property that they have three degrees of freedom. So it can be represented by
any three "appropriate" independent varibles. One such is our famous cartesian
co-ordinate system. Polar and Spherical coord systems are other examples.
There are several others like,
1. Consider any 3 arbitrary points in space. A point can be uniquely
described by the 3 areas formed by taking this point and 2 of the 3
other points. (Two points will have the same 3 areas, bu the signs will differ.
2. Take 4 points. Take 3 sets of three points cyclically. For eg. pts 1, 2 and
3, pts 2, 3, and 4 and pts 3, 4, and 1. The volume made by a tetrs-hedron
with these 3 triagles uniquely represents a point. (I havent thought too much
about it, but it seems right)
3. Any three mutually independent lines will be enough. They need not be
perpendicular as in the case of cartesian coords.
4. Easing the restriction, the 3 coord axes need not even be straight lines.
They only have to be 3 mutually independent curves. ie. you should not be
able to express one of the curves by adding or subtracting or scaling the
other two curves.
...
So asking me to find your "Selva" system is ridiculous. As I said it is like
holding something in your hand and asking to find what it is.
> I don't either. See my approach 'epporuL..' which is anyway
> ThiruvaLLuvars.
I am glad. As long as we agree on this, the other differences can be patched
up.
I havent responded to other criticisms from Selva on another posting as I feel
I have answered most of them in this posting.
Suresh Vaidyanathan also made similar statement.
>The reason all these generalities are so obvious to you now is because they have
>become a part of your culture. Many of these generalities became morals and have been
>instilled in you since the time you were born.
>
>Every few hundred years, a society reinvents its moral fabric. Pioneering
>Thinkers/Writers like Valluvar compile them and present them to the
>society.
>
>In a 1000 years the law of gravitation might become a generality (hopefully, not moral)
>and one might not think of Newton as doing anything "original".
I had earlier pointed out many facts discovered several thousand years back
which are still not so obvious (Pythagoras theorem, Archimedes principle, Many
of Socrates' or Plato's or Upanishands' philosophies. There are several other
facts which are obvious to me now but which I can clearly see that I couldnt
have arrived at by myself (concept of zero, coordinate system etc.)
But in the case of KuraLs I find them obvious and not only that I even think
most of what he has said are such things that even a stone-sge man could have
figured out. More than that, what he has said is all very subjective and are
just vacuous generalities.
I have nothing more to add to this topic.
Rajaram
ps. Selva, this time I explicitly put the distribution as 'world'. Tell me if
S. Sankarapandi
In article <1nvmt2...@copland.cs.unc.edu> kris...@cs.unc.edu (Rajarama Kris
hnan) writes:
>
>
>I had earlier pointed out many facts discovered several thousand years back
>which are still not so obvious (Pythagoras theorem, Archimedes principle, Many
>of Socrates' or Plato's or Upanishands' philosophies.
>But in the case of KuraLs I find them obvious and not only that I even think
>most of what he has said are such things that even a stone-sge man could have
>figured out. More than that, what he has said is all very subjective and are
>just vacuous generalities.
>
>I have nothing more to add to this topic.
>
>Rajaram
>
Can you please explain what are the original things present in Upanishads.
I have browsed some of the books published by Ramakrishna Mission but dont
remember reading anything `original'. Can you please quote and explain a few
in English or Tamil so that I can understand.
Muniyandi
Sundara Pandian
[....]
>First some clarification about my ignorance level which Selva was very
>persistent in pointing out (I say persistent because he has said that at least
>5 times in his postings). I certainly dont have the knowledge enough to
>quote KuraLs offhand. But I have read and understood the meanings of a few
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>hundred KuraLs. I think that is sufficient to form a judgement of the work.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I have your word that you have read a few hundred kuRaLs, but it is not
sufficient to form a *judgement* of VaLLuvar's work. I suggest you to give
a full reading of ThirukkuRaL first before forming any judgement on VaLLuvar's
work, ThirukkuRaL.
>To judge an author one needs to read a few of his works which I think I have
>done in this case. But I havent memorised his works. I havent read all his
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
>works.
^^^^^^
This shows your ignorance again. We have only one work by VaLLuvar
available, namely KuRaL and there are no pointers to any other work
by VaLLuvar in literature. Noone says that one should *memorise* the works
of an author for making a judgement on his writings. I don't remember seeing
any posting by Selva where he has asked you to *memorise* VaLLuvar's kuRaLs
for making a judgement on ThirukkuRaL.
> I havent several versions of its interpretations by other authors.
>... I said my knowledge of KuraLs were very limited and I once again say that
>it is true.
You may say it again, if you like.
> But I feel I have read enough to form an opinion about it.
^^^^^^^
Yes, you may form an *opinion* about ThirukkuRaL and you don't have to
read all the books by an author for making an opinion about him. But, can
you make a judgement on VaLLuvar just by reading a few hundred kuRaLs
of the 1330 kuRaLs? ( Note that opinion and judgement are different.)
[...]
>I have described my exposture to ThirukkuraL earlier in the posting. I
>think that is enough to form a judgement about an author. One doesnt need to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>read all the James Hardley Chase or Mills and Boon books to read that they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>are pulp trash. Reading one or at most 5 of them will be enough to convince
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>you about that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What is your point here? Who ever said that James Hadley Chase is a
literary figure? ( As I have not read the books by Mills or Boon, I can't
comment on them here. I have read many myteries by James Hadley Chase.)
Noone has held James Hadley Chase as a literary figure, while there is
no dispute from any quarters about ThirukkuRaL being a monumental work in
Tamil literature.
>
>Anyway I clearly remember defining "original" when we talking about the same
>topic earlier. I define it as
>
>-------- Something other people could not have thought about ------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>I will respect it if others in his same period could not have thought about
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the same facts that he has talked about. I will call it really profound and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>great if even now people cannot come up with the ideas that he came up with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>after so many thousand years.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you know that Mathematical genius Ramnujan rediscovered many
mathematical results that had been discovered by European mathematicians only
a few centuries earlier ? If not, then read some books on Ramanujan (there
are many) to know what are those results.. Does that mean that those great
mathematical results by the European Mathematicans (some popular men like
Gauss, Leibnitz.. Not sure of the names) are not original according to
your definition of `original'?
> According to me ThirukkuraL fails in even the
>first count. As I keep remarking what he said were generalities which
>would have been obvious to people even of his age.
While it is true that ThiruvaLLuvar reflects the teachings of the three
major religions in his days, it is not true that VaLLuvar did not have
any original views in his great work. ThirukkuRaL has many original views,
and they have been discussed well in many good books on ThirukkuRaL that
are avilable. I just like to present here one novel feature in ThirukkuRaL
which is very original. There was a commonly held view in the ancient
Dravidian culture that any philosophical work should deal with the four
aspects of life - `aRam' (virtue), `poruL' (wealth), `inbam' (love) and
`veedu' ( salvation). VaLLuvar deals only with the first three aspects
of life `aRam', poruL' and `inbam' and he devotes three parts ( `muppaal')
to it. That he has left `veedu' in his philosphical work is something
very original in his days. ( We have references pointing out that ThirukkuRaL
had exactly three parts and there were exactly 1330 kuRaLs in his work.
`muppaal' is another name for ThirukkuRaL. This puts an end to queries like
whether we had lost the fouth part on `veedu'. ) By leaving `veedu' , the
fourth aspect of life in his philosophical work, VaLLuvar implies that
if one lives virtuosuly, earns wealth by right means and if one enjoys the
pure love of one's beloved, then the fourth aspect of life, namely `veedu'
or salvation is automatic. This is one of the original thoughts by VaLLuvar.
I request you to quote any book that dates BEFORE ThirukkuRaL where this
thought is given. Don't give me crap like `What is so original in this?
It is too obvious to me.' You will sound like those kids who may say after
finishing a detective novel, `Well, there is no mystery in this book.. it
is all obvious' after the detective/inspector explains everything in the
last few pages of that novel.
>
>> [1] kadavuL vaazhththu without referring to any
>> 'names' of gods like siva, Indra, Vishnu etc.
>
>I consider the evolution of god belief as from Polytheism to Monotheism
>to Monism (or Holism). All thios progress has been been made even in
>RigVeda (I think it came before KuraL -- Books I have read fix the time as
>somewhere around 15th century BC and I think Valluvar lived bet 5th and 1st
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>century BC). "Indian Philosophy" by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan talks about this
^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in the first chapter. So I find Valluvar's monotheism quite primitive. Anyway
>these ideas have been in existence even in ancient Greece (10th to 5th
>centuries BC).
In the first place, Vedic religion is not monotheistic as held by many
people like Sankara etc. Vedic religion is mostly polytheistic and we don't
see monotheistic views in the early Rig Veda. The monotheistic view
"What exists is one; the sages call it by various names" that Vivekananda
quotes from Veda often is from the last part of the Rig Veda. This may
indicate one the development of the thinking of the vedic people. You are
wrong in saying VaLLuvar belonged to 5th to 1st century B.C. If you are
quoting from Radhakrishnan's book, then he is wrong. However, it is true
that VaLLuvar's monotheism is not original as you are saying.
[....]
>> True or false is not the sole criterion for everything.
>> There are such things as 'it is beautiful' or not,
>> 'it is enchanting or not', 'this sugar is sweet this much'
>
>True or False is not the criterion for everything. But for me to say that
>the contents of a book is profound, that it is a "poyyaa mozhi", that
>the world would be better if everyone would follow it, just being beautiful
>is not enough. It has to be True. That is why I have maintained that the
>form is good but there is nothing original or profound in the contents.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This shows your ignorance and nothing more. I pointed out an original
concept in ThirukkuRaL before and it suffices me to here that there are
many profound sayings in ThirukkuRaL.
>
>But in the case of KuraLs I find them obvious and not only that I even think
>most of what he has said are such things that even a stone-sge man could have
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>figured out. More than that, what he has said is all very subjective and are
^^^^^^^^^^^
>just vacuous generalities.
You are making a moron of yourself.
>I have nothing more to add to this topic.
I have nothing more to add to this reply.
>Rajaram
SP
Rajarama Krishnan
>
>In article <1nvmt2...@copland.cs.unc.edu> kris...@cs.unc.edu (Rajarama Kris
>hnan) writes:
>>
>>
>>I had earlier pointed out many facts discovered several thousand years back
>>which are still not so obvious (Pythagoras theorem, Archimedes principle, Many
>>of Socrates' or Plato's or Upanishands' philosophies.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I have browsed some of the books published by Ramakrishna Mission but dont
>remember reading anything `original'. Can you please quote and explain a few
>in English or Tamil so that I can understand.
>
I would like to make my ignorance clear in this matter too. My only knowledge
of Upanishads is from Indian Philosophy and from things I have heard from
others like my Grand-father etc. I was also under the impression that all of
Vedic philosophies are in the Upanishads and the rest of it is mostly crap.
(like Yagnas to perform, Mantras to say, meaningless praises to gods etc.)
As my knowledge of this is minimal, tell me if I am wrong somewhere. However
I wouldnt like to defend myself in this. I would like to point out that,
whether this is original or not has no relevalnce to whether KuraLs were
original or not. I dont want to start any comparision bet the two. That is the
reason I changed the subject.
I will not be able to quote the Sanskrit originals of the Upanishads. I will
just quote those portions of the Upanishads that I found original. Some of what
I quote, I consider are original by the standards of those times. Some of
them, I consider, are original even by today's standards.
I would also like to remark that, though I do find lot of original thoughts
in Upanishads, I do find lots of unacceptable things in them too. I havent
quoted them here.
1. The whole concept of Monism. This is not seen in many religions.
Christianity, Islam etc. have monotheism. But they dont have the concept of
Monism. "aham brahmaasmi" (I am Brahman) (I dont know if this line is from one
of the Upanishads) is a pretty powerful thought. To realise that we are a
inseparable part of the Universe and to stop viewing oneself as being distinct
from it is quite original.
This idea is reflected in almost all the Upanishads. I looked for a single
Upanishad that captured this idea but couldnt. But all of them had this as
the basis.
2. The distinction between Knowledge and realisation. It took me some time to
get this straight. I know the laws of physics and know that a stone thrown
will travel in a parabola. A person who doesnt know all this may still
realise that the stone will travel in some way and will be able to throw it
acurately. That is one eg of a person who has realised something without
knowing it. Many mordern physicists (includiong Niels Bohr) agreed that though
they Mathematically knew the equations in Quantum mechanics, they just
couldnt visualise and really understand what was happening in there. That
is an eg. of knowledge without realisation.
But the Upanishads say that this realisation is more important that knowledge
and that Brahman can be realised with that. I dont agree with that.
Some part from Isa Upanishad,
Into blind darkness enter they
That worship ignorance;
Into darkness greater than that, as it were, they
That delight in knowledge.
Other indeed they say than knowledge!
Other they say than non-knowledge!
- Thus we have heard from the wise
Who to us have explained it.
Knowledge and non-knowledge --
He who this pair conjointly knows,
With non-knowledge passing over death,
With knowledge wins the immortal.
3. Their attempts at the question "Who am I?". It is a question that
philosophers of all times have pondered. From these ones in Upanishads to
Kant or Hume. They have all attempted to answer this question. I found the
attempt in a work that is so ancient and yet so rational very remarkable.
Some parts from Katho Upanishad.
The self-existent pierced the openings [of the senses] outward;
Therefore one looks outward, not within himself.
A certain wise man, while seeking immortality,
Introspectively beheld the Self face to face
That by which [one discerns] form, taste, smell,
Sound, and mutual touches --
It is with That indeed that one discerns.
This, verily is that!
There are a lot more things that I consider original in that. Sorry I dont have
the time to write all of them.
Rajaram
C.R.Selvakumar - Electrical Engineering
>postings on this topic. As Sundaramoorthy and Sudalai Madan did I am also
>signing off after this posting. I think most of the points have been made
>already. It will be meaningless to keep thrashing the subject further.
>However it will be good if people who think very highly of kuraLs continue
>posting stuff from it for the benefit of people whose knowledge of it can
>certainly be improved.
>
>The following were points made by Selva. Here are my replies to them.
>
>First some clarification about my ignorance level which Selva was very
>persistent in pointing out (I say persistent because he has said that at least
Yes. I agree I was pointing out this primarily because
you were making many sweeping comments 'show me one kuRaL,
vacuuous generality, not original etc.' when you had not
studied it sufficiently. This looked like a silly thing
to me.
>5 times in his postings). I certainly dont have the knowledge enough to
>quote KuraLs offhand. But I have read and understood the meanings of a few
>hundred KuraLs. I think that is sufficient to form a judgement of the work.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm sorry I don't agree.
>To judge an author one needs to read a few of his works which I think I have
>done in this case. But I havent memorised his works. I havent read all his
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Memorizing has nothing to do with understanding and contemplating
the meaning and significance. Here again you show serious
signs of , shall I say, 'disunderstanding' ?
>works. I havent several versions of its interpretations by other authors.
>... I said my knowledge of KuraLs were very limited and I once again say that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it is true. But I feel I have read enough to form an opinion about it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One can pass an 'opinion' even without reading !
If you feel you've only a limited understanding,
you could have tried to gain a better understanding
instead of passing extremely harsh 'judgements' !
>It is exactly because my knowledge was limited that I asked you people to give
>me examples that are contrary to my opinions. But the examples given so far
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>are not convincing at all.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rajaram, there had been many scholars who have read and
wondered about its extraordinary depth and breadth.
If you think you don't grasp the value of the work, it might
be a good idea to study with more care.
>
>>>>>opinion. As noted by Sundaramoorthy, extravagent claims have been
>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>made on Thirukkural and many people acclaim it like it holds for
>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>all time periods. A short reading of Thirukkural would convince one
>>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> about thiruvaLLuvar or his kuRaL. In fact if it was in English
>>>> or in Sanskrit it would have been acclaimed the world over
>>>> and it is my view that its glory is extremely poorly spread.
>>>
>>>Usual knee-jerk reaction. Say something bad about Thirukkural and you get NO
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>SANSKRIT IS BAD. Why should you go out of the context. The discussion doesnt
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>have anthing to do with Sankrit.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Rajaram, please read for yourself what you have writen.
>>
>> I think you have not understood the words like 'usual'
>> 'knee-jerk' etc.
>>
>> Out of context ? No. The claim was that ThiruvaLLuvar's work
>> was blown out of proportion and extravagant claims have been
>> made and too much acclaim is there etc. etc. My point was that
>
>I still say your reation was knee-jerky. I dont see any reason why you had
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to bring in Sanskrit.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've been posting articles in this net for about a year.
My postings might have been boring, unacceptable etc.
But I have not reacted as you say 'knee-jerk' fashion.
If you don't know, this is a serious insult. Only a person
does not think ( actually a fool) will react as a knee-jerk.
It does not hurt me because I don't think you know me or my
postings.
>
>Anyway this has no relevance to the topic. If you maintain that it wasnt
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>knee-jerky, I take back what I said.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:) Its like saying, 'you are a fool' but if you maintain that
your not one, then I'll consider taking it back. :)
You can keep whatever opinion you have, it does not hurt me.
I'll refrain from responding to your future posts, if thats
want you want.
>
>
>
>>> aagaaRu aLavitti thaayinum kEdu illai
>>> pOgaaRu agalaa kadai
>>> [ not written with proper seer, intentionally, in order to
>>> see the words]
>>> 'aagaaRu' is the __rate__ of income and 'pOgaaRu' is the __rate__ of
>>> expenditure. He says what matters is that the rate of expenditure
>>> should not exceed the rate of income even if the rate of income
>>> is tremendous ( aLavitti = aLavu illaathathu > tremedous).
>
>I have a doubt. By rate of income, do you mean the rate of change of income.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ie. the d(income)/ dt (t is time) ?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YES. Thats why I added emphasis with double __.
>
>> Rajaram, it seems you have not understood what I have said above.
>> I don't know much about world economy but I do know that
>> it is better if the rate of income is more than rate of expenditure.
>> If you argue that this is not correct, please provide some
>> arguements. The main import of the kuRaL is that in trying to
>> expand the economy in various ways this goal should not be lost
>> sight of.
>
>If you didnt mean the rate in the sense I used and only meant income and
>expenditure, then as I said earlier this is certainly not the case. I will
>once again repeat what I said. The debt
>in the case of US or Canada is the Govts' debt and not the country's debt.
>ie. The govt by selling bonds and other such things gets money from the
>public. This is the debt. The divident payed on this is the debt servicing.
>(Obviously this is a lot more complicated than what I have said here. But
>the details arent reqd here). Therefore to increase the GDP of the country
>the govt may go into debt. ie. get lot of money from the public and spend it
>"wisely". To increase the GDP many countries adopt this strategy. Lots of
>countries have been very successful in this too like Japan and many other
>growing countries in East Asia. So a sweeping statement like Thiruvalluvar
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>made certainly needs to be revised. The problem with his view point was, in his
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>times the country and govt were much more united. Trade wasnt so free that you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>could view a persons possesion as not a part of the country's possesion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You're making a lot of unsubstantiated 'statements'.
No one knows whether the country was more united, trade
wasn't free etc. However, there were serious international
trade around the time of ThiruvaLLuvar. The Roman's were
afraid that the export of gold to Tamil Nadu was eroding
their economy and they even passed laws prohibiting
exports ( in exchange for the pearls, pepper etc.) during
Vespacci ( sp ?) time.
>So the govt's debt and country's debt werent very different. Anyway as I always
>said his ststement that one should earn more than one speands is too obvious.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I am sure it would have been obvious even to a stone-age man. He shouldnt
>use up his stone menhirs (like ones Obleix uses in Asterix) faster than he can
>make them.
I think it is significant only because it is the _rate_ of
income d(income)/dt that ThiruvaLLuvar talks about ( although
not in the calculus-detail :) )
>
>If you did mean the rate of income and rate of expenditure, even then most
>of what I said holds. The rate at which the income increases can be slower
>than the rate at which the expenditure increases as far as the GDP increase
>proportionately to the deficit so that the debt servicing rate remains about
>the same. Once again what he said will be just as obvious to the stone-age
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>man as it is to me. To quote the menhir example -- the increase in his menhir
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>consumption should be balanced by an increase in menhir production.
I didn't know that you and stone-age man were that close :)
It might have been obvious to you but ThiruvaLLuvar made it
known because it is an important thing to keep in focus and
may be he wanted people like you to feel happy that it was
'obvious' :-)
>
>I hope I made myself clear. Selva can you now tell me what was not so obvious
>in what Valluvar said.
>
>> :) Rajaram, I pointed out a kuRaL which seems to be quite
>> applicable even today. If you had a positive balance
>> you can do your economy building better than with negative
>> balance ( and rate) with part of the money going for debt
>> servicing. Your arguement that 5% debt is okay is unconvincing
>> to me. ( I'm not an economist, I've heard of deficit
>> financing, but am not convinced of its merits).
>
>As I pointed out this KuraL is not at all applicable today. I cant help it
>if you are not convinced about the merits of deficit financing. It might help
>you if I point out one thing -- in present day economy what is most important
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is the flow of money than the static money itself. For eg if everybody earns
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rajaram, I do know that 'paying to dig a hole and again
paying to fill up the same hole' generates 'economic activity'
etc. If you can't see the wisdom in his statement made
20 centuries ago, I can't help it. You are too intelligent,
everything is very obvious to you :) :)
But you've not answered my vital question of how the part
of money that goes towards financing the debt servicing
is better spent ( in terms of economy building) than
utilizing the 'surplus' money to build economic activity.
>a lot they will spend a lot. HGence the others will earn a lot too. This
>becomes a cycle. On the other hand if everybody spends little then everybody
>will earn lesser too and this also forms a cycle. How does one move from a
>cycle at a lower GDP to a cycle at higher GDP. Only by getting the money from
>the people and spending it for them. ie. take the static money and make it
>flow. This is what is accomplished by deficit financing. This is what getting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a debt brings in. Anyway that is besides the point. Whether you are convinced
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No. You've NOT answered my question above.
>or not this is acknowledged as a good method for improving the economy of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>a country by several experts. So I wont go into defending it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, there are people who don't favor deficit financing.
>
>
>> I said it might be 'uyarvu naviRchchi aNi'. You seem to have
>> ignored it. About powers of
>> mind, you have to experiment and find out by yourself.
>> ( it might be of interest to you that a special issue of
>> Proceedings of IEEE devoted to Telepathy etc. It was in early
>> 80s I think. There are psychological journals devoted to
>> para psycology.. The powers of mind and brain have _not_ been
>> adequately studied to assert much. If you don't know don't
>> say it is junk :) If you are uncomfortable, say so :))
>
>Lot of "otherwise" sane people believe in this para-science junk. That
>still wouldnt make me believe in it. I am not uncomfortable with it. I am
^^^^
>fully comfortable with the fact that it is junk. Anyway this is a moot
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I too think a vast majority of such stuff is bogus.
But I'm not so 'wise' as you to dismiss _all_ such are
junk. I _know_ some are not.
>subject. You will keep claiming that lots of people believe in it and that
>thousands of people claim that they have performed it or seen it being
>performed. I will maintain that there is no basis for it. For it to be
>acknowledged as a proper fact it should be established under experimental
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>conditions and more importanly it should be explained by people who claim
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>that they can perform these things. I will also keep pointing out that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think many of these para-normal phenomena studied in
_scientific_ departments are pursued with 'proper' method.
But still it may have flaws. You don't have to go to
para-normal phenomena to comprehend 'extra-ordinary' stuff.
Consider the wave-function of an electron, uncertainity
principle etc.
>lots of these claims have been proven to be shams under scrutiny. So I dont
>want to continue this argument.
>
>Anyway if you say that it was only "uyarvu naviRchchi aNi", I will accept it.
>In that case what is there in this kuraL. Once agauin a vacuous generality.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No. It is a bold idea. If a woman loves her husband so deeply
she need not even worship God. This meaning you'll get even if
you take uyarvu naviRchchi aNi.
>
>>>you refuted me. But no one has come out and given me an example where you think
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>he has thought of something very original which you or I havent thought about.
>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> The above lines show your shallow understanding of ThiruvaLLuvar.
>> First define original and then let us see we can proceed.
>
>I have described my exposture to ThirukkuraL earlier in the posting. I
>think that is enough to form a judgement about an author. One doesnt need to
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>read all the James Hardley Chase or Mills and Boon books to read that they
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>are pulp trash. Reading one or at most 5 of them will be enough to convince
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>you about that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I understand you are unable to comprehend ThrirukkuRaL !
Although, it is ridiculous to bring in Chase and Mills and Boon
when discussing ThiruvaLLuvar, let me ask the following:
Do you think by reading randomly a few pages here and there
you can assess the story of a Chase book or to write a literary
commentary on Chase writing ?
>
>Anyway I clearly remember defining "original" when we talking about the same
>topic earlier. I define it as
>
>-------- Something other people could not have thought about ------
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:) :) Nobdoy thought of banging on my table 25 times.
If I do it, did I do something 'original' ?!!
>
>I will respect it if others in his same period could not have thought about
>the same facts that he has talked about. I will call it really profound and
>great if even now people cannot come up with the ideas that he came up with
>after so many thousand years. According to me ThirukkuraL fails in even the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>first count. As I keep remarking what he said were generalities which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>would have been obvious to people even of his age.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You are only parading your pathological ignorance.
If they were all so obvious, why do you think
so many people praised him in such glorious terms ?
Why did many religious leaders belonging to various
religions try to show that ThiruvaLLuvar was one of theirs ?
Tamils are not so stupid as you think !
Almost every one of his ThrirukkuRaLs is a gem par excellence,
if you can't see the beauty, depth and significance, its a pity.
>
>> [1] kadavuL vaazhththu without referring to any
>> 'names' of gods like siva, Indra, Vishnu etc.
>
>I consider the evolution of god belief as from Polytheism to Monotheism
>to Monism (or Holism). All thios progress has been been made even in
>RigVeda (I think it came before KuraL -- Books I have read fix the time as
>somewhere around 15th century BC and I think Valluvar lived bet 5th and 1st
>century BC). "Indian Philosophy" by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan talks about this
>in the first chapter. So I find Valluvar's monotheism quite primitive. Anyway
>these ideas have been in existence even in ancient Greece (10th to 5th
>centuries BC).
I don't think Greek or Rig Veda talk of God as ThiruvaLLuvar
describes. Rig Veda's time can be anything from 2000 B.C to
200 A.D . [ I'm aware many indians claim that Rig Veda to be
as old as 10,000 B.C etc.] Whatever the date of these works,
ThiruvaLLuvar's description is unique. What you might not
agree or understand now, is within this 10 ThrirukkuRaLs
ThiruvaLLuvar had given a 'profound' description as well.
You may not appreciate words like 'malar misai Eginaan,
maaNadi sErnthaar' etc. which are filled with deep and esoteric
sense. His choice of words like 'Eginaan' etc. tell his
depth of his realization. Since you claim you're an atheist,
you can not apprecaite these.
>
>> [2] 'vaan siRappu' as an athikaaram and the
>> contents of this Chapter. There was the
>> concept of 'varuNan' etc. but please try
>> and compare the content
>> of each kuRaL and its depth ( plus rationality etc.)
>> and tell me where such thoughts are expressed before.
>> ( either in Tamil/Sanskrit/Pali)
>
>I read it once again just now. So what are the points he is making
>
>a. Rain sustains the Earth and it should be looked at as amirtham.
>b. Every food is because of rain and it itself is a food too.
>c. If there is no rain famine will rage over the Earth.
>d. IF there was no rain the ploughers cant plough.
>...
>
>I have been very cryptic. Anyway I dont see anything which any other man who
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>lived then wouldnt have know here.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
One can say so after reading any book. After reading Kant
or Dante or Hume, you can say the same ! Am I supposed to
prove that you could not have thought of these ? Okay
I'll say that _you_ would not have even thought of 'vaan
siRappu' as a second chapter after 'kadavuL vaazhththu'
( since you're an atheist, let me say as the 'first' chapter)
Sometime ago ( before your appearance on this valai),
Dr. K.Srinivasan and I discussed on this very 'vaan siRappu'.
I wondered, why ThiruvaLLuvar did not sing 'sun'.
Did ThiruvaLLuvar consider 'water' more important than 'sun'?
There are other planets etc. which receive 'sun' but there is
no life forms ( to the best of our knowledge). In Tamil
we say 'neer inRi amaiyaathu ulagu'. One of the distinguishing
aspect of earth is 'water'. Even if the sun were there
without water, plants and other life-forms can not thrive
( hence humans can not thrive). There are also some life-forms
deep within oceans where sun light is not penetrating.
I don't know what ThiruvaLLuvar knew and knew not. All I can say
is his words speak of tremendous understanding.
>
>I noted all the points you made about ThirukkuraL. But as I said earlier,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would have apprecaited if you could have commented on them.
>they are all generalities which are not verifiable and which are things that
>everyone could have thought about. I dont want to start objecting to every
>one of the points you made as it will be very cumbursome and boring (for me and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>for other readers).
Your main point was about this, and I don't know how
you can back out !
>
>> agreed. This is where 'wisdom' comes in. Often it is not
>> true or untrue, but whether it is 'good' or 'bad'.
>> It is one of judgement.
>
>I fully agree with this. But "good" or "bad" is highly subjective. That is
>exactly why I cant give much respect to a work that keeps telling this is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>"good" and this is "bad". If you call being opinionated as being wise, I will
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Its not all that easy as you think. ThiruvaLLuvar does not
_just_ pick up some things and made superfluous comments.
His work is a mine of wisdom. If you don't know to dig or
don't know the worth of a gem even if given in your hand,
the fault is with you ! Calling 'opiniated as wise' ?!
You certainly sound incredible !
>not agree. Where is the "poyyaa mozhi" in KuraL when not a single thing of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>what he said bears scrutiny. ie. None of what he said is "true" though lot of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whatever you did , if you call it scrutiny, i can't blame you ! :)
>what he said bears scrutiny. ie. None of what he said is "true" though lot of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>what he said may be "good".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, if I ask 'is it good', will your Boolean self
expound in truth-table ? !!!
>
>
>> True or false is not the sole criterion for everything.
>> There are such things as 'it is beautiful' or not,
>> 'it is enchanting or not', 'this sugar is sweet this much'
>
>True or False is not the criterion for everything. But for me to say that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the contents of a book is profound, that it is a "poyyaa mozhi", that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>the world would be better if everyone would follow it, just being beautiful
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>is not enough. It has to be True. That is why I have maintained that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who said ThrirukkuRaL is just beautiful. It is profound.
If a society were to follow ThiruvaLLuvar surely it would be
a great one !
>is not enough. It has to be True. That is why I have maintained that the
>form is good but there is nothing original or profound in the contents.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You've not understood. If you don't see something
'osriginal' or 'profound' , you have to rethink because
many have seen much 'original' and 'profound' thoughts
in it, unless you maintain you are the only one who had
seen the true worth :)
>
>> Once something is said it sounds obvious esp. if it is a vital
>> truth !! Since ThiruvaLLuvar had said many such you think they
>
>I would not agree with that. There are several vital truths that are not
>so obvious. For eg.
>
>1. Pythogoras theorem. Can you prove it immediately? Even though we have all
>studied it in 6th or 7th std, the proof still is reasonably non-trivial.
>2. Archimedes priciple.
>3. The concept of zero and negative nos. They do seem obvious now. But I
>can clearly see that it wouldnt have been so obvious before they were thought
>about.
>4. World is spherical and it is not the center of the Universe.
>5. As you pointed out the coordinate system.
>6. All the mordern stuff like speed of light, space time continuum, relativity
>etc.
All the above are in a different realm ( science and math)
_not_ in 'ethics and morals' esp. a system as ThiruvaLLuvar
had given.
>...
>
>You may now say that these are in objective sciences and I cant find such
>examples in less Objective subjects likes Philosophy. There are quite a
>few of those too.
>
>1. Discussions by Socrates on what is "good" and what is "bad" with his
>disciple Phaedrus. (You might have seen the famous quote that appears in the
>beginning of "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintanance" -- " ... And dear
>Phaedrus, what is good and what is bad. Who will tell us about these things".
If you had compared Socrates, Pluto et al work with
ThrirukkuRaL and if you had _made_ some significant
point, it would have been worth everybodys time.
Instead you only made sweeping assetions and that too
with meagre knowledge which you curiously choose to
repeat.
>2. The fact that man is a inseparable part of the Universe and the view that
>each person is separate is not valid. (Holism).
>3. Universe came from nothing.
Did you apply your razor sharp Boolean intellect to 2 and 3 above ?
>...
>
>Please note that many of what I hjave quoted here are from the times of
>Valluvar or even earlier.
>
>
>> Although I had cooked up my own original coordinate
>> system; and unique curves which are very simply
>> described in my coordinate system you have no easy
>> of describing these curves if you don't know the
>> coordinate system. It is a simple thing; let us see
>> you can figure out. You might have heard of
>> Cartesian, Spherical and Cylindrical cordinates and
>> it is very useful to switch from one coordinate
>> system to another in some situations. Now if I
>> tell you that there is _one_ more coordinate system
>> ( let me call it Selva system )
>> which is _fundementally_ related to these three
>> and yet _radically_ different in a sense. Can you
>> discover Selva system ? [ first note that you did not
>> know such a system "exists" ]. If you do succeed in
>> in finding this Selva system, can you write the
>> eqn. of a straight line in this ? If you do this
>> you might understand the import of my first sentence
>> about 'obvious'.]
>
>That was a pretty bad example. What you have done is like hold something
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in your hand and ask me to guess it. When I come to see what is there in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you don't know, say so. Why do you say 'this is a bad example'
etc.
>in your hand and ask me to guess it. When I come to see what is there in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>your hand, I will immediately know it but till then I wont know it. This doesnt
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>prove anything.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This precisely what I wanted to prove !! Once given,
you'll claim it is obvious. 'what is original there'?
'who would not have thought about it?' 'Even to a stone-age
man it would be obvious etc.'
The above words of you Rajaram speaks rather poorly of you.
Read on if you want to see the 'obvious' !
>
>Anyway I can give you infitine "Selva" like systems. Basically point have this property that they have three degrees of freedom. So it can be represented by
>any three "appropriate" independent varibles. One such is our famous cartesian
>co-ordinate system. Polar and Spherical coord systems are other examples.
>There are several others like,
The above words tell me that you know all that need to be
known to 'discover' Selva system. But You've NOT !
>
>1. Consider any 3 arbitrary points in space. A point can be uniquely
>described by the 3 areas formed by taking this point and 2 of the 3
>other points. (Two points will have the same 3 areas, bu the signs will differ.
Boy ! You are incredible ! To define a point you are requiring
'areas' and that too 'equal' areas !! Shows how confused a
thinking you have !!
>
>2. Take 4 points. Take 3 sets of three points cyclically. For eg. pts 1, 2 and
>3, pts 2, 3, and 4 and pts 3, 4, and 1. The volume made by a tetrs-hedron
>with these 3 triagles uniquely represents a point. (I havent thought too much
>about it, but it seems right)
Here you talk of volumes !!!!!!!
>
>3. Any three mutually independent lines will be enough. They need not be
>perpendicular as in the case of cartesian coords.
This one is not a bad try but you'll see that this lacks
an obvious requirement of my specification.
>
>4. Easing the restriction, the 3 coord axes need not even be straight lines.
>They only have to be 3 mutually independent curves. ie. you should not be
>able to express one of the curves by adding or subtracting or scaling the
>other two curves.
Back to your confused thinking !
>
>...
>
>So asking me to find your "Selva" system is ridiculous. As I said it is like
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>holding something in your hand and asking to find what it is.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There is no harm in admitting 'I don't know' !
What is a pity is you say 'it is ridiculous' etc. when the
fact is you don't know. You are only cheating yourself.
Now, let me explain. You rightly mentioned 'three appropriate'
quantities are required to define a 3-D. But you did NOT
think in essential ways although I said the fourth system
which I'm calling Selva system is 'fundementally' related
to the three systems 'Cartesian, Cylindrical, Shperical'
and yet in sense 'radically different'. Let us see
what we know of the three well known systems.
Cartesian : three numbers are distances
Cylindrical: two are distances and the third is an angle
Spherical : two are angles and one is a distance.
'Obviously' only _two_ quantities, namely 'distance' and
'angle' are involved.
_Obviously_ there should be a fourth system which utilizes
_three_ angles. Such a system exists and I call it Selva
System.
Now this thinking is 'obvious' once told but it opens
up a new field (analytical geometry with its own calculus etc.)
How can three ANGLES only be used to define a point ? Sure
it can be. But first consider 2-D. In a 2-D space if you want
both 'coordinates' to be angles, you 'obviously' need an
'origin line' ( angle is formed with two lines). Unique
curves can be very simply described in this system which
wil be a big polynomial in Cartesian.. etc.
This system is also valuable since it might help to
decode brain signals coming from the two eyes more easily...
etc. For three D you have a triangular origin plane.
Since it uses an origin line or origin triangular plane
it is radically different from the other three. But
it is the fourth natural system in the same set along with
Cartesian, cylindrical and sherical systems.
This is an unpublished work and it is copyrighted to me.
[ if someone is interested in pursuing this work to be
ultimately publishable in American mathematical Monthly or
some such periodical, I'll be happy to discuss. But the
prospective collaborator should do some hard work of
plotting some of the new curves. It is an interesting
bit of research.]
>
>
>> I don't either. See my approach 'epporuL..' which is anyway
>> ThiruvaLLuvars.
>
>I am glad. As long as we agree on this, the other differences can be patched
>up.
>
>
>
>Rajaram
>
>
>ps. Selva, this time I explicitly put the distribution as 'world'. Tell me if
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks. I got the other article too but a bit later than I saw
Balaji Kannan's response.
anbudan
-Selva
"vaLLuvam uyirkkuL inikkum oLirththEn"
P.S. Rajaram, this is my last posting trying to refute your rather
sweepingly harsh and unsubstantiated statements about ThiruvaLLuvar.
I feel there is no point in discussing with you, you may have a last
word on this. You may call me any names knee-jerk or whatever.
Honestly, I don't wish to discuss with someone who does not
understand some basics.
Suresh Vaidyanathan
>In article <1nvmt2...@copland.cs.unc.edu> kris...@cs.unc.edu (Rajarama Krishnan) writes:
In his enthusiasm to cite certain fallacious economic theories, Rajaram seems to have
forgotten certain common-sense generalities, as did the U.S. Government ("forgotten"
might be a sanguine description, though) over the last decade, the same kind of
common-sense generalities that ThiruValluvar elucidated many centuries ago,
It might be OK to borrow and invest (deficit financing), when you are
certain that the investment
is going to yield/create wealth that is in surplus of the debt.
"Bouncing the dollar around" will generate economic activity, but not
wealth. Wealth is created only by products/inventions/technologies,
in other words, hard work.
It works the same way for a Government or for an individual, whether it is
the menhir carrying stone-age man or the high-tech postgraduate indian
immigrant.
If you are certain that the investment is going to create wealth,
it might still be more prudent (financially and otherwise) to
be more patient and invest your own money.
Now isn't this a vacuous common-sense observation?